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.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,722 posts, read 58,054,000 times
Reputation: 46185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkcarguy
Oregon isn't going to attract the well-off/retired, simply due to that high 9.9% income tax. ... The whole coast is just getting too expensive for housing. It's to the point where most people can either retire and move .
Oregon and Washington will probably be reserved for those who can afford it. (Lower population numbers). There will be enough grunts to cover the reduced needs, but COL will be disproportionately high for them.
Total state revenue / budget will serve those who can still afford to live there. Recreation will probably be more accessible to those who remain, but it will cost. (It won't be free).
Florida is 25% public land. Unfortunately, all of that public land is covered with water one foot deep.
Florida is the nightmare, that is coming to the western states. All the private land developed and the public land overrun by humans.
We have the wet winters here which tends to keep the riff raff away. Especially on the coast. Your typical Florida retiree isn't going to last one winter in a place like Lincoln City before fleeing. There is a reason why the Oregon Coast doesn't look like Florida and it isn't just land use regulation. Try selling a house on the coast and see how much demand there is.
Florida is 25% public land. Unfortunately, all of that public land is covered with water one foot deep.
Florida is the nightmare, that is coming to the western states. All the private land developed and the public land overrun by humans.
Well, I can honestly speak from experience going through the biggest population explosion in our nation's history growing up in Southern CA. Having experienced over 20 million new residents added from every state and nation was crazy. And the RE developers went nuts building like there was no tomorrow or limits to the Big profits. Every possible land deal they could make to build on they did! Even fire zone areas up into the dry hills were fair game. Data, science or history didn't stand a chance in the face of such big profits and associated tax dollars. Everything got more impacted without the infrastructure to support it which led to the worst traffic in the nation. And the whole world watched as entire towns burned up, some in the worst fire zones. It reminds me of the building going on in lava paths in HI or flood plains throughout the nation. And we won't even get into hurricane zones since almost the entire state of FL can be in the path - annually.
In a way, CA serves as an example of what not to do with regards to a quickly growing population. So, after all these years, we are finally seeing a leveling and reprieve for CA with OR and possibly other western states to follow.
There is a new shift going on, a rebalancing as Americans spread out east and south. And every state deals with growth differently including Oregon. While many are unhappy with the restrictions OR places on much of the land for development, I can appreciate parts of that after experiencing the opposite including all the negative impacts of too many people upon a beautiful land - my home. Honestly, the best place I've lived with a good balance was Monterey, CA that essentially has Zero growth. Not because its undesirable, but because of stricter building codes and limitations where new homes can be built. It's very deliberate and slooooow making the environment and beauty of the place a priority vs. an afterthought. Its truly like living in another state when compared to SoCal and its concrete jungle.
Now, in Vancouver with so many new homes placed on top of old dairy farms and ranches, I'm questioning whether this freedom without adequate infrastructure is going in the right direction for future generations. Developers aren't required to build new parks or make other improvements to the community such as improve the major connecting highways. Instead, they just need to build more homes and turn a profit - capitalism unfettered. It sounds like many states are taking a similar approach unlike OR is which might actually be better for the state in the long run. It seems like responsible growth which respects both the environment and future generations is a very difficult thing to achieve in America.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 01-12-2023 at 11:44 PM..
Demographics is an established academic field and actually a very important one. If you want to know where to build a new hospital to take into account population growth over the next 25 years. Or if you are a school district that needs to build new schools and want to know what your projected student population is going to be in 5, 10, 20, and 30 years so you can decide where to build them and how big to make them. Then you need to do some sophisticated population studies.
Oh please. Just another government funded solution looking for a problem.
It's Portland State University, not the government. The director is basically chair of the program but they call it a convoluted name. It looks like the director is the only full time employee and his actual job is teaching demography and managing the staff who look like all part-time. Under him there are two research associates that appear to be PhD grad students and two adjuncts (part-time teachers). There is one secretary who may or not be full time. They call it a "center" but from their office listings it looks like it's one office space with multiple cubicles.
Population geography is a legit field. It's STEM, basically stats.
I'm confused why you think demographics is not a worthy field of study? A university's job is to... study stuff. This seems like a useful field.
Last edited by redguard57; 01-13-2023 at 01:57 AM..
I came from Chicago area to Portland to Salem. While the UGB laws create some issues, overall, I think they are more positive than a negative thing. The biggest negative is that because the rules come from the state, they can't shift fast enough to be proactive and prevent some issues like we have had with creating middle housing.
I worked as an EMT in college and went into Cabrini Green in Chicago which was the government-run low-income housing. That place was a pit. The neighborhoods here, while we have affluent and poor neighborhoods, don't have block after block of boarded-up and dilapidated homes. The UGBs force investors to continue to cycle and revitalize neighborhoods so we don't have ghettos here the way that other places do.
I don't know what the right balance is, but having come from a place of sprawl, I'll take Oregon's growth issues over that any day. Oregon is modeled after the density of European cities and hopefully one of these days, we can figure out how to do it better. They have clean cities with good public transportation.
I came from Chicago area to Portland to Salem. While the UGB laws create some issues, overall, I think they are more positive than a negative thing. The biggest negative is that because the rules come from the state, they can't shift fast enough to be proactive and prevent some issues like we have had with creating middle housing.
I worked as an EMT in college and went into Cabrini Green in Chicago which was the government-run low-income housing. That place was a pit. The neighborhoods here, while we have affluent and poor neighborhoods, don't have block after block of boarded-up and dilapidated homes. The UGBs force investors to continue to cycle and revitalize neighborhoods so we don't have ghettos here the way that other places do.
I don't know what the right balance is, but having come from a place of sprawl, I'll take Oregon's growth issues over that any day. Oregon is modeled after the density of European cities and hopefully one of these days, we can figure out how to do it better. They have clean cities with good public transportation.
All you have to do is drive north out of Dallas on US-75 to see how the endless suburban sprawl literally reaches 100 miles all the way to the Oklahoma border to realize that there has to be a better way.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,722 posts, read 58,054,000 times
Reputation: 46185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
I came from Chicago area to Portland to Salem. ...
I don't know what the right balance is, but having come from a place of sprawl, I'll take Oregon's growth issues over that any day. Oregon is modeled after the density of European cities and hopefully one of these days, we can figure out how to do it better. They have clean cities with good public transportation.
And Europe generally has quite high property valuations, so it would be a good model to explore, and Oregon could benefit.
Father-in-law, (now an Oregon resident) was a contractor in So CA from 1947-1971, so dealt with the sprawl and traffic / growth pains. Then he escaped to Colorado and unintentionally suffered through another 30 yrs of sprawl. (He never wanted to be a contractor, but had to eat and feed his family). He has lots of good advice!
Boulder CO started land use restrictions and planning in 1957, and by 1970 it was very restrictive (and fairly effective) for the wealthy and the greenies.
Denver took the overflow and suffered for it (Sprawl), miles and miles of tract homes and privacy fences, and a bundle of infrastructure expenses. (Fire, School, Roads, utilities, traffic...)
Oregon has had strict Land Use laws for many yrs, so will probably end up more like Boulder than Denver, with subsequent benefits. +/-.
The state will never be a huge economic powerhouse, nor will it become less expensive to live here. Plenty of affordable locations in Oregon still exist. There is a high probability that Oregon will not be an available destination for those on the lower financial rung. +/-, but there is the 'social justice' contingent who will purpose to set aside a portion of affordable housing. That will be nominally successful to avail housing to worker bees.
Those who are reaping the benefits of a double income household, and especially those rejoicing on the coattails of the earnings of their Dr or lawyer spouse / partner will be perfectly happy at home in Oregon.
It's Portland State University, not the government. The director is basically chair of the program but they call it a convoluted name. It looks like the director is the only full time employee and his actual job is teaching demography and managing the staff who look like all part-time. Under him there are two research associates that appear to be PhD grad students and two adjuncts (part-time teachers). There is one secretary who may or not be full time. They call it a "center" but from their office listings it looks like it's one office space with multiple cubicles.
Population geography is a legit field. It's STEM, basically stats.
I'm confused why you think demographics is not a worthy field of study? A university's job is to... study stuff. This seems like a useful field.
PSU is a public University and therefore funded by and an arm of State Government.
I did not state Demographics is not a useful enterprise I was laughing the title listed in the post and yes challenging the notion that other poster stated it is a "vital" need for future planing.
Private industry (that actually has financial incentive/risk and accountability metrics) must do their best to ensure they are not wasting resources and therefore will do it much better than a gov't funded boondoggle.
For example: If you want to know good area to invest. Look at where new McDonald's are being planned. That company has an amazing track record for knowing where population growth will occur.
PSU is a public University and therefore funded by and an arm of State Government.
I did not state Demographics is not a useful enterprise I was laughing the title listed in the post and yes challenging the notion that other poster stated it is a "vital" need for future planing.
Private industry (that actually has financial incentive/risk and accountability metrics) must do their best to ensure they are not wasting resources and therefore will do it much better than a gov't funded boondoggle.
For example: If you want to know good area to invest. Look at where new McDonald's are being planned. That company has an amazing track record for knowing where population growth will occur.
It's chartered and partly subsidized by the state, but the state doesn't run it.
Yes and the people they hire to do that kind of work degrees of this nature.
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.
