To date, Yamhill County, considered the epicenter of Oregon's fast-growing wine industry, has approved 452 Measure 37 claims that, taken together, represent about 54 square miles, JK: Lets see, 54 sq mi x 640 acres/sqmi x 8 houses/ acre = 276,480 homes on decent sized lots with space for the kids to play in the back instead of in the street. And space for a garden to feed them when we run out of oil. And space for a windmill and maybe a little solar power - all things that you can’t have in a Portland condo farm. Sounds good to me. Also those houses will put a lot less chemical poison on the land than the typical farmer.

And best of all is that those 276,48 new homes that won’t be crammed into my, already overcrowded Portland neighborhood (or yours) in the form of condos, skinny lots and row houses. In fact they will supply more than ALL of the housing needs of Portland as described by Sam Adams in his city club speech, without adding to our already crowded neighborhoods. All that in just a tiny bit of wine country. Perhaps the rich winery owners can find it in their rich little hearts to allow a few newcomers into their private preserve to save Portland from being even more dense and less livable?

Sounds good to me. Use a little land in rich winery owner’s vineyard country to save the livability of Portland’s neighborhoods.

If measure 49 fails, middle income people may, some day, once again, be able to afford a house of their own (like minimum wage earners were able to do in the 60s.)

But the pro 49 people do not care about people being able to afford a home. Our high housing costs are mostly due to the high cost of land created by Oregon’s artificial shortage of buildable land. M49 preserves that shortage and almost guarantees that young Oregonians will never be able to afford a home. Would you like to own a home some day - or would you rather write a rent check down the rat hole every month? Support 49 and rent forever.

But you will be able to buy Oregon wines as a consolation prize for never being able to afford a home.

PS: Can anyone tell me who has provided the MILLION (or so) dollars that the nature conservancy is allegedly providing to the PRO 49? I mean, they have individual donors - why don’t we get to see them now? Kinda sounds like one of Sizemore’s illegal schemes.

Thanks JK

What if we all vote no on 49… New 1, 2, 5 and 10 acre lots would be created for families Small farms would be created People would be able to have gardens again, can’t do that on a 3000 to 5000sf lot now More people would be able to have compost areas Small grape growing farms would be created, instead of all the rich winery people having all the land People could have horses, cows and sheep or other animals New barns would be built helping our economy Mini farms could help local economies with fruits and vegetables for local markets These are just some of the things that will benefit Oregon if we vote NO, there are more good things to come out of this if we all Vote NO. Why let the rich winery people have all the land? The opportunity for more small farms is so much greater then huge subdivisions coming in that we as voters need to recognize this. It will take years and years and years for all this land to get divided up, and when it does it will only help Oregon. Please vote NO so people can have the opportunity to have small farms and grow their own grapes without being filthy rich to do it.

One more thing, if you had the chance to live on one acre (1 acre = 43560 sf) and have a little mini farm, or live in a house on a 5000sf lot (5000sf lot = 8.7 houses on 1 acre) which one would you choose?

What about the demand end of the equation?

A lot of those potential suburbanites are Dem "progressives". How do you have an honest discussion of the issues with someone that has made the choices involved in living that way?

We've become far too sociable. Ostracize for Oregon!

Note that in this article about vintners supporting M49 the very first quote is from Dave Hunnicutt, who opposes it (and them). What journalism!

It is an urban myth that there is a direct relationship between land availability and affordable housing. Indeed:

The study found that:

    * it is the size, type and quality of homes built that has the greatest influence on local house prices;
    * house prices are heavily influenced by the quality of the environment: new homes which improve an area create value, but homes which damage an attractive location can bring down prices [7];
    * if local house prices fall following development this may reflect damage to local amenity and a decline in the quality of the neighbourhood, rather than a response to a greater supply of new homes;
    * even with much higher building rates, the impact on house prices would be very small, delayed and hard to detect. Any reduction in price resulting from increasing housing supply would be swamped by other factors;
    * house prices are controlled not by land supply but primarily by ability to pay;
    * rising house prices reflect, notably, an era of rising incomes, greater wealth available to many buyers as deposits, and mortgage lenders offering much higher loans than was considered prudent only a few years ago;
    * affordability as measured by the ratio of house prices to incomes has worsened. However, the proportion of income which first time buyers spend on mortgage repayments remains less than it was for most of the 1980s. Serious affordability problems are concentrated among those with lower incomes and little wealth.

And here is the actual study itself (PDF).

Peter Bray:

It is an urban myth that there is a direct relationship between land availability and affordable housing. Indeed:

Bob T:

Of course it has a direct relationship. Just use a small portion as an example. A ridge a few miles from the coast, with great views, has room for five nice houses. That's limited availability, and the prices will reflect that.

Bob Tiernan

JK, your calculation of 8 houses/acre is a lovely fantasy, but doesn't play out in the real world. county land isn't developed to that density, even with measure 49 claims. sorry. it's more like, as inthewoods noted, 1 acre, 2 acre, 5 acre or 10 acre plots. hardly the quantity of housing you desire to relieve density in portland. which is set by the density zoning there, btw.

inthewoods, your fantasy of 1acre, 2acre, 5acre and 10acre plots being some sort of environmental utopia, again, doesn't play out in the real world. study after study have shown that the absolute worst housing density there is, in terms of overall environmental degradation, is 5acre plots.

this is not what we want.

that said, i'm afraid that the winemakers endorsement will have more net negative affect than positive. people who would be swayed towards supporting 49 by it would vote for it anyway, and working class people who are on the fence may, unfortunately, succumb to the notion that M49 is "elitist".

Please note the use of the term "affordable housing"; I am not talking about McMansions on ocean facing bluffs.

If the KKK was backing the Measure 50 campaign, would the reaction be different or the same?

Peter Bray:

Please note the use of the term "affordable housing"; I am not talking about McMansions on ocean facing bluffs.

Bob T:

They don't have to be "McMansions" at all, but regular looking houses, many of which have existed for years in rural Oregon with splendid views.

The point is still 100% valid. Even "McMansions" will cost more if the land upon which they can be built is limited in availability. I chose the ridge as an example because it's a small example of limited availability that is easy to grasp.

Bob Tiernan

You're being obtuse. Read the report I linked to and then get back to us, professor. Toodle-oo.

What I'd like to know is: Why do most or all progressives (so-called) support the same policies re "sprawl" that big businesses do?

Big businesses like the idea of having most people within certain locked in areas so that they have a nearby workforce pool, and (if a big box store corporation) don't have to spread out their store locations into the countryside trying to chase customers, which would of course stretch their resources and lead to store closures.

Bob Tiernan

Why do most or all progressives (so-called) support the same policies re "sprawl" that big businesses do?

you mean big businesses like the timber industry and agri-business? i don't know. that's a good question.

except. oh wait! the timber industry and agri-business were the bankroll behind M37 and are the bankroll now in the anti-M49 effort.

i'm so confused. what's a progressive to think!

I don't get it: we're supposed to vote for 49 as an indirect subsidy to the wine industry?

If the wine business in Oregon can't stand on its own two feet, why is that justification for taking property rights away from landowners without adequate compensation?

Peter Bray: It is an urban myth that there is a direct relationship between land availability and affordable housing. Indeed: JK: Aw, come on! Land that cost a MILLION an acre affectes the cost of housing. Look at aosme real numbers:

Buildable land in Tualatin is about ONE MILLION an acre = $125,000 for the land alone Houston.....4 bedroom, 2 bath house.........................................$165,000 NEW.

So are you claiming that a builder can pay $125,000 for land and deliver a 4 bedroom house for only $40k more (including his profit.)
Laughable.

Thanks JK

michael m, i guess there isnt' any more justification for that then there has been for our state's continued position that timber companies and agri-business must stand on their own two feet without subsidies.

oh, except, wait a minute.

they've been receiving tax credits all along, in order to support forestry and agriculture in our state. tax credits on the very same land that they now want to, wait for it, develop under M37 claims.

lordy, this being a progressive sure is confusing sometimes.

Bob T:

Why do most or all progressives (so-called) support the same policies re "sprawl" that big businesses do?

Trishka:

you mean big businesses like the timber industry and agri-business? i don't know. that's a good question.

Bob T:

Did you read the rest of my message in which other business types are mentioned?

As for your comment that agri-business and the timber industry are for sprawl, well, they don't need to be for sprawl in order to be in a privileged position and they know it. I don't know why you think they are for sprawl. As many houses and condos will be built whether we have UGBs or not. The timber industry doesn't care so long as their own access to timber is not cut off. Indeed, the hallowed S100 from the McCall era gave that industry exemptions. But that wasn't a pro- or anti-sprawl claim on their part.

In the report I mentioned. one finding was that, "Business leaders increasingly are concerned that sprawl is making it more difficult to access, attract, and maintain a qualified workforce."

In other words, keep everyone in the urban areas (except planners and business owners, I guess). And as mentioned earlier, big box store stypes of businesses don't like the idea of needing to chase customers around as building enough stores to be within a cetain number of miles of the same percentage of the customer base is not effective in the long run. Better to keep most people within UGBs.

This is for their convenience (and profitibility), not yours or mine. Not that you should be for sprawl just to be against them (I never favor such spiteful decisions), but this is just an example of how some people or organizations (made up of people making decisions) have problems with the freedom of others. I prefer to have that free society and to not worry or favor legislation that restricts people in order to benefit special interests under the guise of "caring for the little guy" or whatever.

Can you understand that? After all, having free speech and expression bothers the hell out of quite a few people. But I'm sure you don't want to "solve" that one, and that you even cherish this uncertainty. Good. So do I.

Bob Tiernan

bob, i'm beginning to understand whether or not you & i have the same working definition of "sprawl". your post would certainly suggest to me otherwise.

i'll try to answer your questions, though.

the reason i think that timber companies and agribusiness are "for" sprawl is because sprawling-type development is cheaper for the developer to build and therefore they stand to run a higher profit margin. this holds especially true for the rural-density development that will occur out in the counties under M37 claims, where they don't have to put in the utility infrastructure and pay the SDC charges that they have to pay within city limits. it's that simple.

as for this claim:

"The timber industry doesn't care so long as their own access to timber is not cut off."

well, that's only true as long as they can make more money using their land to grow timber than they can developing it as real estate. when the market is such that the land is more valuable as a potential subdivision than as a monocultural douglas fir plantation, they want the option to develop it. that's what M37 was all about. the stuff about the handful of small family farmers with their tiny plots of land that the nasty gummint is depriving of their retirement is, in reality, a tiny percentage of the total land potentially available for M37 claims. but it made for better commercials to play up the "plight" of these people.

"Indeed, the hallowed S100 from the McCall era gave that industry exemptions. But that wasn't a pro- or anti-sprawl claim on their part.

but the industry tax breaks are in and of themselves anti-sprawl measures.

as for big box retailers not liking sprawl, well that's certainly ironic since big box stores are a type of sprawling development. if sprawl is contained or eliminated by sound land us practices, then big box stores would not be able to build their stores, period. in fact, our municipality just adopted a land development code that pretty much makes that the case, for all intents and purposes.

"Business leaders increasingly are concerned that sprawl is making it more difficult to access, attract, and maintain a qualified workforce."

i think that's great news. we might finally see some sound land use planning practices put into place elsewhere besides oregon. but conflating "business leaders" with "big box retailers" is kind of strange.

I dunno, congratulations trolls -- you seem to have successfully hijacked both this thread, and the recent thread on transportation.

Good job!

I wonder -- if Jim Karlock, Bob Tiernan and others, who really aren't progressive in any sense of the word, were to be banned from Blue Oregon, how might the tone and substance of these conversations change?

Would progressives then be able to truly have a conversation amongst themselves, "around the water cooler," so to speak, without conservative elements hijacking the conversational threads each and every time?