What is the downside to living in Oregon? (Portland, Eugene: for sale, travel)

[LADY_DI]

too many mexicans living here
it rains 6 month out of the yr
jobs are hard to find
its a long wait for help with a child with autism

[nanannie]

Originally Posted by LADY_DI

too many mexicans living here
it rains 6 month out of the yr
jobs are hard to find
its a long wait for help with a child with autism

Mexicans live everywhere. But is there a state that does NOT have illegals? I have not heard of any.I assume you mean illegal mexicans,,I dont think many object to LEGAL immigrants anywhere

[RuralSeeker]

GOOD: Oregon is a beautiful state with many assets, many friendly people, and a pretty good conservation record.
BAD: Oregon has terrible health care (for poor people), poor public schools, too many illegal immigrants, and few good jobs.

Just my opinion!

[RuralSeeker]

Originally Posted by elmerlyn

thank you for your comment. i am from california and moved to a rural town in washington. after a year of californian bashing i finally have had enough. it is apparent to me that people want to blame californians for everything. here is my take...it is the locals who are selling THEIR property. THEY are setting the high prices! it is the local government that THEY elected that are approving all of the subdivisions and big box stores. if the locals want to keep their property prices down, sell them at a lower price. if they don't want their farms (owned by locals) then support the farm and elect different officials. otherwise you only have YOURSELVES to blame.

Amen, sister (or brother)! I grew up in California (and was eventually crowded and priced out). I think of myself as a fairly decent, law-abiding, educated, and regular person, but it is apparent that many Californians, like myself, have been discriminated against just for being from California. I happen to be a native, but most of the people living in or coming from California are not originally from California. They are from literally all over the world. Perhaps the movie industry has given Californians a bad name. Perhaps the overcrowding, competition, and overpricing have given many Californians an overload of stress and a bad attitude. Not all Californians are alike. It's the undesirable ones that stand out and give us a decent Californians a bad name.

[RockyMtnr]

Here's a couple of "downsides" about living in Oregon - from someone who has only been here 8 months:
1) Surprise! Oregon is not the modern-thinking, up-to-date, progressive, liberal place I was expecting. I live at the coast where it's more conservative than inland - and there are truly some good things going on here - but it's kind of like walking into 1960's Ohio. I could expound but that's the quick story.
2) We are sooooo farrrr from anywhere else! I have relatives in WA, OH and OK - it's a major, major trip to consider visits - so much isolated desolation to drive thru ... and fairly expensive to fly. Except for WA and CA, you gotta go 1500 miles before you start to get anywhere! It feels a little like we moved to Alaska or Hawaii. Thank goodness the mail is fast here compared to other places I've lived ... but I don't know why this is.

The move to Oregon has been fantastic. No matter where I've lived in this country, Oregon has it - and has it prettier! I'm a little bummed that Salmon and Trout are still the main fish to catch - but I simply got tired of trout and Coho living in the Rockies for so long. Somebody toss me a Bluegill please?(I know we're supposed to have them here - just haven't seen any yet).

[chrisruns2far]

College tuition in OR has grown by leaps and bounds....double what it was just a decade ago. I have read several articles that Oregon college students and/or their parents pay for the highest percentage of any state's higher education budget thru tuition costs. The underlying root cause of this is the HUGE burden of the State of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in which the majority of any educational funding from the the state level goes towards paying the over-inflated retirement costs (often at or above their highest working salary), the best health-care benefits in the state - paid for by the rest of us, for many years non-public sector workers paid for obsene 401K matches and contributions that public employees where given and up until 4 to 5 years ago state employees were gauranteed at least a 10% annual return on their 401K or retirement earnings, even if the funds preformes below that level. The Legislature just passed the largest school funding/educational budget in history, yet over 65% of it goes towards public employee benefits. Therefore, large class sizes remain unchanges and tution is raised much above the rate of inflation to make up fiunding gaps of the educational higher-ed system. I'm not one of those anti-tax, won't pay for anything folks that keep moving to Oregon and am not a conservative. However, PERS is well documented as being far and away the most expensive public employees benefit of any state in America. One can't help but realize and witness the anchor that PERS is on the Oregon economy and the negative impact on public education and the funding (lack thereof) of many other vital services and programs. No one has the political will the fundamentally change/fix this system to better benefit the state as a whole.

[bluebird39]

Hi there,

I lived in Southern Oregon from '90-'06. It doesn't rain much in most of the state. It's really a small corner of the state that gets the rain.

I agree with the middle class getting squeezed out. I love Oregon, but as long as I have small kids, I won't go back. The public schools have been getting worse and worse, and the price of houses is insane. We were working 2 (professional) jobs and still barely getting by. We moved to Michigan, another sate who's now suffering from putting all their eggs in one basket, and while Michigan has its problems. Despite that, it still has great schools, MUCH better healthcare (cheaper too), and cool things like beautiful maple forest, great lakes and people who care about their communities. Oregon is so full of transplants and retirees who don't seem to care about middle class families. I know that's an overstatement, but I sure felt pressed in ways that I no longer feel here.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by chrisruns2far

College tuition in OR has grown by leaps and bounds....double what it was just a decade ago. I have read several articles that Oregon college students and/or their parents pay for the highest percentage of any state's higher education budget thru tuition costs. The underlying root cause of this is the HUGE burden of the State of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in which the majority of any educational funding from the the state level goes towards paying the over-inflated retirement costs (often at or above their highest working salary), the best health-care benefits in the state - paid for by the rest of us, for many years non-public sector workers paid for obsene 401K matches and contributions that public employees where given and up until 4 to 5 years ago state employees were gauranteed at least a 10% annual return on their 401K or retirement earnings, even if the funds preformes below that level. The Legislature just passed the largest school funding/educational budget in history, yet over 65% of it goes towards public employee benefits. Therefore, large class sizes remain unchanges and tution is raised much above the rate of inflation to make up fiunding gaps of the educational higher-ed system. I'm not one of those anti-tax, won't pay for anything folks that keep moving to Oregon and am not a conservative. However, PERS is well documented as being far and away the most expensive public employees benefit of any state in America. One can't help but realize and witness the anchor that PERS is on the Oregon economy and the negative impact on public education and the funding (lack thereof) of many other vital services and programs. No one has the political will the fundamentally change/fix this system to better benefit the state as a whole.

The problem with PERS is that the state didn't want to fund it up front, so instead of putting their 6% into the fund like the employees did, they decided to pay after people retired. Well, that 6% over 30 years, managed by the state investment fund, means they have to pony up an average of about $750,000 per 30-year employee. The guaranteed rate of return was 8%, but anyone smart enough to put his money in the variable fund (no guarantee, possible losses) averaged about 14% over 30 years. My dad had 22 years with the State Forestry Department, put his money in the variable account, and retired with a pension of about $850 a month. That was pretty good money in 1976, about 46% of his gross pay. At the time, it was exempt from state income tax, though the feds ruled that was illegal and he had to start paying state tax on it in the '80s.

In any case, it's moot, because PERS doesn't exist any more. The legislature abolished it in 2003. When the current pensions are paid out, that's the end. Current public employee retirement is a mandated 6% into a 401k style fund, with no employer contribution at all.

The real problem with the state budget is the propert tax revolt. When property taxes were limited, the same ballot measure mandated the state assume support of the public school system, which it did with no new taxes. They didn't have a choice. The law mandated 100% support for the schools, and a balanced budget, so they did it by bleeding higher education, services for the elderly, drug treatement, mental health, state parks, state police, etc.

Another place the budget bleeds is medicaid. The feds mandate matching funds from the state, and medical costs keep spiraling. Medicaid alone is over 1/3 of the state budget.

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

The problem with PERS is that the state didn't want to fund it up front, so instead of putting their 6% into the fund like the employees did, they decided to pay after people retired. Well, that 6% over 30 years, managed by the state investment fund, means they have to pony up an average of about $750,000 per 30-year employee. The guaranteed rate of return was 8%, but anyone smart enough to put his money in the variable fund (no guarantee, possible losses) averaged about 14% over 30 years. My dad had 22 years with the State Forestry Department, put his money in the variable account, and retired with a pension of about $850 a month. That was pretty good money in 1976, about 46% of his gross pay. At the time, it was exempt from state income tax, though the feds ruled that was illegal and he had to start paying state tax on it in the '80s.

In any case, it's moot, because PERS doesn't exist any more. The legislature abolished it in 2003. When the current pensions are paid out, that's the end. Current public employee retirement is a mandated 6% into a 401k style fund, with no employer contribution at all.

The real problem with the state budget is the propert tax revolt. When property taxes were limited, the same ballot measure mandated the state assume support of the public school system, which it did with no new taxes. They didn't have a choice. The law mandated 100% support for the schools, and a balanced budget, so they did it by bleeding higher education, services for the elderly, drug treatement, mental health, state parks, state police, etc.

Another place the budget bleeds is medicaid. The feds mandate matching funds from the state, and medical costs keep spiraling. Medicaid alone is over 1/3 of the state budget.

Excellent point you make on the property tax limitations ballot measures!!!! When Oregonians moan and complain about property taxes it shows the general ignorance of so many of our residents. Our taxes being below the national average and the massive amount of vital programs that go underfunded.

My point with PERS is that it was sinking our state's economy as it was basically an insiders job in that the people who recieved the benefits also dominated the board and set the fundamentally flawed and unsustainable fixed rate of return guarantees, that where set well above 10% for retirees when the stock market tanked and all of us had to float those over-inflated fixed rate retirement checks until the modest reforms of 2003, without regard for cost and the burden placed on the non-public sector working class. We will be digging out of this hole for many years to come. BTW, PERS has not been done away with as it still exists today, it has just been modified to rid it of some of the obscene insider abuses and budget-busting self-interest fixed rate of return enrichment inspite of underpreforming funds. Even with it being watered down somewhat, it is still one of the sweetest deals out there for existing workers and retirees pensions and health care benefits are still sucking dry the public coffers from the backroom PERS Board dealings of years gone by.

[casey1996]

Originally Posted by RuralSeeker

Amen, sister (or brother)! I grew up in California (and was eventually crowded and priced out). I think of myself as a fairly decent, law-abiding, educated, and regular person, but it is apparent that many Californians, like myself, have been discriminated against just for being from California. I happen to be a native, but most of the people living in or coming from California are not originally from California. They are from literally all over the world. Perhaps the movie industry has given Californians a bad name. Perhaps the overcrowding, competition, and overpricing have given many Californians an overload of stress and a bad attitude. Not all Californians are alike. It's the undesirable ones that stand out and give us a decent Californians a bad name.

As a Californian, I have oftened asked myself, who do we blame for OUR skyrocketing home prices, overdevelopment, traffic, wall-to-wall subdivisions, etc.? I can't afford my own home. Who do I blame? I was born and raised in California, and people want to talk about change?? This state doesn't remotely resemble the California I knew. So, I have to laugh at the complaints about beautiful Oregon that, yes, has seen increases in house prices, traffic, and congestion. That's what happens when you have a desirable place to live. Oregon has not been singled out. This happens all over the US. I lived in Boulder, Colorado in the 70s. The 30-mile stretch between Denver and Boulder was nothing but farm land. Now it is a 30-mile stretch of subdivisions, business parks, and shopping malls. Coloradans have been complaining about Californians moving in for over 30 years.

Bottom line, we all have a right to live wherever we choose. None of us like to see our towns and states change, but that's life. And Oregon would be in far worse straits if NOONE wanted to live there. Interestingly enough, I have visited multiple times in the past 1 1/2 years, to see if I want to move. I have encountered incredibly friendly people on my trips,and a good half of them were transplanted Californians. So, just maybe, Oregon brings out the best in everyone who moves there.