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 would suggest Salem area. There are a lot of parks, recreational areas, historical sights, and slower pace of life. I love farmers markets, waterfalls and beautiful flower farms. It doesn't snow there, but Mt Hood is just two hours away with great skiing resorts. Ocean is also near by. Housing is more affordable and prices are even going down a little bit due to slower real estate market.
I agree that the suburban sprawl in sothern Cal has gotten way out of hand. Not to mention the homes are built so darn close together and, at least in the area I live, the development of providing decent streets to handle all the new growth is not sufficient. But after reading through the last posts I can say I would never go up against arguing with Freedom..I can tell he is much wiser and smarter then I, and besides I might need him one day to build my dream home .
What I am curious about though is what kind of homes do those who have issue with Mr Freedom live in? Are you homeowners and if not might that have something to do with your disgust with him? Though I myself don't care for this trend living in a McMansions and using more resources then neccessary to maintain it, I am thankful that I have a nice home and I don't think I lined the pockets of one of those evil and land raping developers who invested in building homes affordable to working families.
He speaks from experience. If I'm not mistaken, he is from OC, went to the same high school as myself (although a few years before my time) and is a self taught/made man.
Since I've grown up in OC, I can attest to what sprawl is. When I visited OR last month, there is a lot of construction going on. Mind you, it is not anywhere near the scale of anything in SoCal or NV but in terms of OR, more than normal. They are being built primarily by local builders, on small subdivision of a few acres, most less than 10: basically small neighborhoods of a few blocks each. This is what I saw, I could've missed any large-scale developments but from what I gather, large scale development like the ones near LA/OC doesn't happen in OR. I did see large areas of recently built homes so I guess the area has been going through a period of growth.
As far as the "McMansion" myth, did not see any in OR. For those that don't really know what a McMansion is, go to West LA: basically building a 3000 sq ft home on a small lot where a 1000 sq ft home used to be, in a neighborhood full of only older 1000 sq ft homes so that the McMansion has only the minimal amount of space between its neighbors and blocks out any sun its neighbors might receive. Based on what subdivision the homes are being built on, there might be some new homes next to really old ones. But those homes are proper suburban-type homes with a ft & rr yards, some smaller than those of the olders homes.
It seems to me there is a portion of Oregonians against any progress or development and disguise it as "land poaching"& the like, typical haters calling out those they disagree with & the lives they lead. I fully understand, coming from squeezed out Socal, the desire to regulate growth & sprawl but the insinuations are mindless if you desire suburbia. Someone mentioned in-fill development over sprawl; it is happening as much as new areas being developed. All those subdivisions next to olders homes? Infill. I've seen those much more than any developments on the edges of cities.
Typical "infill" developments like those in LA cannot happen in OR because there are no "metro" areas needing "infill" development (maybe in Portland, but nowhere I went to, Eugene to Ashland). Maybe rehabbing of older neighborhoods which is happening in excellently in Ashland. But how much more people can those "infill" homes absorb when existing older towns are puny in OR?
Oregonians, who oppose suburbia & desire true urban infill growth only, might want to travel (or live in) areas where such conditions exists in scale, that would give those persons living there, a reason to long for OR. If you've truly seen how bad infill homes can be in real urban settings, you might understand why families with children want the relative security boring suburban life provides. Even in the probability of a secure infill home, the inadequete environment/growing space a child might need that an urban setting will not. I remember being bored as hell growing up in OC, how all neighborhoods looked the same. I used to make fun of Irvine. Now, after living in LA, in a neighborhood of real McMansions and infill homes, I dream of being able to afford Irvine.
Calling developers, real estate agents and suburbanites takers, sell outs, etc. doesn't work. I'm surprised any of you haven't figured that out by now. All they are are people, no different than you, who have a different opinion of what their "home" should be.
We live in Ashland, right down the I-5 from Medford and like it very much. The house prices are very high and I'm not really sure why... The town is lovely, has everything, etc. etc. but it ain't cheap here. Development has been curtailed and the result of that is an aging housing stock with high prices. Most homes from the 60's and 70's need serious work. New houses fly off the shelf.
If no one wanted to live here, it would be Appalachia or worse. Think of places in Wyoming that are desolate. Much better to cope with a growing city than a retracting one.
Snaketotem, it as unfortunate fact of life that towns, cities, communities change or die. If you have ever been to East St Louis you would never forget the devastation of a dead/dying town. So too, but to a lesser degree, Detroit. If Medford had not changed and had not worked very hard at attracting business and people, it would inevitably have died, with abandoned derelict homes interspersed among the occupied houses. Medford was in fact dying, as the traditional logging industry disappeared. I am sure that some of the older inhabitants can remember the discussions on what to do to stop the draining of the city.
What you want will always be outside your reach unless you are prepared to move fairly often. I am sure the mountain men of old complained bitterly of the "flood" of wagons coming over the mountains from the East and the South. Not many of them left now....
Rather than moving or ragging on builders, why not be proactive and get involved in the politics and fight back?
Lesson #1: Never run from a fight, it'll find you in the end, and you'll be less prepared for it.
Lesson #2: Never let builders infiltrate city gov, you'll all get screwed in the end.
I love the way "freedom" the builder wraps (or warps) himself into the flag...("God cleanses all, the American way...yap, yap..) whatever. It's about making money, then filling the public need with some vision ... maybe.
Forget about attacking developers, oversight on your local government is a lot more important because nothing can move forward without the local gov approval. No shyster of a builder (oxymoron?) can do squat - without county approval.
So, go where the money really is - don't waste time on the builders. Go for the jugular and get i-n-v-o-l-v-e-d. I've personally been involved in local city fights (cause that's what it is...) with development(ers), for what more people (we're not tree huggers) want to see as their community grows - and I've seen developers and their whor...I mean lawyers, choke back on the money they've spent only to be burned thanks to an organized citizenry. If you can accept growth (and a zero growth attitude is a lost cause), then fight for managed growth that benefits the community first, then the developer's pocket. I don't mind developers making money, but tie them in so deep that if they screw up - they will hang themselves and the crows won't want their corpse for the smell.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Living in the country can be fun. Defending your country can also be very satisfying...
Rather than moving or ragging on builders, why not be proactive and get involved in the politics and fight back?
Lesson #1: Never run from a fight, it'll find you in the end, and you'll be less prepared for it.
Lesson #2: Never let builders infiltrate city gov, you'll all get screwed in the end.
I love the way "freedom" the builder wraps (or warps) himself into the flag...("God cleanses all, the American way...yap, yap..) whatever. It's about making money, then filling the public need with some vision ... maybe.
Forget about attacking developers, oversight on your local government is a lot more important because nothing can move forward without the local gov approval. No shyster of a builder (oxymoron?) can do squat - without county approval.
So, go where the money really is - don't waste time on the builders. Go for the jugular and get i-n-v-o-l-v-e-d. I've personally been involved in local city fights (cause that's what it is...) with development(ers), for what more people (we're not tree huggers) want to see as their community grows - and I've seen developers and their whor...I mean lawyers, choke back on the money they've spent only to be burned thanks to an organized citizenry. If you can accept growth (and a zero growth attitude is a lost cause), then fight for managed growth that benefits the community first, then the developer's pocket. I don't mind developers making money, but tie them in so deep that if they screw up - they will hang themselves and the crows won't want their corpse for the smell.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Living in the country can be fun. Defending your country can also be very satisfying...
Wow so much hatred. I don't remember wrapping myself in the flag, but it sure would not bother me in the least to do so. I love this country, and I welcome your opinion, in a planning room or out.
More people should get involved in their community development decisions, being well informed just might clear the names of local builders and give a greater understanding of how much they contribute to the local area.
One example is in Josephine county, the builders and businesses of this community pulled together to build new parks for sports, wetlands, fishing pond, pedestrian bridge, bike paths, playgrounds etc... We just finished an early childhood development center at the Rogue community college. We are starting a remodel of the local homeless teen shelter to provide showers and laundry facilities. If you have any other constructive input on where the community needs assisstance I am sure we can participate.
Blanket stereotypes are truly offensive though. I agree there are people in all walks of life that are greedy, and selfish, and uncaring of their communities, but to lump them all together really is short sighted and untrue.
I can speak for myself regarding why I do what I do. Not that you care to hear the truth, but I think of my work as providing working and living wages to talented tradesmen that have families and participate at many levels in their communities. Provide homes and neighborhoods for people that desire to move to So. Oregon. The great thing about development is that most of the dollars stay in the community that benefits from the growth, and circulates as much as 15 times through the community, which helps to keep people off of welfare, gives them a sense of worth and self-sufficiency, and confidence that they can make a difference while here on this beautiful orb.
Neuroguy, for your first post you sure defined your bias', a word of advice- viewing members of the working community as adversaries is not very diplomatic and is a position built on failure.
freedom (to drape myself in a velvet lined American Flag)
God Bless America
Last edited by freedom; 02-23-2007 at 09:15 AM..
Reason: final thought
If you don't have to stay in Oregon,I recommend our village of Molde,Norway.We have plenty of snow and people here like the snow sports a lot.We have some mountains too,so you can be high up as you like.Also our water and air is maybe cleanest on earth.The cost of houses is not so bad,too.I think much better than Medford Oregon. Many people here can spaek English and enjoy to talk with you.We are on the Atlantic side and have weather like Oregon.
I would love to move to Norway or to many places in Europe. I agree with previous posters that developers are primarily interested in profits and not the quality of life for the areas they "develop." If they did care about the quality of life in their "developments" we would not have out of control sprawl across the US (concrete strip malls, cookie cutter houses on postage stamp lots, etc).
It's just not possible with the visa restrictions of the EU to live in Europe indefinitely. A "tourist" visa only lasts for 6 months and you can't work on a tourist visa. Getting a work permit is very difficult, and preferences in employment are for members of the EU countries. Americans are really limited to being tourists in Europe, except for the relatively small number of people who work for American companies abroad. This is especially difficult for those of us who are "older" (i.e., over 50) who have a double whammy.
We may even have the resources to pay for living expenses, but no one in Europe would hire us, even if we could overcome the preferences for younger, EU workers. So, it is not a matter of just moving to Europe (or Canada) if an American is dissatisfied with the values of the developers and the US laws that allow them to indiscriminately plow under the farms and build ticky tacky houses on top of each other.
The inner cities in the US should be rehabbed and "developed" into affordable, well-designed housing for everyone, not just luxury condos for the rich, so the condo developers can get richer.
The inner cities in the US should be rehabbed and "developed" into affordable, well-designed housing for everyone, not just luxury condos for the rich, so the condo developers can get richer.
Can't do affordable when land is so pricey and not getting bigger. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Condo developers can't make money making condos downtown if no one wants to buy or if its not profitable. Or you can do what LA has done about "affordable" housing: take old homes away from one set of citizens and build new units and give it to another set of citizens in the sake of affordable housing.
My wife and I lived in 3 continents and what we see are the American public, all thing being equal, prefer suburbia, us included. Even oversees, if possible, nearly everyone wants a detached home.
If you want to see a "rehabbing" inner city, you're more than welcome to come here, metro LA. Million dollar condos a block away from 3 families in a 3 bdrm apt. A fully rehabbed, swank and trendy inner city mixed-use neighborhood is great if you're into that stuff. But would you really want to spend a mill and live next to squatters? Or raise children where they can come across needles,etc?
And you really can't compare USA to Europe, look @ the birthrate, population shift, etc. As for Asia, there is sprawl, just not single family housing sprawl: high rise apt sprawl.
Sprawl, in my opinion is inevitable for a growing country. Once the population no longer is growing @ any significant rate (Europe, Japan) and sprawl continues, then there is a problem.
The additional costs should be made up by some formula between home buyers and developer profits.
Thanks.
Interesting. We're moving from the Bay Area, where our monthly rent on a 100sq/ft home costs more than our mortgage on a 2000 +/- sqft home likely will in Oregon. My DH brings home $100K and seriously we get by thank God but our budget is stretched at the end of the month. I have no idea how the less fortunate make it and no wonder the American family is falling apart since both parents have to work themselves tired just to make a decent living. Now we have to contend with a county (Mult) that wants to tax income that is already being taxed?
Now I am not diametrically opposed to what you are presenting, but I take issue with your assertion that it is a widespread evil on the part of developers and that you don't take into account how families are being taxed to death, and "smart growth" policies that actually price middle-class families out of the homeowner market. Got a problem with "sprawl" in Yamhill County? Blame Multnomah cause there's no way I'd move there in principle and blame Washington County for their awful restrictive building policies that have effectively priced us out of the market.
We just can't afford a $400K Orenco nor do we want to buy one. Maybe if government and yes, enviros, would acknowledge what people want rather than what you think we need for our own good, these problems could find a solution.
OMG, how can you survive on only 100K! That's crazy. I hope you are not living on Top-Ramen noodles!
* Shakes fist furiously at sky * Why, God, why!!!
</sarcasm>
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.
. 
Developing towns
