Interesting debate as I sit and give thanks to all the people who helped me get to where I am today... happy, fed and sitting in front of this Mac for a minute before walking to Powell's with my son.

My favorite miniscule school district is the Double O in Hines, Oregon. Its elementary school has four students. Four.

If it closed, the children would have to be bussed to the nearest school district, Burns, which is... two miles away. A few minutes drive or a slightly longer walk.

Not 40 miles. Not 70 miles.

Two.

Here's the profile: http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/browse_school/or/372

No one asked, but my opinion is society should never ever close an efficiently-run school that gets results no matter what size it is. A "great" school is becoming rarer than a re-elected Republican these days, so why would anyone want to close a school, say, like Double O Elementary, if it works, or Edwards Elementary in Portland, which was one of the cheapest schools to run in PPS and had almost 100% of the students at benchmark year in and year out. A model of excellence.

I'm in the middle, when it comes to Portland taxpayers subsidizing rural schools, but the funny thing is the Edwards kids are now travelling about as far from their homes, to Abernethy, as the Double O kids would travel if they had to go to Burns, way out in the country.

About two miles.

The Hines school is an oddity, few if any districts are anything like that close.

OTH, the urban areas are responsible for the passage of M5, NOW people want to complain? The E/W divide gets real easy to understand, when you put a foot on our neck and then blame us. Don't like it? Fix YOUR mess YOU made. Then we're responsible for our schools. Think I kid? Check the vote totals by counties.

Schools and school districts are not the same. School districts can be merged without any impact on the driving distance to the school, and with the possibility of significant savings.

Here we have an article that highlights growing understanding based on real world information gained through experience. The reaction - stuff that has nothing to do with conditions, causes, and effects. It is not necessary to live on the East side to understand what's going on, it is necessary to actually look at it and think about it.

Hi folks..

Penny's point is a good one although it does not recognize the school as one of the few, if not the only, remaining institution defining community in rural areas. In many places the mill or the mine closed, ranches and farms have mechanized, the average age at Odd Fellows or Elks is over 70 and the BLM or USFS station downsized to half a dozen permanents and a dwindling herd of seasonals. The school remains a center of community focus and pride. Merging the district into a larger one strips the community of one of the few assets still under its influence. The lessons of urban areas with declining enrollment are germane. Neighborhood schools are constantly under the threat of consolidation in the name of efficiency regardless of community support, dedicated staff, student achievement, etc. No matter what promises are made to keep small schools open the larger district will always opt for efficiency over community.

I've lived and worked in rural communities for years and my wife taught in the rural west. I do know that rural schools are mightily dependent on healthy communities and healthy economies, pretty much non-existent in the rural west at this time. While logging, mining and ranching are an anathema to a lot of folks, tourism and recreation just don't make a similar economic contribution.

An overarching problem, in my opinion, is the lack of support for education. For all the hot air about educated workforces, critical thinking, competitive global economies and so forth, most people are far more concerned with football, basketball, and so on. Is interscholastic water polo really more important than academic performance. Read any paper in the state, watch any TV station, listen to any radio station and the answer becomes abundantly clear. In the main, Oregonians and their elected officials pay lip service to education but follow it up with little.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

"An overarching problem, in my opinion, is the lack of support for education."

Here is the funding per student for each Oregon district in 2003-04.

Oregon is "supporting" districts on page 3 at a pretty high cost per student per year. It makes one wonder if if some of those studentss might benefit from on-line schooling in the coof their own homes.

Kari asks, "Penny, that's a profoundly insightful comment. Perhaps some of the folks in those areas could address her comment: Why not merge the districts to reduce administrative costs - while keeping the schools open?"

Because, it doesn't work.

I have a friend that works in the Portland School District in a support role for in classroom teachers. He has three levels of supervision over him.

In a rural District like Fossil, we can't afford that kind of depth of Administration. In fact, the Superintendent isn't a stand alone job. In small School Districts, the Superindentent is most often also the High School Principal. When School buildings are some distance apart, you can't really also combine the Principal jobs. So, if you combine Districts, you take away a fraction of the Principals pay, to create the new job of a District Superintendent.

And then you add back the cost of travel. If you combined Spray, Fossil, and Mitchell into a Wheeler County District; you'd end up with a Superintendent that would have a 115 mile day to see all three schools. Then there is the Board part. Currently each town has its own Board. Combining Districts combines Boards, meaning that somebody has to travel to meetings. That is an additional cost.

In short, what have created by combinations of small districts is an offsetting expense scenario that leads to fractionalized administration. That part of the Superindentents salary attributable to the High School Principal could be saved, but a District Superindentent would have to be hired, and then travel.

It just doesn't work.

And, I'll add, the economy of alleged scale has already been forced upon rural districts as a side effect of Measure 5.

It used to be that there were many areas with small elementary school districts, which often supported a single K-8 school, and then a separate union high district, which was supported by a number of elementary districts.

Then the lovely rules came down which forced consolidation of these districts because all districts were required (unless they met some very rigorous distance standards) to provide high schools for their students. Most Portland folks are familiar with the Riverside district issues, as well as possibly Sauvie Island.

In the Sandy area, one district was created out of the Boring, Sandy, and Welches school districts. There are old-timers who hold that this was not necessarily such a good thing, especially for Welches, which was solvent and enjoyed a high level of community and parent involvement (and which still does, but lacks the tax support it once did). I suspect that the same holds true for other widespread former elementary school districts that did much, much better when they were their own taxing district and ran themselves rather than being the small, far outlier school as some of these small schools forced to consolidate with larger districts are now.

I'll also add that educational research does NOT support consolidation and centralization as being most cost-effective when looking at what works best to support the highest learning gains. Small student-adult ratios, especially in the early years, are optimal for producing good readers, writers and mathematicians. Some of the old-timers I work with note a correlation between overall class reading performance later on in middle school and classroom sizes in the first and second grade.

Not all students learn at the same rate; not all students develop at the same rate; and when the class loads are small it's easier to individualize instruction for optimal performance (something educational bean counters never seem to grok--kids are NOT factory widgets!).

Regarding the first post in this thread: I challenge anyone to come up with a non-bureaucratic definition of a "great school" or a "school that gets results". As parents we tend to have ideas what is or isn't a good school for our children...but what in the world is the source of those so-called benchmarks, for example? And if a kid doesn't meet the benchmarks, who's to say the cause?

lin qiao asks, "I challenge anyone to come up with a non-bureaucratic definition of a "great school" or a "school that gets results."

Simple. When the students, parents, teachers, and members of the community all agree that the school works well.

That can happen in a small town. I think of a visit I once made to see a school play in Paulina.

Paulina has perhaps 30 residents "in town" and the two-room K-8 school serves the ranch and upper country areas at the eastern end of Crook County. When I visited several years ago for the pot-luck Christmas program, there were about 30 kids in that school. They did a play, a cowboy version of Romeo and Juliet that the kids had both (re)written and produced that was laugh out loud funny. All the families were there, the extended families, and community members that wanted to have a fun night. The gym had over 100 people there. Besides the play, those kids that played music instruments played some pieces. The kids sang and the whole group did some sign alongs. Somehow in the course of the program, each kid got recognition. It was one of the most happy, fun, and fulfilling events I have ever been to.

-- Those kids are getting the best education I have ever seen including my own educational experiences, and those I saw while doing a 20 year career within the juvenile justice system.

Sometimes I think that the urban/rural divide is really at its center about our core values. I value what happens at the Paulina School, to the point of being willing to pay more taxes to keep it going. Sounds like the folks from Portland got enough of a flavor of what I'm talking about to come away with the same understanding.

What in the life of an urban Oregonian provides the passion that would result in a willingness to pay more taxes? Does an urban Oregonian have the love/passion for their community that results in the community pulling together for its schools, people with troubles, the elderly with needs, etc.??

Everyday in rural Oregon we experience that sense of deep passionate caring for our neighbors ~~~

lin qiao - I don't know how else to answer your question other than to say its simple - you know it when you see it.

OK, It's bad enough that rural Oregonians - who choose, after all, to live in remote places with limited economic potential - require subsidies from urban Oregonians to educate their children. Now, they claim to have some higher moral ground on passion for their children and their neighbors. Plenty of urban Oregonians, in Eugene, Portland, Beaverton, for example, have shown their passion by voting more taxes on themselves to support their schools, by contributing to school foundations and working their butts off to promote progressive legislative and statewide candidates so that ALL Oregonians can have equitable and sufficient school funding. And those urban folks do that despite sending something like $300 million a year in subsidies to support rural schools.

What do we get from our "passionate" rural brethren - ingrateful bitching and retrograde "no-new-taxes" Republican legislators.

Rural Oregonians should ask themselves why someone in an urban area who makes exactly the same income as their rural cousin should be expected to pay BOTH for her own schools AND for a significant part of the rural cousin's schools as well? There's an implied notion in the rural attitude that all urban residents are wealthier than rural, and therefore have some obligation (and capacity) to support these subsidies. Not accurate.

A little gratitude and understanding of the urban realities by rural Oregonians would be appropriate if we want to have a civil discussion about the urban/rural divide.

Noblesse seems to forget, you urbanites passed M5. You created the problem the State attempted to fix by taking over school funding. He also forgets that Uncle Sammy promised to cover the Federal lands he took out of our tax base. Timber reciepts was a method, not the promise.

Portland schools get $7000/pupil in compensation, Baker 5J gets $5800/pupil. I use Baker 5J because I am familiar with it. Baker County in the face of the passage of M5 voted the property tax to the cap level. I'll bet you also think it's more expensive to operate schools in Portland, that is frankly, utter nonsense.

You expect gratitude, fine, I've just puckered up and kissed your urban ass. You seem to forget, YOU pass the laws, YOU pass the initiatives, YOU elect the statewide offices, YOU run the damn show and ram YOUR ideas of how things should be done down our throats. And exactly what is your malfunction in regards to taxes? In one breath you castigate us for living in economically disadvantaged areas and the next whine about paying the same taxes???

In case that little mountain range mystified you, we're all Oregonians, and frankly, you'll get as much or more benefit from our kid's education than we will. You see, they're going to move to your cities and work there, only a few will stay here. You know, I take it back, kiss my ass, whiner.

Noblesse oblige observes more accurately than the wild-eyed and angry (and wrong) Mr. Butcher. Taxpayers in the Metro Area subsidize rural school districts to the tune of over $200 million dollars. The Oregonian had a story about this some months back. (I'm sure some enterprising blogger with greater energy can find the article). Yet it's the legislators from rural areas who have so much blind hatred for the OEA and anyone with PERS benefits that they spend their energy attacking public education and its workforce.

I'm sure there are plenty of people living in a crowded urban area who would love to live on a house on 10 acres and get subdized by the Metro area - the place where the jobs are.

The market might not have been kind to the timber industry, but this what happens in a capitalistic economy....as conservatives who constantly hold up the myth of the rugged individual from the sticks, usually like to point out.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your angry invective. When all else fails, resort to the ad hominem. Yeah, that'll show em!

you urbanites passed M5.

A lot of rural voters voted for M5, it was hardly just urbanites. But part of what lead to measure 5 was the failure of the legislature to deal with property tax reform. A failure, as I recall, largely a result of the refusal of rural legislators to approve tax reform that did not provide enough benefits to their constituents.

He also forgets that Uncle Sammy promised to cover the Federal lands he took out of our tax base.

The reality is the timber receipts likely more than make up for any realistic property taxes that could be collected on those lands. And land doesn't pay taxes, people do. I don't think there are a lot of ranchers and loggers in rural Oregon who can pick up the tax burden.

Moreover, if you looked at government and other property that is off the urban tax rolls, it is not inconsiderable. And most of those properties require considerably more local services, paid for with local tax dollars, than BLM or Forest Service land do. And, unlike federal forest land, there is no compensation at all for those lost revenues.

Its not as though there aren't a lot of urban Oregonians who would love to live in the country if they could make a living there. Most can't. And the whining of those that do is a bit tiresome. The fact is that urban Oregonians are subsidizing the rural lifestyle of the privileged few who can still enjoy it.

you'll get as much or more benefit from our kid's education than we will.

I think most urban folks figure that they get more benefit from investing in their own kids education than yours. So why should they spend their hard earned money on yours? I think it is exactly this attitude that defines the urban-rural divide. What's mine is mine, what's yours is ours.

Hi Folks...

Too bad that this otherwise intriguing discussion had to take a nasty turn. How about you fellas put a sock in it.

It's kinda ridiculous to be arguing about who is subsidizing who when the country is running on borrowed Chinese money to the tune of $7 billion per week interest [source NYT Business Section 11/26/06].

As far as my priviledged lifestyle out here in rural heaven goes I suspect you have me confused with the ten acre horsey farm in SunRiver. My place is six miles from the neighbor on a road that I plow out. For fun I go out at night in a blizzard to scrape cows off the fence because they're too stupid to come inside the warm barn. I do that so that you can eat decent steak at reasonable prices. Likewise my wheat goes to the bread you buy at 10 loaves for 10 bucks at Safeway and my hay feeds them very same SunRiver horseys.

By the same measure I depend mightily on the infrastructure of western Oregon, docks, highways, the port, the airport, etc. But you didn't pay for those things N.O., Ross and Levon. Taxpayers in states like California, New York and Massachusets did since they pay far more into the federal treasury than they get back. Just who do you think pays for Max and the port improvements and the big new bridge you'll put up over the Columbia River?

And Chuck is right. Our communities put a whole lot into educating our kids and preparing them to move into cities and burbs because that's where the action is and that's [usually] where the future is.

Thanks, Kari, for the opportunity to comment

It's kinda ridiculous to be arguing about who is subsidizing who when the country is running on borrowed Chinese money to the tune of $7 billion per week interest

That has nothing to do with anything does it? Except maybe that we all borrow the money but its the urban areas that will pay the taxes to make the payments on those loans.

As far as my priviledged lifestyle out here in rural heaven goes I suspect you have me confused with the ten acre horsey farm in SunRiver.

Nope. Is there some reason to admire what you do more than the "ten acre horsey farm"? You work hard. So what? A lot of urban people work just as hard and they don't eat steak at any price. But they still pay taxes to subsidize your chosen lifestyle.

I do that so that you can eat decent steak at reasonable prices.

And those folks in China are working long hours sewing clothe so that we can have good clothes at reasonable prices. Maybe we should send them extra money to educate their kids too.

By the same measure I depend mightily on the infrastructure of western Oregon, docks, highways, the port, the airport, etc. But you didn't pay for those things

But in fact, urban Oregonians did pay for those things. Almost every federally funded project requires local matching funds paid with tax dollars from Oregon's mostly urban taxpayers.

Our communities put a whole lot into educating our kids

And urban taxpayers put a whole lot into educating your kids too. What do you put into educating urban kids? Why should urban taxpayers continue to pay to educate your kids at their own kids expense?

The issue here is not really making sure every kid gets a decent education. Its that the education of urban kids is being sacrificed for rural kids. It costs $30,000 a year to educate a kid whose parents choose to live in the middle of nowhere. But rural residents oppose spending that same $30,000 on an urban kid who needs special support to be successful. Some even oppose urban residents taxing themselves to educate their own kids unless they get a share.

Jeez, turn off the computer for a day, and everyone goes nuts!

You know, the post I made about the Paulina School was in answer to a rather narrow point about how you can tell what is a good school, when "good" education is happening. It wasn't a put down of urban Oregon.

Measure 5 tells us that we cannot raise our property taxes to pay for more education. As I understand it, we don't have an income tax option in rural Oregon. - The income tax being used is an artifact of being part of the Metro area as approved by the Legislature, and as I understand it, Counties/School Districts don't get to have income taxes. District by District in Central/Eastern Oregon we would raise our taxes if allowed to by the government in Salem to support our kids.

As for the whole subsidy argument that pops up from time to time, again (as I have done before) I will note that if you look at one line item of the State Budget, you will find that it favors one part of the State over others. But if you back up to the "big picture" instead of focusing on single line items, the budget is fair across the State. Yes, rural Oregon does get more money in the Education line item. Some of that is for the transportation costs of the kids in school buses. -- But then there is the expensive transportation costs in the Tri-County metro area. Monies spent on items like the "Oregon" zoo, etc. It all works out in the "big picture".

Noblesse oblige writes, "OK, It's bad enough that rural Oregonians - who choose, after all, to live in remote places with limited economic potential . . ."

I could say the same about the lower economic areas in urban Oregon I suppose - but it won't make any more sense that what Noblesse writes. Just like the cities need their lower income people to do real work, the urban areas need people who raise your food, produce the lumber you build you houses with, and serve your needs when you recreate over here. If you really think you are subsidising my life in paradise, you ought to try it here. Those people in Paulina I wrote about work really hard for a living. That is cattle country in the high desert. Some of those people work for the Forest Service. In case you haven't heard, there have been lots of cut backs in the last 20 years in the numbers of Forest Service employees, and those few left are working their butts off to keep the forest available for your recreational use.

I can make peace with the urban Oregonians, and do everyday. Noblesse is a typical voice that completely discounts my existance, and that is always hard to deal with. I suppose that if you take Noblesse's logic to heart, there is then a solution to every problem in the world.

Rural people get an education subsidy - close their schools and force them to move to Portland or Eugene. Problem solved.

Three ethnic groups in Iraq going at each other - draw lots and just move two groups out. Problem solved.

Two groups in N. Ireland fighting for several hundred years - flip a coin and either move the Catholics south into Ireland, or the Protestants over to England. Problem solved.

Noblesse - great logic!

Anyway, my point was that one gets the message frequently that the urban/rural debate in Oregon is about the rural people sniveling about all the slights and mistreatment, and the urban Oregonians are a noble people above that kind of pointless position, who just want us to all live together in harmony. Well, as long as folks like this Noblesse write that garbage - the split still exists.

Monies spent on items like the "Oregon" zoo, etc. It all works out in the "big picture".

I don't think that is true. The fact is that far more state money goes into rural areas than comes out of them in taxes

s I understand it, Counties/School Districts don't get to have income taxes.

If that is true, I suspect there would be strong support from urban legislators for giving them that authority. The reality is that it is the rural legislators that would oppose it. In any case I think the Multnomah County tax is paying for services the schools otherwise would pay for, not paying directly for education.

If you really think you are subsidising my life in paradise, you ought to try it here. Those people in Paulina I wrote about work really hard for a living.

So do a lot of urban people. The truth is I have never heard someone in a city claim that the reason rural people have less money is they are lazy and shiftless. I have heard that from rural residents about the urban poor.

Whether you think you live in paradise or not, the fact is urban taxpayers, who work just as hard as you do, are subsidizing your lifestyle. I am not sure why rural residents seem to think their hard work trumps the hard work people did to earn that money they are paying in taxes to subsidize rural residents.

There is nothing wrong with investing public money in rural areas. That was how rural areas got decent roads, electricity and telephone. Broadband internet should be next.

But when that process becomes disinvestment from the urban areas you are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Continuing to starve urban school districts of the resources they need eventually will lead to the abandonment of Oregon by highly educated workers. They aren't going to stick around if they find their kids can't get a decent education in Oregon schools. And employers who find that Oregon kids don't have the education required to become the skilled workers they need to compete are going to follow closely behind.

Ross writes, "There is nothing wrong with investing public money in rural areas. That was how rural areas got decent roads, electricity and telephone. Broadband internet should be next. "

Err, hate to tell you, but I'm using broadband internet right now from the outskirts of Prineville.

Err, Rural electrication was cut in 1982 by Pres. Reagan.

Err, I have no idea where you think telephone service gets paid for in rural areas by urban people. I pay my phone bill too.

Err, we pay the same gas tax as urban folks, and I'm fairly sure that the lions share of State gas tax money and Federal money go to Portland to maintain that monster freeway system, and the MAX train system. Everytime anyone rides MAX, their ticket is subsidized - in fact that is true for all of Tri-met.

Wouldn't it be fun if someone promoting the myth of the rural subsidy actually had some facts?? What everyone is going on about is that old Oregonian study that showed that Multnomah County paid out more in property tax for education than it got back. That can be for a lot of reasons, like the Portland District has less children per capita than other parts of the State, that Portland has lots of high value industrial and commercial real estate (we could use per capita again), and other factors that go with being the State's commercial center. When you look at it from my angle, we rural folks feed that commercial center. When those barges of grain go down the Columbia River, Portland makes a profit. When we grow mint and ship the mint oil, Portland makes a profit. I live in Prineville, headquarters of Les Schwab - tires - imported through the Port of Portland which contributes to wages and ultimately property taxes.

Who exactly provides which subsidy for whom?

If urban people want to "heal" the urban/rural split, they will need to come to recognize that every aspect of their lives in the city is intertwinned with support in one form or another from the rural parts of the State. The food you eat, the commerce at the bottom of the economy, the wood that built your house, the tires on your car, etc.

I wish you all would stop whinning about a couple million dollars paid out in one form when you get billions in commerce from us on another level.

a. If you go back and look, you'll find that my comment was civil and NOT a whine. I don't think the other "urban" commenters have been whining either.
b. The "nasty" tone seems pretty much to be coming the other way c. I certainly didn't intend to argue that it's all a one-way street between urban and rural Oregon - but rather that our rural brethren (at least in the discussion here) didn't seem to be willing to recognize the fact of the urban subsidy to rural schools - much of which comes from urban wage-earners of modest means - and that urban taxpayers are already paying at least their fair share (most tax code areas are at the M5 max and there are many voted operating levies as well as supplemental funding from non-property tax sources). d. You might want to check some of your facts. I'm not going to do point by point (I'll leave that to Ross), but one I know for sure: The vast majority of Tri-Met's operating costs come from two sources: a payroll tax solely charged in the Tri-Met service area and farebox revenues paid by the people who ride the transit system. e. the rural types continue to exhort we urbanites to recognize the challenges they face, but don't seem to be at all willing to acknowledge that there's civic virtue, passion, commitment, economic and fiscal struggle, and interconnectedness on the urban side as well.

As to the billions in commerce - I think the money paid by urban folks for "...the food you eat, the commerce at the bottom of the economy, the wood that built your house, the tires on your car, etc." translates to INCOME for rural folks - how is that a bad thing and how do we somehow owe you for that (beyond the prices we pay for the things you sell)?

All I'd hoped for is a little balance from the rural folks in thinking about the interconnected nature of the rural and urban interests. Maybe an unrealistic hope, but I'm an incurable optimist.

With all due respect Noblesse, if you think you were being truly civil to rural folks, you're a bit tone deaf. Regardless of your intent, you came across as somewhat arrogant to this rural Oregonian. If you communicate like that and expect a little gratitude, you're going to be disappointed.

Err - Steve

Your list brings home the delusional world of rural Oregon. Your phone, electric, broadband and gas tax bills don't cover the cost of the service you receive. Just as you pay income tax, but it doesn't cover the cost of rural education. Its part of the rural mythology that you are paying your own way.

what everyone is going on about is that old Oregonian study that showed that Multnomah County paid out more in property tax for education than it got back.

Its not just "Multnomah County" but Washington and Clackamas counties as well.

we rural folks feed that commercial center. When those barges of grain go down the Columbia River, Portland makes a profit.

Is there a lot of grain shipped out of Prineville? The fact is that rural folks depend on the Port of Portland, not urban folks. It produces a handful of jobs and is not really a critical component of Portland's economy aside from the airport. On the other hand, without the Port to provide access to world markets a lot of rural Oregon wheat farmers would be hurting worse than they are.

"The food you eat, the commerce at the bottom of the economy, the wood that built your house, the tires on your car, etc."

I think you are really delusional here. There is very little, if anything, in rural Oregon that is central to Portland's economy other than the landscape. Whether you like it or not, Portland's economy needs people in rural Oregon to serve lattes to the high tech workers when they go to recreate. Portland is essential to the rural economy, not the other way around. Those cattle ranches could all disappear and no one in Portland would much notice. Without the Portland market, rural Oregon would be really hurting.

Well Ross, you about summed it all up.

I talk about an intertwinned economy, how Portland makes a profit off of what we do in rural Oregon, and how we provide the materials you need to exist - and you take that as delusional.

You think that the economy of Portland is so much larger than the rest of the State (which is by in large rural, 97% of Oregon is outside of the incorporated cities and surrounding urban growth boundaries) that if the rest of us went away, Portland wouldn't even notice. Delusional??

Yep, you summed up exactly why there is an urban/rural divide in Oregon. If your attitude is, and it apparently is, that we can just throw away rural Oregon and it wouldn't matter much (loss of a couple of latte servers); then you're the one in the delusion.

I never once indicated that Oregon shouldn't have a Portland Metro area, never indicated we don't mutually need each other, and in fact I keep offering the olive branch here to urban folks to see the interconnections of our lives.

My point all along has been fairly simple: what goes around comes around. We rural folks send you stuff, you make things out of it or take a slice of profit from it, we help you. You have the large employers, ports, industry that sends out materials to us, but in the process makes profits. You have a "profit center" in the Portland metro area that would make a lot less profit were it not for us in rural areas both feeding you and consuming what you make/do in the Portland metro area. Because of the inequality of the capital rich "profit center" versus the extractive/farm/ranch economy found in our rural areas, the Portland Metro area sends more tax dollars to the State Government than it gets back in the arena of education. In other arenas of State funding the Portland area gets more than its share. Does it all work out in the end? I think so - in fact I think that in the larger picture there is in fact balance and harmony - save for a few "blue necked" city folks that are myopic who would be in discord and contentious no matter what.

I talk about an intertwinned economy, how Portland makes a profit off of what we do in rural Oregon,

Sure some people in Portland make money off what people in "rural" Oregon do. But it isn't a significant factor in the Portland economy.

You think that the economy of Portland is so much larger than the rest of the State (which is by in large rural, 97% of Oregon is outside of the incorporated cities and surrounding urban growth boundaries) that if the rest of us went away, Portland wouldn't even notice.

I don't know what you mean by "went away". But a near depression in the timber economy in rural Oregon sure didn't prevent Portland from booming. Nor has a declining agricultural industry. The reality is that while rural Oregon depends on Portland, Portland depends on the rest of the world.

in fact I keep offering the olive branch here to urban folks to see the interconnections of our lives.

But you insist that those interconnections are co-equal, when in fact your lives depend on the urban folks, but their's don't depend on you. And that reality is the source of the urban divide.

Does it all work out in the end? I think so

I don't. In fact its not even close. You can no doubt find some areas where Portland gets some state services the rural areas don't, but it almost always pays extra for them as well. And in virtually every other area the cost of services in rural areas are subsidized by the urban areas. If not by Portland, by people living in the neighboring cities. It costs a lot of money to live in the middle of nowhere.

The point is there is a real disconnect between the perception of rural Oregon as you reflect it and reality. Rural folks see it as (and call it) "arrogance" whenever that disconnect is pointed out. Take a look at a map of legislative districts and realize that there are as many people living in a few small neighborhoods in Southeast Portland as there are in all of eastern Oregon. For instance the Buckman neighborhood has almost 8,000 people. That makes it larger than Prineville.

Here we have a debate between someone in the Portland area and someone in the Prineville area.

Let me interject the point of view of a friend in rural Polk County. Sure that is commuting distance from Salem (he once worked in Salem and now commutes farther than that) but there are many who treat the state capital as the stepchild of the largest city in Oregon. Something this friend mentioned which I hadn't thought of living in Salem: mass transit and freight rail are great for places like Salem. But rural Polk, Yamhill, Linn, Benton, and other counties who might be near I-5 on a map really need things trucked to their communities. Whatever they buy in a store in Dallas, Monmouth, or Independence arrived by truck, not by river (historic freight mover for Independence which was built by the river), rail, or air.

I think the point Steve was making is this: Ross, could you spend a week using only things which come from the Metro area (incl. what comes in from out of state through rail, air, or shipping through Port of Portland or other Metro area facilities) without any product or raw material from the other 33 counties in Oregon? No Marionberries from the Willamette Valley, no vegetables grown in rural Oregon, wheat grown outside of Oregon, etc---just from the Portland area or out of state?

There is an old joke about local/regional/ state groups which have members in the Salem area but often meet in Portland. Folks here in Marion County say "they want the meetings in Portland because it is twice as long a trip from Portland to Salem as Salem to Portland, dontcha know". I have even known Portlanders who wanted the state capitol in Portland because that's where the most people are.

<h2>There were bitter debates 15 years ago about moving the Democratic State Party Office from Salem (state capital) to Portland (largest city). The Senate President is from Marion County, the Majority Leader from Portland and the Minority Leader from E. Oregon. That is the sort of geographic diversity those of us who don't live in the Metro area like to see, just as many of us are thrilled that not only do the Democrats finally have the House majority again, but that majority includes "downstate" Democrats who reflect their districts (Roblan and Cowan on the coast, Clem and Komp in Marion County, etc.).</h2>