Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is, when you live a free country, people can move wherever they want to. It's part of what makes America a great nation. However, in a free, capitalistic society you can't pick and choose who gets to buy property vs. not just like buying produce, automobiles or TVs. An American is American, pure and simple. California just happens to have more Americans than any other state in the nation and some with deeper pockets. And guess what? They move around to every state in the nation. Elon Musk is moving to Texas which is apparently big news. Add to that international investors and we truly live in global economy where anyone who wants to buy property can when within their legal rights to do so.
None of the transplants I know of, whether from California, Texas or any other state do so maliciously with evil intent even though easy targets to blame for higher prices and taxes. It's simply how capitalism works, Econ 101 - supply and demand. No one is to blame for that unless you don't like capitalism itself or rather the way in which it is implemented. The same is true for insane real estate prices in California. Who would pay $2.2 million for a broken down old shack? Well, apparently some do if in the right location.
Unless the state or county change building permit rules, zoning laws, tax limits, etc... it will naturally grow in desirable locations with semi-descent weather. There are no plots or grand conspiracies by individuals who move to a new location to do you wrong. They're simply going somewhere more desirable for themselves and their family which they have every right to as Americans. This will increase at a greater rate as more people can work remotely post Covid. Americans in general are spreading out more from their primary economic hubs.
It's then up to voters to create laws to protect rural lands, UGBs and limit taxes. It seems OR has done a bit better job overall than WA in terms of limiting urban sprawl, protecting rural lands, etc... The Oregon Tax Revolt also helped get measure 50 passed which was inspired at least in part by California's Prop 13 to limit annual property tax increases. I'm not sure if its as effective as Prop 13. But it's a least something to help curb what is otherwise going on across the boarder in WA with no limits in sight.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 01-02-2021 at 12:09 AM..
My advice for Californians thinking of moving to Oregon: Don't. It's not the annoying native Oregonians that are the problem. It's the weather. It's cold and gloomy for most of the year. Then when the weather finally gets nice (July 5th), it's scorching hot, pollen infested air, smoke from fires, whatever. It's always something. So Cal has near perfect weather almost all the time. Oregon rarely has that.
The problem is, when you live a free country, people can move wherever they want to.
No, the problem isnt moving the problem is too many people. They swarm somewhere, ruin it, then swarm somewhere else and ruin that. If 10 people were moving from Cal to Oregon every year nobody would blink.
No, the problem isnt moving the problem is too many people. They swarm somewhere, ruin it, then swarm somewhere else and ruin that. If 10 people were moving from Cal to Oregon every year nobody would blink.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from. It's not like Californians are not sympathetic to population explosions of their own like the OP who asked the question. Any Californian who has lived in one of the large metro areas knowns exactly what its like to watch their hometown completely changed forever. And the magnitude and rate is pretty astounding. I mean, think about it for a moment. If you grow up in a state that grows from 20 to 40 million and most of those people live in the metros, that is crazy population expansion. Just jump on the freeways of LA, SF or SD and you'll experience it first hand. It can really be nuts - a true concrete jungle. And who do they blame when people are literally flooding in from all over the nation and world? They can't blame Oregon or any other single state. It's a madhouse of influx from all over. So, there are quite a number who decide to escape that madness for lessor crowded regions. Can you really blame them?
Now imagine you have a country with a greater population than Canada, Australia or Saudi Arabia at your border with no movement restrictions. People will naturally flow in and out, sometimes in larger numbers. That being said, Oregon's population growth has been relatively small in number by comparison. During that same 50 year timeframe CA grew by 20 million, OR grew by 2 million. Add to that the majority who migrated did so to primarily a handful of cities. Let's take the Portland Metro which changed from 800k to 2.1 million over 50 years. That is a lot of people, no doubt. But compared to one of the larger CA metros its pretty small in comparison. LA, where I grew up is up to 12.5 million and climbing. That's triple the entire state of OR. Needless to say, I would never move back there again. It is way overcrowded now.
By contrast, there are surprisingly many towns in Oregon with very low or no population growth in the last decade+. The coastal towns have very low populations with slow growth. Coos Bay, for example, the largest coastal town, grew from only 13.5k to 16.5 over the last 50 years. After visiting much of state I would guess there are far fewer towns growing than actually are especially with any sort of boom expansion like Bend or PDX. Maybe Eugene or Salem, possibly? We can't forget about Ashland that really belongs to former Californians anyway. lol
That said, it would be interesting to see a map of where all the Californians who are leaving migrate to. I think WA, OR, AZ, CO, TX and FL would be the most likely candidates. They're definitely not going to North Dakota in any kind of significant numbers.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 01-02-2021 at 03:13 PM..
"The USA is a free country, move wherever you like, and be prepared for those who follow to 'bump' you out or change the livability / QoL"
Continue on
True, the same could be said for California, Colorado, Washington, Texas, Arizona, et al. Really any of these United States which are desirable will be susceptible to significant growth and in turn increased real estate prices. The impact of which will be dependent upon what folks need to do to remain including property tax laws among other things.
Maybe other more regulated countries would be more restrictive which could actively 'CAP' population growth and property sales or 'freeze' movement within. Japan and other nations actively regulate population limiting children allowed per family. Even socialist and communist countries allow some degree of movement within their countries depending on the nation. China has been known for limiting movement especially of country folks into their cities.
"Rural dwellers were attracted by the new job opportunities, which promised an escape from abject poverty in China’s countryside. But migrating from the countryside to the city came with its own challenges. While it provided a pathway for social upward mobility, rural migrants routinely experienced discrimination at the hands of Chinese city-dwellers. Rural migrants mostly carried out dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs, which urbanites were not willing to do." - In China, there's no freedom of movement, even between country and city
Some great information shared on this thread. I will give my two cents as a former Californian (also having lived for 3 years a few hours north of Seattle, and 1 year in the Minnesota Twin Cities) who moved up to Oregon in February 2020. For what it’s worth, I arrived without having a job offer locked in and I think local employers are much more likely to hire someone already living here in the area than they are to hire someone with an out-of-state address. Ended up getting offers for similar positions in Hermiston, La Grande, Tualatin, Woodburn, or Eugene; I chose to move to Eugene and it was an easy decision. Personal preference not to live close to the metropolis (Portland area) or in the remote smaller towns in eastern Oregon; the Willamette Valley more-or-less offered what I was seeking. If money and employment was no object, I might choose Deschutes County or Ashland/Jacksonville area, but these are a reasonable driving distance away so I can make do as an occasional tourist to those areas!
Economy/Housing Market/Culture: Yes, there is a general anxiety amongst Oregonians of modest means, about Californians “driving housing prices up with their big cash from their home sales,” but no real hatred or anything like that. I drove around with California plates for the first 6 months and was fine. People realize that it’s a free country and outsiders will move in. The good news is there’s a lot of towns and rural areas that are still perfectly pleasant places to live for Oregon natives and others who do not have any out-of-state equity accumulated. I have an uncle who works in real estate in Bend/Redmond and seems to sell to a wealthier, older demographic looking for the desirable outdoor lifestyle. The major retirement destinations in the state are Bend and Ashland, maybe Grants Pass as well, the major destination for the younger people moving in from out-of-state is Portland. Especially in Ashland or Bend, it seems very common for wealthier Californians to be moving to town, if my parents were to cash out on their house in San Jose and move up to Oregon (don’t worry Oregonians, I don’t think they have any intention of doing this!), they would probably fit this stereotype to a T and could have the choice to live in Bend/Ashland, but for myself as someone in my mid-20’s moving here without any real estate I had a different experience and was on a more level playing field with the locals. I am in my “root-setting” stage of life where I’m working full-time and contributing to the local economy, so a mid-sized city such as Salem, Eugene, or Medford was what appealed most to me. Monmouth/Independence was where I initially moved to last February and those are very nice, working class, medium-sized towns. Many similar towns such as Albany, Dallas, Lebanon, Junction City dot the expanse of the Willamette Valley around I-5 and seem commutable to larger labor markets in Salem or Eugene. The smaller towns outside of the valley like Roseburg or Klamath Falls are in scenic areas but strike me as more “rough around the edges,” limited job markets and therefore higher poverty but also more affordable. So there’s always these trade-offs. If I had a family I might be more inclined to move to small-town Oregon, I would certainly consider this type of move in ten or twenty years’ time.
I agree with the previous commenters that Oregonians are generally less “flashy” than Californians and expect that outsiders try to assimilate to the norms in this regard. I have always had a pretty simple lifestyle myself so I fit in well without having to make any adjustments. It may just be a rural vs. urban phenomenon, but I can speak my observations of having lived near the cities of Salem and Eugene as compared to the Bay Area and CA Central Valley. Not as much of a competitive, high risk- high reward work culture exists in Oregon, trucks and Subaru’s are preferred instead of aspiring to luxury vehicles, it is more family-friendly. A downside is that Oregon has less racial diversity than California and probably more racism as a result. A positive is that the income extremes feels much less pronounced between the have’s and have-not’s than it did in California with more people in the economic middle as compared to Silicon Valley where you were either wealthy or you were poor. I feel much less pressure than I would feel if I was trying to make it in the Bay Area rat race. For example I am currently in the process of buying a house in Springfield, OR with a mortgage payment for a 3bd/2bth house several hundred dollars less than what my brother pays for rent on a studio apartment in the Bay Area. I do appreciate the tax measure limiting property tax increases to 3% per year, once you have a mortgage it makes housing payments very predictable and the impact is more-or-less offset by yearly salary step increases and COLA adjustments. Not as “prime” of a location, but fits my own preferred lifestyle just fine without the crazy traffic. Springfield seems a sensible place to live with the home values being less than Eugene’s while having a recently revitalized downtown and the same easy access to mountains and nature as its larger sister city. There are of course the stereotypes that Eugene has more of the “crunchy granola hippies” maybe due to the presence of a university while Springfield’s got the “gun-toting flag-waving conservatives” maybe due to it being a former timber town, however I don’t give too much credence to these stereotypes, the two cities pretty much blend together and there’s something for everyone.
Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries are both a blessing and a curse. On one hand I love taking an easy Sunday drive on the country roads and you can be in a more rural area within about 5 minutes to get away from hustle and bustle of any Oregon city (not speaking for the Portland metro, that’s one place that I rarely visit). On the other hand, housing inventory is very low for the level of demand which drives up prices. Home values are appreciating FAST, at least where I live in Eugene/Springfield. We need more affordable housing solutions and I think as a new generation comes of age with different lifestyle expectations than our parents and grandparents, more affordable co-op types of housing developments should be built as a solution. Housing policy must be made more favorable to building affordable housing for the working class than it is to developers of luxury units. Smaller units closer together or growing up rather than out, but designed in an intentional and tidy manner, would be a benefit to many of Oregon’s mid-sized cities as they go through their growing pains.
Climate: As for the weather being cold and gloomy as a reason not to move to Oregon, I think it’s all a matter of personal preference. I’m writing this staring out my window at a gray sky with rain coming down in the middle of a rainy week in a rainy month. Last Sunday, the sunlight came out and it was a brilliant day, tons of people enjoying the sunshine at the local park, a mood of jubilation and a beautiful experience enjoying the views of the green hills that surround three sides of Eugene. I have learned to truly appreciate these types of days more living in the Pacific Northwest than I ever did growing up in San Jose, California. In Silicon Valley and the Central Valley in California constant sun is the default and there’s often a heat that keeps people inside on sunny days, many over-populated, desert-type areas of CA feel as though they weren’t meant for so many humans to live there and have to pull in literally all water from out of the region. The Willamette Valley in my opinion is a climate that shows its seasons well, the greenery is maintained by the climate and if we didn’t have all this rain in the winters then it surely would not be as scenic of a region as it is. Also, wildfires are a big concern on the west coast; rain is the best medicine against fires. Ashland and Medford are more fire-prone than anywhere in the Willamette Valley or the Coast and would make me uncertain about living there, so you would have to decide whether that’s a risk you want to take on. I have spent time working in the rural areas in the Sierra Nevada foothills near Yosemite over the summers during my college years. At one point I really wanted to move to Tuolumne, Calaveras, Amador, or Mariposa counties full-time but chose to go to Oregon instead, where I could be more confident in my house being protected from fire. Would consider retirement in the Sierra Foothills but that’s 40 years out and who knows what the climate will be like by then!
Overall, we’ve got to remember that populations ebb and flow everywhere in the United States. Americans are the sort who like to seek out ever-greener pastures. My hometown in the Silicon Valley of the 90’s and early 2000’s was already on the brink of becoming what it is today when I was a kid, and even though that wasn’t too long ago it still feels like the area has done a 180 to get gentrified into a pocket of tech wealth that I’m not so comfortable with myself. I’m thinking about the perspectives of my parents and grandparents who have lived in San Jose/Cupertino their whole lives and the family having owned the same house since 1958… they’ve definitely had to adapt! If we are so bent on our towns staying the same as they’ve always been then that’s a recipe for being constantly annoyed by each little change. As I set roots down in Oregon I know I’ll have to go with the flow and accept changes as they come along. I think it’s sensible to not be so attached to one place that it’s the end of the world if you have to move. Oregon is a beautiful state and a great place to call home, I’m sure anyone moving in will find that the communities are friendly and welcoming!
The problem is, when you live a free country, people can move wherever they want to. It's part of what makes America a great nation. However, in a free, capitalistic society you can't pick and choose who gets to buy property vs. not just like buying produce, automobiles or TVs. An American is American, pure and simple. California just happens to have more Americans than any other state in the nation and some with deeper pockets. And guess what? They move around to every state in the nation. Elon Musk is moving to Texas which is apparently big news. Add to that international investors and we truly live in global economy where anyone who wants to buy property can when within their legal rights to do so.
None of the transplants I know of, whether from California, Texas or any other state do so maliciously with evil intent even though easy targets to blame for higher prices and taxes. It's simply how capitalism works, Econ 101 - supply and demand. No one is to blame for that unless you don't like capitalism itself or rather the way in which it is implemented. The same is true for insane real estate prices in California. Who would pay $2.2 million for a broken down old shack? Well, apparently some do if in the right location.
Unless the state or county change building permit rules, zoning laws, tax limits, etc... it will naturally grow in desirable locations with semi-descent weather. There are no plots or grand conspiracies by individuals who move to a new location to do you wrong. They're simply going somewhere more desirable for themselves and their family which they have every right to as Americans. This will increase at a greater rate as more people can work remotely post Covid. Americans in general are spreading out more from their primary economic hubs.
It's then up to voters to create laws to protect rural lands, UGBs and limit taxes. It seems OR has done a bit better job overall than WA in terms of limiting urban sprawl, protecting rural lands, etc... The Oregon Tax Revolt also helped get measure 50 passed which was inspired at least in part by California's Prop 13 to limit annual property tax increases. I'm not sure if its as effective as Prop 13. But it's a least something to help curb what is otherwise going on across the boarder in WA with no limits in sight.
Derek
There's a 5 acre parcel on the east edge of my property. The last time I checked, some Californian had paid $187,000 for it. It will never be buildable. My area is zoned ag-forest resource land, 80 acre lot minimum, 160 acre minimum to get a building permit. It has been zoned that way since 1983, when land use planning went into effect. Of course, there is also no water, and no road access. Somebody spent a lot of money without due diligence. There are recreational lots between LaPine and Bend that are also not buildable because they are a foot of soil on top of Newberry lava.
I always tell people who want to buy buildable acreage in Oregon to check with county planning before they waste their money.
There's a 5 acre parcel on the east edge of my property. The last time I checked, some Californian had paid $187,000 for it. It will never be buildable. My area is zoned ag-forest resource land, 80 acre lot minimum, 160 acre minimum to get a building permit. It has been zoned that way since 1983, when land use planning went into effect. Of course, there is also no water, and no road access. Somebody spent a lot of money without due diligence. There are recreational lots between LaPine and Bend that are also not buildable because they are a foot of soil on top of Newberry lava.
I always tell people who want to buy buildable acreage in Oregon to check with county planning before they waste their money.
Yes. People come from other states that are more lax. And think all they need to do is apply for a zoning variance, or appeal to the "Good ol' Boy down at the county office, or whatever. Like they are used to doing in TX or FL. Or they just assume that one can do whatever one wants on their rural land. And they find out the hard way it doesn't work like that here. If one wants to build on rural land, there's an immense amount of that in states like Texas where you can basically do what you want. Why punish yourself by trying to do that here?
There's a 5 acre parcel on the east edge of my property. The last time I checked, some Californian had paid $187,000 for it. It will never be buildable. My area is zoned ag-forest resource land, 80 acre lot minimum, 160 acre minimum to get a building permit. It has been zoned that way since 1983, when land use planning went into effect. Of course, there is also no water, and no road access. Somebody spent a lot of money without due diligence. There are recreational lots between LaPine and Bend that are also not buildable because they are a foot of soil on top of Newberry lava.
I always tell people who want to buy buildable acreage in Oregon to check with county planning before they waste their money.
Maybe he's banking on a miracle change to current building codes. I would hate to think someone spends close to $200k without research first. But folks gamble more $$ on other things, I guess. I wonder if the land has any use?
Building restrictions can actually be a very beneficial to protect rural communities, natural preserves, endangered environments, state and BLM lands while limiting dangerous or toxic areas and then providing more for public access (hiking biking trails). While living in Monterey, there was basically no land or very little available to build on. So, even with millions of visitors coming through Pebble Beach, Carmel, Big Sur, Monterey and Santa Cruz, the environment was well maintained vs. raped and overbuilt like other parts of CA. And population growth was minimal, basically flat in a highly desirable area. While folks wanted more buildable land, no one wanted over development either.
Sometimes rich land owners would sell parts of their huge ranches in Big Sur to the state to provide more public access trails. IMO, its definitely a balance to maintain a certain QOL for residents while protecting the natural environment for all.
Derek
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
