Is Corvallis anti-growth? (Portland, Salem, Albany: foreclosure, insurance, crime)

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by freedom

What is awesome is you exercised your freedom to do so, and to my knowledge didnt' force anyone else to make the same choices as you.

Some extremeists would say you were contributing to the Idustrial Oil complex when you cooked it with propane.
A good stake is best cooked on wood, which is collected in the forest in my backyard off of dead and dying manzanita, and on a Weber grill.

You missed out on an incredible flavor enhancer. Next time you may want to take more thought on how you cook that slab o' cow......

freedom

I appreciate the tip, freedom. We don't have much manzanita up here--maybe a little seasoned alder?

By the way, that's not old-growth manzanita, is it?

[freedom]

Originally Posted by jjpop

By the way, that's not old-growth manzanita, is it?

ummm, no-o-o-o, it was the new stuff. yeh, the new little baby manzanitas.

Good thing were not in CA., when we camp at Lake Shasta, there are signs they will prosecute you if you pick up a twig, especially if it is Manzanita. Try telling two young boys they cant play with the sticks....even the dead wood is protected. Future mulch I guess.....

[esya]

Having been bashed previously for even using the word "McMansion" I'd like to weigh in here.

Developers don't develop jobs, communities, or schools or parks, they develop land and buildings. Many times the land is perfectly nice and the owner would not sell if they had an economic choice. Land, once subdivided and developed, is a lot harder to put together, it's kind of like a family that has to separate and move all over the country to be employed. True, it brings money in the short term but in the long term it causes losses to communities that are not easily or quickly replaced.

I support more political and economic pressure to live in smaller places simply because we will need the natural resources to support our population, to feed us, to have water not being used on lawns, to keep air clean (bec living on those 1 or 5 acre lots means we all have to drive cars), etc. While it would be nice to live "in the country" the fact is, most of us are NOT interested in working at farm laboror's wages and coming home and tending our personal gardens. That is a choice we make. The last years since 2001 have made it necessary to reevaluate the cost of living far apart--that cost is fuel and we simply just can't afford it as a nation any more.

I know there are a lot of perfectly nice people out there building houses, but frankly I prefer the one at a time route simply because I am not a free-market capitalist to the core--I think there are other values that are equally important, that we are very quickly loosing.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by esya

Having been bashed previously for even using the word "McMansion" I'd like to weigh in here.

Developers don't develop jobs, communities, or schools or parks, they develop land and buildings. Many times the land is perfectly nice and the owner would not sell if they had an economic choice. Land, once subdivided and developed, is a lot harder to put together, it's kind of like a family that has to separate and move all over the country to be employed. True, it brings money in the short term but in the long term it causes losses to communities that are not easily or quickly replaced.

I think every economist would dispute your assertion that Housing, commercial and recreational development does not create jobs.
Could you elaborate on how the benefits are short term? How Growth hurts a community?

I support more political and economic pressure to live in smaller places simply because we will need the natural resources to support our population, to feed us, to have water not being used on lawns, to keep air clean (bec living on those 1 or 5 acre lots means we all have to drive cars), etc. While it would be nice to live "in the country" the fact is, most of us are NOT interested in working at farm laboror's wages and coming home and tending our personal gardens. That is a choice we make. The last years since 2001 have made it necessary to reevaluate the cost of living far apart--that cost is fuel and we simply just can't afford it as a nation any more.

I am sure you do, I deal with your mindset everyday, and it adds to the cost of development, so anyone moving here has that to deal with.
Water is a very important resource and Oregon surely has a strong regulatory arm to make sure that it is used properly. Watering lawns in Oregon is not a net loss, It replenishes our aquifer, we take some out of the river, it gets spread out over fields and lawns, and drains into the ground water, to be used by people that are not on irrigation, or on the city water system. It gets filtered in the process, what a great system.
We use to have a gravity fed irrigation district, now we get an Electrical pump system, that will use up enough energy to power thousands of cars. Thanks to the blow the damn enviro's.
I can see your opinions come from an economically depressed position. You would like to live in the country, but it is not financially possible for you at this time. This nation seems to be doing what it wants to do (freedom) those that can afford to live out of the cities, are doing that. Those that want to but can't, wish to stop them. That to me is based in envy, and a mentality surrounded by, if I can't afford it, then you shouldn't be able to live in the country and it should be reserved for my pleasure. But ofcourse you'll never see it, because you would have to drive there and that would be bad on the enviroment. So instead of stating the obvious, it gets twisted into a convaluded concept of their hurting the planet...Their driving their cars further to get to town.
Well, I work at home, I drive when I want, and leave my Mansion as little as possible, I like to save my petro dollars for the ski boat. What a country... God bless America...

I know there are a lot of perfectly nice people out there building houses, but frankly I prefer the one at a time route simply because I am not a free-market capitalist to the core--I think there are other values that are equally important, that we are very quickly loosing.

Your right there, and they don't deserve the demonization that they get here in Oregon. I don't see alot of homeless people at the city council meetings saying stop building, I do see people that would like to have a home saying that its too expensive.
If the zoning laws created a larger supply of buildable land, and the regulations were brought back to sanity, affordable housing would be available. Right now, only those with means can afford So. Oregon. Rural properties, the rest have to settle for the crowded cities, that cause everyone to blame developers. Saying theres to much traffic, crime, congestion, smog. No wonder those that can afford it, don't want city life.

freedom

[esya]

Freedom, I am not a debater and never have been. I can only say that I have lived in Colorado for years and see the many many up and down cycles that real estate booms cause--and when the projects and profit is gone so are the the jobs. Maybe it's different in Oregon but it seems unlikely given the postings I have been reading the last year.

[bobmulk]

The primary jobs lost in a real estate boom are in mortgage lending and real estate. The boom that Oregon has experienced has been less frenetic than in places like Arizona and California where speculation was the order of the day. In Oregon we will see a slowing of the real estate market. Will we see a collapse? Most likely not because of the many factors in place--high in-bound migration, affordable interest rates, relatively strong economy, urban growth boundaries.

Oregon is in a different situation than these places that are getting lots of publicity. But the main question was--"Is Corvallis anti-growth?" I would say "yes". But I would temper that with the caveat that it seems to be warming to growth. I've been watching the population and it's been growing--not like the seventies, but still at a decent clip. The city is interested in sprucing up downtown--this will attract growth. The city and Benton County are also interested in promoting business. They are working more to encourage new business, especially in partnership with OSU.

Still, I think there is a mentality in the community that growth is bad. People freaked over Home Depot coming to town. Guess they were happier that thousands of people were driving to Albany every day. Corvallis will never be as pro-growth as Albany is--as a matter of fact, I expect Albany to pass Corvallis in size the next decade. But I think Corvallis is seeing the light, that they can't be prima donnas about growth because there's a lot of companies that want the businesses Corvallis doesn't. I see Corvallis becoming something like the Ashland of the Valley. Artsy, intellectual, high income, precious and prejudiced against anything that challenges them.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by esya

Freedom, I am not a debater and never have been. I can only say that I have lived in Colorado for years and see the many many up and down cycles that real estate booms cause--and when the projects and profit is gone so are the the jobs. Maybe it's different in Oregon but it seems unlikely given the postings I have been reading the last year.

You made some strong assertions as to how jobs are created. I thought you may be able to back them up, with something more than opinion.
No debate necessary, just facts.

freedom

[DavePautsch]

bobmulk...well stated! I could not agree with you more.

Cheers.

Dave

[Tranquillo]

Well, as someone who recently arrived from Phoenix, Az., this thread hits home (pun intended). You might think of Phoenix as the antithesis of Corvallis: A place of uncontrolled sprawl, high crime, pollution and a seemingly reckless attitude toward the use of fresh water and other resources.

That said, I think we did no better by coming to Oregon. This move was reactive and thoughtless. In my mind Oregon represented greenery and sustainablity. What I didn't consider was that many, many, other people want to come here for the same reasons. Of course the result, to preserve "Oregon", is to encourage high density housing -- which creates conjestion and (my feeling) a toxic living environment. Pretty ironic, huh?

[angelbug]

Originally Posted by bobmulk

Still, I think there is a mentality in the community that growth is bad. People freaked over Home Depot coming to town. Guess they were happier that thousands of people were driving to Albany every day. Corvallis will never be as pro-growth as Albany is--as a matter of fact, I expect Albany to pass Corvallis in size the next decade. But I think Corvallis is seeing the light, that they can't be prima donnas about growth because there's a lot of companies that want the businesses Corvallis doesn't. I see Corvallis becoming something like the Ashland of the Valley. Artsy, intellectual, high income, precious and prejudiced against anything that challenges them.

Man, you could be describing my town, Davis, CA. I call it Berkeley East, some not-so-tactful call it the People's Republic of Davis. Adamant opposition to any more development or to any big box stores, so we have very high home prices (even in this market) and have to drive 13 miles north or east to get to decent shopping (I mean, as in buying SOCKS, not Coach handbags), which seems silly for a city that prides itself on being the only place in America given Platinum City status by the League of American Bicyclists. I love the city for many other reasons, but putting such draconian curbs on growth can backfire in many ways.