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.
Thanks for providing real, concrete proposals! I will need to ponder each and weigh in tomorrow or Monday. I like the idea of capturing assets in local institutions. Building homes for more retirees? Not sure. Certianly there will be a market, but that market might tank when the boomer flow ebbs. Not sure about that either. I am gun shy about building at the moment. In any case, thanks for throwing out some real substance for us to chew on!
Thanks for the well wishes and I wish you a good new year as well.
I know homes for retirees and especially as a lead strategy is not going to be liked or accepted by all or even many but I picked it largely based on it being a perceived and fairly significant competitive advantage. Oregon has natural beauty and many communities that a lot of mid-aged and older people like. It is adjacent to California where many are looking for an alternative or a new chapter.
What other big competitive advantage does the rest of Oregon outside its north to central I-5 urban corridor have over other places in the west and the US as a whole? I am not sure but will think about it a bit more and of course am open to hearing about them from others. Another big picture strategy I can think of for the rest of Oregon- that I think can happen (and that may eliminate more funding broadly for education)- is trying to pick off small and medium new economy firms from the Portland to Eugene corridor and when that happens it is not a net gain for the state as a whole and it is most like to end up being only one or two hops away from the existing developments and not a large shift in numbers of firms or a long distance shift geographically or that quick a change.
Building 55+ communities is a bit different than just going for vacationing tourists. They semi-integrate into the community and bring experiences/tastes/skills/passions as well as money. They don't necessarily change everything around them, they pick and choose what to participate in and how much to stay to themselves. Some might also bring a reluctance to vote for school taxes in a place other than where they raised their kids though so it is probably not all sweetness & light. But it is a real sector of opportunity in a country breaking records on the number of senior citizens, when other economic sectors are declining, stalled, saturated or logically or just happily enough set elsewhere.
Arizona and Florida have led in this retirement sector but other states are becoming bigger players. In the west Texas, Nevada, Utah are for sure growing players. Colorado and New Mexico are out there too and probably doing pretty well.I not sure exactly where Oregon, Washington and Idaho currently rate relative to these other states but their quantity of in-migrant seniors is likely to grow. Whether their national share does as well will depend on many factors including how aggressively the states seek them. I am not a growth enthusiast but rather want to be a growth realist. Building the new west with people who want to be in the new west sounds like a decent enterprise. And while you can encourage or discourage to a degree, you can't really probably can't stop a trend that has enough logic or energy behind it. (I'd think many in Colorado and California would agree with that even if they are not happy at all about it.)
But if you want a younger crowd (instead or in addition to 55+): crank up the state, local and business funding of public event centers / concerts, push on wifi and 3 and 4G, find ways to give tax credits for coffee houses and brew houses or new small business in general, focus on turning medium and small current downtowns into much more lively downtowns, build and market local food and green living efforts, build condos, etc. I didn't think of this strategy initially and I'd say play it and anything else you think worthwhile for what you can make of it. But can the rest of the state do that strategy as well as the Portland to Eugene corridor to pick off some of the population and economic growth? The past would suggest that strategy is likely to do best where it is already being done and is most likely to keep going there; but I'd guess a few more places can be at least moderately successful at it too- if they want to and really try hard. Harder and better than they have though. Maybe places like Medford / Grants Pass, Roseburg, Klamath Falls, Pendleton and LaGrande break into even higher levels of visibility and good growth in the next decade or two or maybe they don't.
Thanks for the feedback. Now and later as it comes.
Even as boomer flow ebbs, I think the number over 65 is likely going to grow for quite awhile due to advances in life expectancy. Maybe an inflection point is eventually reached, maybe not.
The battle between the stats for manufacturing plants is about location, skill availability, wages, cost of living, cost of business, regulatory environment, etc. I am not up on all those details. Sure, fight for those, change as you need and are willing to do better. I am not sure Oregon changes its relative position much in that fight anytime soon though. Maybe they have some advantages for foreign investment, especially from asian countries. Maybe they could gain further advantage with greater / better efforts but that is pretty competitive. Most sectors are.
Retirement communities? I'm not sure they are fought over quite as much but if you want job growth where you may be able to get it (when the banks are back to being willing to make those construction loans or you create / grow local banks who can and will responsibly), I'd look into it, look into using what competitive advantage you may have (though the property and income taxes will counterbalance some of the advantages. with some people more than others). Folks can consider actively aiding it (among other things) or maybe just be less resistant to it. That is, if it pencils out overall. If the developments go into the county and avoid city taxes (as they usually do) and if the wealth goes to national banks that ship most of it away from the locality instantaneously and support for school funding is made shakier or worse then it might not be such a good path. So my set of proposals tried to address some of those factors. FWIW.
I should clarify that I was mainly advancing the prospect of 55+ communities with year-round residents. The second home market is pretty dead, probably likely to get worse rather than better. Part-time residents probably don't impact local financial deposits that much either. If you want year round residents you have to target that and provide enough of what they seek to actually take that path. So maybe you put such developments in at least somewhat more practical places- lower elevations, nearer cities and hospitals. Or, if you put them in a resort area, you probably will have to provide relatively full services, all year to achieve the goal of year-round residents / new citizens and not just have fairly long-term versions of tourists.
I am a bit worried about major building, but I will say that businesses related to eldercare, elder hostels, health care, and end of life care are all very good options for growth industries given the demographics. I also agree that with the increase in life expectancy, grey will be the new black. However, the idea of carving up our hillsides building McMansions for the retiring boomers seems like a good way to quickly trash the place. Here in Ashland, the future is now. Two of our five schools have closed, and home prices, sizes are still targeted toward retiring boomers with $$$. Kind of a bummer for the rest of us. But your notion of retirement communities, that would be compact, have great fitness facilities, meal plans/options, house cleaning, and community offerings sound great. Also, I agree that Oregon is particularly well situated to provide service to the legions of retiring Californians and Washingtonians who want to see beautiful scenery, but not be too far from the family. Now that I think of it, proactive planning for retirement communities, and perhaps the notion that their estates would support open space, wildlife habitat, walking and biking trails,etc. would be vastly superior to retiring to Oregon to carve up the woods into fenced 5 acre kingdoms.
A few ideas:
I personally would also like to see Oregon lead the West in the processing of small diameter timber from private and federal lands. We have talked about it, but the movement has yet to gain too much traction. Perhaps development of accessories for fireproofing rural homes would also be a good idea too.
Of course, I will suggest green energy as a potential growth arena. Though I am concerned that Oregon does not have ideal geography for any of the major sources (not a terrific amount of sun, wind). Sure we have water, but I wonder how we will do hydropower without trashing the salmon runs. I would gladly be proven wrong on all three.
I am not sure if this already exists, but I think the state should sponsor the Oregon University System or perhaps a 501C3 foundation specifically to foster innovation with state funding supplement with private donations. Something with a name like the Oregon Innovation Congress could convene every year in different parts of Oregon, and where people would share ideas, and Oregonian groups would develop proposals to be selected for $100k startup grants in different categories like manufacturing, energy, service, agriculture, arts, science,etc. I bet we could fund it to $1-5 M / year, with anywhere from 10-20 awards. A lot of people love this state but don't really know where to start. I know I would love to invest my money (what little I have!) in the state.
Small diameter timber could support your Oregoncraft... as furniture.
Green energy is attractive to some as part of new construction and with tax credits for folks with taxes to offset. Mainly solar and geothermal in certain spots. Wind supported at the large community level (say 500-5,000 residences)? Any micro-hydro opportunities out there that is cost-effective? If there are wind or water options a large development might be able to do it or a co-op could perhaps collect the larger developments and the scattered private residences into enough base to finance and run it.
The cottage house idea was in the mix of proposals directly to "try" to somewhat counter the affects of high dollar real estate pressures in the local market.
Foundations tend to get a good amount of their support from retirees with will bequests. Retirees, with money and from many places could bring good ideas for projects as well or just be willing to support them.
Looking back, Brenda was ahead of me in mentioning the retiree focus.
I like the idea of a Oregon Innovation Congress. Funded however you could get it started and then expand. The broader involvement in decision-making, the publicity generated, "validation" from the community, and leadership development might be a bit different that what flows from traditional grantmaking via state action, universities on their own and most foundations. Those organizations will still of course do lots on their own and dollar-wise much more. But maybe they would get useful ideas from watching / listening to a Oregon Innovation Congress making grants with a sliver of funding. In a period with active calls for new thinking and action from the left, center and right it might use a good thing to have a new "commons" where the people meet and discuss and build new ideas with promise and build majority support. If you can get the funders to see / feel their wisdom in tapping the time and wisdom of citizens, then maybe it might have a chance.
The growth thing feeds right into the More vs. Better question. There is no way to avoid it, growth involves trashing something. It involves congested highways, strained infrastructure, sterilization of the land with pavement and concrete, and social disruption from immigrants who do not share local values. Every immigrant uses facilities they didn't build or pay for. The sensible thing is to pay for growth with user fees, like Portland's water bills being used to pay for new sewage facilities.
Traditionally, Oregon's manufacturing has been driven by proximity to natural resources and transportation. Oregon needs manufacturing to bring money into the state. Unfortunately, state and federal regulation has been aimed directly at natural resource based industries. Just in 2010, the state struck what may be a fatal blow to the grass seed industry. Ten years ago, Oregon grew 90% of the grass seed sold in the USA. I know a dairyman who had to cancel plans to expand to Hermiston because the DEQ thought his cows and the Boardman Coal Plant would make the Columbia Gorge smoggy. Locking up timber sales from BLM land and National Forests, plus open borders for Canadian lumber, have almost shut down lumber manufacturing, traditionally Oregon's second largest industry after agriculture.
Urban people don't seem to under stand that, in Oregon, if you don't have a thriving rural economy, you don't have a thriving urban economy either.
Without manufacturing, the only possible growth industry for Oregon is retirement. If we can get enough people to bring their Social Security and pensions, plus their life's savings, it might replace some of the economic activity from manufactured goods export. If you are looking to invest in a growth industry, try mortuaries.
I think the McMansion thing was just a phase. I'm in my '60s, and the last thing I want is a huge multi-storey house on a hillside. People only bought McMansions because they thought they could sell them for enough profit to finance their nursing home stay. They won't make that mistake again. The future of retirement homes is a 2-bedroom/2-bath ranch style with a bonus room/office. I know a developer who is building a retirement community of all single storey duplexes, designed for care givers to live in one unit and the elderly to live in the other. He had quite a few hoops to jump through, since the State of Oregon banned construction of all new elderly care centers unless the developer could demonstrate need within the community. The state government really is hostile to many forms of economic development.
As for the schools, people keep voting long mandatory prison sentences. We have been spending more on prisons than we spend on higher education since the early '90s. The Oregon Health Plan is really a great way to deal with Medicaid, but people refuse to vote for separate funding, so the money (mandated by federal rules) comes out of the general fund. Traditionally, schools have been funded from property taxes, but the voters cut property taxes without voting any new taxes to take up the slack. I don't see Oregon spending any more money on schools. Parents of K-12 students should be prepared to supplement their children's education at home, and college students should be prepared to face escalating tuition and fees, with larger class sizes.
Total nonfarm employment 1,607,700
Total private 1,308,000 Mining and logging 7,300
Construction 64,400
Manufacturing 162,100
Durable goods 111,900
Nondurable goods 50,200 Trade, transportation, and utilities 314,900
Wholesale Trade 75,900 Retail trade 186,200
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 52,800
Financial activities 93,700
Real estate and rental and leasing 35,300 Professional and business services 178,500
Administrative and waste services 78,900 Educational and health services 226,700
Educational services 30,700
Leisure and hospitality 166,000
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 23,600
Accommodation and food services 142,400
Other services 58,900 Government 299,700
High tech skews those numbers to the high end, since most of the high tech companies ditched manufacturing locally and employ mostly engineering. The Silicon Forest has cut way, way back from peak employment in the mid/late 90s (I believe the number is around half as many people employed in high tech now).
High tech and biotech are ships that have either sailed away or failed to actually come in (biotech) fully. High tech because it's cheaper to offshore the jobs and biotech because of the lack of a major research univ in the PDX area (sorry, my alma mater, PSU, you don't quite cut it).
The problem with the various chip and wafer companies is that those industries are boom-and-bust cycles - for a few years the companies hire pretty much anyone with any experience and then a few years later they lay them off as the product hits a market glut. Rinse and repeat on about a 5- to 7-year cycle. In the meantime, companies demand huge tax breaks for the fabs which sit idle for a cycle and then are declared obsolete.
Look at Tektronix, now a subsidiary of Danaher - there were nearly 25,000 people employed by Tek when we started there in 82. Through layoffs, consolidation and business unit sales, there are now something like 3,000 and that number keeps dropping. Some of the early spin-offs prospered and grew, but most of them were bought by competitors and swallowed whole.
High tech and IT (which are not necessarily the same thing) can be part of the picture, but a lot of people counted on high tech to save the PDX metro area and it didn't and won't - Plan B is going to have to be more diversified.
You're lacking quite a bit of perspective there - you need to look at historic levels, BEFORE the supply of timber was cut off and the Canada-US timber war started. Historically the timber industry provided a huge percentage of the jobs in rural areas. A drive down any highway outside the metro area will show you the crumbling remains of mills and drying sheds and sawdust burners.
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.
