Is Corvallis anti-growth? (Portland: house, school, income)

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by freedom

I've developed 1/2 acre sites with repair areas. There are variances of 50-75' allowed with proper soil conditions.
Failing septics are due to age, and the inability of the state to force a repair on an existing dwelling when finances are an issue.

There is some prime soil in eastern Oregon.
Bend is a good example of hillside rocky terrain homesites. They have done a fantastic job of meeting the demand for upscale homes and amenities.

You must not know too many developers. ALL of the ones I know, contribute millions of dollars to their communities, while sacraficing family time and personal time. Most developers are not Donald Trump, and have incredible values. They live and believe in improving the communities that they live in.
The ultra successful could have retired long ago, but continue out of a love for their community.
In Grants Pass we would not have Sports parks, Boys and Girls club, Skate parks, downtown rejuvination, Hospitals, Police depts. Theatre programs, Schools or anyother infrastructure without developers and builders.
The thanks they get is a bunch of weak criticisms, and jealous judgements, due to the fact that they work hard and some make alot of money.
Its not the freaking lottery Larry, Have you ever developed anything in your whole life? It takes a lot of hard work, vision, effort, risk, and frankly balls to hang out there to be cut off by ignorance.

thanks for your understanding.

freedom

By chance, I had lunch with the Jefferson County sanitarian just a couple weeks ago. He mentioned the "recreational" lots south of Bend, which are only good to park a FSC RV for up to six months out of the year. He says the unsuspecting buyers sometimes break down in tears when they find out their "home site" will never be buildable. Those lots are an example of what happened before land use laws. There is a 5 acre parcel right next to my place that will be forever unbuildable. I checked about 5 years ago, and it had just sold to one more sucker for $60,000. It's kind of funny, but you hate to see someone taken advantage of like that.

You must know a different batch of developers than I do. The ones I know only "contribute" what they have to do to meet minimum standards, and not a thing past that. Roseburg just passed a hillside development ordinance, and the developers successfully lobbied to avoid langage that would make every lot buildable. They just want their money. They don't even care about their customers, much less the city they earn their living in. You can whine all you want about how tough things are, but developers are the ones who make the messes, not the ones who have to live in them.

Developers do OK until it comes time to pay for their own screw-ups. Then the ethical vacuum around their pocketbooks expands to eat their brains, if they had any ethics at all. The only thing that keeps them on the straight and narrow is the land use laws that you hate so much. I would go for Keith Cubic's proposal of allowing a house on every legal lot of record, but if you want to subdivide, you need to do it inside a city's UGB.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

By chance, I had lunch with the Jefferson County sanitarian just a couple weeks ago. He mentioned the "recreational" lots south of Bend, which are only good to park a FSC RV for up to six months out of the year. He says the unsuspecting buyers sometimes break down in tears when they find out their "home site" will never be buildable. Those lots are an example of what happened before land use laws. There is a 5 acre parcel right next to my place that will be forever unbuildable. I checked about 5 years ago, and it had just sold to one more sucker for $60,000. It's kind of funny, but you hate to see someone taken advantage of like that.

You must know a different batch of developers than I do. The ones I know only "contribute" what they have to do to meet minimum standards, and not a thing past that. Roseburg just passed a hillside development ordinance, and the developers successfully lobbied to avoid langage that would make every lot buildable. They just want their money. They don't even care about their customers, much less the city they earn their living in. You can whine all you want about how tough things are, but developers are the ones who make the messes, not the ones who have to live in them.

Developers do OK until it comes time to pay for their own screw-ups. Then the ethical vacuum around their pocketbooks expands to eat their brains, if they had any ethics at all. The only thing that keeps them on the straight and narrow is the land use laws that you hate so much. I would go for Keith Cubic's proposal of allowing a house on every legal lot of record, but if you want to subdivide, you need to do it inside a city's UGB.

Seeing as we don't have all the information regarding lots that are unbuildable, and I know of none in my experience. I have millions of success stories to offer to your two possilbly poor outcomes.
Your narrow mindedness towards developers comes across as envy and jealousy.
If you are in Roseburg then you are flat wrong, there are some terrific developers that contribute millions of dollars and time to the community, and they don't have to.
Open your eyes to all the plaques, and banners at your parks and recreation facilities. Call the local homebuilders and see what they are doing.

We Built a new Headstart complex in Grants pass last year, not one builder or developer charged a dime for the work performed to build the facility, or the playground. Which turned out fantastic by the way.
Or the Bathroom, Snack facility at the Morrison Park at a cost of over 150k.
That was just two of the projects last yr.

We dont' have to do these things, we don't have to take time away from our families and other work for this. It is done because we love our communities.
Your criticism is of pure ignorance and condemnation of things you dont understand.

Impede and stop development and you will see communities die. The families of all involved will implode. Where there is no work, there is no hope, where there is no hope, there is dispair and depression, crime, and abuse.
The i've got mine club, better have weapons to protect what they have if the building industry goes away because of govt' stupidity, and poor land use restrictions.
They have delayed millions of dollars of production that would have gone through our community, recirculating at least 7 times and as much as 15 x and those are just my projects, It doesn't hurt me, I get more vacation time, but everyone that depends on me, and what I do are hurting, and it isn't right, they are your neighbors and most likely family members.
The earth movers, utilities, lumber yards, Concrete suppliers, Appliance, flooring and tile, lighting, paint, roofing, landscaping, furniture, Insurance, Banks, Mortgage and title companys, and dozens of others businesses and sub contractors are dependant on developers to get the projects approved so they can sell their wares, and trades. As well as the secondary beneficiaries of fast food, gas stations, tire dealers, heavy equipment, rental yards, mechanics, yard maintenance, etc... All businesses are benefitted by development. And they all have employees. Are you seeing clearer?
Nothing uses more services and products than a home and its occupants.
Take that away and you have poverty and dispair.

freedom

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by freedom

Impede and stop development and you will see communities die. The families of all involved will implode. Where there is no work, there is no hope, where there is no hope, there is dispair and depression, crime, and abuse.

The i've got mine club, better have weapons to protect what they have if the building industry goes away because of govt' stupidity, and poor land use restrictions.

Gee, is this TEOTWAWKI? All those poor, starving developers on the street with their tin cups. My heart bleeds.

The real problem in Grants Pass is not the state land use laws, it is the rugged geography that limits development opportunities, and the lack of private land in Josephine County. Gripe all you want, but the feds aren't going to let you build subdivisions on BLM land, and they will never turn loose of it. The City of Grants Pass is required by law to maintain a 20 year buildable land inventory, but that's not going to make it either cheap or easy to develop. Sooner or later, infrastructure development expenses will exceed the benefit. Geographic expansion will slow down and development will concentrate on infill.

If you had ever travelled, you would know that there are many cities in this world that are landlocked by geography. They don't die. They don't even slow down. They start building up rather than out. Over half the population of the entire planet now lives in cities. I know Josephine County was a hotbed of the "back to the land" and survivalist movements, but the '70s are over. That world is gone. Move on.

Originally Posted by freedom

They have delayed millions of dollars of production that would have gone through our community, recirculating at least 7 times and as much as 15 x and those are just my projects, It doesn't hurt me, I get more vacation time, but everyone that depends on me, and what I do are hurting, and it isn't right, they are your neighbors and most likely family members.
The earth movers, utilities, lumber yards, Concrete suppliers, Appliance, flooring and tile, lighting, paint, roofing, landscaping, furniture, Insurance, Banks, Mortgage and title companys, and dozens of others businesses and sub contractors are dependant on developers to get the projects approved so they can sell their wares, and trades. As well as the secondary beneficiaries of fast food, gas stations, tire dealers, heavy equipment, rental yards, mechanics, yard maintenance, etc... All businesses are benefitted by development. And they all have employees. Are you seeing clearer?
Nothing uses more services and products than a home and its occupants.
Take that away and you have poverty and dispair.

freedom

Construction work is either feast or famine. When times are good, every ignorant yahoo with a backhoe or hammer jumps into the business. They roll in money for a few years. Then things go belly up, and everyone is all shocked and feels betrayed, because the good times don't roll on forever. I spent 30 years in the construction industry, going from affluent as hell to barely scraping by. It's the nature of the beast. All those businesses dependent on construction will just have to do without. The cow has gone dry. History repeats itself.

A couple years ago I was talking to a developer who started out as a small house builder and was buying into a large hillside housing development. I knew that he went bankrupt in 1983, when unsold inventory ate him alive. Interest rates were starting to turn around, and I mentioned that he should think about downsizing to avoid repeating history. I ran into him last month. He has sold his development corporation, and is just working for them as a manager. Of course he would never take my advice, but at least he was smart enough to bail out before the plane crashes.

You need to move into the 21st century. The days when a failing septic system meant just dump the sewage in the nearest creek are gone. There are too many people, and the expectations are too high. If you think that's not a problem in Josephine County, you just aren't paying attention.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

Gee, is this TEOTWAWKI? All those poor, starving developers on the street with their tin cups. My heart bleeds.

The real problem in Grants Pass is not the state land use laws, it is the rugged geography that limits development opportunities, and the lack of private land in Josephine County. Gripe all you want, but the feds aren't going to let you build subdivisions on BLM land, and they will never turn loose of it. The City of Grants Pass is required by law to maintain a 20 year buildable land inventory, but that's not going to make it either cheap or easy to develop. Sooner or later, infrastructure development expenses will exceed the benefit. Geographic expansion will slow down and development will concentrate on infill.

If you had ever travelled, you would know that there are many cities in this world that are landlocked by geography. They don't die. They don't even slow down. They start building up rather than out. Over half the population of the entire planet now lives in cities. I know Josephine County was a hotbed of the "back to the land" and survivalist movements, but the '70s are over. That world is gone. Move on.



Construction work is either feast or famine. When times are good, every ignorant yahoo with a backhoe or hammer jumps into the business. They roll in money for a few years. Then things go belly up, and everyone is all shocked and feels betrayed, because the good times don't roll on forever. I spent 30 years in the construction industry, going from affluent as hell to barely scraping by. It's the nature of the beast. All those businesses dependent on construction will just have to do without. The cow has gone dry. History repeats itself.

A couple years ago I was talking to a developer who started out as a small house builder and was buying into a large hillside housing development. I knew that he went bankrupt in 1983, when unsold inventory ate him alive. Interest rates were starting to turn around, and I mentioned that he should think about downsizing to avoid repeating history. I ran into him last month. He has sold his development corporation, and is just working for them as a manager. Of course he would never take my advice, but at least he was smart enough to bail out before the plane crashes.

You need to move into the 21st century. The days when a failing septic system meant just dump the sewage in the nearest creek are gone. There are too many people, and the expectations are too high. If you think that's not a problem in Josephine County, you just aren't paying attention.

You are so wrong on so many levels, you mock developers as being sick rich and then give an example of one going bankrupt, nice consistency.

I see you like to be part of the vain repetition I've got mine, to hell with anyone else that wants to live here in a setting of their choice.

Play on Larry.

freedom

[LIDALA]

I'm not a big Walmart person, but I do love Target, beautiful malls, P.F. Chang's, Olive Garden, nice bowling alleys and skating rinks (for our kids), etc... The PTB's in Corvallis want to keep "big business" out and yet we have to leave our fine (if not backward) little run down city to shop, dine, and be entertained. Our city doesn't have a whole lot to offer and after college, most of our youth stay far, far away. What's wrong with that picture???

Quality of life means MORE than the almighty buck and/or protecting our "small business" owners. What about the thousands of people who hate driving 45 minutes to get to a decent mall, to go ice skating, to go to a chain restaurant, or who would love their kids NOT to move away after high school?

Times change and Corvallis needs to keep up with the times...

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by LIDALA

What about the thousands of people who hate driving 45 minutes to get to a decent mall, to go ice skating, to go to a chain restaurant, or who would love their kids NOT to move away after high school?

You know, you don't have to live in Corvallis. Unless, of course, you have to live in Corvallis. Not to get too personal, but what keeps you here, LIDALA?

For me, Corvallis provides an escape from the in-your-face commercialism of other cities. But I think we're beginning to see changes. Home Depot is here; wish it was a Costco, but oh well. I'll freely admit that I'm happy that Applebee's is coming. And the new shopping center that's taking the place of the old Ramada Inn (once known as the largest free-standing paper structure by those who stayed there) will be a welcome addition.

I can understand being stuck someplace that you don't like.

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by freedom

Seeing as we don't have all the information regarding lots that are unbuildable, and I know of none in my experience. I have millions of success stories to offer to your two possilbly poor outcomes.
Your narrow mindedness towards developers comes across as envy and jealousy.
If you are in Roseburg then you are flat wrong, there are some terrific developers that contribute millions of dollars and time to the community, and they don't have to.
Open your eyes to all the plaques, and banners at your parks and recreation facilities. Call the local homebuilders and see what they are doing.

We Built a new Headstart complex in Grants pass last year, not one builder or developer charged a dime for the work performed to build the facility, or the playground. Which turned out fantastic by the way.
Or the Bathroom, Snack facility at the Morrison Park at a cost of over 150k.
That was just two of the projects last yr.

We dont' have to do these things, we don't have to take time away from our families and other work for this. It is done because we love our communities.
Your criticism is of pure ignorance and condemnation of things you dont understand.

Impede and stop development and you will see communities die. The families of all involved will implode. Where there is no work, there is no hope, where there is no hope, there is dispair and depression, crime, and abuse.
The i've got mine club, better have weapons to protect what they have if the building industry goes away because of govt' stupidity, and poor land use restrictions.
They have delayed millions of dollars of production that would have gone through our community, recirculating at least 7 times and as much as 15 x and those are just my projects, It doesn't hurt me, I get more vacation time, but everyone that depends on me, and what I do are hurting, and it isn't right, they are your neighbors and most likely family members.
The earth movers, utilities, lumber yards, Concrete suppliers, Appliance, flooring and tile, lighting, paint, roofing, landscaping, furniture, Insurance, Banks, Mortgage and title companys, and dozens of others businesses and sub contractors are dependant on developers to get the projects approved so they can sell their wares, and trades. As well as the secondary beneficiaries of fast food, gas stations, tire dealers, heavy equipment, rental yards, mechanics, yard maintenance, etc... All businesses are benefitted by development. And they all have employees. Are you seeing clearer?
Nothing uses more services and products than a home and its occupants.
Take that away and you have poverty and dispair.

freedom

I can without exception de-bunk all your claims. I didn't realize that developers walk on water and can do no wrong.

Some food for thought.....I could fill a 1,000 threads and posts with multiple pages of FACTS. Here are a few to chew on. I apologize for not shedding any tears for you, as a taxpayer, I get tired of subsidizing developers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oregon, through its strong land use planning laws, has become one of the most beautiful places in America. It would be a tragedy to destroy it now.

In spite of having the Nation’s best land use planning laws, the loss of land has been significant and is being developed at a rapid rate as the following figures represent.

According to the most recent National Resources Inventory, in just 15 years (1985 to 2000) Oregon experienced huge changes in land use:

• The amount of urbanized land in Oregon nearly doubled (up 44%).
• 289,800 acres were converted from rural lands to urban lands.
• 92,000 acres of natural resource lands were converted to urban use.
• The annual rate of conversion from rural to urban status jumped by 21%.

According to the American Farmland Trust, 55 million acres of agricultural land were lost in the United States between 1990 thru 2005 and Oregon lost 340,000 acres.Oregon ranches are better protected than in many other states. But even in Oregon, non-farm dwellings were approved on 69,000 acres of agricultural land east of the Cascades between 1991 and 2000. What ranchers and wildlife have in common is that both need large blocks of land to be viable. When non-ranching neighbors move into an area, ranchers face mounting costs due to conflicts between ranching and residential use -- dogs harassing livestock, complaints about road congestion due to farm equipment or livestock, and opposition to common agricultural practices. Fragmentation, invasive weeds, destruction of big game winter range, and curtailment of prescribed burns and other necessary management practices threaten Oregon's wildlife and ecosystems.

The development pressure on Oregon's ranchlands is likely to increase as the state's population continues to grow. Between 1990 and 2005, approximately 160,000 people moved to Oregon's rural, unincorporated areas. In sparsely developed areas, even a few new non-ranching residents can have a significant impact on habitat and ranching operations, both of which require large expanses of contiguous acreage.

Threat of Measure 37:

As of May 2007, nearly 7,500 Measure 37 claims totally over 750,000 acres have been filed seeking compensation claiming that they were never compensated for having their land re-zoned to farm or forest use in the 1970s.

One item that is rarely discussed in the fact is that Senate Bill 100 enacted in 1973 resulted in Property Tax Reduction Compensation from 1974 to 2004 of $4.8 Billion as a result of the 1973 Tax Reduction Mandate to compensate landowners in Exclusive Farm and Forest Use Zones through discounted property tax rates of between 50% to 90% less than Real Market Value (American Land Institute Dec. 2005)


Rural landowners rightly receive large property tax breaks (preferential farm, forest and open space assessments) to keep their land in farm or forest use. Many rural property owners pay as little as one-fifth or one-tenth of the property taxes paid by fellow taxpayers, in recognition of the restrictions on the use of that land. None of this is taken into account when Measure 37 claims are made and a demand for monetary compensation is made as part of that claim. Of course, there is not a single county in Oregon that has the resources necessary to pay these claims. As a result, if all the Measure 37 minimum criteria have been met as far as date of property acquisition before zoning changes, County Commissioners have no choice but to approve the development/subdivision portion of the claims.



A study done by Money in Politics Research Action Project discovered that the top 30 donors towards the passage of Measure 37 donated nearly $2 Million dollars and have subsequently all filed claims seeking a total of $750 Million in compensation and encompassing over 255,000 acres of land. Over half of the top 30 Measure 37 donors are private timber corporations. Private timber/forestland owners account for 23% of the total land area in the State of Oregon.

The three biggest acreage claims are:

Stimson Lumber Company – 36,000 acres; Seneca Jones Timber LLC – 12,200 acres; SDS Lumber Company – 8,900 acres

The Myth of Development

Proponents of Measure 37 insisted that the additional development brought about via successful Measure 37 claims would economically benefit local county governments; playing to myth that residential development brings in surplus revenue through increased property tax base.

MYTH -Residential development brings in surplus revenue through increased property tax base:

This universal myth had been perpetuating itself for decades until the results of some very extensive studies done within the last ten years arrived at similar conclusions regarding the true costs of development. A recent compilation of studies done by the Trust for Public Land in seven western states encompassing 198 communities found the following:

• For every $1 million received in property tax revenues from residential development, the median amount the communities had to expend to service them was $1,400.000.
• For every $1 million in tax revenue these communities received from farm/forest/open space uses, the median amount they had to expend was only $300,000.

In short, residential home development does not pay for itself. In the end, without adequate systems development charges, the costs of development are shared and subsidized by all of us.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by chrisruns2far

I can without exception de-bunk all your claims. I didn't realize that developers walk on water and can do no wrong.

Some food for thought.....I could fill a 1,000 threads and posts with multiple pages of FACTS. Here are a few to chew on. I apologize for not shedding any tears for you, as a taxpayer, I get tired of subsidizing developers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oregon, through its strong land use planning laws, has become one of the most beautiful places in America. It would be a tragedy to destroy it now.

In spite of having the Nation’s best land use planning laws, the loss of land has been significant and is being developed at a rapid rate as the following figures represent.

According to the most recent National Resources Inventory, in just 15 years (1985 to 2000) Oregon experienced huge changes in land use:

• The amount of urbanized land in Oregon nearly doubled (up 44%).
• 289,800 acres were converted from rural lands to urban lands.
• 92,000 acres of natural resource lands were converted to urban use.
• The annual rate of conversion from rural to urban status jumped by 21%.

According to the American Farmland Trust, 55 million acres of agricultural land were lost in the United States between 1990 thru 2005 and Oregon lost 340,000 acres.Oregon ranches are better protected than in many other states. But even in Oregon, non-farm dwellings were approved on 69,000 acres of agricultural land east of the Cascades between 1991 and 2000. What ranchers and wildlife have in common is that both need large blocks of land to be viable. When non-ranching neighbors move into an area, ranchers face mounting costs due to conflicts between ranching and residential use -- dogs harassing livestock, complaints about road congestion due to farm equipment or livestock, and opposition to common agricultural practices. Fragmentation, invasive weeds, destruction of big game winter range, and curtailment of prescribed burns and other necessary management practices threaten Oregon's wildlife and ecosystems.

The development pressure on Oregon's ranchlands is likely to increase as the state's population continues to grow. Between 1990 and 2005, approximately 160,000 people moved to Oregon's rural, unincorporated areas. In sparsely developed areas, even a few new non-ranching residents can have a significant impact on habitat and ranching operations, both of which require large expanses of contiguous acreage.

Threat of Measure 37:

As of May 2007, nearly 7,500 Measure 37 claims totally over 750,000 acres have been filed seeking compensation claiming that they were never compensated for having their land re-zoned to farm or forest use in the 1970s.

One item that is rarely discussed in the fact is that Senate Bill 100 enacted in 1973 resulted in Property Tax Reduction Compensation from 1974 to 2004 of $4.8 Billion as a result of the 1973 Tax Reduction Mandate to compensate landowners in Exclusive Farm and Forest Use Zones through discounted property tax rates of between 50% to 90% less than Real Market Value (American Land Institute Dec. 2005)


Rural landowners rightly receive large property tax breaks (preferential farm, forest and open space assessments) to keep their land in farm or forest use. Many rural property owners pay as little as one-fifth or one-tenth of the property taxes paid by fellow taxpayers, in recognition of the restrictions on the use of that land. None of this is taken into account when Measure 37 claims are made and a demand for monetary compensation is made as part of that claim. Of course, there is not a single county in Oregon that has the resources necessary to pay these claims. As a result, if all the Measure 37 minimum criteria have been met as far as date of property acquisition before zoning changes, County Commissioners have no choice but to approve the development/subdivision portion of the claims.



A study done by Money in Politics Research Action Project discovered that the top 30 donors towards the passage of Measure 37 donated nearly $2 Million dollars and have subsequently all filed claims seeking a total of $750 Million in compensation and encompassing over 255,000 acres of land. Over half of the top 30 Measure 37 donors are private timber corporations. Private timber/forestland owners account for 23% of the total land area in the State of Oregon.

The three biggest acreage claims are:

Stimson Lumber Company – 36,000 acres; Seneca Jones Timber LLC – 12,200 acres; SDS Lumber Company – 8,900 acres

The Myth of Development

Proponents of Measure 37 insisted that the additional development brought about via successful Measure 37 claims would economically benefit local county governments; playing to myth that residential development brings in surplus revenue through increased property tax base.

MYTH -Residential development brings in surplus revenue through increased property tax base:

This universal myth had been perpetuating itself for decades until the results of some very extensive studies done within the last ten years arrived at similar conclusions regarding the true costs of development. A recent compilation of studies done by the Trust for Public Land in seven western states encompassing 198 communities found the following:

• For every $1 million received in property tax revenues from residential development, the median amount the communities had to expend to service them was $1,400.000.
• For every $1 million in tax revenue these communities received from farm/forest/open space uses, the median amount they had to expend was only $300,000.

In short, residential home development does not pay for itself. In the end, without adequate systems development charges, the costs of development are shared and subsidized by all of us.

Those are great statistics, you left out the benefit that developers and Builders bring to society. Their actions effect every business a town has. The list would be too long, in short, every business that is in business has a builder behind it. No home, no people, no people no need for anything, no state, cities or farms.

Nothing gets built, including the roof over your head, without a builder, developer and laborers.
The pursuit of happiness includes right to property, and an income. Where is the thanks for Sewer and water systems, roads, bridges, utility infrastructure.
The thing is, we as Americans have it so good, some people use their time to limit the freedom of others right to pursue their dreams.

What we see here from your POV is the "I've got my piece of Oregon club", forget anyone else that wants to move here. Which heads us into only the wealthy will be able to afford to live here. Not very neighborly.

If Farming is so popular and in such demand, why do a high percentage of farmers want to convert THEIR land into other types of uses. Measure 37 was voted in, the dictator, socialist tactics of this liberal gov't here in Oregon is un-doing the will of the people to have their Property rights back.
There are many places on this earth that one can move to, that have the socialism you seem to embrace. Keep it out of America. It is an abomination to free people.

freedom

[bobmulk]

I hope you don't live in a house built by a developer. I hope you don't shop in stores or restaurants built by a developer. I hope you didn't attend a school built by a developer. If you have, your anti-developer/development comments hold no water.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by freedom

Nothing gets built, including the roof over your head, without a builder, developer and laborers.

That is just nonsense. Even today, people build and remodel their own homes. Sometime you should go to a lumber yard on Saturday morning. It's a zoo, with hundreds of homeowners picking up materials for their home improvment projects.

Originally Posted by freedom

The pursuit of happiness includes right to property, and an income. Where is the thanks for Sewer and water systems, roads, bridges, utility infrastructure.

Builders don't provide the infrastructure. At most, they connect a few sewers, water lines and streets to the main system, which they neither built or maintain.

Originally Posted by freedom

The thing is, we as Americans have it so good, some people use their time to limit the freedom of others right to pursue their dreams.

When that dream promises to crap things up for everyone, you have to wear a leash. Developers and builders are in it for the profit, and nothing else. That's why we have building codes and land use laws.

Originally Posted by freedom

What we see here from your POV is the "I've got my piece of Oregon club", forget anyone else that wants to move here. Which heads us into only the wealthy will be able to afford to live here. Not very neighborly.

There is adequate development land in every community in the state. The reason housing is so expensive is that there is 10x the profit in a 500,000 house than there is in a 150,000 house. Builders go for the profit every time. They won't go back to building the 1200 square foot 3-bedroom starter homes until they can't sell the big ones any more. I built a lot of those in the '70s, but you would be hard put to find a new one on the market anywhere in the state. Nowadays, that would be considered small for a town house.

Originally Posted by freedom

If Farming is so popular and in such demand, why do a high percentage of farmers want to convert THEIR land into other types of uses.

Once again, it's the quick profit. Farm land is productive and profitable, at a low level. Housing land is unproductive, and highly profitable, for a one shot deal. After you build a house on it, it never produces anything again. That's why Oregon land use laws are written to protect farm land, as far as possible. Agriculture is Oregon's largest single industry, which brings over $2 billion a year into the state's economy.

Also, it's not the farmers who want to convert their land to housing developments, it's corporations, who are ruled by the bottom line.

Originally Posted by freedom

Measure 37 was voted in, the dictator, socialist tactics of this liberal gov't here in Oregon is un-doing the will of the people to have their Property rights back.

But it's not the people who were the beneficiaries of Measure 37, it was the corporations. In order to file a Measure 37 claim, you have to have owned the property since before land use laws were passed in 1973. Darned few people hold property that long, and the ones who do are not interested in selling it for housing developments. The beneficiaries have been the corporations, mostly logging companies, who just keep right on, even if the owners die.

The ironic thing is that in 1973, the timber companies were big backers of land use laws. Back then, the land was still mostly owned by people who lived in Oregon and who had a knowledge of the land. They knew its wealth, and wanted to preserve it. Now, the timber companies are owned by banks, mostly not even American banks, and they are going to go for the profit, and screw the land.

That government you are so concerned about has proposed Measure 49, which would allow elderly land owners to pass development rights along to their heirs, or sell those rights. It would put the leash back on the Chinese bankers. You might notice that all the money to oppose Measure 49 is coming from foreign owned timber companies. Native owned timber companies, like Roseburg Forest Products or Lone Rock Timber are not opposing 49.

Originally Posted by freedom

There are many places on this earth that one can move to, that have the socialism you seem to embrace. Keep it out of America. It is an abomination to free people.

Many parts of the USA don't even have building codes. You are cordially invited to go develop and build there, where you can do anything you want. Of course, those places are considered undesirable, and people won't pay as much for housing there. It's not worth as much.

Developers have been pretty proud the last few years, because things have been good in the housing market. That has ended. Five years from now, there will be only half as many builders and developers around. The rest will have to find a new line of work.

Meanwhile, the one bright spot in the real estate market is farm land. Nationwide, the price of farm land has escalated 50% in the last two years, and with the drop in the dollar, that might be only the beginning. For decades, American farmers have been hamstrung in the world markets by an overpriced dollar. By the time we hit $3 to the Euro, farmers are going to be selling everything they can grow, and it will be their turn to be proud.