Oh yeah, save the high value farmland.

The gross revenue of the entire freaking grass seed crop from thousands of acres devoted to growing it is roughly equivalent of the gross revenue of Washington Square.

An elegant post and an important one, thank you.

I take issue with only one line...no one is effectively mobilizing Oregonians against the bulldozers the Measure 37 folks plan to unleash on their unsuspecting neighbors. In the interest of full disclosure, I work with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

The challenge on our plate is to communicate the messages you laid out in this post; The fact that our working farms and forests work because of planning. The fact that Measure 37 stands to undermine much of what makes Oregon a desirable place to live. The fact that building stronger communities while preserving natural areas requires a lot of hard work, attending meetings, reaching out to neighbors, and making it easy for County Commisioners to say no to poorly planned sprawl.

1000 Friends of Oregon communicates this message loud and clear to anyone and everyone who will listen. The recent statewide survey on Measure 37 conducted by Moore Information demonstrates that 61% of Oregonians want the Oregon Legislature to either fix or repeal Measure 37. That means that when we take our message to the public we are very likely to find supportive ears.

So how should we carry the message? How do you think we should raise awareness and protect our great state? What type of mobilization is missing?

Our plan so far is to make sure that people are paying attention to and getting involved in the hearings going on in Salem. We are also part of a statewide effort with SOLV and The Bus Project to listen to Oregonians' ideas for the future. It is called Envision Oregon. We will be working with our partner groups and folks all over the state to have positive conversations about the Oregon we want to live in and how we will work together to get there.

If your plan involves something more, please share it. We are listening.

I moved to Oregon 15 years ago. I fundamentally like the way that agricultural land is protected from uncontrolled subdivision. However, I find the original posting here a bit misleading. People are moving to Oregon, Tom McCall's old line about "visit but don't stay" notwithstanding. They need places to live. Whether or not you welcome immigrants to Oregon or agree with increased population density as a desirable goal, the fact remains that you cannot force people to live in highrises within established cities. Or rather we the people can, collectively, force such a decision...but I'm not sure I want to comtemplate the consequences. Pretty ugly, I imagine.

County commissioners, particularly, hate the land use laws. Politicians get elected by saying “yes.” They loved to approve subdivisions. They created new tax revenues for counties while leaving school districts holding the bag for the inevitable costs of growth.

Isn't a more reasonable analysis to say that increasing population means more schools are necessary, which requires more tax revenue, and that the job of elected officials is to explain clearly and concisely just how much additional revenue is needed? I'm afraid that otherwise the "debate" turns into an endless series of recriminations, whereby people point the finger at their favorite target du jour, be it builders, "greedy" land owners, or "those damn Californians moving here and ruing our lifestyle."

A younger generation owns the land and no longer respects agriculture and forestry they way the previous generation did.

Perhaps so, but the point is what exactly? Sorry, this has the same sort of "feel" as those nostalgic articles one reads in the O from time to time, in which people reflect on the halcyon days when they made a few bucks as teens picking strawberries.

As for Measure 37, I opposed it and I can certainly understand the desire to repeal it. But how many people here actually think a repeal, even if referred to the voters, would pass? Would a failed repeal simply cement a bad law in place? Democratic politics being the art of the possible, would reforming M37 be a better option?

I anticipate someone writing that the real problem is population growth. Well, that's correct. But Oregon is not a sovereign nation that controls its borders (as though any sovereign nation truly does). Rather than rage impotently about population growth, isn't it more sensible to think about how to respond to this phenomenon?

You can curse the darkness or light a candle.

I actually agree with a lot of the last two postings taking issue with what I wrote before, although I think torridjoe is kind of fuzzing things a bit: in fact, we do not force people into city highrises and find that they gleefully accept...especially if "people" includes the yound and childless or empty-nesters. TJ is conflating my comment about highrises with the urban growth boundary, which I think is a fine idea.

I briefly lived, and still work, in a bit of east Clark COunty, Washington now overwhelmed by sprawl and McMansions. I despised it and moved to an established Portland neighborhood. I would hate to see Oregon go the way of Clark County, where "county commissioners" and "developers" are practically synonyms. I would especially hate to see this happen if an ill-thought-out effort to repeal Measure 37 backfires.

Lin Qiao said: Isn't a more reasonable analysis to say that increasing population means more schools are necessary,..

I don't know if you have read the news much, but the increasing population ain't in large young couples with children. From my experience in Ashland, Roseburg and Portland, the overwhelming majority of the increasing population in Oregon is the elderly (Some would complain affluent Californians looking to turn Oregon into another Bay Area). The Ashland newspaper was filled with stories last year of potential elementary school closings and one did close down last year.

I don't know where everyone is getting their facts. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sadler's post points out a larger problem with Oregon politics--the regular use (I would say abuse) of the initiative process as a way to make an end run around the legislative process. Regardless of your feelings about Measure 37, the facts are that many people were unclear about what the effects of the measure would be. (For this fact, just read any of the numerous Oregonian pieces on M.37 the last couple weeks. Almost all the articles feature citizens lamenting they "didn't know it meant THAT.") This is sadly typical of most of the ballot measures; they are put on the ballot by special interest groups, often with narrow commercial agendas, seeking to avoid going through the scrutiny that comes with the regular deliberative process in the legislature. It's also a good way to hide (at least for a while) who and whos money is behind a bill.

I'd really like to see the bar raised for getting ANY initiative on the ballot. I think several good things would come of this: (1) only important, widely supported ballot measures would get on the ballot, (2) activists would be encouraged to focus their attentions on the legislature, where when bills pass, they do so after analysis and a give-and-take between opposing views. What the ballot measure has given us is mob rule. And the mob is easy to dupe, not because they're dumb, but because most people don't have time to dedicate their lives to full-time investigations on the legal ramifications of the legislation they, as citizens, are often forced to vote on.

Ashland and Roseburg have become retirement communities for Californians. Portland's not quite that -- lots more young professionals; not necessarily with children. There is, though, a boomlet of kids in Washington County, where they're building new elementary schools.

Those of us who live in Portland and have kids in public schools certainly know that enrollments are dropping. It's NOT because the schools are collapsing and huge numbers are moving to private schools. Instead, it reflects a clear demographic trend: fewer and fewer Portland households with school-age kids. Demographic projections predict a continuation of this trend. I kind of doubt this means that people with school-age kids are increasingly unwilling to live in the city, but that increasingly they cannot afford to live in the city.

I also doubt that the Washington County boomlet in school age kids materialized out of thin air; it also almost certainly doesn't reflect some sort of Washington County baby boom, with last-generation Washington Countians now having kids. I suspect it's a reflection of migration from elsewhere, including from Portland. Can anyone provide a link to reliable survey data bearing on this?

It's not for me to tell people where to live or whether to have children. I do, however, wonder how much of the density-is-good mantra is coming from people without young kids at home. Everyone's vote is equal, but everyone's perspective is not.

It's not just about denisty or sprawl. It's about the quality of the community. Both development types can be done well or not well. Both can be done in a way that is better or worse for kids.

Give the kiddies caring communities, parks and ball fields, places to walk and ride their bikes, places to aggregate and socialize, and places to escape and they will figure things out.

Isolate kids either in the burbs or in amenity poor urban neighborhoods and you'll get miserable kids.

I always laugh when I go to the suburbs around Portland because they seem so much LESS kid friendly than Portland's somewhat more urban neighborhoods.

1) I think lin qiao is right about the nostalgia. I think Russell misses the central change from the early 70's, there is now a lot more money on the table. Now there are millions of dollars to be made if your land in rural areas can be subdivided for housing instead of being sold as farmland. On the other hand, Dorothy English's land would not have been worth much regardless of the restrictions on it in the early 80's when Portland was losing population.

Buy low, sell high. Real estate for the last decade has been in the sell high mode and people are looking to make their money while they can. Certainly the timber companies that have owned land since the 1800's are now looking to make a killing based on the idea that they are exempt from any regulation that has happened since.

2) The problem for 1000 Friends is that they are the wrong messengers on this issue regardless of what the message is. That is a hard for an organization created to defend Oregon's land use laws to hear. But they are seen, rightly and properly, as rigid defenders of the existing land use laws. That is great for those of use who agree with them, but who delivers the message in a campaign is often as important as the message.

3) Most Oregonians still support those land use laws. What is needed is for someone to take the issue away from 1000 Friends and OLCV. Preferably a group of former county commissioners and others who can talk about the difficulties the law creates from an elder statesman perspective.

Let's not confuse the Urban Growth Boundary with density here. A basic misunderstanding about the UGB is that it mandates density. It does not. It simply mandates that whatever form of development a town or city zones for must be in a contiguous defined area preventing "leap frog" development like you see in the sun belt (ie. the subdivision 20 miles from anywhere). In addition it mandates a 20 year supply of buildable land in order to avoid price inflation caused by land shortage.

Portland and the Portland metro area are in fact not very dense when compared with Seattle, San Francisco and LA. One drive around Clackamas or Wilsonville will confirm this.

The recent boom in highrise development in Portland has anything to do with the UGB or SB100 mandating density. It is simply people making the choice to live downtown, not a lack of traditional houses for sale in subdivisions. Additionally Portland made the choice to encourage this kind of development, the suburbs have made other choices as is their right to do under current land use rules.

My point is I'm tired of the "property rights" folks blaming the fact that they can't apply their standard development practices from Texas here in Oregon on the UGB, SB100 or "planning". I'm worried about the public's knowledge level on these issues, especially among the new arrivals. Maybe we should hand out a 'Land Use Planning in Oregon 101' booklet when they pickup their drivers licenses.

I'd really like to see the bar raised for getting ANY initiative on the ballot...What the ballot measure has given us is mob rule. And the mob is easy to dupe, not because they're dumb, but because most people don't have time to dedicate their lives to full-time investigations on the legal ramifications of the legislation they, as citizens, are often forced to vote on.

Best brief analysis of what's wrong with the initiative process I've read. THANKS.

There are two legitimate sides in this "debate" as outlined by Russell. On the one side those that believe they should be able to do anything with the land they own, and those that believe in control of growth and protection of the land. Some would say that the first side isn't ligitimate, but they have well founded reasoning for their views.

But Oregon's land use laws reach beyond this simple two-sided view of land use.

In the mid-1990's I spent a couple years on my County's Planning Commission. One time we had a rock quarry application before the commission, and the County staff offered a field trip to see the site so the Commissioners could determine what if any findings to make to offset negative impacts. On the way into this site I noted a low ridge line on the eastern side of this north/south creek basin. From that ridge line, a panoramic view opened up to the west of the Cascade Mountains from Mt. Jefferson south to Mt. Bachelor. What was on that ridge was as close to nothing as can be imagined. It was rocky, tufts of grass grew in places, there was an occasional rabbit brush, and a couple of Juniper trees. At the lower slope of the ridge some blown in soil existed, but not enough to do anything with in terms of agriculture. -- It would have been enough for septic drain systems.

So, why couldn't there be a row of 5 acre lots along that ridge line? About 20 places could have been built there.

The ridge line started not more than 300 yards north of the O'Neal Highway (a State road between Prineville and Terrebonne), so a good existing transportation route was close by. The Crooked River was just south, so the aquifer for well water would be easily recharged.

The reason why this practical site for 20 houses couldn't be used is that the Exclusive Farm Use zoning, required as a result of Senate Bill 100; won't allow it.

No one in this area wants sagebrush subdivisions. What drives many people to distraction is that there are locations like that one I noted above that would be good locations for small clusters of homes, that would have no negative impact on farming/ranching/timber harvest, and would be a good use of the land.

Because the brush used in Statewide zoning that happened under Senate Bill 100 is such a wide brush, it doesn't allow small sized practical uses of the land of Oregon. About 97% of Oregon is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use.

So, from the perspective of rural people that comes across as heavy handed. That then as every heavy handed governmental issue does, lends itself to rebellion. The form of that rebellion in Oregon was Measure 37. And, rural folks have come to hate the idea of sage brush subdivisions all over again as they have seen what Measure 37 is leading to.

I hope that the review of Oregon's land use laws from the last couple of years goes somewhere. Most of us don't support Measure 37, but out here at least; most of us want to see some movement away from the "wide brush" approach to land use planning.

As a staunch proponent of land use planning, I also have noted the "wide brush" that Steve write about. The acreage rules often don't reflect reality. You can't split up 40-acre parcels, yet in the Willamette Valley, I've seen organic farmers make a decent living growing for restaurants on 20 acres or less. On the east side of the Cascades, of course, you can't do anything with 40 acres.

I imagine that the county extension services are as overworked and underfunded as most other government agencies, but could it be possible to bring extension agents into the picture in determining the use of land? I mean, if a land owner claims their property is worthless for farming, could they have an extension agent come out, survey the soil, drainage, water access, etc., and make the call? Maybe tell the owners what kind of crops could be grown and also then determine if there's enough acreage to make money on it. Or just come up with a declaration that, yes, the land isn't good for farming and have that factor into the decision as to whether to allow the owner to develop the property.

What is so unAmerican about wishing to follow the American dream of "having a few acres of our own land"? Go look for that dream with your local realtor and they'll just smile. There just aren't many of those kinda spots out there. 5 or 10 acres in the mid-valley may not support a family, but it can provide gardens and pasture for horses, a cow, goat or other livestock that a could enrich a family's life. So it takes a few more acres east of the Cascades and the growing season isn't right for everything. The point is.....that land, when kept to small acerages can be producive in many ways. Measure 37, when the limitations are followed, actually is available to a very limited number of land-owners. Maybe what we need is more specific directions; minimum acerages, maybe it should be tied to the nearness to cities? Oregon has long been a state of independent individuals. Sure don't think that's gonna change. Gimme a break.SB505 isn't doing much to bring fairness for anyone.

I take particular notice of this excerpt from adventuregeek's comment:

Let's not confuse the Urban Growth Boundary with density here. A basic misunderstanding about the UGB is that it mandates density. It does not."

Sadly true, particularly regarding factories. Look at how Washington County let all those electronics industries build acres of low level factories that could have been built into towers and parking lots that could have descended into the ground but didn't. What a complete waste of space , time and energy.

Awareness of the intrinsic, universal value of natural and open landscape is probably starting to commonly sink into the consciousness of many people who wouldn't have given such things a thought in past, but this occurs at a slower process than that of development unwisely planned and directed.

Highrises aren't neccessarily living complexes that people would have to be forced to take residence in. As this present revolution of modern living proceeds to offer people examples demonstrating that the single family dwelling with yard concept is archaic and increasingly impractical, well designed high rise living complexes with the required amenities can start to look better and better.

Like Kari says:

"Whether or not you welcome immigrants to Oregon or agree with increased population density as a desirable goal...

It's basic math."

If we snap to that simple awareness and plan for it accordingly, down the road we may at least be able to travel from our highrise residences out to where natural landscape survives unscathed. To me, the alternative is unthinkable.

Steve -

The answer to your question is that people need more than a house to live. Where does the grocery store go? Well they drive to town. Which means the town needs to provide a place for them to park their cars - actually multiple places. With all those strangers in town, they need to increase their police protection. They need to inspect the restaurants and issue food handling licenses.

In essence there are a lot of urban services those folks living out on that ridge will need and use, but they won't pay for. And what happens when someone, as happens, puts a house on the land in front of that view they thought they were buying? Or someone sticks a double-wide next to the McMansion. Or decides to do motorcycle repair in their garage? I think this is the basic problem, when everyone moves to the country it isn't country any more.

And if you go to other states, you will see the results of this. Lots of people want to live on a hill with a view but how many people want a view of a hillside subdivision?

Ross -

I guess you don't see much "rural" life. Those 20 houses on that ridge, about 6 miles out from Prineville, would have all sorts of company within a couple miles. In Crook County we have one incorporated city in a 3,000 square mile area. You can't seriously be proposing that all 25,000 people live just in that one couple square mile part of the County. About 10,000 live within the city limits. About 5,000 live within a couple miles of the city limits. But about 10,000 live in the rest of the County. Those 20 houses would have had close to zero impact.

One of the criteria for determining if a conditional use permit can be granted to allow a house to be built in a farm use zone is whether it affects the existing use. Population is so spread out here that in probably 100 conditional use cases I saw before the commission when I was there, none met the criteria of interfering with existing uses (e.g. agricultural). Another criteria is to examine whether the overall land use pattern is affected. In only a couple of cases did that come into play. 20 houses on 100 acres just doesn't do it.

Mind you, that ridge line did overlook a creek basin where cattle can graze. The 20 houses would not interfere with grazing land.

But, back in Prineville, where you would have these 20 houses go, what is the impact? The only places for Prineville to grow is on high value farm land. Irrigation extends to the city limits in three directions from Prineville, and the rimrock is on the rest of the sides of Prineville. So, if you concentrate growth in Prineville, you do it on ground that is now irrigated farm ground.

Dry ridge with a 6 mile drive to Prineville, or about 1 mile from city center on irrigated ground? Really Ross, is that what you want?

Russell Sadler:

But the exclusive farm use concept did what it was supposed to do. It preserved farm and forest land.

Bob T:

Much of it crappy farming land (rocky, in arid areas) while real farms in PDX area (such as those along Columbia River in NE) were developed. "Save Farmland" doesn't apply to land with UGB's -- it's all politics as the elite gets to decide who can become a multi- millionaire while others can't.

Bob Tiernan

Don't brush the ZPG (zero population growth)idea to the side. We are called Blue Oregon for a reason. Oregon has always taken the lead when answereing the difficult questions. It might be a long hard and painful struggle to endure, but for the sake of Oregon and the planet for that matter, we need to embrace and at least talk about it more. Sustainability, M37, UGB's, density, social justice, health care, school overcrowding, income inequalities......all are linked to overpopulation.

M37 passed because too many Oregonians had a frustrating experience with how rigid anbd regulatory the land use system had become. That's a major modern legacy (fault) of 1000 Friends. So the earlier commenter is correct that as long as 1000 F insists on its public leadership role fighting M 37, it is underminng the chances for success.

Second, too bad Gov. Ted went to sleep for the first four years after M37 was passed; it was obvious what was going to come out of the measure, a real leader would have acted. It was a brief opportunity to get competing interests to the table and try to craft needed land use reform. Too late now. We're back to 1000 F (and Russell Sadler types) lecturing us on how smart they were 30 years ago and how things would be fine if we can only go back to the old Tom McCall vision.

jaksavagegirl:Don't brush the ZPG (zero population growth)idea to the side. We are called Blue Oregon for a reason. Oregon has always taken the lead when answering the difficult questions. It might be a long hard and painful struggle to endure, but for the sake of Oregon and the planet for that matter, we need to embrace and at least talk about it more. Sustainability, M37, UGB's, density, social justice, health care, school overcrowding, income inequalities......all are linked to overpopulation.

This sort of stuff manages to be both naive and irritating at the same time: naive because no state controls immigration, and irritating because of the phony high-mindedness of the rhetoric.

It's true, there are too many people worldwide having too many children and overusing the local resources. The "too many children" business is strongly correlated with societal wealth, of course: the poorer the country, the greater the chance of child mortality, the more children are born. The richer the country, the lower the birthrate. Japan is losing population right now because immigration is anathema to the Japanese.

There's another proven path towards ZPG, and that's coercion. Ever heard of the People's Republic of China?

Please, jaksavagegirl, please tell me you're not one of those people with a Non-Breeder bumper sticker on your vehicle.

Read against his title: "30 years of Oregon history proves that pro-sprawl forces are wrong.", Russell's piece is of course absurd and sophmoric. Even though his claim that "the exclusive farm use concept did what it was supposed to do. It preserved farm and forest land." may be correct in itself, how does that make pro-sprawl forces "wrong"? By his own argument their goals were never really to preserve farm and forest land but instead to make money developing that land regardless of the potential impacts. Furthermore, his title implies some sort of widely held societal value in preserving farm and forest land and and an accompanying judgement by the people of our state that the land-use laws were the best way to defend those values. The passage of M37 gives the lie to the general arc of that argument, even if the people of our state place some vague and limited value on preserving farm and forest land. Because Russell is adept with words, he seems to be very good at convincing people he has something to say, even if what he says doesn't really stand up to critical scrutiny.

I have read two things here, however, that are spot-on: First, 1000F was totally incompetent in opposing M37 and at this point has absolutely nothing intelligent to offer in resolving this mess. Second, Kulongoski has been an absolute embarrassment and a disgrace as a governor when it comes to resolving this --- and just about every issue that matters starting with effectively opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so we aren't sending Oregonians there to die or be injured --- since he took office.

Turning to the debate on M37: When I contacted various legislative offices I was shocked at how little they actually cared about exhibiting true leadership on this issue. No one could even direct me to the office of a Senator or House member who actually really cared enough about this to charge a staff member with having an intelligent discussion with members of the public, nor to any permanent staff who had any consequential role in dealing with the issue. I was told they were convening yet under useless citizen involvement panel to waste time playing around rather than take on a leadership role in debating and resolving the issue themselves. Truly pathetic, but actually I believe a reflection of how pathetic the people of Oregon are since our government is our chosen reflection of ourselves.

Simply put, the amount of compensation any M37 applicant should be able to claim is the market value of the property if ALL Measure 37 claims were developed to their highest and best use, and put on the market at the same time under the bearish economic forecasts for the next few years, less the extremely high impact fees required to actually develop all of the infrastructure (roads, schools, services, etc.) needed to support that development. In addition, the law should require any M37 claimant to begin development within 6 months after the claim is allowed rather than being offered compensation. Failure to complete development within an appropriate amount of time for the project should result in the allowance being revoked such that the applicant must re-apply under whatever land-use constraints exist at that time of re-application. We should also significantly strengthen the legal framework under which other interests legitimately affected by development can seek redress in the courts from M37 claimants.

These conditions together would reduce the net compensation legitimately owed to M37 claimants such that a percentage of the most important claims could be paid. They would also reduce the legitimate market value of many other M37 claims to the point that potential claimants would forego their supposed development plans as simply being not worth it based on the probable returns and litigation risks.

I'm willing to bet real political leaders could help a voting majority understand just how fair these conditions would be to all involved. Of course, this is not to say that we are capable of or interested in electing such leaders if our past is prologue. Zak J. is simply engaged in meaningless word play when he says "the mob is easy to dupe, not because they're dumb, but because most people don't have time ... (blah, blah)". In a populist representative democracy like our state, it is the epitome of dumb and lazy to not take the time to understand the effect of votes you cast. Zak J. illustrates how the real problem in our time is the failure to think clearly, and to take responsibility for our actions while excusing, rather than being compassionate towards, the failures of others to similarly take responsibility.

I am fully in agreement with the well-defended arguments here and elsewhere that Oregon's land use laws were poorly conceived, incompetently executed, and poorly defended by our elected leaders and groups like 1000F of Oregon. I am also supportive of the view that property rights, within the bounds of what a long history of legislation and jurisprudence in our society has established as being constitutionally permissible, are an important component of our culture. I am not sympathetic at all to extortionate demands for compensation by psychopathic corporations and morally-backward individuals who really just care about themselves. I assert it is quite possible to enact constitutionally permissible and political popular land use laws which defend the former and makes the latter economically infeasible.

I don't see that jaksavagegirl's comment referring to immigration's role in overpopulation. I also don't see phony high mindedness characterizing what she has to say. I see concerned pleading in regards to a fundamental ecological reality, directed towards those of us that, so awakened, might be energized to actively seek out answers to the dangers represented by overpopulation.

Overpopulation is one of the factors building the market for more developable land in Oregon. It is partially responsible for driving up the cost of living and real estate values, causing property owners located in pastoral locations of Oregon to gradually lose sight of the protection offered by SB100 and instead salivate over the pots of gold they feel entitled to make through a M37 claim.

Non-breeder works for me. For any qualified adult with a will to be a parent, there's plenty of adoptable kids out there desperately in need of good ones.

Kari Chisolm:

FYI - Russell doesn't write his own headlines. I do. So, don't blame him for anything you find wrong with 'em.

Bob Tiernan:

Okay, then I'll ask you -- what were "pro-sprawl" people people "wrong" about? I dodn't think there could be a right or a wrong.

Bob T

Overpopulation is one of the factors building the market for more developable land in Oregon. It is partially responsible for driving up the cost of living and real estate values, causing property owners located in pastoral locations of Oregon to gradually lose sight of the protection offered by SB100 and instead salivate over the pots of gold they feel entitled to make through a M37 claim.

And Oregon is going to control population how exactly? Using something like China's one-child policy? Outlawing immigration from out of state? Closing the airports and militarizing the borders? Banning the construction of new housing? Adopting more nifty Tom McCall-esque slogans about visiting but not staying?

Non-breeder works for me. For any qualified adult with a will to be a parent, there's plenty of adoptable kids out there desperately in need of good ones.

Yep, I'm one of those adoptive parents. Now please tell me how adoption has any effect whatsoever on population. Or do you imagine that adopted kids somehow magically fall off the ecological radar screen?

Being faced with the challenge represented by reducing overpopulation doesn't oblige one to disacknowledge that overpopulation is a major problem that needs to be addressed. We also do not have to address it according to the model provided by oppressive nations.

Some people who are able to produce children actually elect not to do so in favor of adopting and raising children that need parents, out of the feeling that this is a compassionate and constructive thing to do, both for individuals in need and as a means of addressing overpopulation. In doing so, they decline to add one or more of their own children to the world's population and take responsibility for some of the other children already here. It may be a small dent in the problem, but it's something.

Those 20 houses would have had close to zero impact.

I think that certainly reflects the rural perspective. 20 houses anywhere have close to zero impact. Its often hard from a rural perspective to see why there should be any regulation of what someone does on their private property. Dumping that oil out on the back 40 is going to have close to zero impact.

"Those 20 houses would have had close to zero impact."

I think that kind of development can have a cumulative effect, especially when there's increasing pressure from a growing market to make more buildable land available. The state's population is anticipated to grow isn't it? The people representing that growth are going to expect there to be someplace to set up stakes.

<h2>Even though it's probably just meant to be a rhetorical statement, throwing the oil out on the back 40 isn't a smart principle to encourage. The throw your oil out on the back 40 mentality is just another reason to not open up the state's landscape to being paved over by resort hotels, casinos, mini-mansions, tract houses. It's just another "who cares?" attitude that eventually comes back to bite everyone living here that hopes to continue enjoying the greatest quality of life possible.</h2>