Columbia Gorge (Portland: houses, to live, legal)

[Shrek X]

does the wind really blow all the time in HR? :|

sounds very.... icky. it seems by the location, that it might not rain as much as in Pdx, would that be correct, or does it come right up the gorge?

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by Shrek X

does the wind really blow all the time in HR? :|

.. it might not rain as much as in Pdx, ...

Wind is pretty regular, but more on the "Breeze" side, as compared to living in Laramie, WY

Rains usually come 'up-river' from Portland, and are dispensed of the high volume by the time they get to HR, you actually have to get slightly east of HR to get appreciable drier.

[bruce a hylton]

Being raised in the gorge at Lyle, WA, I like to think that I remember what the weather is like. The wind will blow an average of about five out of seven days a week for six months of the year at least. Going from mild to wild and back down again. And that is just in the summer time. When it stops in the summer, things get hot and when the winter winds blow, it gets cold. You find four of the most amazing seasons on earth with variety enough for anyone. Everything from high desert to mountains to the Pacific Ocean is within about a three hour drive. I never cease to marvel at the view from the highways on both sides of the river. To continue with the plus side of the gorge would take hours for me to write. On the negative side, the absolute worst thing that ever made its way into the gorge was The national scenic act and the columbia gorge commission.

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by bruce a hylton

On the negative side, the absolute worst thing that ever made its way into the gorge was The national scenic act and the columbia gorge commission.

I think if you make a statement like that you should elaborate.

[Leisesturm]

And speaking of elaboration. To say that PDX is the Portland Airport and leave it at that is to stop a bit short of a complete answer. Yes, PDX is the FAA designation for Portland International Airport but it has become the name that Portlanders call the entire Downtown, if not the entire city, in much the same way that Manhattan is called NYC.

[diggitydot]

Originally Posted by hymalaia

I think if you make a statement like that you should elaborate.

I didn't make that statement, but I share the sentiments.

The Columbia Gorge Commission dictates to those who own property (many times homesteaded land that is passed from one generation to the next) where, how, when, and why they can build on their own land. And those rules seem to be arbitrarily enforced with little rhyme, reason, or sense.

Here's an article that highlights the issue fairly articulately:
Ruling allows couple to keep Gorge dream home, fuels land-use debate

[dachmom]

DiggityDot-ITA! Well said.

[hymalaia]

thanks for the article. I kind of figured it had something to do with land use restrictions/property rights. I agree that rules should be laid out that make it clear what people can and can't do, and no commission should be able to override such rules, at least not without going through proper channels.

That said I found the article very biased, painting the home builders out as "victims". I'm sorry but it's hard to have sympathy for someone who wants to build a 4,000 sq foot (who needs that much space!?!?!) home in one of the most scenic natural areas in the country. Now granted, perhaps they did follow the "rules" in getting permission to get the home built (though not with everything, apparently). But it seems to me they should have better figured the mentality of those whose vistas they'd be blocking. What did they think they could build a massive eyesore and not face resistance? Please. The "scenic area" designation has been around since 1986. This is obviously a contentious local issue. They should have done more research or at least had better foresight.

(as a side note the bit about half-mast flags on passing of the '86 designation by Reagan, well I just find that disturbing. Property rights are not people for chrissakes. I suppose making these home builders out to be "horrible people" is no better, if that is in fact what happened).

My issue with comments like "Bruce Hylton's" is he outright calls the passage of the scenic act "bad" as if nobody else in their right mind would have a different opinion. Some may actually see it as "good" to put regulations on development. I lean that direction, although I recognize the issues are not always so simple. I get the sense that most people against these kinds of land use regulations are long time locals (often inheriting land) who have never seen quickly beautiful landscapes can turn into sprawling nightmares. They don't understand how quickly it can happen, but many ex-pats have seen it happen in their own homes. Thus they flock to Oregon to get away from it. An area like the CRG is especially vulnerable because of how compact it is.

I think if the gorge commission is abusing their power and being unclear, perhaps what should be re-examined is the whole system they've got in place to determine what development is acceptable, and what isn't. Perhaps that is what's "bad", and not the fact that the commission itself exists.

[diggitydot]

Originally Posted by hymalaia

That said I found the article very biased, painting the home builders out as "victims". I'm sorry but it's hard to have sympathy for someone who wants to build a 4,000 sq foot (who needs that much space!?!?!) home in one of the most scenic natural areas in the country. Now granted, perhaps they did follow the "rules" in getting permission to get the home built (though not with everything, apparently).

I didn't think the article was all that skewed. And I have three kids (as do the Beas, now) and I can absolutely relate to wanting a large home. But whether they have too large a home isn't really what is at issue.

Originally Posted by hymalaia

But it seems to me they should have better figured the mentality of those whose vistas they'd be blocking. What did they think they could build a massive eyesore and not face resistance?

I don't think people should live their lives by the mentality of those surrounding you so long as they abide by all applicable laws. I've lived around people with significantly different attitudes and mentalities from my own and wouldn't dream of changing my life or who I am as a person simply to make them more comfortable.

Also, I strongly disagree with labeling their home a massive eyesore. The photo posted along with that article showed a home with pretty new cedar shake siding. When new, cedar siding is a fairly bright orange/red. As it ages and oxidizes it silvers into a muted gray, making it very unobtrusive. And with a green roof, they were well within the applicable guidelines.

Originally Posted by hymalaia

My issue with comments like "Bruce Hylton's" is he outright calls the passage of the scenic act "bad" as if nobody else in their right mind would have a different opinion. Some may actually see it as "good" to put regulations on development.

Mr. Hylton's opinion is just that, an opinion. And we all have them. What he may consider negative someone else would certainly not. That's why I included the article so others could read about some of the circumstances surrounding the issue.

I'm also very much in favor of preserving national jewels like the Columbia River Gorge. However, the rules established should absolutely be applied evenly in each situation. The gorge commission didn't have the right or ability to stop the work being on that home due to their failure to abide by their own time frames. They absolutely overstepped their bounds when they proceeded to do so.

Originally Posted by hymalaia

I think if the gorge commission is abusing their power and being unclear, perhaps what should be re-examined is the whole system they've got in place to determine what development is acceptable, and what isn't.

Which what the gorge commission did after they lost.

Also, for further reading, here's the decision as handed down by the WA state Supreme Court. It's a bit long, but gives some excellent information.

[hymalaia]

having viewed the photo of the house it's not that bad looking in itself, but it is BIG and the lot is HUGE. It looks like they did some serious modifying to the land. I'm no expert on this so I could be wrong but I imagine this is where the Beas broke some of the conditions they were supposed to follow.

I don't think people should live their lives by the mentality of those surrounding you so long as they abide by all applicable laws.

yes that's the idea but in the real world things don't always work out that way, and one has a responsibility to be aware of the "rules" not always being followed as written. The Beas sound as if they are using the fact that they followed the "rules" as an excuse to play victim in this. Of course they didn't follow ALL the rules, apparently, just the ones that worked for them. Did they think that wasn't going to raise somebody's ire? I agree that the Gorge commission was out of line in their enforcement and that needs to be addressed BUT it doesn't sound like the Beas were going to be Mr. and Mrs. Cooperative. It sounds more that the commissions rules don't allow them enough time to properly analyze the effects new construction will have on the area.

I've lived around people with significantly different attitudes and mentalities from my own and wouldn't dream of changing my life or who I am as a person simply to make them more comfortable.

it's not about making your neighbors comfortable, or changing your life, just taking responsibility and being aware of how your actions effect those around you. My impression is that the Beas took a chance, they saw how they could sneakily get a questionable house built and still follow the "rules" (well the ones they liked). It backfired and now they are whining about it. Tough, I say.



I could be wrong but this sounds more like an issue of local attitudes in conflict rather than the big bad federal gorge commission screwing over helpless little property owners. I'll try and read more up on this including the supreme court link as time allows.

and sorry but 4,000 sq feet is absurd. I grew up in a house not even that big (cedar too so I know the effect you speak of), family of five. It was too big. Almost scary for a little kid. American's feel they need WAY too much space these days. It's a complete waste of resources. Of course if it was up to me I'd put cap on sq footage at 1500 max and limit all households to two kids. Aren't you happy I'm not going to be appointed fascist dictator?