Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

As I was reading the various posts, this one struck me. While I can appreciate the statement (and have used it myself in the past), I can't help but wonder if you believe it to be true for this issue in particular, or all issues? For example, if the courts (or voters) struck down abortion or gay marriage, or the right to divorce, or the right to bear arms, or the right to emergency medical care, or freedom of religion, or the right of women to vote... Would you still say this? After all, there are no guarantees in life, right? :-)

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I'm always curious about how the urban/rural divide impacts folks opinions on this. I've lived in rural Oregon most of my life, yet feel strongly about protecting our rural areas from over development. Having said this, with a few simple fixes to our land-use planning laws, we could have avoided much of this issue in the first place.

There are no short-versions of the stories of folks in my neck of the woods, but I'll do my best. My grandparents under the advise of the county combined their various properties (about 85 acres in all) into a single parcel back in the 1950's. In the early 70's, they attempted to divide off two ~6 acre parcles for two of their children. This was approved, and one built a home in 1979. The other attempted to build in the 80's and was told that it was not going to be allowed due to the fact that it was an 'illegal' partition. I'll skip all the details, but basically it was the county saying that because the parcels were combined years ago (at the county's advise), and it was over 80 acres, they would not allow the division. After years of dispute, they gave up...

37 came along, and my grandmother wanted to divide off the homestead from the farm land, and also divide off about 18 acres of range-land to sell to an adjacent owner (no new homes involved). She was granted a waiver back to 1948 when they bought the property, and we proceeded. She dropped many thousands of dollars into it when 49 passed, and then suddenly everything was for not. This is because 49 only allows adjacent 2 acre parcels under the fast track. Well, she wanted a 5 acre homestead and an 18 acre (non-adjacent) range-land property. 49 would not allow it.

To keep the story short, I'm now helping her divide off the main homestead and we have dropped the other options. All in all, there were no new homes involved in any of the 37 or 49 claims she is currently trying to proceed with, and had the state and county just simplified things for folks like her, 37 would probably have never passed in the first place...

People always think about huge developments when they think about 37 and 49, and that is not always the case...

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context