Global Warming News
- Thread starter KB9UDE
- Start date
- Views: 111690
- Status
dave1949
Super Star Member
From Cyril,
My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.
That's really great. I am glad they have those interests and you go out of the way to support them. That's good parenting.
I don't mean to hold Maine up as a paragon of good regulation. Just swapping stories with people all over the country is very educational. I have heard of a lot of things I would fight like heck, and a lot of good ideas too. The overall variablity is interesting.
Any virtue Maine has in regulation probably lies in it's poverty. We can't afford it.
There could be a loose correlation between the general wealth of a state and the level of onerous regulations it seems.
Dave.
My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.
That's really great. I am glad they have those interests and you go out of the way to support them. That's good parenting.
I don't mean to hold Maine up as a paragon of good regulation. Just swapping stories with people all over the country is very educational. I have heard of a lot of things I would fight like heck, and a lot of good ideas too. The overall variablity is interesting.
Any virtue Maine has in regulation probably lies in it's poverty. We can't afford it.
There could be a loose correlation between the general wealth of a state and the level of onerous regulations it seems.Dave.
dcyrilc
Super Member
From Cyril,
My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.
That's really great. I am glad they have those interests and you go out of the way to support them. That's good parenting.
I don't mean to hold Maine up as a paragon of good regulation. Just swapping stories with people all over the country is very educational. I have heard of a lot of things I would fight like heck, and a lot of good ideas too. The overall variablity is interesting.
Any virtue Maine has in regulation probably lies in it's poverty. We can't afford it.
Dave.
I certianly would not be supprised if this were true. I believe population density could be a factor also.
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Green movement? Sure. As long as people keep doing stupid things, the green movement will continue.
Case in point, the EPA is not currently prosecuting polluters who are dumping toxic waste into non-navigable waterways. This is since the Supremes ruled that the EPA has no jurisdiction over those waters as the law is written to cover 'navigable' waterways. I don't fault the Supremes for their ruling, they followed the letter of the law. They will only be 'activist' judges for more conservative causes
The waterways being polluted drain into watersheds used to supply drinking water, into fisheries, into navigable waterways, etc. in many cases. A 'green' person will never understand or accept those types of actions. Why should they? You expect them to give others carte blanche to poison the earth they live on?
What did the wingnuts do?, well they ran around the country telling farmers the EPA was going to regulate their rain puddles if given regulatory powers over all bodies of water. The farmers call their congressmen, the manufacturing trade lobbyists make visits and calls to craven politicians. So the end result is, stupid people are allowed to dump crap into the water.
That is insane by any standard. As long as that 'brown' mentality persists, there will be greenies around.
Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.
If you lived in a biosphere and dealt with everything internally, that would be okay.
If I buy 20 acres in a rural/agricultural area - Should I be able build a stamping plant? Ka-chunka Ka-chunka 24/7? Open up a stone quarry? a little blasting and 50-100 trucks per day? Build a waste to elec. generator plant? How about a dirt bike race track? Races every Saturday night, track is open for practice Mon-Fri 8am-8pm? How about a mega-dairy farm which produces millions of gallons of waste which eventually enters the same aquifer my water well uses?
I could go on and on with enterprises that have a place, but most of us would not wish to have as neighbors. I think zoning is intended to address and adjudicate those issues. In every case, the owner of the 20 acres could complain that their property rights are being ignored. Isn't is simpler to create different zones for different uses? And even better, when purchasing a piece of property, align your intended uses with the current uses?
Dave.
Thanks for the reply,
Now that Im back in the Good Ole USA I can resume my toxic lifestyle that I have come to enjoy.HEHE
It is interesting that you bring up examples of uses of property that others find objectionable. Right here in our little burg of Fallbrook we have an example . Liberty Quarry wants to build a huge facility on the north end of town, on the San Diego-Riverside Co line. Huge amount of opposition from the community.
Obviously to be consistent I would have to say that property rights would trump the communities right to stymie the project, As there is no zoning in the area.
But I think in your reply you have set up examples of basically straw men arguments, The example of the EPA NOT prosecuting people is a current
status. In the past there HAVE been prosecutions that were people put into jail or fined millions of dollars for using their property in a way that the government objected to.
I am now in Houston visiting a relative. I always was told that Houston, because it has no zoning laws was a crazy patchwork of highrises next to small single family homes, In some cases this is true, but for the most part Houston seems to be a very pleasant city, and by the way one that is growing exponentially .And for the most part people seem to use enlightened self interest, as opposed to some zoning board to control building that would be detrimental to the community as a whole.
Having just gotten back from London, which probably has among the tightest
building regs around, there is no question as to where most people, if given the chance would choose to live.
In any event, I would repeat my question to you, Can you tell me at what point my property rights are trumped by "stewardship".
dave1949
Super Star Member
I thought I answered the question:
Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.
I think that is a good starting point. It could be someone who collects junk and breeding rats infest the neighborhood. Somebody starts a motorcycle repair business in their home gargage, sounds harmless until a couple dozen loud bikes come and go everyday in what used to be a quiet residential area. Doesn't have to be the classic toxic waste examples. There are many situations or things you could do on your property that affect those around you. The people being affected have property rights too.
The silly things like size, style or color of your house, clotheslines, natural growth rather than mowed and poisoned-on-a-schedule lawn
Houston and London. I bet the food is generally better in Houston although the yuppified roadhouses wouldn't have the charm of an English pub.
In any case, do you think as Houston rapidly expanded into the area around it, there were no conflicts with property owners about to be run over by a city? Even assuming they were well compensated financially, they really didn't have a choice. Check out Cyril's posts from yesterday in this thread.
Fringes are where the majority of land use issues become contentious. A settled neighborhood where current uses are more or less locked in carries a price premium for that reason. Of course, you know that. Am I to believe that if a big box store wanted to locate in the middle of an established Houston neighborhood, there would be no resistance? Zoning or no zoning?
Phoenix, AZ has/had an interesting layout. I suppose it has changed with highways cutting across it now, but originally it was laid out on square grids. All the commercial activites were located on the major surface streets that defined the grid. The grid interior was a network of residential neighborhoods. The streets inside the grid were laid out such that it would usually take longer to cut through as opposed to staying on the major streets. Much can be accomplished with a little thought.
Westbrook, Maine has a rock quarry that has been there forever, the cash flow helped build the town. The quarry wanted to expand it's operations onto land, which they own, adjacent to their quarry. The town and surrounding, newer, light industries fought it. Basically, the town has decided it's too much tax revenue to lose since the quarry operations would drive away other businesses. Plus the new businesses are high tech and not nasty like a quarry. Whose rights are more important? I don't pretend to know. It's not a zoning issue, it is a town revenue issue.
Dave.
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,I thought I answered the question:
Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.
I think that is a good starting point. It could be someone who collects junk and breeding rats infest the neighborhood. Somebody starts a motorcycle repair business in their home gargage, sounds harmless until a couple dozen loud bikes come and go everyday in what used to be a quiet residential area. Doesn't have to be the classic toxic waste examples. There are many situations or things you could do on your property that affect those around you. The people being affected have property rights too.
The silly things like size, style or color of your house, clotheslines, natural growth rather than mowed and poisoned-on-a-schedule lawn
Houston and London. I bet the food is generally better in Houston although the yuppified roadhouses wouldn't have the charm of an English pub.
In any case, do you think as Houston rapidly expanded into the area around it, there were no conflicts with property owners about to be run over by a city? Even assuming they were well compensated financially, they really didn't have a choice. Check out Cyril's posts from yesterday in this thread.
Fringes are where the majority of land use issues become contentious. A settled neighborhood where current uses are more or less locked in carries a price premium for that reason. Of course, you know that. Am I to believe that if a big box store wanted to locate in the middle of an established Houston neighborhood, there would be no resistance? Zoning or no zoning?
Phoenix, AZ has/had an interesting layout. I suppose it has changed with highways cutting across it now, but originally it was laid out on square grids. All the commercial activites were located on the major surface streets that defined the grid. The grid interior was a network of residential neighborhoods. The streets inside the grid were laid out such that it would usually take longer to cut through as opposed to staying on the major streets. Much can be accomplished with a little thought.
Westbrook, Maine has a rock quarry that has been there forever, the cash flow helped build the town. The quarry wanted to expand it's operations onto land, which they own, adjacent to their quarry. The town and surrounding, newer, light industries fought it. Basically, the town has decided it's too much tax revenue to lose since the quarry operations would drive away other businesses. Plus the new businesses are high tech and not nasty like a quarry. Whose rights are more important? I don't pretend to know. It's not a zoning issue, it is a town revenue issue.
Dave.
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights
dcyrilc
Super Member
dave1949
Super Star Member
QUOTE=FallbrookFarmer;1898036]
Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Cyril, there is no well defined line in the sand for many cases. It would be a fool's errand to attempt to codify all of them I think.
As a smoker, obviously the lady on her patio is wrong. But seriously, she probably brings home groceries more injurious to her health than any whiff of cigarette smoke she may receive. Let's be honest, people love to hate smokers. There can be no rational discussion involving smoking. When they are done with us, they will raise the taxes on a Big Mac by 300%. After all, eating like that will increase all of our health costs and what about the residual smell it leaves on your hands and clothing? When I get into an auto where Big Mac's have been eaten, I almost gag. Disgusting habit. :laughing:
I live in a 'tailpipe' state. Whatever pollutants are put aloft across the midwest, they generally drift out to sea through New England. The tailpipe state governor's banded together to sue the EPA for not regulating emissions in upwind states a couple years back. I will have to look up the outcome of that action.
When Texas builds a bunch of coal fired power plants, they enjoy cheap energy while folks downwind suffer the pollution. There is something wrong with that picture. It goes down hard to hear a Texan brag about their low electricity costs. Especially when the EPA tells us our air is too dirty, in a state with a population of 1.3 million, compared to 5.7 million for the Houston metro area alone. Obviously, pollutants have to be dealt with at their sources. I don't know how that would work across borders (country to country), but it should be doable within our own US borders.
Of your examples, the pig farm is the most difficult. There are some management techniques that can reduce the odor, but pigs are powerful stinky critters. The farmer has a right to make a living, but again, he has to be responsible to not damage the surrounding watersheds. I think if you choose to live in an agricultural zone, it basically goes with the territory. As long as the neighbor's health is not harmed. I think it would be similar to living in a paper mill town. It's just part of living there. For the farms with thousands of pigs, there are probably some management guidelines they should be required to adhere to that will control some of the odors.
A part of the challenge is that mega farms did not exist in the past when zoning rules were formulated. There are pig farms and then are BIG PIG farms. Same for dairy operations or egg producers. I know different areas have decided these questions with different approaches. It's certainly arguable that a mega farm creates a huge nuisance that is above and beyond what anyone would expect in an agricultural zone. It doesn't pass the reasonable test.
Truly Green people would say that's not the way animals should be raised to begin with. They have some ground to stand on too. To raise animals in such concentrations usually requires the use of antibiotics (not always, in super hygenic operations). They also commonly make use of growth hormones. All these things are showing up in the water supply, in fish and in people. Most doctors blame the antibiotic resistant strains on the casual use of antibiotics. Growth hormones are implicated the earlier puberty seen among adolescents and fish with indeterminate *** are appearing.
Yes, zoning and health issues are different. It shouldn't matter what the zoning is for something that produces a health hazard.
Do local regulatory boards use environmental rules against people or to get more tax? Probably they do in some cases.
Dave.
Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Cyril, there is no well defined line in the sand for many cases. It would be a fool's errand to attempt to codify all of them I think.
As a smoker, obviously the lady on her patio is wrong
. But seriously, she probably brings home groceries more injurious to her health than any whiff of cigarette smoke she may receive. Let's be honest, people love to hate smokers. There can be no rational discussion involving smoking. When they are done with us, they will raise the taxes on a Big Mac by 300%. After all, eating like that will increase all of our health costs and what about the residual smell it leaves on your hands and clothing? When I get into an auto where Big Mac's have been eaten, I almost gag. Disgusting habit. :laughing:I live in a 'tailpipe' state. Whatever pollutants are put aloft across the midwest, they generally drift out to sea through New England. The tailpipe state governor's banded together to sue the EPA for not regulating emissions in upwind states a couple years back. I will have to look up the outcome of that action.
When Texas builds a bunch of coal fired power plants, they enjoy cheap energy while folks downwind suffer the pollution. There is something wrong with that picture. It goes down hard to hear a Texan brag about their low electricity costs. Especially when the EPA tells us our air is too dirty, in a state with a population of 1.3 million, compared to 5.7 million for the Houston metro area alone. Obviously, pollutants have to be dealt with at their sources. I don't know how that would work across borders (country to country), but it should be doable within our own US borders.
Of your examples, the pig farm is the most difficult. There are some management techniques that can reduce the odor, but pigs are powerful stinky critters. The farmer has a right to make a living, but again, he has to be responsible to not damage the surrounding watersheds. I think if you choose to live in an agricultural zone, it basically goes with the territory. As long as the neighbor's health is not harmed. I think it would be similar to living in a paper mill town. It's just part of living there. For the farms with thousands of pigs, there are probably some management guidelines they should be required to adhere to that will control some of the odors.
A part of the challenge is that mega farms did not exist in the past when zoning rules were formulated. There are pig farms and then are BIG PIG farms. Same for dairy operations or egg producers. I know different areas have decided these questions with different approaches. It's certainly arguable that a mega farm creates a huge nuisance that is above and beyond what anyone would expect in an agricultural zone. It doesn't pass the reasonable test.
Truly Green people would say that's not the way animals should be raised to begin with.
They have some ground to stand on too. To raise animals in such concentrations usually requires the use of antibiotics (not always, in super hygenic operations). They also commonly make use of growth hormones. All these things are showing up in the water supply, in fish and in people. Most doctors blame the antibiotic resistant strains on the casual use of antibiotics. Growth hormones are implicated the earlier puberty seen among adolescents and fish with indeterminate *** are appearing.Yes, zoning and health issues are different. It shouldn't matter what the zoning is for something that produces a health hazard.
Do local regulatory boards use environmental rules against people or to get more tax? Probably they do in some cases.
Dave.
dcyrilc
Super Member
Dave,
Thanks a lot for reminding me that our state wants to put another $1 /pack tax on cigarettes. Between the state and feds last year we received a $2/pack increase. They claim that this will bring in enough revenue that they should not have to raise taxes. Another example of singling out the minority for the benefit of the majority.
Thanks a lot for reminding me that our state wants to put another $1 /pack tax on cigarettes. Between the state and feds last year we received a $2/pack increase. They claim that this will bring in enough revenue that they should not have to raise taxes. Another example of singling out the minority for the benefit of the majority.
dave1949
Super Star Member
Don't mention it.
The tax thing is just another whopper - like lotteries will support schools. It grinds me that being part of an unpopular minority makes me fair game for these crackpots. I would like to start taxing everyone's bad habits just for revenge, it would be worth the cost just on principle.
Dave.
dcyrilc
Super Member
Don't mention it.
It grinds me that being part of an unpopular minority makes me fair game for these crackpots. I would like to start taxing everyone's bad habits just for revenge, it would be worth the cost just on principle.
Dave.
Yeaaaah (slow and drawn out), I don't think our schools ever did see even a dime of the money.
dcyrilc
Super Member
Hey, since we're on the subject of saving the planet... I have about 30 gallons of used hydraulic oil. Any suggestions on where to get rid of it without paying a fortune? County offices, etc.? Just joking on that part.
Mousefield
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,583
- Tractor
- Sold 2008 CK35 HST
Within reason people should be able to do what they want with their land. However when it affects the neighbors or neighbor hood then there needs to be some rules and regulations. We presently live in a fairly unregulated area, no building inspections for example. A friend of mine bought property with a house some years ago, a few years later a person bought the property across the road and opened up a car repair business. When my friend sold his clean, well looked after property 3 years ago I wouldn't be surprise if he lost $50,000.00 to $100.000.00 due to the 40-50 junk cars and trucks across the road. It just looked terrible. Potential buyers look at his nice place with a wonderful gravel creek and leave his place and see a JUNK yard. The world around here is changing as it looks like we will have building inspections by the end of this year.
dave1949
Super Star Member
I may recall somebody telling me about a state where the supposedly dedicated revenue streams are held in separate accounts. I think the majority of states just dump it all into the general funds where it becomes hard to trace. Legalized money laundering
Dave.
dave1949
Super Star Member
People that heat a shop or shed with waste/used motor oil furnaces will take it. That's where mine goes. I checked before dropping it off at our town recycle spot.
Dave.
dave1949
Super Star Member
That's a shame. I hate it when people do those things. It's a sickness really. They don't strip out the useful or valuable parts and send the rest to the crusher, nope it all sits there until someone gets after them. They typically don't do much 'repair' business either.
A guy in the town next door started an appliance 'repair' business - at a rental house yet. He had 20-30 refrigerators, washers and dryers scattered all over the front yard. Several mattresses too. That's not counting the general just plain junk he also had. The town finally got after him, even so it has taken all winter and he isn't done yet. They know how to haul them in, but you would think an engineering marvel is required to put them on a pickup and take them away.
It has to be a form of sickness, like hoarding. A normal person would no way want to look out their window and see a mess of junk in their own yard.Dave.
Pilot
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,224
- Location
- Oregon
- Tractor
- JD 770, Yanmar 180D, JD 420 (not running), had a Kubota B6200
Somewhere there has to be a balance on the land use restrictions, but I don't know where the line should be drawn.
Oregon touts their land use laws as being wonderful, protecting "valuable" farm land while they let Portland and it's burbs expand out onto the farms. And that is good farm land. Meanwhile, the restrictions that apply to the west side of the mountains, where the good farm land is also apply to the eastern 2/3 of the state which is basically dry and much of it has low value as farmland.
Politicians push to get industry to move into the Portland area, leading to expanding the metro area onto this farmland they think they are protecting, then wonder why cities on the east side of the mountains struggle. If they really want to protect farmland, then the growth should be on the east side of the mountains.
Build a house on your rural property? If it's timber land, you can't unless your parcel is something like 80 acres minimum, while if it's farmland, you have to prove you can make a good income (I don't remember how much, but it is in the $80K range) on the parcel.
Our 10 acres was grandfathered in, so we were able to build a house. I can step out the door, prune my trees, do a little thinning, pile and burn slash and intensively manage my timber much better than if I had to burn hydrocarbons driving 5 or 10 miles from town to work on the property.
What is the result of their poorly thought out and excessively restrictive land use laws that the greens think are wonderful? In the Portland area, they now advertise a lot of 5,000 sq. ft. as being "large"; they build a 3,500 sq. ft. house on a 4,000 sq. ft lot; they want everybody to live in a high rise condo. Property values--also read as "property costs if you are buying"--are much higher on the Oregon side of the Columbia than on the Washington side, then the politicians blame the evil real estate industry when surveys show housing is not very affordable. Oregon thinks the higher property values mean demand is driving up prices, while people flee to Washington where the looser laws let people live on decent sized lots with a real back yard and where they don't hear intimate activities in their neighbor's house 5 feet outside their window. The Vancouver area has been growing rapidly and now on both sides of the river they are talking about a new bridge so people in Washington can come over to Oregon to work, then go home to live.
But from the stories on this forum, it sounds like in Washington they have gone nuts with restrictions in rural areas; just different from Oregon.
There's got to be a balance. There's got to be some sense. But there isn't. Not yet anyway.
Oregon touts their land use laws as being wonderful, protecting "valuable" farm land while they let Portland and it's burbs expand out onto the farms. And that is good farm land. Meanwhile, the restrictions that apply to the west side of the mountains, where the good farm land is also apply to the eastern 2/3 of the state which is basically dry and much of it has low value as farmland.
Politicians push to get industry to move into the Portland area, leading to expanding the metro area onto this farmland they think they are protecting, then wonder why cities on the east side of the mountains struggle. If they really want to protect farmland, then the growth should be on the east side of the mountains.
Build a house on your rural property? If it's timber land, you can't unless your parcel is something like 80 acres minimum, while if it's farmland, you have to prove you can make a good income (I don't remember how much, but it is in the $80K range) on the parcel.
Our 10 acres was grandfathered in, so we were able to build a house. I can step out the door, prune my trees, do a little thinning, pile and burn slash and intensively manage my timber much better than if I had to burn hydrocarbons driving 5 or 10 miles from town to work on the property.
What is the result of their poorly thought out and excessively restrictive land use laws that the greens think are wonderful? In the Portland area, they now advertise a lot of 5,000 sq. ft. as being "large"; they build a 3,500 sq. ft. house on a 4,000 sq. ft lot; they want everybody to live in a high rise condo. Property values--also read as "property costs if you are buying"--are much higher on the Oregon side of the Columbia than on the Washington side, then the politicians blame the evil real estate industry when surveys show housing is not very affordable. Oregon thinks the higher property values mean demand is driving up prices, while people flee to Washington where the looser laws let people live on decent sized lots with a real back yard and where they don't hear intimate activities in their neighbor's house 5 feet outside their window. The Vancouver area has been growing rapidly and now on both sides of the river they are talking about a new bridge so people in Washington can come over to Oregon to work, then go home to live.
But from the stories on this forum, it sounds like in Washington they have gone nuts with restrictions in rural areas; just different from Oregon.
There's got to be a balance. There's got to be some sense. But there isn't. Not yet anyway.
turbo36
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
- Location
- Michigan
- Tractor
- JD X739 AWS (3), 2016 Toolcat, JD 2038R
Aaaaaaah (drawn out) my health insurance rates are higher because of those who choose to smoke. I don't see any problem charging people more for being overweight, or if the choose to smoke, drink too much or don't want to exercise.
dave1949
Super Star Member
Here is some background on the Northeast states suing the EPA to regulate mercury from Midwest coal-fired power plants. I can find no real clear resolution to these suits. It looks like they bargain back and forth on agreements forced by related split-decision Supreme Court rulings.
Northeast battles its status as US 'tailpipe' / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Supreme Court Decision Reaches Beyond Tailpipes and Power Plants (Energy Priorities)
Conservation Law Foundation :: Press Center :: Press Releases
Dave.
Northeast battles its status as US 'tailpipe' / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Supreme Court Decision Reaches Beyond Tailpipes and Power Plants (Energy Priorities)
Conservation Law Foundation :: Press Center :: Press Releases
Dave.
- Status
