Cascade Policy vs. 1000 Friends of OR - Natives, please weigh in! (Portland: how much, new house)

[Oregon Trailing]

Hello everyone~

First, let me say that I have been lurking on these boards for about a half a year now, and the opinions of everyone on the OR boards have been invaluable to myself and my fiance in learning about the wonderful state of Oregon. Although I most likely will be posting soon about less serious issues (we plan to move next year to OR and I still have some questions), this particular policy battle has caught my attention, because I feel it will directly impact our lives once we make the move.

You see, like a minority of other Americans, our dream is to have a homestead. I am well aware of the pros and cons of doing so; please don't turn this into a lecture about whether or not we're capable of farming (I apologize if that sounds rude - I just don't want this thread derailed). We are not a career-oriented couple, and while we do work hard and take pride in our work, a small home on a few acres and our ability to work that land is our version of the American Dream. However, I have been reading that the forces that be may make it so that our dream will be increasingly hard to realize in your state. We have done our research and are planning an intensive trip in a few months to decide exactly where in OR we want to settle down -- negatives included, we truly feel Oregon is where we want to live no matter what. So imagine the pain in my heart when I started researching the battle over what should be considered farmland, who should be considered a farmer, how much they need income-wise from farming to prove that, and what they can raise/grow on that land. Federal regulations (IMHO) are killing the industry to begin with, but I have read that the general prevailing attitude of Oregonians is that they enjoy the benefits of local produce and support independent sources of meat/produce, and it sounds like many would not want such access to disappear. I also understand that it does take planning not to have the beautiful outdoors ripped asunder in favor of pavement, and that there needs to be enough land left for farmers to create such goods.

So my question is this -- you, who live in Oregon, what are your feelings about the Cascade Policy stance on farming (http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env...for_oregon.pdf) vs. 1000 Friends of Oregon's stance (http://www.friends.org/rangeland/documents/Rangeland-Report.pdf)? (broken link) Is one generally favored over the other? Would you like to share your opinion with me, and help me understand why you feel one is superior over the other? I would sincerely appreciate input from other homesteaders, regular citizens, even big industry farmers if they roam these boards. I myself agree with the Cascade Policy, and had assumed (before finding this debate) that most Oregonians would be in favor of small business and personal liberty (no disrespect intended to those on the other side of the fence). And although I understand 1000 Friends' stance, I would be lying if I said that it didn't disappoint me.

If anyone responds to this thread, I'll chime in more with my own beliefs, but like I said, my focus is hearing what native Oregonians have to say. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to help me out!

[freedom]

Both groups appear to conflict with your dream.

[Oregon Trailing]

Freedom, could you elaborate?

[PNW-type-gal]

Both Cascade Policy Institute and 1000 Friends are agenda-driven organizations, so if you're looking for balanced discussions, you won't find it at either place. The argument that both of them are making is fueled by Measure 37, which one side views as a "taking" (of theoretical value) and the other side views as sensible land use.

In the general Portland area (and around other cities in the Willamette Valley), small farms, CSAs and local produce producers are being pushed out as land values rise. Cascade Policy's view would do nothing but accelerate that, as all local farmers would, reluctantly, cash out to avoid the problems of the urban/agriculture collisions over noise, dust, etc. 1000 Friends is trying to prevent the conversion of farm/range into homes in the first place.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

If you want the straight facts without spin or debate, PNW-type-gal pretty much nailed it.

I'm a pretty conservative guy but I generally agree with the land use laws that have been phased in over the past few decades. To me, Oregon is really a "grand experiment" in this regard (although this could change depending on what happens as a result of Measure 37). I don't think there is anything in the laws here that would prevent you from becoming a homesteader, just rules that might make it more challenging to do it in certain areas where massive public infrastructure investments have been made.

[PNW-type-gal]

Well, the traditional homesteader came in on a land grant or even a land giveaway, and "earned" the value of the land by farming it. I know that was still going on in the Klamath Basin after WW1 (there were give-away grants to WW1 vets), but I think that was the end of the process in Oregon.

So I'm not sure what the definition of "homesteader" is in this context.

[bobmulk]

While I'm pretty middle of the road on land use, I have to disagree with PNW gal. I find 1000 Friends to be VERY radical in that they challenge everything that anyone wants to do with their land.

I am all for our land use laws, but for many people they have turned into a pseudo religion where people freak if someone wants to widen a road or build a subdivision. Oftentimes, the spectre of Los Angeles is trumpeted as something we are approaching--usually by people who can't argue the issue on its merits. The problem I find is that 1000 Friends is of the "BANANA" mentality--"Build Aboslutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone".

One of the biggest issues that brought about Measure 37 was the frustration that people felt from a government that wasn't listening to them. Too often it was ludicrously expensive or time consuming for someone to build something on their land. Even a house for an elderly parent. 1000 Friends has had to eat crow on that one because they are rabid about anyone building anything.

Another issue is a "one size fits all" mentality that is supported by government and environmentalists. Growth is rapid in Western and Central Oregon, and very slow in Eastern Oregon. Nevertheless, cities in Eastern Oregon are subject to the same stringent standards while in many cases the land is virtually useless. This prevents them from expanding or building and improving their economies.

Oregon Trailing, you'll find that you'll be able to get land. It will be expensive, especially in the western part of the state. One thing that environmentalists and state government bureaucrats don't understand is that restricting the availability of something artificially increases its prices--Economics 101.

As a result, yes you'll find land; I hope you can afford it. Many hobby farmers want to keep their land and farm it; they don't want to sell out. They see a threat that is very real if too much development is allowed. Rural subdivisions can erode a farmer's way of life. IMHO all the legislators have to do is pass some sort of "Right to Farm" bill telling urbanites who move to the country to **** off if they don't like the smell of manure or don't like pesticides. The farmer was there first and should have the right to farm.

You're right about Oregonians being avid supporters of local produce and local businesses. We want quality and we'll pay for it and we love our independence. That's probably the biggest thing about Oregonians--an attitude of independence.

Hope this helps.

[freedom]

One personal property rights, the other social design paid for by personal property owners, that have dwindling rights.

This state is doing a really good job of making a class society, even though that may not be their aim. The have's and have not's will continue to spread until a balanced approach is taken regarding land use.

If it goes the way of the spotted owl and timber production. You better be prepared to work really , really, hard.
Because a big part of your labor will go to pay for those that don't work really really hard. We notice that our services have been devistated by killing the timber industry. So that leaves taxing property owners and artificially inflating property values.
That's how important zoning and development laws are to this state. It is a huge industry that is not very well recognized for its positive contributions regarding the quality of life for families to have a working, living wage.

[Larry Caldwell]

Pressure groups dominate the discussion of land use in Oregon, and neither side supports the interests of the people. 1000 Friends got into the game first, and wrote hundreds of administrative rules that were far more strict than the original legislation intended. The result has been a steady depopulation of the rural areas of the state, as small landowners were forced out and properties consolidated into huge land holdings. An example is the requirement that you mention, that small acreages produce an impossible amount of goods to qualify for a permit to build a home. In most cases, there was a home there 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, the other side isn't doing anyone any favors. You still can't build your homestead, but they figured out a way for large corporations to turn thousands of acres into rural subdivisions, miles from any city services. Guess who is going to get stroked for building the roads, schools and other infrastructure for this huge freebie?

The legislature had over a decade to fix the problem before the voters started passing initiatives. Unfortunately, a previous batch of clueless voters had passed a term limitations initiative, so for a decade we had a bunch of clueless noobs wandering around the legislature accomplishing nothing. The courts finally threw out the term limits, but Oregon is still rebuilding a leadership structure. They did manage to refer a modification of Measure 37 to the voters that would limit the number of new houses on a parcel. It still wouldn't do anything for people like you.

The debate still isn't over, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for a balanced solution any time in the near future, if ever. The leaders of the two sides are not interested in dialog.