Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Too Many Homes On the Range

By Chris Frasier, AlterNet. Posted December 17, 2005.


A Colorado rancher laments urban sprawl's relentless invasion of rural America.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Chris Frasier

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I've been herding cattle amidst trophy homes in the nation's fastest growing county. Our family leases grass on the south edge of Denver, and we're helping to keep urban sprawl from claiming one more patch of rural America.

Nationwide, urban areas are sprouting extreme suburbs -- exurbs -- that leapfrog across the landscape at an unprecedented rate. According to the Department of Agriculture, the United States loses over a million acres of rural land each year.

As I drive through Denver on my way to check the cattle, I see this statistic in real life. Despite 10 lanes of traffic, it takes an hour to reach a narrow highway winding through what was only recently a ranching community. Unpainted barns sag, unused, in the shadow of steel horse arenas. Oversized new homes, dubbed "starter castles" by the locals, sit perched on hilltops. Shaggy hay meadows that once fed hundreds of cattle now support a few horses.

At the ranch where our cattle graze, the land opens up a bit. The Wiens family have worked to keep their piece of rural America intact. They've clustered their barns and homes in the bottom of the draw, instead of perching them on hilltops like the valley's newcomers.

Their pastures are green and tightly fenced, in contrast to the yellow, stagnant grass on neighboring ranchettes. Their steep hay fields are flooded with irrigation water from ditches laid out 100 years ago, and produce bales by the thousands. But all around them, the foothills sprout homes like weeds.

There's a saying among ranchers who struggle to make ends meet in the midst of beautiful spaces: You can't eat the scenery. Yet this summer our cattle gorged themselves on the backdrop of prime real estate, gaining 80,000 pounds on the hoof. That's two more semi-trailers than we hauled into the valley last April, enough roast beef dinners to feed a subdivision for two weeks. But cattle here are quickly being crowded off the range.

One midsummer evening I rode my horse over a ridge on the Wiens Ranch, pushing a small bunch of heifers to the corral. The sun's heat had slipped behind the hogback foothills as we waded through stirrup-high grass. Thunderheads rolled off the mountains, their bellies splashed pink and orange. The cattle slowed to nibble at wheatgrass.

Even my horse seemed entranced by the silent Rockies towering on the horizon.

It was a moment as pure and unfallen as any I can remember. But even then, in the background I heard cars whining up private lanes as commuters returned home from work. Only a few minutes of daylight remained for them to enjoy the rural solitude of their country estates.

Those new neighbors were lured here for the very sort of moment I enjoyed, a glimpse of the sunset at the end of a harried commute.

They paid dearly for their land, and continue paying the steep price of long commutes in four-wheel-drive vehicles. By displacing agriculture for their private enjoyment, they've turned the view into a commodity. Barbed wire may keep cattle in, but it can't keep developers out.

In the future, this land will produce more trophy home sites and fewer choice beefsteaks.

Intact farms and ranches produce a host of social benefits that make the nation livable. But as the countryside fragments into smaller parcels, it no longer produces food, fiber and the open spaces that add charm to rural America. Any midlevel corporate executive can outbid ranchers for the rights to a secluded hillside pasture, even though his seclusion is subsidized by the few ranches that remain.

America is filled with spectacular views, often threatened by people who will never be satisfied until they own one. But the view isn't going anywhere. Those who care to climb these grassy hillsides can discover it for themselves, at no cost. It's only those determined to buy it -- to tame the landscape within a picture window -- who spoil it for everyone.

Digg!

Chris Frasier ranches with his family near Limon, Colorado. He is a member of the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You want to sell more beef? The price is to have more people--and their sprawl.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 17, 2005 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Growth becomes a cancer when it is uncontrollable. Ambition for "more" feeds the growth. In other words, "success" becomes a disease when it stems from expansion's unsustainable need to drive everything further and faster.

But what would we do without our rat race to get "ahead" (even when it pulls us down)? We have instituted government to provide checks and balances on wanton expansion. It doesn't work when we have lost confidence in our ability to know what is good for us. Instead we will continue to push until it breaks. "When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

Our convictions were once as strong as the inner core of the Twin Towers. It was such conviction that raised those towers. As it crumbles, all we have left is old habits, narcissism, and a trust in ruthlessness. "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

We've decided to leave the vision thing for other people to worry about. We'll settle for "more" and leave "better" for another day. Let the cancer continue to grow. It's good for business. Yes, but for how long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Not Like They're Squatters, Chris
Posted by: kwfryatl on Dec 17, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . someone sold your new neighbors the land - as usual, it's all about the money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many people
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Dec 17, 2005 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are just too many people crowded onto this tiny planet. Stop having babies, people are pollution. How horrible does our quality of life have to get before we wise up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is he kidding
Posted by: jdoggy on Dec 17, 2005 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This opinion piece is pure self serving "home on the range" indulgent crap. It reeks of manifest destiny. Even uglier it should remind us of when we showed up here a couple hundred years ago, and those same self-server ranchers' relatives let the US government steal the land for them from the rightful owners.

Where to even begin with this piece. While I truly hate urban sprawl - who does he think buys his beef. Answer - those McMansion owners.

Or look at it another way - using land for beef production is one of the most environmentally detrimental and economically inefficient ways to use agricultural land. A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant-based diet - holier than thou cattle rancher.

Or even another way - who pays for the ridiculously below market rates his family pays to lease their grazing land from the BLA or whatever government entity they lease it from. Answer - we do.

So again - self serving drivel on numerous levels. I shed not a tear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is this on Alternet?
Posted by: Kneel on Dec 17, 2005 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So... a hobby farmer is complaining about his view being spoiled. What does this have to do with Alternet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why is this on Alternet? Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: Why is this on Alternet? Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Why is this on Alternet? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: Why is this on Alternet? Posted by: Artkansas
Don't judge the man for being a rancher
Posted by: decembrist on Dec 18, 2005 2:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody here knows how this rancher runs his cattle. He may be one of those responsible cattlemen, respecting the range, the predators (if any are left in exurban Denver) and respecting the area's natural foragers like deer. He may respect the land- if he rides a horse, instead of a pickup, I am inclined to believe him.

At least, I hope he does respect the land, the great wide open west, which deserves the kind of appreciation he affords it in his descriptive lines.

Encroaching suburbia, what does it bring? It brings longer commutes which mean more oil burnt, which means more pollution of all kinds. It means more outposts of "convenience" like shopping centers and gas stations and the like. It means higher taxes, it means more huge production operations.

It is not worth it to immediately condemn ranchers, since some are tied to the land in a way of respect. Saying that, I wish the author had told us what kind of operation he runs. Having said THAT, ranchers are not going away altogether. Having said THAT, find those that give the wide open the respect it deserves, and destroy those who don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

damned if you do - damned if you don't........
Posted by: Smiggsy on Dec 18, 2005 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Property development is a "damned if you do - damned if you don't" kind of problem. To choose to expand a city's suburbs further outward or to centralise city development has similar long term problems.

I am no supporter of greenfield subdivisions but unfortunately their is another side to this story. The opposite is where growth is highly restricted & cities adopt centralisation. Cities across the globe have experimented with such town planning but have experienced dramatic housing affordability problems for both renters & owners alike (until it is near unaffordable).

Evidence suggests that intensifying increasing city population densities has many drawbacks. These include (but not limited to) massive increased levels of air pollution, bigger unworkable traffic jams, higher social impacts & basic reduction of overall quality of life. This also leads to higher increased taxes. Problem is not all cities can be as vibrant as a big city like New York in this way, but then natural geography had much to do with NY's unique spatial existance.

The only way to control rampant property development would be to control ones life even more so than it already is today. I don't think that anybody is prepared for that type of extreme social experimentation - except maybe in a communist state.

And then there are the basic drawbacks to the arguement. Enjoy a free market economy or control property subdivision. Until any capitolist society is willing to bow to new philosophies on what should be regulated & what shouldn't you will notice more & more countryside being taken up by new homes.

These are the unfortunate hard truths and it seeems communism is no solution to the problem either (noting that heavy regulation is probably worse).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've got the answer
Posted by: ravengrrrl on Dec 18, 2005 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The subtleties of responsible land ownership, responsible farming practices, centralized vs sprawling growth - all these things we can debate ad nauseum.

Here's the answer - STOP having so many freakin babies!

And stop buying so much crap for them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know what you mean. I grew up in the Poconos.
Posted by: unbill on Dec 18, 2005 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in the Pocono Mountains in northeastern Pennsylvania in the 1980s. The Poconos of old was fairly rural and tourists came from New York to enjoy the fresh air in the mountains. In the last 25 years the whole region has experienced this type of exurban sprawl. It has ruined the beauty and attraction that this region once had - and it is destroying the important tourist industry as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article above, right?
Posted by: Kneel on Dec 18, 2005 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must have read a different article than some other people. We're talking about the one above, right?

The one with some guy driving through Denver, along the interstate, out to the ranch where he keeps some cattle then he gets there, "at the end of a long commute", gets on his horse, and complains about the view?

Is that the article? Because I didn't see the discussion of land-use issues, resources, population density, quality of life, etc.

The article I read talks about the annoyance of people being so impolite as to build on the hilltops.

The article I read ends like this: "America is filled with spectacular views, often threatened by people who will never be satisfied until they own one. [...] It's only those determined to buy it -- to tame the landscape within a picture window -- who spoil it for everyone."


Hence my question above.




I think someone's trying to work out some guilt about eating meat, like Lewis Lapham's lengthy rationalization of smoking around others in Harper's a while back. (OK, OK, just light up and shut up already.) Can't see any other reason to publish this drivel.

I understand, because it's hard to fit eating animals into a progressive world view, as it would seem to run some pretty important, basic notions: environmentalism (especially global warming), appropriate resource use, limiting consumption, etc. Not to mention the basic inhumanity of cutting something up 'cause you think it tastes good.

A lot of people feel conflicted about it, some guilt that have to keep batting away. Hence the hysteria anytime someone mentions an alternative. Hence goofy articles like this one.

As to the notion that there are too many people, which keeps cropping up, there aren't: we could feed and house all the people in the world with the resources we have. It wouldn't be that difficult.

Not if we're gonna build smart bombs; not if we're gonna build exurban McMansions; not if we're gonna drive out the ten-lane interstate (complaining about all the traffic) to check on our cattle.

But otherwise, yeah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clairvoyance Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Clairvoyance Posted by: crusty
» Weed Warnings Posted by: Kneel
» Weed Warnings, II Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Weed Warnings, II Posted by: crusty
» RE: Weed Warnings, II Posted by: crusty
People who complain about development shouldn't have more than one child
Posted by: janvdb on Feb 21, 2006 8:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all those kids who are creating the problem.

I get really sick of hearing people who have had more than one or, at most, two children then turn around and complain about "development" and "growth" and "sprawl."

Look, you CREATED the problem when you spawned those kids; the developers are just trying to house them.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]