So Here I am at 6:30 AM this morning at my reload bench in the attached shed to the garage
handloading some rounds to test in one of my 223s, with powders that are available on shelves, that are for pistol and shot gun use, but I've been testing them in the 223 for varmint use.
As I am doing so, out the window am watching about 25 elk graze away, on what use to be a golf course, but the owner died years ago, so its been closed for 7 to 8 years....there are 5 or 6 good sized bulls in this small sub herd. When the full herd is all together, there are about 60 plus elk now in it...
HOWEVER....
Recently the neighborhood got notes in the mail about a town hall meeting last Monday night. There is a 35 acre field with a pond that is up the road, that is what is left of a farm. Grandma and Grandpa passed within the last year or so, and it was willed to their kids who live up in Potlandia. Well they want to sell it to a California developer, to sell into 5 acres lots...its already been done.
Then a couple hundred yards from my front door, there is a home, that had 40 acres attached to it, that dates back to the 1940s, when 40 acres wasn't a big piece of property. There is a total of 80 acres back there with a couple streams going thru there and is heavily wooded. That is where the elk herd calls home.
The couple that owned that home have passed with no one to will it to, except to a trust fund, for the Catholic Church.
Well some real estate people ( California transplants ) have bought that and the house has been turned into a New Catholic Church. A priest evidently comes down here for a Sunday Mass at 4 PM, and then hears confession on Monday morning at 8 AM and goes back to where he came from. But the 40 acres the home owns, is being sold off in 5 acre lots, for the benefit or the new St Stephens Catholic "Church".
This 40 acres is part of the 80 acres where the elk call home....of course the land is all being advertised down in California, not locally.. by a CA based Real Estate Company, with an "office" here in town... basically in someone's garage, that has been finished off...by another CA Transplant locally.
The Monday night "Neighborhood Meeting" was immediately cancelled when more people showed that they were expecting.
( yeah I was there ). County used the excuse of some obscure "Oregon State Law" because a video recorder needed to be repaired, so the meeting could be recorded. So they set the new meeting for July 24 so that, they could come up with a new game plan, to push this new development thru, to avoid public resistance from the people who live in the neighborhood.
Since the entire neighborhood is also on wells on each property, the local water table is a big concern. County, wants to develop the land for more tax revenue for the democRATs who run the county. So they are telling all existing residents that they need to consider buying holding tanks for their property....
The county doesn't seem to have a bit of concern about the local elk in the neighborhood, and what their future is.
They are always screaming about the environment and saving wildlife, until that involves them losing an opportunity at more tax money rolling in, to spend as they see fit...( on themselves)....
I sure wish we still lived in the days, where tar and feathering a politician was common and hanging them upside down from a lamp post or phone pole for a couple of days...
So this morning I was enjoying it all, watching that elk herd, while at the reload bench.... those days are going to be gone in the next 24 months....
and Californians wonder why the locals never seem to like them, when they move in and want to take over everything to make it just like California, but with lower costs and without all the population....
but Oregon democRATS will prostitute anything and everything in our state, to get all that California money in their pockets.
Truly is, THEM Vs US.
Sounds like there is money to be made!
Who’s gonna let a few elk stand in their way…..
elk don't bring in much money, on a dependable basis. land/property taxes do. easy to understand why hunting suffers. besides, as time progresses, less and less people like or participate in hunting. sad but true.
That’s a damned shame. Enjoy the elk while they are there. I hate kommifornia and the morons that transplant. Of course Oregon has been going down the crapper for a while now.
Elk are neat....somewhere else.
When they are eating your begonias....they are vermin.
Fingers crossed some LOLbertarians show up in the thread...
and Californians wonder why the locals never seem to like them, when they move in and want to take over everything to make it just like California, but with lower costs and without all the population....
You're a smart guy Seafire, but blanket statements like that are just dumb.
Most all of my closest friends have left California in the last 20 years.
ALL of them are right wing conservatives that hunt, trap and fully support the second ammendment.
They are fiscal and social conservatives.....not "California Conservatives" another term often thrown around... most of them thought that even Ronald Reagan was too liberal.
They moved to be with like minded people and to escape the strangling regulation, restrictions and taxation of California.
If anything, they would like to see things get even more conservative in the states that they moved to.
Contrary to popular belief, not all Californians are the same.
Sounds like a call to Sierra is in order.
You should have bought the land.
Maybe you need to put1 of those bulls on your wall and in your freezer so you will allways have them. On the other hand a few California realtors decorating some of your street lights might discourage the vermin from invading.
You could buy up lots and refuse to build, no?
How large are your and your neighbors parcels?
Is the dispute with private landowners or the zoning board?
Yes. One's only option is to stay aware and buy the property.
It sounds like the county is telling you that further development will infringe on your existing water rights.
Are your water rights not senior. Would that not be the avenue to pursue?
Capitalizm at its finest John.
You bought and live in a desirable area.
Over time, other folks have discovered its desirability.
Having grown up in a part of SoCal in the 60's that was pretty "rural" for a suburb, as in ground squirrels and road runners coming down from the hill onto our retaining wall, an open ditch/creek separating the N and S bound sides of our street with crawdads, frogs, bats in the tunnels where the road crossed over, herons, even fish in it, I watched it happen there. Now, I can't live there, and haven't been able to since the 90's. Used to be able to go a couple miles from the house to shoot, or to the east even further on BLM or FS land to plink. Now, no recreational shooting unless it's at a range.
30 years ago, had you decided to, you might have started a "slow growth" movement in your county, but I'd be willing to bet the push back from the Chamber of Commerce, the real estate interests, and even private folks with businesses and land would have fought you tooth and nail.
It sucks, it truly does, but it's the nature of our growth dependent economic model.
Wife and I are concerned as the nearest neighbors put up a for sale sign a couple of weeks back. We like our neighbors, have been to their house for dinner and vice versa. We help each other when needed and leave each other the hell alone most of the rest of the time. To lots to the west of them, last year someone bought the 3 acre parcel that had an established well and septic. They haven't built yet, have stayed in a camp trailer and shed until they do, but he got a job up in Tulelake with housing so they're up there for awhile. He and I both want the lot between theirs and the neighbor that's selling.
We've been here only 6 years and our 'hood is changing already. Not sure about the wife, but I'm pretty concerned as property values have risen dramatically since we moved here. By most standards, especially CA ones, property is still cheap here. The climate kinda sucks, there aren't many jobs, but land and houses are still very affordable. I think our previously declining population has started an uptick since the Corona scheidt happened. Folks are moving to this area for the affordability, certainly not for our whopping +/- 90 day growing season, or the -20*F winters, or the 2 to 3 hr drive to any kind of medical specialist/surgeon. I guess the old saying "You can't stop progress" holds true, although certain of us don't see much progress when the neighborhood changes.
How many Republicans on your county Board? How many on the Chamber of Commerce? How many on the local RE business group? I'm just takin' an educated guess, but I'd bet most any of the R business "leaders" there think this development stuff will be good for the local economy, and therefor good for their portfolios. And they can move to a nicer area when their bets pay off.
Sad to think that moving to an area not as nice is one of the few alternatives to seeing your great area change the way it is. My wife and I are both ocean folks and really miss the coast. We both realized years ago, even in places like Humboldt, Del Norte or the S Coast counties of OR are out of our price range and have gotten too expensive for our income levels. So we're kinda stuck in BF California, with our nice (for now) home and property with not too many neighbors to piss us off. At our age, if things get worse we have no clue what we're going to do.
Good luck, and if you can afford it buy some of the lots surrounding your place. Or maybe move to an area with a declining population? The Rust Belt perhaps.
Can't beat them? then join them. Relative of mine lives 5 blocks from the beach, in a 50's house on a big lot. Her 'hood is changing so much now she and her husband are thinking of tearing the house down and putting in the allowed 10 units of dwellings on their lot, 2 of which will be reserved for "lower income" folks. They bought many years ago, had a 15 yr mortgage so they own it outright now, and they're thinking they'll piss off the neighbors who wanted the changes they're now seeing along with financing their move to wherever they end up choosing to go.
A herd of 60 elk is calling an 80 acre parcel home?
If they aren't harassed, elk will live almost in town sometimes. Take a look at some of mountain resort towns in elk country. Some have resident elk wandering all over.
Seafire is right about one thing. Orygun local government relies on property taxes more than any other source...they don't have sales tax, their fuel taxes are relatively low, so local govt just loves to see increased population density for the increase in revenue. It's about their only way to increase income. Josephine County barely survives year to year budgetwise since the NAFTA and the spotted owl scam destroyed the Jefferson economy. Prior to that, Jo Co had approx 9 major sawmills and plywood plants with thousands of family wage jobs, all gone, courtesy US Govt. The main industry in the Illinois Valley now is the mass production of hippy children, on their 3rd generation of welfare and food stamps. Sad.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
Buy the damn place. Problem solved. It won't lose value.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
This is what I do for a living--estates and probate, here in Oregon. The kids normally have houses, jobs, families, and lives that don't include the family property. So it gets sold.
Conservatives generally support the free transfer of property and capitalism in general. My rural area is slowly being taken over by "McMansions" as people scrape off the old 1,500 sq ft ranch style home and build a bigger (4,000 sq ft) absurdity.
Its unfortunate, but we live in the great United States of America, and citizens have the right to build the home they want, where they want.
Freedom matters.
Also, sale to a conservation group rarely works. The group sells the house and buys a wetland somewhere else.
BMT
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
This is what I do for a living--estates and probate, here in Oregon. The kids normally have houses, jobs, families, and lives that don't include the family property. So it gets sold.
Conservatives generally support the free transfer of property and capitalism in general. My rural area is slowly being taken over by "McMansions" as people scrape off the old 1,500 sq ft ranch style home and build a bigger (4,000 sq ft) absurdity.
Its unfortunate, but we live in the great United States of America, and citizens have the right to build the home they want, where they want.
Freedom matters.
Also, sale to a conservation group rarely works. The group sells the house and buys a wetland somewhere else.
BMT
In the OP's case, he mentioned farmhouses and larger acreages, not just a house. But yeah, it might be hard to get a group to purchase a 40 acre "farm" to conserve, and maybe harder to get the "in perpetuity" part included in the deed transfer.
I know of places in the Redwood's of CA that type of selling was the only way a family could guarantee the old growth trees on "Pop's" place didn't have to get cut as the value of the wood substantially increased the value of the property, to the point the heirs would have had to sell it, and the trees, outright just to pay the inheritance taxes.
Crazy world, but it beats living in a scheidthole country in the Third World.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
But the two kids who are selling to the evil CA developer are potlandians. So how are Californians to blame?
And yes if old folks (who we assume want to keep Oregon for Oregonians) are at their end, can they not donate the land/assets to an entity that will ensure this?
Maybe those two kids are conservative Potlandians? And they only want the money for their portfolios? And have no desire to live in S OR with the hicks?
I'm not sure, maybe a member or two with RE experience can say if it's legal to refuse to sell to a person or company based on the State they reside in? Sounds a little discriminatory to me.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Not to be a party pooper, and I understand exactly where seafire is coming from because I moved away from where I grew up for the same reason, but do "real conservative Oregonians" have much to say about what their neighbors do with their private property, as long as they're not creating a nuisance?
....hmm I left Oregon 12 years ago--whatever happened to the LCDC rules on not allowing farms to be subdivided?
That is why we left, because our family place we inherited could not be divided among the heirs.
Elk won't necessarily move. Look at Estes Park. Elk wonder all around town
....hmm I left Oregon 12 years ago--whatever happened to the LCDC rules on not allowing farms to be subdivided?
That is why we left, because our family place we inherited could not be divided among the heirs.
Generally, it is easier to sub-divide in Counties south of he Willamette Valley. Also, many are not technically subdivided. We use "Lot line adjustments" to move the property boundaries.
I worked on one where an 80 acre parcel was adjacent to an undeveloped subdivision that was platted in the 1930s. It was 18 small lots that was just blackberries and vine maple. We just moved those lines around to make 20 Five acre parcels.
Hard to know what is going on in this case.
BMT
and Californians wonder why the locals never seem to like them, when they move in and want to take over everything to make it just like California, but with lower costs and without all the population....
You're a smart guy Seafire, but blanket statements like that are just dumb.
Most all of my closest friends have left California in the last 20 years.
ALL of them are right wing conservatives that hunt, trap and fully support the second ammendment.
They are fiscal and social conservatives.....not "California Conservatives" another term often thrown around... most of them thought that even Ronald Reagan was too liberal.
They moved to be with like minded people and to escape the strangling regulation, restrictions and taxation of California.
If anything, they would like to see things get even more conservative in the states that they moved to.
Contrary to popular belief, not all Californians are the same.
Sal,
If anyone stands up for Californians on here its me... I'm an east coast guy. I travel often in your fair state, quite a bit.
Most of the geography in CA, is full of down to earth rural folks, just like anywhere else... Not all Oregon residents are like folks up in Potlandia. In the same vein, many Californians are not like people out of LA or SF or Sacramento...there are even good folks in those places, just like in Portland.
So you are right in correcting someone ( even me, complaining about 'Californians' ) but even tho it was me, I hope most people could look beyond that... Being from the east Coast, I've met a lot of nice and decent folks in New York State also.
Beretz is from NY State, and if you haven't noticed, he's a great guy...
So I'm not going to apologize to the A Hole Californians, but for the decent folks in your state, yeah 100%. Meant no offense to them whatsoever.
If you want to know a place that has really gone to hell in a handbasket, since I graduated High School, it is where I called home... Metro Washington DC, Northern Virginia. Which is the most expensive place to live in the entire USA. AND its all liberal and full of foreigners of every stripe. When I was in high school every school in the entire state flew the National Flag and then the Confederate Flag and finally the state of Virginia flag. As you can guess, that ship has long since sailed. Its hell to see what was a wonderful place to live, turn to hell in your life time. I understand that quite well.
Now Oregon, I wish the rest of the state would give Potland to Washington, along with the City of Salem. Last election the DemocRATS only took 6 counties out of 36 of them. Yet supposedly they still won the election. But I think they have been "winning " them for the time I've lived here ( 27 years ), in the same fashion Joe Biden "won" the last election.. by massive fraud.
I really wish the west coast, could make a new state that consisted of LA, SF, Sacramento, Salem, Potlandia, Seattle and Olympia....a bunch of metro urban islands full of communist liberals. Then the West Coast could get back to having all the decent folks who live here, run their states once again, and the urban new state can turn themselves in the schittholes they are busy becoming now....and they are not allowed to move into the CA, OR and WA that is left over, without them.
Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention Sal and allowing me to respond.
Best regards my friend!
you are ignoring this scheisskopfhorsesaschschittbird...
How large are your and your neighbors parcels?
1.5 to 5 acres...these new lots to be formed are RR 5 acres plots.
totally undeveloped, they are going for 225K to 250K on average.
Capitalism is 100% correct 100% of the time.
Well not really. It’s the best system that we have but it isn’t perfect. That sucks that the land is being carved up. I hate suburban sprawl.
Is the dispute with private landowners or the zoning board?
Most land owners don't support it. The CA Real Estate people have paid off the Zoning Board, they are pretty open about that it seems. The County DemocRATs just want the increase tax base....no matter how high they make taxes on everyone else, its cheap compared to what these transplants paid in the land of Fruits and Nuts.
It sounds like the county is telling you that further development will infringe on your existing water rights.
Are your water rights not senior. Would that not be the avenue to pursue?
That's exactly what most residents in this neighborhood are doing, whether D or R, or planning to do if they don't fast track this thru, which is commonly what they pull up in Salem all the time... they don't like discussing such things, they just pass things and then let the other folks have to fight it out in court... try to deter any opinion different than theirs.
A herd of 60 elk is calling an 80 acre parcel home?
They wander out of that area a lot, but we are surrounded by BLM and Forest Service Land...
but they have all they need here, so they don't go far...
It was 99 degrees here this afternoon... I left to go into town, there was about 50 plus, just bedded down underneath the shade of the trees on the back part of my property and the neighbor's... just like they were on vacation...
Stopped while in my car, and looked at them 25 yards from me... they just starred back, without any real interest whatsoever, including 4 of the 5 big bulls....they were laying down and just nibbling on grass and clover.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
No argument here my friend...
....hmm I left Oregon 12 years ago--whatever happened to the LCDC rules on not allowing farms to be subdivided?
That is why we left, because our family place we inherited could not be divided among the heirs.
Generally, it is easier to sub-divide in Counties south of he Willamette Valley. Also, many are not technically subdivided. We use "Lot line adjustments" to move the property boundaries.
I worked on one where an 80 acre parcel was adjacent to an undeveloped subdivision that was platted in the 1930s. It was 18 small lots that was just blackberries and vine maple. We just moved those lines around to make 20 Five acre parcels.Hard to know what is going on in this case.
BMT
That seems, to me, to be a kind of shady workaround from the intention of the original platting. Now, instead of having a nice open space of 80 acres, it's been cut up and added to the 18 smaller parcels. Great for the property owners no doubt, but if the original intention was to keep larger parcels intact for farming, wood lots, or other open spaces, then finding a way to divide it up into smaller, less viable open spaces seems a shame.
Now there is a higher density spread out changing the character of the area, just as in Seafire's case.
I'd guess the county board or zoning committee saw some good dollar signs there too.
Buy the damn place. Problem solved. It won't lose value.
Well Hastings.. we aren't talking Louisiana here.. Gotta admit, I don't have 3.5 million or more laying around in spare change. I'm sure most of the folks who are going to buy, are probably going to be retirees like most of us in the neighborhood are, and just want a nice laid back place to live.
When my wife and I moved into the neighborhood we bought an existing home, that the original owners built in 1975, and the widow sold it to us, in June 2018. The home's value has probably doubled plus in the last 5 years.
We've got a 15 year mortgage which is at 1.75 %. Home prices have gone up with the exodus out of CA, nearly doubling in the last 5 years. We are 40 miles ( as the crow flies ) north of the CA state line, right off of I 5.
It sounds like the county is telling you that further development will infringe on your existing water rights.
Are your water rights not senior. Would that not be the avenue to pursue?
That's exactly what most residents in this neighborhood are doing, whether D or R, or planning to do if they don't fast track this thru, which is commonly what they pull up in Salem all the time... they don't like discussing such things, they just pass things and then let the other folks have to fight it out in court... try to deter any opinion different than theirs.
John, are your aquifers/wells regulated there in Oregon or does each property have the right to drill for "their" water without consequences to the aquifer? Does it get to the point, as it has in parts of Cali, where eventually the water level drops and people have to drill deeper, thereby continuing the cycle for the neighbors.
My rancher neighbor and I think we're all tied into an aquifer that the big ag operation to the east also draws from. They're not going to let their hay and alfalfa go dry, so they have large pivots there drawing a tremendous amount of water out especially in dry years. Thing is, my rancher neighbor just put in two more hay fields to my north, and set up irrigation for them. I'm not sure if he's using water from his springs, or pulling it out of the ground. I just hope it doesn't affect us here in our little valley too much. Getting a drill rig out here and making our well deeper would be an expense I'd like to avoid.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
that latter option is being explored Geno...a wild life preserve. Several years ago, we got it where the elk are protected now. Several are collared and the OR Dept of F& G., keep tabs on them often. But they really don't wander very far...
We've got a lot of forested property in Colonial Valley here, surrounded by Forest Service and BLM, and mountains in the 1000 to 1500 ft in height.
Buy the damn place. Problem solved. It won't lose value.
Well Hastings.. we aren't talking Louisiana here.. Gotta admit, I don't have 3.5 million or more laying around in spare change. I'm sure most of the folks who are going to buy, are probably going to be retirees like most of us in the neighborhood are, and just want a nice laid back place to live.
When my wife and I moved into the neighborhood we bought an existing home, that the original owners built in 1975, and the widow sold it to us, in June 2018. The home's value has probably doubled plus in the last 5 years.
We've got a 15 year mortgage which is at 1.75 %. Home prices have gone up with the exodus out of CA, nearly doubling in the last 5 years. We are 40 miles ( as the crow flies ) north of the CA state line, right off of I 5.
Even over here in the Modoc, our property is now almost $100K more, according to the estimates, than when we purchased in Nov 2016. That's nearly double what we paid. Like you, we went 15 years and add some to the payment every month so we're ahead of the game. I think we've already reached the more going to principal than is going to interest every month.
I wish you the best with that situation. Even if you did sell, where the hell could you go in today's world? We're thinking we're kind of stuck now.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
But the two kids who are selling to the evil CA developer are potlandians. So how are Californians to blame?
And yes if old folks (who we assume want to keep Oregon for Oregonians) are at their end, can they not donate the land/assets to an entity that will ensure this?
Valid Point Cerifiable...
The kids left Hooterville and went up to big city Potlandia. But no real estate person wants to sell property to Oregonians, when they get plenty of Californians, who come up here, in their new Mercedes with a trunk full of cash, after selling their dumpy little house in CA for a couple of million or more... Outlandish housing prices in Oregon, are cheap as dirt to Californians, so why would Joe Real Estate not want to go with the people who have cash on the barrel instead of the local crowd that has to do financing etc.
Guy across the street is a Machinist from somewhere near the bay area. He sold his place and came up here, and bought 3 homes, paid cash for them. We outbid him on our home, or that would have been his third home purchase the year he moved here in 2018. Guy bought himself two new Dodge 4 Door 3/4 ton pickups when he moved here.. Paid cash for those also... both black... One with a Cummins in it and one with a Gas Motor in it. Drives either one, depending on the mood he's in on that day. His wife leases herself a new Subaru, each year when the next years model comes out. His idea on how to deal with this, is we all need to pull our ARs out of the gun safe and do a show of solidarity.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Not to be a party pooper, and I understand exactly where seafire is coming from because I moved away from where I grew up for the same reason, but do "real conservative Oregonians" have much to say about what their neighbors do with their private property, as long as they're not creating a nuisance?
bingo.....
I'm not against all of this, but am not exactly for it either.
I know you are a Virginia transplant as I am. Left Fairfax County to go to college and never went back. It grew. not for the better, during the 5 years I was in College in New England. I graduated High School in West Springfield in June 1970. When my dad went over seas to Vietnam, as a career Military Officer in June of 68, we moved from Ft Bragg back home to Metro Northern Va. In June of 68, Springfield's population was about 5000 people When I left in Jan of 1971 to go to College in New England, the City's population was over 80,000.
My high school at the time it was built in 1966, was the largest high school in the county. It was built to have a capacity of 3000 students, and was projected in 66 to handle the growth of the area until 1980. in June of 1970, the school was at 500 over capacity. In 1971, it was 150% of capacity. In 1972 they were planning to build 5 more high schools to take the overload off of West Springfield, to handle what it had in 1972, the school went from 6 periods on a daily basis, to having 3 shifts, of 4 hours each, for the senior, junior and sophomore classes. The freshmen had been moved to another school somewhere...there was no sports or anything....no lunch period... 4 one hour classes and that was it for each grade level.
The 5 other high schools were opened in like 1974 and 1975. Fairfax County had 17 high schools when I graduated in 1970. Recently looked it up and according to Wiki, the county now has 30 high schools.
" Growth" has been pushing me my entire adult life. When I moved here in 95, the population of this town was 15K. 27 years later, the population exceeds 45K....and its not set up to handle 45K. Its retirees mainly.. the town or county doesn't have enough employment to support any industry. Most of the local bums, who aren't drug addict transients, they just grow dope, deal drugs and do the welfare fraud racket. Cradle to grave they have no desire to ever work...
The transients are getting braver also.. local house a couple of blocks away from my place, was broken into, when the folks were away for an overnight visit with friends. Transients broke in to their home and did a 100K worth of damage to the home and then stole over 100K worth of stuff to hock.... jewelry, found money etc. Local Sheriff's Office says they can't do much about it... just take a report and that's it. My son ran into the owner while out for a walk this evening, and talked to him while walking a mile together....
It sounds like the county is telling you that further development will infringe on your existing water rights.
Are your water rights not senior. Would that not be the avenue to pursue?
That's exactly what most residents in this neighborhood are doing, whether D or R, or planning to do if they don't fast track this thru, which is commonly what they pull up in Salem all the time... they don't like discussing such things, they just pass things and then let the other folks have to fight it out in court... try to deter any opinion different than theirs.
John, are your aquifers/wells regulated there in Oregon or does each property have the right to drill for "their" water without consequences to the aquifer? Does it get to the point, as it has in parts of Cali, where eventually the water level drops and people have to drill deeper, thereby continuing the cycle for the neighbors.
My rancher neighbor and I think we're all tied into an aquifer that the big ag operation to the east also draws from. They're not going to let their hay and alfalfa go dry, so they have large pivots there drawing a tremendous amount of water out especially in dry years. Thing is, my rancher neighbor just put in two more hay fields to my north, and set up irrigation for them. I'm not sure if he's using water from his springs, or pulling it out of the ground. I just hope it doesn't affect us here in our little valley too much. Getting a drill rig out here and making our well deeper would be an expense I'd like to avoid.
Geno,
the water is regulated by the county here in Colonial Valley. I know my well goes a 110 feet down, as I had to replace the piping and the pump went out after being here just two years. I bought a new pump and new piping and had some friends help pull it and install the new stuff, so I got by cheap... but yet did it right, instead of the Southern Oregon standard of doing it as cheap as you can get by, and worry about it all later plan.
I did put on a filter, that has to be changed every 90 days or so, as we are getting sand in our sprinkler system at times in the summer. We also have a pool, that my wife wanted real bad, and then has never used it, because she complains its too cold... but she still always wanted a pool.
We'll just have to wait and see. What pisses me off the most tho, is the people who are running this show to sell all of these lots, are sure trying to get it in one door and out the other, in as fast of a time as they can. They are not notifying the local residents on this, like they are suppose to do by law, and the county seems to be in cahoots with the developer, in ignoring law ( like democRATS always do). Then they want to put roads thru that will increase the traffic load on streets like mine, which has 7 houses on it, with lot sizes from 1.5 to 8 acres. My street is a big paved side walk, vs a real street. It gets more dog walking traffic than it does auto traffic on most days.
Geno,
I just turned 71 and my wife turns 63 in July. She has a decent job she likes at the local hospital, where my son also works.
She's been there 18 years... I think she has to wait until she turns 70 to get social security. All my social security goes into the bank in a trust fund for her, for when I'm gone.
I'm here for the duration, until Its my time to go. I'll probably go back home to Virginia and just go quietly.
When I pass I plan on cremation and my ashes just scattered to the winds...no burial and no funeral.
When I'm gone, I'm gone, with wanting no reference that I ever really lived. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" so to speak.
I'm fine with that.. I never wanted to be buried in a hole in the ground...blown away instead with the wind...
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
It's really hard for many here at the fire to wrap their heads around where you live.
They hear California and all they think of is Los Angeles or San Francisco..🤣
Alturas is as rural as any Montana, Wyoming or Idaho cow town.
And the people that live there are very conservative.
The Sheriff has defied the liberal California idiots when they tried to ban our coyote hunting contest.
I've spent a lot of time up there.
My wife goes up at least once a month to there and Cedarville where she shares a business with a few other ladies.
Her best friend has a ranch at the base of Rattlesnake Butte.
One of her friends is the president of the Modoc County Cattlewomen's association.
Modoc County is the last best place in California.
you are ignoring this scheisskopfhorsesaschschittbird...
...guess not
A herd of 60 elk is calling an 80 acre parcel home?
They wander out of that area a lot, but we are surrounded by BLM and Forest Service Land...
but they have all they need here, so they don't go far...
It was 99 degrees here this afternoon... I left to go into town, there was about 50 plus, just bedded down underneath the shade of the trees on the back part of my property and the neighbor's... just like they were on vacation...
Stopped while in my car, and looked at them 25 yards from me... they just starred back, without any real interest whatsoever, including 4 of the 5 big bulls....they were laying down and just nibbling on grass and clover.
Sounds like the elk with have no problem with further development.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
Heirs and trustees usually want to maximize the revenue generated by the sale of property that they don't want to keep. If the heirs or trustees don't have any ties to that location, they aren't likely to feel any obligation to converse their land for the people who do live there. In the past, I have decided not to buy property that was encumbered with perpetual wildlife and conservation covenants because it would limit my landowner rights to control access to that land. RMEF has purchased perpetual trespassing rights on many ranches that makes those properties less desirable to some potential buyers like me who want full control of their land.
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
It's really hard for many here at the fire to wrap their heads around where you live.
Alturas is as rural as any Montana, Wyoming or Idaho cow town.
And the people that live there are very conservative.
Well then, how the heck did Geno end up there?
So Here I am at 6:30 AM this morning at my reload bench in the attached shed to the garage
handloading some rounds to test in one of my 223s, with powders that are available on shelves, that are for pistol and shot gun use, but I've been testing them in the 223 for varmint use.
As I am doing so, out the window am watching about 25 elk graze away, on what use to be a golf course, but the owner died years ago, so its been closed for 7 to 8 years....there are 5 or 6 good sized bulls in this small sub herd. When the full herd is all together, there are about 60 plus elk now in it...
HOWEVER....
Recently the neighborhood got notes in the mail about a town hall meeting last Monday night. There is a 35 acre field with a pond that is up the road, that is what is left of a farm. Grandma and Grandpa passed within the last year or so, and it was willed to their kids who live up in Potlandia. Well they want to sell it to a California developer, to sell into 5 acres lots...its already been done.
Then a couple hundred yards from my front door, there is a home, that had 40 acres attached to it, that dates back to the 1940s, when 40 acres wasn't a big piece of property. There is a total of 80 acres back there with a couple streams going thru there and is heavily wooded. That is where the elk herd calls home.
The couple that owned that home have passed with no one to will it to, except to a trust fund, for the Catholic Church.
Well some real estate people ( California transplants ) have bought that and the house has been turned into a New Catholic Church. A priest evidently comes down here for a Sunday Mass at 4 PM, and then hears confession on Monday morning at 8 AM and goes back to where he came from. But the 40 acres the home owns, is being sold off in 5 acre lots, for the benefit or the new St Stephens Catholic "Church".
This 40 acres is part of the 80 acres where the elk call home....of course the land is all being advertised down in California, not locally.. by a CA based Real Estate Company, with an "office" here in town... basically in someone's garage, that has been finished off...by another CA Transplant locally.
The Monday night "Neighborhood Meeting" was immediately cancelled when more people showed that they were expecting.
( yeah I was there ). County used the excuse of some obscure "Oregon State Law" because a video recorder needed to be repaired, so the meeting could be recorded. So they set the new meeting for July 24 so that, they could come up with a new game plan, to push this new development thru, to avoid public resistance from the people who live in the neighborhood.
but Oregon democRATS will prostitute anything and everything in our state, to get all that California money in their pockets.
Truly is, THEM Vs US.
I bet they'd have sold it to you for the right price. Did anyone else in the neighborhood / community discuss that option? Proactive>> Reactive. it's not like out of town $ buying and developing land when someone dies is a new phenomenon.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Not to be a party pooper, and I understand exactly where seafire is coming from because I moved away from where I grew up for the same reason, but do "real conservative Oregonians" have much to say about what their neighbors do with their private property, as long as they're not creating a nuisance?
bingo.....
I'm not against all of this, but am not exactly for it either.
I know you are a Virginia transplant as I am. Left Fairfax County to go to college and never went back. It grew. not for the better, during the 5 years I was in College in New England. I graduated High School in West Springfield in June 1970. When my dad went over seas to Vietnam, as a career Military Officer in June of 68, we moved from Ft Bragg back home to Metro Northern Va. In June of 68, Springfield's population was about 5000 people When I left in Jan of 1971 to go to College in New England, the City's population was over 80,000.
I went to Mt. Vernon HS. While I was there, they built a new one, much bigger. The old one is now the Islamic Academy.
You folks need bigger hands to wring as the elected officials, that you elected, steal your state. You have a vehicle, a hand, get out and knock on doors, read the state laws about recall elections. Normally nly takes 10% of the registered voters in an area of representation. Sounds like there was no public meeting to discuss the SD of the property or its effect on the environment.
Fire with fire, is the best way to proceed, first you get their attention, then you start shinning, the bright light of publicity, skinning that mule, inch by inch. Injunction works well to stop them in their tracks. Then you charge the country individually and jointly with failing to follow state and county law by not having public hearings, environmental studies, wildlife habitat and water disturbance, etc, etc. Use the bunny huggers.
I love a good people vs the over reaching, money grubbing government working for land developers fight. Go get the TV people to come and film the Elk grazing, their watering hole, etc and then have them to come to the meeting. Tell the county and church they are coming and the pictures painted ain't pretty.
Best wishes in dealing with that mess.
When I got close to retirement my goal was to buy some acreage out off the beaten path. The more I thought about it, and the more I looked around, the more I realized that such a scenario of the OPs was a very real possibility. And it could be worse. Someone could build a trailer park, rock mining quarry or a coon hound kennel. Lot's of folks gave me schidt for buying into an HOA, but I know exactly what to expect. Within the 3500 acre community, there is a substantial amount of green space. The Tennessee Land Trust owns a buffer surrounding the property, and that will never be developed. I truly hate it for the OP. Take a look at property ownership maps of what surrounds you. Few among us are insulated from a scenario like the OPs or worse.
When I got close to retirement my goal was to buy some acreage out off the beaten path. The more I thought about it, and the more I looked around, the more I realized that such a scenario of the OPs was a very real possibility. And it could be worse. Someone could build a trailer park, rock mining quarry or a coon hound kennel. Lot's of folks gave me schidt for buying into an HOA, but I know exactly what to expect. Within the 3500 acre community, there is a substantial amount of green space. The Tennessee Land Trust owns a buffer surrounding the property, and that will never be developed. I truly hate it for the OP. Take a look at property ownership maps of what surrounds you. Few among us are insulated from a scenario like the OPs or worse.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wBV2w2MS/EAD38EC4-CF0F-48A5-86EF-26620F1BEF96.gif)
God Forbid a 5 acre lot with a home on it.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/zDtLm6f2/A78C863A-889A-4511-8250-6A1492FB76F4.gif)
Capitalism is 100% correct 100% of the time.
Well not really. It’s the best system that we have but it isn’t perfect. That sucks that the land is being carved up. I hate suburban sprawl.
I find that there's generally two things Americans really detest. Urban sprawl and high density housing.
Kalifornians are like a swarm of locusts.
The story in the OP is about what happened to Bozeman and SW Montana after Pig Sty went in.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
Heirs and trustees usually want to maximize the revenue generated by the sale of property that they don't want to keep. If the heirs or trustees don't have any ties to that location, they aren't likely to feel any obligation to converse their land for the people who do live there. In the past, I have decided not to buy property that was encumbered with perpetual wildlife and conservation covenants because it would limit my landowner rights to control access to that land. RMEF has purchased perpetual trespassing rights on many ranches that makes those properties less desirable to some
potential buyers like me who want full control of their land.
So, these ranches you've mentioned having an interest in, but turning down making an offer because of some covenants, were they 100% private deeded land ranches or was there some public land inholdings contained within the borders of the ranch? And without the covenants, one would not only have full control of "their" lands, but also full control of the public lands within?
Some of our Eastern dwelling members may not know that in many places in the Western States (TX excluded mostly) when one sees a 6000 acre, or 12000 acre, or larger, ranch for sale, only a percentage of the "ranch" is actually deeded property. Could be a tenth or less in some cases. The rest of the "ranch" , as in "Our ranch is 7200 acres" is public land with grazing rights/allotments attached to the deeded property. When those publicly owned lands are fully enclosed by the deeded lands, they are in effect no longer public.
In a good number of cases, the NGOs with interests in keeping those lands as open space, in perpetuity, make agreements with the landowners (of the deeded sections) to allow access to the public lands just to keep the family ranch intact as a ranch, and not a housing development.
I'm just wondering if you would be concerned with controlling access to "your land" if the ranches you were interested in weren't entirely private deeded property.
If you don’t mind me asking Where in southern Oregon?
I’d love to have 40 acres down there
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
It's really hard for many here at the fire to wrap their heads around where you live.
Alturas is as rural as any Montana, Wyoming or Idaho cow town.
And the people that live there are very conservative.
Well then, how the heck did Geno end up there?
My wife obtained employment here and when my eye went bad and I couldn't do the work with a lot of OT I decided to retire here.
If I had my druthers I'd have settled us in a shack on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere in AZ or Utah or someplace.
Our 7 Acre RANCH! sometimes is just too small. And I get to hear the news about what Gabbin' is running his mouth about way too often.
The right always bellows private property rights but bitches when someone exercises theirs.
The right always bellows private property rights but bitches when someone exercises theirs.
Fugk you phag it
Capitalism is 100% correct 100% of the time.
Well not really. It’s the best system that we have but it isn’t perfect. That sucks that the land is being carved up. I hate suburban sprawl.
I find that there's generally two things Americans really detest. Urban sprawl and high density housing.
Ha!
You seem to have that high density housing thing right. Coming from an immigrant family, I guess if Grandpa is G1, then the second generation, my folks and uncles and aunts, all moved to places with single family houses and away from the brownstones where I spent the first 9 years of my life. And I thank the powers that be my mom's brother decided to sell my folks a nice 3br suburban home when his wife passed and he no longer needed such a big house.
Having grown up that way, I haven't found it necessary to live in an apartment building since we moved to sunny CA in the 60's. Hated having a girlfriend that lived in those things too. Usually didn't last long.
And now, having lived in many rural areas since my 40's, I'd just as soon never see another suburb, especially in my 'hood.
Real true conservative Oregonians who wish to keep hold of the good old days always have the option to not sell to Californians, hey?
Hate to point out that all too simple solution but…
What to do when their non-conservative neighbors sell though?
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
Heirs and trustees usually want to maximize the revenue generated by the sale of property that they don't want to keep. If the heirs or trustees don't have any ties to that location, they aren't likely to feel any obligation to converse their land for the people who do live there. In the past, I have decided not to buy property that was encumbered with perpetual wildlife and conservation covenants because it would limit my landowner rights to control access to that land. RMEF has purchased perpetual trespassing rights on many ranches that makes those properties less desirable to some
potential buyers like me who want full control of their land.
So, these ranches you've mentioned having an interest in, but turning down making an offer because of some covenants, were they 100% private deeded land ranches or was there some public land inholdings contained within the borders of the ranch? And without the covenants, one would not only have full control of "their" lands, but also full control of the public lands within?
Some of our Eastern dwelling members may not know that in many places in the Western States (TX excluded mostly) when one sees a 6000 acre, or 12000 acre, or larger, ranch for sale, only a percentage of the "ranch" is actually deeded property. Could be a tenth or less in some cases. The rest of the "ranch" , as in "Our ranch is 7200 acres" is public land with grazing rights/allotments attached to the deeded property. When those publicly owned lands are fully enclosed by the deeded lands, they are in effect no longer public.
In a good number of cases, the NGOs with interests in keeping those lands as open space, in perpetuity, make agreements with the landowners (of the deeded sections) to allow access to the public lands just to keep the family ranch intact as a ranch, and not a housing development.
I'm just wondering if you would be concerned with controlling access to "your land" if the ranches you were interested in weren't entirely private deeded property.
The ranches that I mentioned are in southeastern and south central Colorado and portions that the RMEF has trespassing rights on is 100% deeded land. RMEF couldn't buy trespassing rights to public land. The portions of those ranches that was leased from the BLM or USFS would be easier to access by going across the deeded land, but they weren't landlocked within the boundaries of the deeded land.
My in-laws owned a ranch that had a section, 640 acres, landlocked within the boundaries of the deeded land. It wasn't a problem because my FIL put a perimeter fence around it to insure that there would never been any doubt as to land that he owned and land that the BLM managed. It is my understanding that only the person who holds the grazing lease to landlocked BLM land can access it by crossing deeded land without the landowner's permission. My FIL leased the grazing rights to those 640 acres so that nobody else would have legal access to it without his permission to trespass across the deeded land. I don't know what the current owner has done with the BLM section. My only contact with the current owner is to inform him 24 hours in advance of any time that I want to trespass on the ranch. When my wife and BIL sold that ranch, we negotiated perpetual trespassing rights to it.
I believe that Cliven Bundy is a rancher who owns very little land and grazes his cattle on BLM land that he refuses to pay the grazing fees on.
Thanks for the answer. Were the RMEF rights for trespass anywhere on the ranch or just a ROW to the public lands?
I've known of some deals where an NGO just gets access to streams or a way to get back into the public land without having to go miles around.
Capitalizm at its finest John.
You bought and live in a desirable area.
Over time, other folks have discovered its desirability.
Having grown up in a part of SoCal in the 60's that was pretty "rural" for a suburb, as in ground squirrels and road runners coming down from the hill onto our retaining wall, an open ditch/creek separating the N and S bound sides of our street with crawdads, frogs, bats in the tunnels where the road crossed over, herons, even fish in it, I watched it happen there. Now, I can't live there, and haven't been able to since the 90's. Used to be able to go a couple miles from the house to shoot, or to the east even further on BLM or FS land to plink. Now, no recreational shooting unless it's at a range.
30 years ago, had you decided to, you might have started a "slow growth" movement in your county, but I'd be willing to bet the push back from the Chamber of Commerce, the real estate interests, and even private folks with businesses and land would have fought you tooth and nail.
It sucks, it truly does, but it's the nature of our growth dependent economic model.
Wife and I are concerned as the nearest neighbors put up a for sale sign a couple of weeks back. We like our neighbors, have been to their house for dinner and vice versa. We help each other when needed and leave each other the hell alone most of the rest of the time. To lots to the west of them, last year someone bought the 3 acre parcel that had an established well and septic. They haven't built yet, have stayed in a camp trailer and shed until they do, but he got a job up in Tulelake with housing so they're up there for awhile. He and I both want the lot between theirs and the neighbor that's selling.
We've been here only 6 years and our 'hood is changing already. Not sure about the wife, but I'm pretty concerned as property values have risen dramatically since we moved here. By most standards, especially CA ones, property is still cheap here. The climate kinda sucks, there aren't many jobs, but land and houses are still very affordable. I think our previously declining population has started an uptick since the Corona scheidt happened. Folks are moving to this area for the affordability, certainly not for our whopping +/- 90 day growing season, or the -20*F winters, or the 2 to 3 hr drive to any kind of medical specialist/surgeon. I guess the old saying "You can't stop progress" holds true, although certain of us don't see much progress when the neighborhood changes.
How many Republicans on your county Board? How many on the Chamber of Commerce? How many on the local RE business group? I'm just takin' an educated guess, but I'd bet most any of the R business "leaders" there think this development stuff will be good for the local economy, and therefor good for their portfolios. And they can move to a nicer area when their bets pay off.
Sad to think that moving to an area not as nice is one of the few alternatives to seeing your great area change the way it is. My wife and I are both ocean folks and really miss the coast. We both realized years ago, even in places like Humboldt, Del Norte or the S Coast counties of OR are out of our price range and have gotten too expensive for our income levels. So we're kinda stuck in BF California, with our nice (for now) home and property with not too many neighbors to piss us off. At our age, if things get worse we have no clue what we're going to do.
Good luck, and if you can afford it buy some of the lots surrounding your place. Or maybe move to an area with a declining population? The Rust Belt perhaps.
Can't beat them? then join them. Relative of mine lives 5 blocks from the beach, in a 50's house on a big lot. Her 'hood is changing so much now she and her husband are thinking of tearing the house down and putting in the allowed 10 units of dwellings on their lot, 2 of which will be reserved for "lower income" folks. They bought many years ago, had a 15 yr mortgage so they own it outright now, and they're thinking they'll piss off the neighbors who wanted the changes they're now seeing along with financing their move to wherever they end up choosing to go.
Capitalism is 100% correct 100% of the time.
Well not really. It’s the best system that we have but it isn’t perfect. That sucks that the land is being carved up. I hate suburban sprawl.
I find that there's generally two things Americans really detest. Urban sprawl and high density housing.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dutch.
Every Asshat that has "Their's" wants to deny the next guy.
Well said Valsdad,
Our area is growing and I [bleep] hate it.
If I won a big lottery my mission would be to buy every local farm up for sale.
Same with mountain ground.
However, I have absolutely 0, none, not a single damn right to deny someone the right to sell or develop their land and maximize its $$$ value.
Just so I can look out my window and see a better view.
Thanks for the answer. Were the RMEF rights for trespass anywhere on the ranch or just a ROW to the public lands?
I've known of some deals where an NGO just gets access to streams or a way to get back into the public land without having to go miles around.
In the cases of 2 of the ranches, RMEF had trespassing access to almost all of the deeded land, not just a ROW to the public land. Those 2 ranches each had more than 10K acres of public land adjacent to them and access to that public land would be much easier from the ranch than from "the other side". In one case, the USFS land was only a mile or so from a public roadway on the ranch side, but a 40 or so mile drive to access it from "the other side". The Feds could purchase, or at least attempt to purchase, ROWs for the public to have easier access to public land, but I have never heard of them doing so. Landowner rights are pretty cut and dried, as are mineral and water rights. I've passed on buying property because it didn't come with mineral or water rights and I didn't want someone to drill wells or limit my use of water from a pond on my property.
Thanks for the answer. Were the RMEF rights for trespass anywhere on the ranch or just a ROW to the public lands?
I've known of some deals where an NGO just gets access to streams or a way to get back into the public land without having to go miles around.
In the cases of 2 of the ranches, RMEF had trespassing access to almost all of the deeded land, not just a ROW to the public land. Those 2 ranches each had more than 10K acres of public land adjacent to them and access to that public land would be much easier from the ranch than from "the other side". In one case, the USFS land was only a mile or so from a public roadway on the ranch side, but a 40 or mile drive to access it from "the other side". The Feds could purchase, or at least attempt to purchase, ROWs for the public to have easier access to public land, but I have never heard of them doing so. Landowner rights are pretty cut and dried, as are mineral and water rights. I've passed on buying property because it didn't come with mineral or water rights and I didn't want someone to drill wells or limit my use of water from pond on my property.
That's understandable.
My experience, the Fed agencies have no interest in just a right of way, road, horse path, whatever through someone's property. It's unfortunate, as there are places nearby like the one you mention, mostly along watercourses, where the private property is not too wide, but in order to access the forest or sagebrush flats behind it one has to drive aways up the road to get to a public parcel, then come back miles to get to where you want to go.
Out here almost every valley is white squares on the maps.
Also, many are not technically subdivided. We use "Lot line adjustments" to move the property boundaries.
I worked on one where an 80 acre parcel was adjacent to an undeveloped subdivision that was platted in the 1930s. It was 18 small lots that was just blackberries and vine maple. We just moved those lines around to make 20 Five acre parcels.
BMT
That seems, to me, to be a kind of shady workaround from the intention of the original platting.
. . .
I'd guess the county board or zoning committee saw some good dollar signs there too.
Yes and no. It is a work-around. But the county has no say. It is expressly allowed in the statute as long as you do not create a "new" legal lot.
The county could not approve it, nor stop it. It just is.
I do not practice land use law, I brought in another lawyer on the matter. The hard part is finding those "hidden" subdivisions. Most of the valuable ones have been converted.
There are probably many of them left undeveloped in Eastern, Oregon. Usually in long abandoned logging, mining, or farming towns.
BMT
That's pretty interesting.
So one of those old hidden ones. let's say like the one I live in with 40 or so 3 acre lots, next to a few hundred acres could be a real windfall just by moving some lot lines around..
I can see the developers naming the place " Blankety Blank Estates"
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
It's really hard for many here at the fire to wrap their heads around where you live.
Alturas is as rural as any Montana, Wyoming or Idaho cow town.
And the people that live there are very conservative.
Well then, how the heck did Geno end up there?
My wife obtained employment here and
when my eye went bad and I couldn't do the work with a lot of OT I decided to retire here.
If I had my druthers I'd have settled us in a shack on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere in AZ or Utah or someplace.
Our 7 Acre RANCH! sometimes is just too small. And I get to hear the news about what Gabbin' is running his mouth about way too often.
Disability by chance...
I understand that John, our 2 mile county road has only a few houses on it and it's relatively easy to take a walk on it . Wife takes the dogs 2-3 miles RT every morning. Hardly any traffic, and most know to watch for us.
There are a number of open lots around us in this area that was platted out in the 60's or so. I'd prefer they never get developed. I'm not in too bad shape though, as I've mentioned many times. Our two lots, almost 7 acres, is triangular and surrounded on three sides by BLM land, so odds are good no one will be building there. Across the street, sure. Down the road, yep, but not bordering our place thank God.
Again, I hope it all works out OK for you folks and the elk. Wish we had some down here, but no doubt the ranchers don't want them down here on the flats. Up in the Warners and on the Devil's Garden is more than they want actually.
It's really hard for many here at the fire to wrap their heads around where you live.
Alturas is as rural as any Montana, Wyoming or Idaho cow town.
And the people that live there are very conservative.
Well then, how the heck did Geno end up there?
My wife obtained employment here and
when my eye went bad and I couldn't do the work with a lot of OT I decided to retire here.
If I had my druthers I'd have settled us in a shack on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere in AZ or Utah or someplace.
Our 7 Acre RANCH! sometimes is just too small. And I get to hear the news about what Gabbin' is running his mouth about way too often.
Disability by chance...
Just retired, didn't go the disability route. Wasn't work related either that I could tell.
Worked on barges transporting juvenile fish down the Snake and Columbia rivers. Retinal detachment with some vision loss. At the time, until it was repaired and enough time had passed to see where it would resolve to, I would not have been allowed to work the barges, which during some two week pay periods gave me 120 hrs OT on top of the 80 hrs reg. It was the reason I agreed to work the job, as I was living a good portion of 8 months away from my wife and dogs, living in RVs and such. The work could get somewhat dangerous at times and they didn't think it prudent if my depth perception wasn't 100% at the time.
I made the decision, at my age and with all retirement sources added together, I could make the same amount or a bit more than just working the straight 80 per pay period on shore and live where my wife and dogs were.
My vision has improved, but I still have to get an injection in the eye every 4-8 weeks depending on how the inflammation behind the retina looks. Much easier to deal with that than when going out to check the fish in these conditions, should I have been able to return to work after a bit. That wasn't the worst of days even.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/mkqcrgyH/Spray-over-barge.jpg)
If they aren't harassed, elk will live almost in town sometimes. Take a look at some of mountain resort towns in elk country. Some have resident elk wandering all over.
I'm continually amazed folks aren't regularly injured or killed down in Ruidoso.
I've seen turistas within 6 feet of elk, oblivious to danger.
You read about it occasionally up in Estes Park. Cows when the calves are young, and bulls during the rut. Last year we saw tourists feeding cows by hand. Two cows, both with young calves standing behind them.
If the land was under farm land, and not in the urban growth boundary, file a complaint with LCDC. You might not be able to stop the development, but might put it on hold for a few years. If it is, in the urban development area, you get to watch them build, with no input! I wasn't a fan of LCDC, but it can be a good thing at times.
If the land was under farm land, and not in the urban growth boundary, file a complaint with LCDC. You might not be able to stop the development, but might put it on hold for a few years. If it is, in the urban development area, you get to watch them build, with no input! I wasn't a fan of LCDC, but it can be a good thing at times.
Interesting. So there's a State agency for that there. If not mistake, here in Cali it's mostly County regulated by the local Zoning Commissions. I did find this online, but there appears to be some State oversight.
66410� Short title
This division may be cited as the Subdivision Map Act.
(Added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)
66411� Local ordinance
Regulation and control of the design and improvement
of subdivisions are vested in the legislative bodies of local
agencies. Each local agency shall, by ordinance, regulate
and control the initial design and improvement of common
interest developments as defined in Section 1351 of the
Civil Code and subdivisions for which this division requires
a tentative and final or parcel map.
Need a damn NY lawyer to read through all the info, as per the usual.
Seems there have been some cases in courts about converting farmland to other uses here though.
https://www.californialandusedevelo...es/33/2021/01/Conservation-Easements.pdfOh well, like most things in my life......................I ain't in control of much except what I can choose to do today.
Since the entire neighborhood is also on wells on each property, the local water table is a big concern. County, wants to develop the land for more tax revenue for the democRATs who run the county. So they are telling all existing residents that they need to consider buying holding tanks for their property....
This is where you should focus your concerns with the county.
"Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over."
There's also the issue that John pointed out, old folks died, the heirs or trusts no longer have any need, or desire, to keep the property. Could they possibly have sold it to some entity to create a wildlife area in perpetuity as a condition of the sale?
This is what I do for a living--estates and probate, here in Oregon. The kids normally have houses, jobs, families, and lives that don't include the family property. So it gets sold.
Conservatives generally support the free transfer of property and capitalism in general. My rural area is slowly being taken over by "McMansions" as people scrape off the old 1,500 sq ft ranch style home and build a bigger (4,000 sq ft) absurdity.
Its unfortunate, but we live in the great United States of America, and citizens have the right to build the home they want, where they want.
Freedom matters.
Also, sale to a conservation group rarely works. The group sells the house and buys a wetland somewhere else.
BMT
Eye opening, BMT.