Urban Growth Boundry (Portland, Redmond: transplants, rent, houses)

[Squidlo]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

The solution, is to control our overpopulation problem, in the state, in the country, and in the world. We need to reverse population growth, and reduce the population. The only way for future generations to have a better quality of life is reduce the population so each person has more land and resources for themselves, not less. Even for people who don't believe we have a population problem now, it should be obvious that continuing to increase the population to spur development, can only ultimately lead to disaster. At some point the population will reach a critical mass, and it will no longer be sustainable with the amount of resources the planet has. Population growth has got to stop sometime. The sooner the better. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like most people are getting it.

Perhaps a subsidy or stipend for voluntary sterilization? You could literally buy out the reproductive potential of entire regions with a few billion dollars. .... Is this what you had in mind?

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by Squidlo

Perhaps a subsidy or stipend for voluntary sterilization? You could literally buy out the reproductive potential of entire regions with a few billion dollars. .... Is this what you had in mind?

Voluntary?? Heck no. All Cloudy has to do is press the MASS STERILIZATION button.

[darnselfly]

Well, this thread took a really bizarre turn....

[Coniferian]

I watched Denver's population balloon over 43 years (one of the reasons we left). It had a lot of jobs though. Situated between Calgary and Texas during the oil boom, then communications companies figured out they could uplink to both coasts from there, making Denver a cable capital for awhile (I worked in that industry). Add two interstates crossing through Denver and an international airport and you have much more potential for growth than we have to worry about in central Oregon.

[BlackberryMerlot]

I love the way Oregon protects it's fertile farmland with urban growth boundaries.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Coniferian

I watched Denver's population balloon over 43 years (one of the reasons we left). It had a lot of jobs though. Situated between Calgary and Texas during the oil boom, then communications companies figured out they could uplink to both coasts from there, making Denver a cable capital for awhile (I worked in that industry). Add two interstates crossing through Denver and an international airport and you have much more potential for growth than we have to worry about in central Oregon.

Well there you go. It's happening in Colorado, it's has already happened in California, yet some people think Oregon will somehow be immune to it.

The single best thing to ever happen to Oregon was the collapse of the timber industry in 1980. When that happened, population growth in most of rural Oregon hit a brick wall, saving it from being ruined by development. But now, that doesn't really matter. With all of the problems going on in Colorado and California and other states, people are swarming into Oregon to get away from the million dollar home prices and $2,000 a months rents for small apartments. Unfortunately that will only expand the problem to Oregon. What is going to happen when there is no where left for people to run to? All I can say is, I'm happy I won't be around.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Squidlo

Perhaps a subsidy or stipend for voluntary sterilization? You could literally buy out the reproductive potential of entire regions with a few billion dollars. .... Is this what you had in mind?

Originally Posted by karlsch

Voluntary?? Heck no. All Cloudy has to do is press the MASS STERILIZATION button.

Other than controlling population growth, what are the alternatives? Continuing to multiply like insects, and devour all of the resources, until it is all gone, and then die off? That is literally the thought process of an insect. Humans should be able to come up with a better plan.

I'm sorry, but I think it is a serious problem. Making light of it, is probably not going to help.

[twinkel0]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Important part:



All that does, is controls which land will be developed first. The debate is not if it should be developed, but rather which land will be developed first.

The only way I can see to prevent Oregon from being ruined by development, would be to completely freeze UGBs at their current size. I just don't see that happening.

The greedy developers won't stop until they develop every single inch of developable land. I have seen it happen. I lived in the Silicon Valley when they bulldozed the very last orchards.

This was their solution for preserving the agricultural history of the Santa Clara Valley. They cut down the very last cherry trees, so they could build a strip mall, but they saved the cherry stand on the property. So it could continue selling cherries, grown in Mexico.

It took the state almost 8 yrs to approve Bends UGB expansion and it did not expand all that much. It is not a fast process nor an easy process

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by twinkel0

It took the state almost 8 yrs to approve Bends UGB expansion and it did not expand all that much. It is not a fast process nor an easy process

Yet Oregon is still doubling in population every 50 years. Those people have to go somewhere. The UGBs will have to double to keep up. Which means that there will be twice as much developed land in Oregon in 50 years. I don't see how that can be good for anything.

[kapetrich]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Yet Oregon is still doubling in population every 50 years. Those people have to go somewhere. The UGBs will have to double to keep up. Which means that there will be twice as much developed land in Oregon in 50 years. I don't see how that can be good for anything.

The recent UGB has 70%+ (if not more) infill, meaning the development areas are INSIDE the old UGB and are about densifying the existing land stock.

Yes, there will likely always be some expansion outside of the UGB as the law is not a moratorium on expansion, but it's main principle is to heavily prioritize the densification of current land stock, first.

This was plainly shown when the State rejected Bend's UGB expansion in ~2009 where Bend approved an UGB expansion that centered on expanding outside the current land stock and not much, if any, densification. AKA what you describe above.

A moratorium on expansion would be illegal, challenged in courts and the byproduct of this extreme would be no UGB at all. This would lead to exactly what you and I do not want.

Originally Posted by twinkel0

It took the state almost 8 yrs to approve Bends UGB expansion and it did not expand all that much. It is not a fast process nor an easy process

It did not expand the old UGB all that much, at all. The State stopped Bend from doing this.