There are greater divides among all Americans that have nothing to do with the Cascades. At the same time there are elements that many people share in common without geographical or demographical factors playing a role. One of the political commentators that I admire greatly was Walter Karp. In one of his essays on the Pledge of Allegiance he recognized the many divisions in American society, but he noted that we had a Constitution that made us "one nation, ..., indivisible." Too bad the Bush Administration and people on both sides of the aisle in Congress rendered the Constitution next to meaningless, ignoring it when it was politically expedient but trotting it out when it was useful.

I know that Eastern Oregonians get the shaft when it comes to politics and financial resources. It's hard for me to argue against it, though, when you consider the population gap. If you add up the populations of Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, and Jackson Counties, that's 65% of Oregon's population. Just those counties. If you add in the rest of the "Western" counties, it's nearly 87%. I'm not even including Deschutes or Klamath Counties in that statistic.

When a huge portion of the state counts for only 13% of the population, it's very hard to give priority to those concerns. While I don't have numbers to back this theory up, we've all read that rural states tend to receive more federal dollars than they give back to the federal government, and urban states give more than they receive. If that analogy holds true for Eastern Oregon, it's harder (but not impossible) to argue Western Oregon should be even more interested in prioritizing "Eastern" issues.

P.S. I used this data for the calculations: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&mt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST2&format=ST-2&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PL&ds_name=DEC_2000_PL_U&geo_id=04000US41

You need to include Southern Oregon in that divide. Basically there are three cultural and economic groups in the state, Willamette Valley, Southwest Oregon, Eastern Oregon, and the Coast. And yes, there is definitely a cultural, economic, and hence a political divide as well. There was a time in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when places like K. Falls voted Democratic, and Eastern Oregon was represented for decades by centrist Democrat Al Ullman. That was when lumber was in its heyday and the good jobs were union jobs in the mills. When lumber went South, literally and figuratively, and the mills closed down, so did the blue collar Dem. jobs, and the economic infrastructure of small town Oregon. Since then not much has changed and won't into the forseeable future. These are the "bitter" people who vote based on a culture of resentment towards environmentalists and everyone else they blame for their poverty. To this day people in K. Falls talk about secession and forming the state of Jefferson with Northern California.

I meant to combine SW and Eastern Oregon as one of the three economic/political zones.

No Carla, The divide is more pronounced. It is not East v west it is the I-5 corridor from Eugene/Springlfield up to the Portland metroplex divided against the rst of Oregon. that would be western Oregon, the Coast and southern Oregon.

At its most basic it is a divide between urban and rural United States.

Please bring forth the mythical State of Jefferson!

As many people already know, there's a big political gulf between the two sides. As Oregon Blue Book shows, the east side of the Cascades is mostly Republican while the west side is mostly Democratic. (Or at least the northwest side is.)

I don't think it's so much about the evil west side pushing policy decisions that ruin the east. I think it's a simple matter of the political minority feeling left out, since their group isn't in power.

The west side is mostly Democratic and it also happens to be more populated. So the more populated region (the west side) is successfully voting in politicians who support their agendas (which happen to be Democratic) and as a result the less populated region (the east side) is feeling left out and ignored (since they are the political minority - Republican.)

I'd also agree with Matt that it also has to do with funding - the more populated regions are inevitably going to receive more total funding. (Though not necessarily more funding per person.)

It's complicated, but I think the fundamental issue is rural v urban, with nuances for different rural areas of the state. But it is driven by at least two key factors.

The most important is population (or lack thereof) and therefore economic scale (or lack thereof). For example, Mitchell, OR is a village of 170 people in a county (Wheeler) of 1500 people. (An entire county with the population of little Carlton, OR.) Wheeler has about one person per square mile; Carlton the same number of people in one square mile. This isn't just a problem of consequential limited political clout, but also of limited economic scale. 1500 people (about 650 households) isn't going to be a dynamic, resilient or large economy. Almost by definition, it will struggle. Given that, they may actually have a pretty good deal in some ways: their roads and schools are almost certainly highly subsidized by the urban parts of the state.

Secondly, the politics. Clearly 170/1500 people is a tiny fraction of the OregonJ democracy (about 4/10,000ths of the population) and there isn’t going to be much numeric political clout. That's democracy, for good or ill. But it isn't clear to me that the "cut taxes" and “kill government” attitude so common in representatives from rural areas is consistent with wanting more political attention! Furthermore, the Republican representatives basically refused to work with the substantial Democratic majorities and governor. If they won’t work to get things done, they can’t expect to get things given to them (although the Demorats really stepped up to fund the Newberg-Dundee bypass in spite of opposition by 3/4 of the local Republican representatives). Can’t really have it both ways.

Just to be clear: I live in rural Oregon, but we an only make progress if we admit the reality and work with instead of blaming “Salem” or “Portland” and if we have constructive suggestions for what we want collectively and will work for them since, with nuances, we experience much the same problem in Yamhill County and have little clout too even though we're all of 90,000 people.

But try looking at it another way: pick a random set of 170 neighbors in an urban area and ask them: feeling the love from Salem? Of course not: they aren’t getting singled out for special government largess any more than the 170 in Mitchell. They probably feel "forgotten" too.

But enough of the abstract, Would healthcare for all in Wheeler County help or hurt the county economically?

Education levels are certainly a factor in the rural/urban/suburban divide. These people living in little towns in eastern or southern Oregon have no education, no economic prospects, no job skills suited for a modern economy. Their young people move away if they have any hope for a better life.

In large part because of their lack of education small town Oregonians continue to vote for the GOP who abandons them because of opposition to any kind of government policies that would help in their health care condition, or their economic condition. About the best these people hope for, or can expect is that the state might site a prison where they can get low income service jobs. Lakeview is a great example of that.

Just to give an idea of how much things have changed since the timber economy collapsed.. in the 1970s Dem Sen. Fred Heard was the president of the Senate in a period when the Dems had significant majorities for many years in the legislature. When was the last time a Democrat from K. Falls was the president of the Senate and at the center of power in state govt.?

Wow! What a load of crap contained in many of these posts. "These people living in little towns in eastern or southern Oregon have no education,. . ."

My wife and I were born and raised on the east side of the Cascades. We, and our various siblings, received high dollar four year private college educations courtesy of our small town parents. Some of our family members chose to remain on the east side and forfeit the big money that they could have had by moving to Portland Metro or another big city. Farmers, ranchers and small town business owners are not uneducated or stupid, but they cannot connect to the economy of Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. My house, which is far, far, far from the nicest on my block, is worth more than the homes of my siblings and my wife's siblings combined. That does not mean I am smarter, only that I fled from quiet small town life to the gin and sin of the big city and got caught up in the real estate suicide race.

To somebody who lives in Arlington, Oregon a $100K job is heaven on earth. To a member of the Arlington Club, it is chicken feed (if that).

Seems like some of you lack perspective.

I went to high school in Eastern Oregon, and have been in Portland for the last 10 years. I've heard numerous people call Portland "Oregon" interchangeably. I moved here to Eastern Oregon first, then here...and yes. There's a massive gulf between the two sides of the state. You get cheers out there when you tell people that you support the state being divided along the mountain range. They've even picked Pendleton as their future capital, because Bend is too full of vacationing Portlanders and Californians. That's just how it is. They hate it that they feel they pay taxes so that we Portlanders get to ride around on light rails, when they have to drive around cliffs on dirt roads without guardrails. Daily. For about 10 miles or more on the average.

Greg D., I agree with you. Being from rural Oregon doesn't mean you are uneducated. I grew up there, got a good public school education and went to college in the Portland area and live in P-Town now.

zull mentions that many equate 'Portland' with 'Oregon' without regard to the rest of us who didn't come from Portland or the Willamette Valley.

But to be fair here, the populated parts of Oregon send proportionately way more tax dollars to the rural parts of the state. If that wasn't the case, many rural school districts would have folded long ago.

It's just a dream for the Eastern Oregon and Jefferson State secessionists to think they could maintain their infrastructure without the tax dollars they receive from urban and suburban areas.

Just like it's folly to believe that Portlanders and other urban and suburban Oregonians would be better off without the commerce and trade that comes through the Willamette Valley via rural Oregon (and Washington and Idaho, too) from natural resource extraction (timber, fishing, farming.)

Having lived equal parts of my life in both settings, I see that we really need each other but we also like to point fingers at one another. I accept this symbiotic relationship for what it is, but it's too bad that it is so divisive.

I love Oregon for what it is, a sum greater than it's separate parts.

I don't think anybody is saying Eastern Oregonians and/or rural Oregonians are stupid. And by "uneducated," I'm pretty sure that early comments are referring to higher education, not K-12. And guys, you're proving the point with your life stories: you got out, went to college and moved to Portland!!!

Anyway, that makes these folks less prepared than their PDX/WV counterparts for a modern economy. Would Intel put their next plant in Fossil? Or Burns? Not likely.

But the angries these people have pent up is a tad absurd. To blame Oregon's economic engine (PDX and the entire WV) for any of their problems is, sadly, only Republican rhetoric at its worst.

What I would have said to the people of Portland is, "Come visit and get to know us." We've stayed at the hotel in Mitchell and had breakfast at one of the cafes, have visited wonderful places all along Highway 26 and spent weekends at SolWest, Oregon's premier solar event. We've always found a warm welcome.

Uh, can we please set the record straight on the tax flow. Tax dollars flow from Urban to rural/ west to east. It only reaffirms the absurd Republican talking point of the poor oppressed rural american/oregonian. It's bullshit.

"Rural" Oregon of course, isn't really rural. Most of the people in Eastern, Central, Southern, and Coastal Oregon live in small towns. It's an important point. For example, this blog starts off talking about Mitchell. Mitchell at around 250 people is one of three towns in Wheeler County. Wheeler County also has Spray (pop. around 300) and Fossil (pop. around 650). So the three "towns" account for over half of the 1,600 people in the County. Where are the rest? Well mainly on the road between Fossil and Spray, a third of which is along the John Day River. Sure there are little pockets like Service Creek and Wintoon - 25 people here or there.

So, my point is this - isolation is a myth. Most of the people living out here in "rural" Oregon have close by neighbors.

As far as education - for the most part the attainment levels are a little lower than "urban" Oregon, but you'd expect that on a couple levels. First, "higher" education is not necessary for farm/ranch work and mill work. More jobs per capita in this part of the State fit into those blue collar/wage earner categories than in the urban areas. Second, "higher" education is distant. The nearest real 4-year college is 150 miles from Prineville. The Community College in Bend has some liaisons to 4-year colleges and you can get a second rate 4-year degree that way, but its not like being on a 4-year campus. So, "higher" education means travel. It is therefore more costly and time intensive, takes more of a commitment to get a 4-year degree, if you are from this part of the State. Put these things together, less need for "higher" eduction, and more difficulty - and of course we have a somewhat less "educated" population. That doesn't mean that we lack professionals and educated people. Between myself, my wife, and my son, we have 3 BA's and 2 MA's. We aren't unusual in that regard.

There are two levels where the great "divide" are most evident. One is "attitude" and the other is money.

The "attitude" category covers a lot of ground. Yes, on the east side of the Cascades (two-thirds of the State), we get the attitude from many west-siders that we are stupid for living here. We get that the passes run one way in the winter and people from the west side who are in State associations or other State-wide membership groups would never dream of meeting on the Eastern side during winter. We get that resource industries are somehow of less meaning and importance than industries on the west side. We have been told every sort of demeaning thing you can think of, and a lot you haven't thought of. I've had someone tell me that the geographic center of Oregon is Salem, I've had someone get upset that I was reluctant to drop by their Portland office (because its close to everything), I've had people tell me I don't know how far from Portland I live (like I don't drive that road ever), and generally I've experienced all sorts of arrogance from people in "the valley". I've learned that many people in "the valley" think that the Cascades are somewhere between half way and 2/3rds of the way across the State (thinking apparently that Idaho is only 50 to 100 miles east of The Dalles), and those same people seem to think that California is only 50 to 100 miles south of Eugene.

Furthermore, the main "attitude" from "the valley" comes down to a sense of superiority. Somehow by living in Portland, Salem, Eugene, etc., one is given a superior understanding of life, geography, economics, politics, history, and so on.

And of course, due to these attitudes, a sense of frustration if not outright anger follows. We know how far things are apart, because we travel those distances. We know what is going on in Portland, because we get all your media (and by the way, you don't get ours - so who is best informed?). Often we know the history of the State better, because we live with the consequences of all the ballot measures and such.

And of course, money is finally the salt in the wound. Mostly, people in "the valley" don't have a clue about the real economics of Oregon. Portland is the port town of Oregon for shipping of all sorts. What is shipped? Grain, lumber, and resources go out. Does Portland make any of that? No, but Portland grows rich as the port town by shipping it. What comes in? Goods and services that both feed Portland and "the valley", but also that which comes back here. Profit is made both ways shipping in and out, and that profit stays in Portland. Industry is, of course, located near the transportation hubs - another concentration of wealth. But what feeds it all doesn't come from Portland, but that other 97% of Oregon that isn't in a residential, industrial, or commercial zone. In the more rural parts of Oregon we understand that money follows population. But we also know that the foundation of the economy is the land, and if you ignore the land, you are ultimately cutting your throat. Very little that is made, ate, or used in Portland is entirely from Portland. The metro area requires imports to survive, and then complains about resources going back to those that literally feed you.

The ultimate bottom line about economics and money is this: The urban areas of Oregon are subsidized in its relative prosperity by the low wages and and relative poverty of Oregon's more rural parts. Many of the people that live here do so deliberately to get away from the urban crowding, urban pollution/noise, and urban life style. By in large, we have made the trade off of economic prosperity for a more simple and clean life style. Yet, we desire fairness. Our children should be given the same opportunities for education, potential wealth, and advancement in life as are found anywhere in Oregon. When we see mega-million dollar projects for transportation in Portland, but we are holding bake sales to keep the 4th and 5th grades open in Powell Butte so those kids don't have to bus 25 miles a day to school in Prineville - we feel the money gap. When there is only one bus ride a day to Bend (80 miles round trip to campus), and that's our local community college, we then wonder at all the community college campus locations in Portland (Sylvan is how far from that one off of N. Killingsworth, what only 6/7 miles?) - with bus routes everywhere.

We don't really expect any sense of equity, and don't really want it. We accept that more or less rural living comes with its sacrifics. Yet, we aren't stupid, and you can't tell us that the money spent on us is too much, given that we can easily see how much is spent on you folks over in the urban areas. So, of course money is a sore point. We always seem the beggars, and Portland is the grantor - in direct contradiction to the reality that Portland wouldn't survive without those of us in the "rural" parts of Oregon.

The core of justice is fairness. There is a underlying unfairness in the relationship between the population of the western Oregon urban areas and the lower population of the rest of our State. Power is only evident in its use. In the "rural" areas we are face-to-face with the naked use of power all the time, but in the urban areas you just don't see it. The unfair treatment is evident everyday here, but often there is complete denial in our urban areas.

Yes, it's a big divide.

[Racist crap deleted - editor.]

Shorter SCB: We want our cake and to eat it too. It's your fault that we can't.

SCB. I'm not sure I agree with your analysis about the foundation of the economy being the land, and the Portland being subsidized in its relative affluence by the relative poverty of rural Oregon. I don't know enough to agree or disagree. This sounds like what William Jennings Bryan was saying (and better men and women e.g. Mary Elizabeth Lease than he) back in the late 1880s-1890s.

In the present day, a Marxian would recognize what you're saying as classic center-periphery theory.

It rings strange to me (and interesting) that your claims and reasoning are essentially populist and Marxian, and yet the people of this region have (for the most part) adopted a virulently regressive, Republican, right wing, pro-business politics. I know Tom Frank has written about this in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Are you familiar with his reasoning? If so, do you agree with Frank? Why do you think that the politics are so regressive when the claims are so left wing?

There is an east/west divide, and an urban/rural divide, and I think most of it is just based on prejudice of people on both sides, and if we took the time to understand each others concerns, we could get over a lot of that. You see the same thing among parts of Portland, or between Eugene and Springfield. Simple prejudice getting in the way. We do have real differences of opinion, but the lack of understanding among us makes those differences seem much bigger than they actually are, I think.

This is exacerbated by the fact that nearly all of the population of Oregon is west of the Cascades, and most of that within the Willamette Valley. But there are still rural areas and interests in much of the Valley, and the metro area counties, and urban areas in what is generally thought of as rural Oregon.

I think the concerns of rural or Eastern Oregonians are either misguidedly based on the notion that they are getting robbed by Western/urban Oregon in the budget, or more reasonably that their views and interests are not being heard in a political system which is driven by urban politicians. A lot of urbanites don't seem to take the time to understand how things work in rural Oregon, and we wind up with misguided but well-intentioned stuff like the move to ban field burning (in my opinion, of course). As far as spending is concerned, I recall hearing that where in urban Oregon 15% of workers are working for the government, in rural areas 25% of workers work for the government, so rural areas are arguably getting a better deal than urban Oregonians, we just aren't following their policy preferences, necessarily, since the legislature is dominated by a party which is dominated by urban legislators.

I think if Democrats want to do something to heal the divide, we need to try to elect more Democrats in areas farther from Portland and more of Eastern Oregon, some of the marginal districts like HD 24 or 59. Making rural legislators a bigger part of the Democratic caucus I think would help. We've got some out towards the coast, in Clackamas County, and a bit elsewhere, but there are a lot of people not represented by the Democrats in the state legislature.

I don't get it -- the woman in the video complains that Mitchell's economy is doing poorly, yet she wouldn't live anywhere else because the community is small and quiet and slow-paced and close-knit; even the "hustle and bustle" of Madras (!!!) was too much for her. Get a clue, lady -- small towns in the middle of nowhere are NEVER prosperous, never have been, never will be. You can't expect to combine the ambiance of Mitchell and the robust economy of a big city.

SCB: "The urban areas of Oregon are subsidized in its relative prosperity by the low wages and and relative poverty of Oregon's more rural parts."

How do you figure that?

"Shorter SCB: We want our cake and to eat it too. It's your fault that we can't."

LOL! Bingo! Too many Eastern Oregonians want a rural lifestyle combined with big-city amenities and opportunities and whine when they can't have them. Of course big, expensive transportation projects are going to be built in Portland -- THAT'S WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE! Do you expect ODOT to build a multimillion-dollar light rail system to serve Powell Butte?

It has become even harder to live since the destruction of the PERS system. My wife and I both retired at 55 and the amount we live on now is less than it would before PERS destruction. She only receives $5,200 per mo. while I get slightly more at $5,400. That may seem like alot to some, but believe me we earned every penny. My wife and I can't wait to receive Social Security to supplement our meager state retirement.

Dulane:

$127,000 a year for two is "meager"? That's certainly not rich but it's more than double the household income of the average working Oregonian. What sort of jobs did you have? In the federal govt, to have a $65,000/year pension you'd have to have been making > $160,000 per year -- a very senior manager, Assistant US Attorney, or something like that.

"In large part because of their lack of education small town Oregonians continue to vote for the GOP who abandons them because of opposition to any kind of government policies that would help in their health care condition, or their economic condition."

Only a snobby liberal would make an incredulous statement like that. Your comments only prove your complete ignorance to rural Oregon.

"In large part because of their lack of education small town Oregonians continue to vote for the GOP who abandons them because of opposition to any kind of government policies that would help in their health care condition, or their economic condition."

Only a snobby liberal would make an incredulous statement like that. Your comments only prove your complete ignorance to rural Oregon.

$127,000 a year for two is "meager"?

Former, please give us a citation which shows that, of every 100 PERS retirees, how many have that level of benefits?

Or don't statistics matter as much as talking points?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." What I have gleaned from the post and comments is this: We, here in the Valley, according to the folks in rural Oregon, have a prejudiced attitude toward the East Siders and treat them badly socially, economically and politically and think they are a bunch of hicks. Although they believe that, I don't think it's true. It's too much of generalization.

However I do think think it's accurate that they feel unrecognized, overlooked, unacknowledged and under-appreciated as citizens of this state. I don't know how correct that or even if it is correctable given the wide disparity in populations.

I think we all believe that we are living in the center of the universe and there always is an 'us vs them' quality concerning people from other places: I mean good grief, in the old days there were fights between gangs who lived north of the river in Brownsville and gangs who lived south of the river in Brownsville over petty jealousies

So there is always the 'us' vs those 'other people' dynamic at work on a small and large scale.

I just don't see rural Oregon ever getting the respect they feel they deserve. There will always be something they can point to in order to justify their belief that they are getting the short end of the stick.

Maybe we can run Light-Rail all the way to Lakeview?

I'm not saying that most PERS receive that. I think most PERS recipients would be happy to get that much. That was why I wondered what their jobs had been, because their pensions were so high given retiring at only 55.

My point only was to question poster "Duhane" characterizing $127,000 as "meager". I best most PERS retirees would be pretty happy to get that much.

"I'm not saying that most PERS receive that. I think most PERS recipients would be happy to get that much. That was why I wondered what their jobs had been, because their pensions were so high given retiring at only 55."

Once again, out of 100 PERS retirees, how many of them retired at 55? Do you have a source for that statement?

And how many teachers who "retired" while still active lived a luxurious life, vs. the ones who became substitute teachers? If PERS benefits were really that high, why would anyone want to wake up at 6AM and wait to see if they would be called to work as a substitute? I know there were lots of people like that in the late 1990s and early 2000s because I was a substitute teacher back then. I would go to the start of the year substitute inservice and see people I had substituted for in the previous year.

I find it interesting that the very things which make Ms. Perry want to stay where she is would quickly disappear with economic developement.

But to be fair here, the populated parts of Oregon send proportionately way more tax dollars to the rural parts of the state. If that wasn't the case, many rural school districts would have folded long ago.

No, stevedeshazer, actually they don't. SE Observer has it right. You can look up the statistics by going to various state web sites and compiling the data, as I have done. The Portland/Salem area gets at least its money's worth for the taxes it pays. As far as education funding goes, the North Coast is heavily subsidizing the populated areas of the state.

Every area of the state outside of the Portland Metro/Willamette Valley area has been losing students for years. It's a vicious cycle. Districts lose students, therefore they lose state funding. They cut teachers and programs, so more students go away. Etc.

No small part of the problem is our land use laws. They're intended for areas like Portland. They strangle economic development in other parts of the state. Another part was the disastrous decision to channel the rural schools funding mainly to wealthy, urban schools in places with stable economies.

At some point, one of two things should happen. Either we make a commitment to the rural areas of the state (about 80 percent of the state's land mass) by acknowledging that "quality of life" has at least something to do with communities having decent job bases and populations with an average age that doesn't qualify for AARP membership, which will rebuild rural schools. Or, the eastern and southern parts of the state should be allowed to secede and form their own state. By attending to their own needs, these areas would be much more economically successful.

LT:

What are you talking about? Where did I say that most PERS employees retire at 55? Where did I make any claims about typical or average PERS employees?

I'm quoting poster Jerry Dulane, one post above mine, who said IN HIS OWN POST that HE PERSONALLY retired at 55, as did his wife, and that the two of them receive $127,000/year in PERS pension. Jerry Dulane called that amount "meager". I pointed out that $127,000 per year is not all that meager to most people.

Carla, this assertion that there is little to no divide between east and west is laughable...really! If politicians that were elected statewide in Oregon actually spent time in Eastern Oregon, they might see the need to find common ground and starting working for all of Oregon, not just their liberal base in the valley. They don't care about Eastern Oregon, b/c they don't have to...they'll get elected regardless of their vote.

Gordon Smith was amazingly talented at representing all of Oregon, both East and West...and I think Allen Alley is off to a great start with his walk across Oregon. Rather than spending 30 minutes at each town shoving hot dogs in his mouth and acting clueless idiot about foreign affairs like Jeff Merkley, Mr. Alley is spending quality time in Eastern Oregon, listening, not talking to Eastern Oregonians about their issues, which just so know are VERY different than issues in Western Oregon.

umm, I think Jerry Dulane's post is a troll. Don't feed the troll.

I grew up in Eastern Oregon and lived in several counties there as an adult and I can attest to the divide. As children, we learned that the only time West siders thought about us was the opening week-end of deer season. And believe me, we resented the sudden population explosion. My own children spent their formative years in a one-room school, only to find that they were ahead of their peers when we moved to the West side. Now I hear folks on the west side talking about shipping garbage east of the mountains, "where it belongs." This attitude will always play badly with the residents of Eastern Oregon (and Washington). I still cheer the day when John Kitzhaber answered a member of the audience during the Wilsonville prison debacle, when that person wanted the prison built in Eastern Oregon. He said, "the crimes are committed on the west side of the mountains, why should we make eastern Oregon our penal colony?" I can understand Ms. Perry's wish to live in Mitchell; I would prefer that to the overpopulated west side. And by the way, the weather is great over there!

I was born and raised on the East side. People there say they hate government and continually complain because government doesn't give them enough. They have the crappiest health care access in the world, but you can bet they are opposing anything the government might do to help them out. They claim to want growth but hate gays and ethnic diversity and all that growth brings, and they consistently vote for the party that doesn't believe in the science that brings technological growth, ( majority of Rs believe the universe was created 10,000 years or less ago,a stunning 6% of scientists in the U.S. are self-identified GOP, why that many, I don't know.) but want to claim they are bright and educated people. Nope, when end-time religious fundamentalism and anti-govt. militias are your loyalties, and when you consistently vote for Greg Walden you can't expect much. You can bet the better part of them are out there claiming Medicare isn't a govt. program and that Barack Obama really isn't a citizen.

How in the world can you hate govt. and its services, so much, vote against the party that might actually do something for you, and yet be angry because govt. isn't doing enough for you? That's a definition of irrationality. No wonder their young people don't want to stick around. Cultures of isolation and hate simply don't thrive and don't invite positive change, economic, political, or otherwise.

A couple of responses:

To Joe Hill who wrote, "It rings strange to me (and interesting) that your claims and reasoning are essentially populist and Marxian, and yet the people of this region have (for the most part) adopted a virulently regressive, Republican, right wing, pro-business politics. I know Tom Frank has written about this in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Are you familiar with his reasoning? If so, do you agree with Frank? Why do you think that the politics are so regressive when the claims are so left wing?"

I don't feel any need to jump into one of your categories. I enjoyed the Kansas book, but see the dynamics of Oregon as different. Why are the politics "regressive"? I'm not sure that's the right term. On the ground here, I see reactionism more than "regressiveness". A great deal of general distrust exists in the body politics in this part of the State. That is based upon long term issues such as urban interference in rural management issues (Cougars, bears, fencing streams, spotted owls, forest management, etc. etc.) I'm not saying that those issues are without foundation - they are very real issues - but that the solutions have been imposed from the outside often without even local consultation. Even when "rules" are set up, such as Oregon's land use laws, that did involve consultation and inclusion as they were set up, they get the veto from the Legislature when they aren't convenient to the popular will.

-- Imagine if you will that rural Oregon had control of the governmental agencies that decided how urban roads would be built. If we decided that gravel was good enough for you, and that all streets, alleyways, freeways, and interchanges only needed a gravel surface - because anything else was too expensive - how would you feel? Yet, exactly that sort of thing goes on all the time in rural Oregon. We used to have a say in the finance of our schools, but Measure 5 in 1990 took local control of money away. Who voted for that? Well, it passed in 5 Counties out of 36: Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, Wasco, and Jackson. Let me say that differently - Outside of the Portland Metro area, only one County in the eastern 2/3rds of Oregon passed Measure 5, and only one County south of Wilsonville passed Measure 5. And what did that do? It took our local property taxes for schools and sent them to Salem. We now get whatever the Legislature says. My County only shares a member of the Legislature with 5 other Counties. When we had local control with 5 School Board members, you could always talk to someone about your concern with what goes on with funding in the schools. Now, I'd have to travel across half the State to visit with my member of the Legislature who happens to live in Southern Oregon (and I'm in Prineville to the northeast of Bend).

Joe - this isn't Kansas. Not even in Kansas is it true that you'd have to drive nearly 200 miles to go see your member of the legislature at their house.

But back on point, resource issues are not decided locally. Key issues like school funding are not decided locally. Policy issues that affect every area of life are not decided locally. The net effect of this is one of worn out powerlessness with occasional bursts of frustration and anger.

Yet, its really simple - show a little caring for us, and it is returned. Again I note the example of Sen. Wyden. He comes here once a year, listens to us, and then at the ballot box receives over 50% of the vote. That does not fit Joe Hill's concept of "regression".

Dartagnan writes, "Shorter SCB: We want our cake and to eat it too. It's your fault that we can't."

No, I said we accept a trade off, better living for less income. All we want (my bottom line) is fairness. By fairness I mean equal treatment by the Legislature and State agencies.

And several don't get the concept of how rural Oregon subsidizes urban Oregon.

It's really simple. We think of economics as supply and demand. We think these are equal forces at work. If demand increases, price increases until supply increases. If supply goes above the level of demand, then with a high inventory prices go down. But this isn't really as true anymore as it used to be. Walmart is the prime example. By placing a third party between buyer and seller that has control of a large market share, the market can be manipulated. We know that Walmart forces down labor costs, do you think that Home Depot, Lowes, and Fred Meyer's (Krogers) don't? And where to they get their supplies? (Clue, its not in Portland.)

So, over in Portland when you grow your backyard vegetable garden, you have seed, hoses, hoes, and shovels that go into what it takes to do it. The hoe and the shovel have a wooden handle. Somewhere there is a worker cutting that wood out of a forest. If a fair market value is given for harvesting labor, the price of that wood goes up. If a sub-standard wage is paid, the price of that wood goes down. Cheap shovels and hoes depend upon cheap wood, which depends upon low wages. Over here in Central Oregon, we grow the carrot seeds you buy in packages in Portland. Is the farm labor paid enough for that wage to be considered fair? Do you ever stop and wonder how they can get that seed out of the field, cleaned, processed, and into those little packages for one or two dollars that you pay in the store? Farmers aren't known to be rich people....

If the supply side labor was paid in wages equal to those in the urban areas, your garden might cost twice as much. Your vegetables in the store might cost twice as much. The wood in your houses, the tile on your floors, the concrete in your patio, the leather on your feet, and the cotton in your pants come from rural areas where wages are lower than in urban areas. If there were ever a "fair wage" movement in rural America, well, I bet the National Guard would be called out to deal with it. Self-employed people like most farmers, ranchers, and resource people are not guaranteed a minimum wage.

Low wages in rural areas result in low prices in urban areas. It is supply/demand as manipulated by corporations.

I call that a subsidy. Perhaps I'm wrong. But, for those of you in urban areas, I suggest you enjoy it while you can.

One of the ways we know we have an urban/rural divide, is that we look at these points I have raised differently. Some would like to make this all about "right/wrong", but I say "different". If I have a different outlook than those in Portland, then perhaps I am seeing different things, experiencing a different life, and different priorities.

Accurate demographics always suck for those at the bottom end, whether comparing urban and rural, ethnicity, wealth, or voting patterns. Politicians, good and bad, have to rely on those demographics in much of their decision-making (pretending, for a moment, that the reality of money doesn't trump everything, damn the demographics, high profits ahead).

Have a little fun. Look at the maps you can get from ODOT concerning transportation corridors, districts, and freight lines. If you can't overlay them, at least look at them one after the other several times. You'll see a set of grids that accurately describes divisions that have much to do with the point of the article. East versus west is a gross oversimplification of the real problem.

Were I a politician, after conducting such an exercise, I would ask what kind of jobs can we build in non-urban areas that make use of the transportation grids and benefit both east and west. The answer, to me, isn't that difficult or expensive.

But then again, I'm not a politician, just a politico. And I'm trying my best to present this answer to those willing to listen.

Actually, our land use laws are intended for the whole state, and were adopted in reaction to everything from "coastal condomania" to "sagebrush subdivisions." Where's the evidence that they strangle economic development? In fact, they save Oregonians money because they mean we're not building roads, sewers, etc. in the middle of nowhere. Unchecked sprawl is expensive. Planning for the future is smart, whether it's a small town or a large city.

A typical response by a Portland-area resident with little understanding of rural living. First, the land use laws were voted into existence mainly by Portland/Willamette Valley legislators who wanted to control rural resources so as to maintain their playground at the expense of the people living in these areas. If you took a vote of all residents outside of the I-5 corridor between Portland and Eugene, I wonder what percentage would opt to toss out the current land use system? 60%? 70%? It certainly wouldn't survive such a vote. A fair and reasonable system that is as wonderful for Oregon's rural population wouldn't depend upon Portlanders forcing it upon most of the state.

Just as there is no truly objective "evidence" that the land use laws help Oregon's economy, there obviously is none that rural areas are hurt by it. However, having participated in the comprehensive "planning" process (more about that below) and having worked on rural economic development in our area, there is little doubt that the land use laws have played a key role in the economic decline of rural Oregon. I have spoken with many firms that would like to locate in our area, but cannot. Economic development is tough to do in smaller towns. Incomes are lower here, retail/services in shorter supply, transportation more challenging for producers, higher education less available. Idiotic land use restrictions that have nothing to do with making development attractive and functional often tip the scales in the wrong direction when they try to make projects pencil out.

Your "sprawl" statement shows that you're out of touch with rural economies. Reducing "sprawl" may be fine in urban areas where you can have more cross streets and where there are more options for businesses wanting to locate there. However, in rural areas, customer-dependent businesses have to be located along main thoroughfares -- and there are often only one or two such roads. Even for industrial firms, developing off the highway means spending loads of money creating links to the main highway. The extra cost is your argument against "sprawl," and trying to reduce building north/south or east/west increases cost. The radical enviros who live to stop development in rural areas carry the anti-sprawl arguments to ridiculous extremes. Nobody (except the radical econuts) is talking about building water and sewer systems in the "middle of nowhere." We're talking about extending them from places they already are. And we're not allowed to do even that much.

Finally, you talk about planning. I agree that planning is a good thing. Unfortunately, our land use system doesn't foster planning. Unless you equate voluminous regulations and costly, time-wasting procedures with "planning." When our community tried to update our Comprehensive Plan, we spent years going thorough the visioning process, holding hearings, conductive surveys, creating plans, etc. The state paid for a "consultant" who came in to tell us what we wanted. When we didn't share the consultant's vision and went off on our own creating real plans and strategies, DLCD became so upset that they threw out the results of our process and told us what our "plan" would be. Our plans didn't violate any land use laws. They just focused on creating a more dynamic and stable economy. We were told by Kitzhaber and his agencies that we were supposed to focus our businesses in a "town center" (already mostly residential since our town has one highway that runs north/south through town) and maintain a "small town feel" (read no more commercial or industrial development.

Their plan for us is working we -- for anti-growthers such as yourself. A formerly thriving community has lost more than 30% of its school population. Major businesses have closed. The unemployment rate is over 20%. Money flows out of our area like a downward-flowing river. The worst part is that this isn't unusual in rural Oregon. Real planning involves assessing the various environments (social, economic, physical, etc.), setting realistic goals, formulating strategies and tactics for reaching those goals, and creating mechanisms for continual review and reformulation of plans based on changes in circumstances. The current land use "planning" system involves virtually none of those elements in a way that is meaningful in rural communities.

However, all is good with land use in Oregon. Portland and Salem are thriving. And, when it comes right down to it, that's really all that matters.

Honestly Carla this is a hoot- I had to have a beer to get through all of the comments- priceless- The only thing that is funnier than the comments of Portlanders about outlanders is the comments about outlanders about Portlanders- Me I grew up in SW Portland near Wilson High, lived in Eugene and Salem and now in rural North Central Oregon in a "city" of 50 for 20 years so I've seen some of it.

First, you have to wonder what goes through Rick Dancer's mind and what is day is like- He's obviously decided he should be Governor or whatever and now he has set about by proving it by taking his video camera and going out across the great divide to the outback and actually talking to the honest and abused Real Americans... Only to capture some meaningless dribble... Gee he must really care about them... ha ha ha-

Second, there is a divide and the bad news for the political genius class is that you can't erase it with some corny glossy postcards-

Third, exploiting this "divide" is the tried and true GOP strategy for all purposes- blaming Portland and/or Salem is a great strategy for a collection of drooling Babbits that has no positive agenda to offer and specialize in being against. It pretty much scares Democrats off especially the organized correct types with their power pacs and unified campaigns- too bad because if they ran some red necks they could win some seats. The GOP exploits this wonderfully and have for years- protraying their legislators as giants back in their homelands- when in reality people could care less except at a Chamber of Commerce meeting-

Fourth, a lot of the folk in the outlands have an extreme ego investment in being forgotten and left-out so it suits them to a tee to be divided from Portland and most wouldn't have it any other way. It helps define who they are. Portland bashing is an old tradition and part of our way of life- although it is alright to go down there say for a Blazers game.

Fifth, anymore you scratch a lot of them to find out they are really Californians and New Yorkers anyway especially in Southern Oregon and Bend. Many of the ranches and land is owned not by local people but big corporations and the rich and powerful from the Willamette Valley i.e. Robert Pamplin. So the cries you hear about land-use planning mostly come from the same bunch- developers and their syncophants in county courthouses.

Sixth, land-use planning works just fine in rural Oregon and those that claim it harms rural Oregon are blowing smoke- thanks to statewide planning most of these communities have shovel-ready industrial parks with available sites- like Madras and Prineville- and could take on new industries tomorrow- for years land-use opponents dogged the lack of such as a reason for lack of development in small rural cities- now these "parks" sit there with vacant land and aging infrastructure all ready to go but so few takers... I'd like to see these people blaming land-use laws to list some specific development projects that were stopped because of land-use laws- other than real estate developments. The problem is that the leadership is so short-sighted that they have no concept of how to use land-use planning to the advantage of their communities and complete political investment in being against... You'll notice that the outlander crowd didn't mind land-use at all when they were trying to stop Rajneeshpuram- today they call that type of development Destination Resorts.

Don't let these smoke screens work- the state could abolish land-use planning tomorrow and the big divide would still exist and Portland would still be picking on us and ignoring us- that's they they like it, like it.

It's odd sometimes how the anti-government types are the first one to cry that they need some help from the government.

You all want to understand rural Oregon and your selves maybe watch Chevy Chase in the 1988 film Funny Farm.

PS: What I've learned is that over the long run is that it is actually Eugene that is the tail that wags the dog in Oregon- All Portland has is the ways and means.

Like the kids say Peace Out from the High Desert!

All you have to do is jump in the car, head East and when you get past Bend start asking questions. It's easy for those of us who live in the power portion of Oregon to make assumptions and blame it on politics. Sure, there are more Republicans on that side of the state, but I have relatives who are Democrats over there and they feel the same way. Also, when I interview folks I don't ask what party they belong to because I really don't care. I'm looking for thoughts, not ideology.

John,

Oregon's land-use laws don't have much to do with the available industrial land in Prineville. It cracks me up when someone who hasn't grown up in a rural area talks as if they know so much about it.

I'd also like to see your proof that most of the private lands in Central Oregon are owned by corporations and the rich. You must know something I don't...

And Brad Avakian, our current Labor Commissioner, was in Prineville today and admitted that much of rural Oregon gets ignored by Salem. He even said, "I'm sure all of you don't see many of us over here on this side of the state."

Yeah, he's right. And did I mention that he's a Democrat?

Jon Silvertooth - the state could abolish land-use planning tomorrow and the big divide would still exist...

Kurt Chapman - I can certianly agree with that portion of your statement.

Basically the rural/urban divide exists in many states with few large cities that dominate the population and political tilt of the state. Certianly Kentucky has a Lexington/Louisville dived with the rest of their Commonwealth and King county is constantly at odds with the rest of Washington.

The rest of Silvertooth's meanderings are at best mental diarrhea; the smug, self serving statements of a dies hard Portlander who now thinks of himself as a 'country' person because he moved. Nope, its a mindset. Out here in the rural part of the divide it is as simple (and complicated) as we don't expect Salem, Eugene and Portland to welcome us dictating living conditions to them, we likewise don't want them passing regulations and laws onto us "for our own good".

As I type this I just saw a cougar come down from out of the hills above us, more common now than ever thanks to those I-5 correidor zealots who decided they knew how to control the cougar population better than we rural folk did.

I, too, get a hoot when I read things like the above by John Silvertooth. To claim that all the land use laws do is stop "real estate development" is too funny.

"Real estate development" would include any activity that would bring jobs to a community. Residential, commercial, industrial -- it's all real estate development. If you're not developing real estate, you're leaving it undeveloped. Which, as Mr. Silvertooth accurately states, is the real goal of Oregon's land use laws as they pertain to rural areas. No development. No jobs. No schools. No communities. It's nice to see the anti-growth advocates admit what those of us out here in the hinterlands have long suspected.

You're right, John, about there being a gap now even if the land use laws were abolished. The damage has been done. It will take decades to repair, if indeed it ever can be. However, the average income gap (which has been increasing over the past few decades) would begin to close if rural areas are ever allowed to take advantage of times when the economy is good to push projects forward. You might not like what results. But then, many of us out here dislike what the Portland area has become. We just don't get any say in the matter.

Well Carla, if you wanted to make a point about divides all you have to do is read the rather pointless generalizations through out the comments. There is one glaring ommission in the screeds, the ballot initiative process is owned by the North I-5 Corridor - when you think the results suck, there's your target. If all of E OR voted by large majorities for - say - gay bashing, it would be a spit in the bucket (majority yes, not large) so the cretins in that liberal target aren't who you blame unless you look to that corridor.

Blaming either area for out comes misses the point, we need to look to each other's needs and see each other as citizens of the same state, but this commentary doesn't auger well for that ... politicians will follow the same course.

He even said, "I'm sure all of you don't see many of us over here on this side of the state."

Gee, I seem to recall a friend of mine from E. of the Cascades voting for Merkley in the Senate primary because Merkley came to visit his part of the state even as a legislative leader.

More of that would be worthwhile.

There's enough ignorance in the comments to gridlock a state! Good gracious, do some of these commentators realize that not everyone outside the metro area is cut from one same cloth? I see a lot of facts in this dicussions trying to bent around an ugly, fact-less set of archetypal rants.

While parts of Oregon have lived in depression for years, Portland itself is not doing very well. Portland happens to be getting gutted by the suburb class taking Portland wages and escaping to Vancouver. Rather than try to divide up a state, why don't we focus on those outsourcing Oregon's profits?

Fact is, I'd love to visit Mitchell. I have no car and no jay-oh-bee at the moment. Yet as a very urbane Portland-born progressive, there seems to be more in common with the farmer from Bend who sells Rocky Mountain Oysters than there is with the kids my own age here in the suburbs who taunted me with homophobic jibes out their Prius window.

It's true that easterners need to be the change they seek, if they want to see economic improvement. How's that any different for those of us in Portland? Wealth for the "creatives"--who happen to be white collar and mostly the most educated--and welfare for the rest of us schlubs isn't my idea of a success story.

<h2>Our brightest days can be ahead of us. We have a strong history of progressivism, endurance and diversity. Better to forgive our opponents than to begrudge them. Shame on the so called "serious adults" who don't know better.</h2>