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.
I perfer my food to not be genetically modified and filled with pesticides, which means lower yields. I also like it to have nutrition in it, which means local produce. Also, food created today does not have the same nutirional impact that it did 50 years ago, due to the overfarming of the soil (hey I grew up in DeKalb, Il which is corn capitol of the US and worked in corn fields starting at 12). Higher yield is not a good thing for the consumer, but that is an entirely different discussion.
Oh I so agree with this. I fondly remember eating corn, beans, etc., that were grown just down the road from me in the Applegate Valley - free of pesticides.
On the other hand, this same farmer filed a measure 37 claim to allow aggragate mining on his property, claiming he couldn't make a living farming anymore. IMO, people hadn't really been able to make a living farming corn for 20 years, with the amount of land he had anyway.
His land was still quite farmable, he was just older and didn't want to put out the effort anymore.
I think it would behoove us all to preserve good soils whenever possible. I also don't think you get to drain the water table with a subdivision and leave the 5 surrounding properties with none. No one gets to be that self-centered. If that were the case, why have rules?
A big AMEN to that one!
I also don't think opponents of measure 37 are socialists. I think that is a big stretch. I also don't think land use laws lead to socialism either. Most real estate agents and land use attorneys will agree that Measure 37 had good intent and poor execution. Trying to find a compromise between individual rights and community issues is part of living with a group of people. I mean, I don't get to drive down the middle of the road, or run a red light just because I own a car. Since we all have to share, we need to play nice. That means that some people will win big and some will lose big, but hopefully for most there will be an acceptable compromise somewhere in the middle.
[quote=freedom;2249564]Looks like we've been given the okay.
I would take land use zoning back to the late 70's possibly 1978 (just off the top of my head). They instituted the need for surveys, and proper road and driveway designations that dropped the number of property line civil disputes, yet still allowed for WR (woodlot resource) zoning to be changed to Rural residential if the soil and vegetation was not supportive of WR designation. 1/2 acre rural properties were also allowed as long as well and septic were feasable, which in most areas (at least in So. OR.) is no problem.
Now its 2 1/2 ac. min. which had to be existing 90% of the existing Rural lands. The real min. lot size is 5 ac. in reality.
- - -I think this is where the most significant change is going to take place within the next few years as part of the Big Look process. The economics has changed radically in this state since the land use regulations were put in place in the 1970s. I would cautiously support allowing for more subdivision on the smaller acreage parcels in lieu of what is taking place now in that people are buying 160 acre Farm parcels or 240 acre Forest land parcels on turning them into single family residential home sites and takes thousands of acres out of farm production and private forest land production. In the 1970s, no one ever envisioned a people to so easily be able to seek out and buy for residential use these large acre tracts, thereby taking them out of natural resource production. We now have so many conflicts between commercial and family farm operations with people who object to living next to typical farm or private forest land harvesting practices. I have actually helped certain counties draft encumbrances that attach to any property within certain Farm/Forest zones that they can not object to or interrupt with common agricultural practices within that zone. Having said that, Confined Animal Feeding Operations are proliferating across Oregon and I do not consider that a common or customary agricultural practice. They need to be regulated like the heavy industry that they are with set back requirements and adherence to both the Federal Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, which they are presently exempt from due to Oregon's Right to Farm legislation. I think that we need to move forward with great caution in allowing the 2.5 to 5 acre parcels you mention be further subdivided for residential home sites and balance that with open space preservation criteria and ground water issues. In theory, this should help lesson the load of development on the larger acerage parcels. If it ends up that we are still developinig at a rapid rate on both large and small acreage sites, that will prove un-sustainable and provisions will need to be set to adjust for the property long-term balance of where development takes place.
I would also allow all farms to build as many homes for family members as they wished, in that they could live and work on the farm if they chose and keep families together.
- - -I could not agree with you more! I've been advocating for this to change for years to allow more hardship dwellings on Oregon's family farms and ranches. The ironic think is this was the primary advertising argument in favor or Measure 37, which proved only to be a very small number of the actual 7,600 total claims filed.
Poor soil and water properties were allowed to be converted to Rural res., Now if it is EFU and the soil is not of decent quality or if irrigation and water are not possible to sustain the acreage, it still reamains as EFU (exclusive farm use).
- - -Wildlife habitat, Hydrological ground water aquifer recharge and quality of life open space perservation are among other needs and benefits that are part of this whole land equation. Many of these property owners are in a position to sell conservation easements or take advantage of federal programs thru the National Conservation Resource Service such as Conservation Reserve Programs.
We have lost all reason and logic when it comes to hillside development, the Article 76 fire codes are rediculously cumbersome, and unrealistic. The road designs are extreme and having to put sprinklers in a home that is on a 25% slope or higher when 800' off of a county rd. is nothing more than trying to kill hillside development all together. They do give you the other option of 20,000 gals. of water storage, if you don't want to put the sprinklers in.
- - -As a state and a nation, we (all taxpayers) spend Millions of dollars fighting fires and trying to save high-end rural homes from being consumed by fires that burn almost annually within Federal and private forestlands, inparticular hillside residential home development along the wildland/urban interface. Its not a question of if, but when fire will endanger these home sites, even more so today as we are in the midst of multi-year droughts through out the West and with climate change, we will not be gettinig back to normal snowpack levels anytime soon. In addition, it has been proven that over the long-term that municipal goverments spend twice the amount to maintain sewer, water and road infrastructure on hillside developments versus non-hillside development.
Every regulation needs to look at the cost to those that wish to live here, and how it relates to affordable housing, and excessive permitting. which adds tens of thousands to development costs, which can not be absorbed by builders and developers. Whenever you bring up the cost factor the Gov't body doesn't want to hear it, nor do they care, they say we can just pass it on, and we know how that adds to the greedy developer BS.
- - -I agree that in the case of a planned affordable housing development that local government should have in place mechanism that significantly reduces the up-front costs for builders (these systems exist in various forms elsewhere). But having said that, a ten year study was done recently that encompassed 198 small, medium and large Western towns and found that for every $1 Million dollars in property tax revenue generated by new development, it costs $1.35 Million dollars to maintain and provide services to the same. All of us bear the costs of development, not just the builder or developer.
Well, you guys are really scaring me.
This is just the same reason we want out of California. We can't do what ever we want with our own land. Let me explain.
We have 2 acres and we have 8 dogs. Our laws say that we have to many dogs for the land we have. We need 2.5 acres. Then they want us to have a kennel license with cages outside with septic going to each kennel.
My dogs are inside/outside dogs. Their ages don't matter to them. They are all in their 10's. So we are running scared that code enforcement will come and take our dogs and kill them and they will if we don't leave.
Please tell me that isn't so in Oregon. We want about 2 acres in a rural area. Is this posible??????
Interesting, it looks like we have some agreement on development designs.
Quote:
Chrisruns2far- - -As a state and a nation, we (all taxpayers) spend Millions of dollars fighting fires and trying to save high-end rural homes from being consumed by fires that burn almost annually within Federal and private forestlands, inparticular hillside residential home development along the wildland/urban interface. Its not a question of if, but when fire will endanger these home sites, even more so today as we are in the midst of multi-year droughts through out the West and with climate change, we will not be gettinig back to normal snowpack levels anytime soon. In addition, it has been proven that over the long-term that municipal goverments spend twice the amount to maintain sewer, water and road infrastructure on hillside developments versus non-hillside development.
The percentage is Oregon is not high enough to me, for the regulations to be so strict. Not to open another debate, but the climate change, imo. Is more cyclical than a end of the world event.
There have been banana and kiwi fossils discovered in Oregon.
Quote:
- - -I agree that in the case of a planned affordable housing development that local government should have in place mechanism that significantly reduces the up-front costs for builders (these systems exist in various forms elsewhere). But having said that, a ten year study was done recently that encompassed 198 small, medium and large Western towns and found that for every $1 Million dollars in property tax revenue generated by new development, it costs $1.35 Million dollars to maintain and provide services to the same. All of us bear the costs of development, not just the builder or developer.
We have a messed up tax system for sure, but I think you also have to add to the equation the economic benefits that the development and construction jobs bring to the state and local communities. Every dollar a builder spends goes 10 times through the local economy. Then the state taxes that income as well. I think we carry our weight in terms of giving back. Let alone the comfort and security and joy that home ownership provides.
The regulation (required design and engineering, fire plan, erosion control, wetlands review, ) cost of the permits and process alone on a 5 acre subdivision that I am working on adds over $50,000 per lot to the cost of creating the parcel. Add in the cost of the land, taxes on the land, interest and loan payments while it takes 2 yrs. to get approval and the profit is 7%- 10%, the RE agents make more because they make 5% on the total sale price, not 5% of the developers profit.
You have to make sure that you build the home in order to make a living off of the land that is developed.
All of that sum up is what causes only the well off to really be able to live here on a piece of land bigger than 10,000 s.f. in town.
Which the State has decided through regulation and supply and demand that they only want people to live in cities.
All of that sum up is what causes only the well off to really be able to live here on a piece of land bigger than 10,000 s.f. in town.
Which the State has decided through regulation and supply and demand that they only want people to live in cities.
freedom
Unfortunately, we have come to the point that almost any acerage property in the Western United States can only be afforded by those of us who at the very least fall into the upper-middle class catagory or who were fortunate enough to have acquired property or real estate before the price explosion sent values to un-obtainable levels. The same has played out in all Western States no matter if there are loose land use regulations in place or more comprehensive. The western rural lands affordability issue is seperate from land use planning as regulations do not set or control price when price is secondary to so many individuals who seek property out west, be it for a second or third home, or those seeking maximum open space and scenic settings. People of average means have been permantently removed from the rural living experience in Oregon and in all Western states, except in the case of inheritance.
I think that both sides have wiggle room to broker a reasonable compromise on the future of Oregon land use regulations. IMO, Measure 37 was not a reasonable approach and I appluad the majority of voters in Oregon for realizing just that.
I know that my topic was not of interest to some but could be to others. Would you please tell me about my post. I guess I could find that out searching around but you are in Oregon and know whats up there. I would greatly appreciate it a lot.
I know that my topic was not of interest to some but could be to others. Would you please tell me about my post. I guess I could find that out searching around but you are in Oregon and know whats up there. I would greatly appreciate it a lot.
Thanks Just lookin
If you know which county that you want to move to. I would call the Animal control officer of that county or city that you are lookin at.
I know people that have more than 8 dogs in Josephine County, but I don't know the ordinance or the legality.
I hope that helps some.
Thanks freedom. Freedom is what I would like right now.
Best wishes with your dreams.
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.
You make some good points
