HB2001 - Housing density gone amok - Page 2 - www.ifish.net

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Life in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-07-2019, 11:28 AM   #61
Sneaker
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 142
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

I guess I’m not getting the math. Research suggests that Oregon is growing around 1% per year, or 45,000 people. That doesn’t seem like much, especially given that the bulk of the increase is in the Portland metro area. So why force the rest of the state to comply with an edict that really only applies to Portland?

Sneaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-07-2019, 01:29 PM   #62
Buccaneer
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,297
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneaker View Post
I guess I’m not getting the math. Research suggests that Oregon is growing around 1% per year, or 45,000 people. That doesn’t seem like much, especially given that the bulk of the increase is in the Portland metro area. So why force the rest of the state to comply with an edict that really only applies to Portland?
Because we live in a de facto dictatorship and common sense doesn't apply. Resistance is futile.
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2019, 01:30 PM   #63
willametteriveroutlaw
King Salmon
 
willametteriveroutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 8,585
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G Baldi View Post
For clarification, the Emergency Clause has nothing to do with being on a ballot. Without an Emergency Clause a signed law (passed in both chambers and signed by the gov) takes effect on January 1 of the following year after passage of the Act unless otherwise noted in the bill. A bill can can have "X days after passage", an Emergency Clause or no mention of an effective date. A bill with an Emergency Clause becomes effective upon signing by the gov.

A legislative bill *may* be referred to voters as a referendum that upon passage by both chambers goes to the voters as long as it is not vetoed by the governor. And any citizen can begin a referendum to create, amend or rescind an existing law by filing a ballot measure and gathering enough signatures. So even though HB2001 is law, someone can file a ballot measure to have it altered or eliminated.
Not really accurate, if a bill doesn't have the emergency clause, it provides time to get it on the ballot via the signature process getting out to the voters. The iniative process deals strictly new ideas and has a much more stringent process.

The emergency clause has been heavily abused in recent years. I'm working with a couple groups to get it on the ballot with the iniative process this year as well as getting hb 3427 to the voters.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
The worst part is, now I have to agree with WRO. Which causes me much pain and grief.

-Flatfish
willametteriveroutlaw is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Old 07-07-2019, 02:39 PM   #64
Don G Baldi
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 10,112
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Yes, not really accurate. The initiative process is created by someone outside the legislative process by filing a measure with the Secretary of State. It can be used to create a new law, amend an existing law, or eliminate an existing law.

https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Doc...ve-process.pdf


The referral process comes out of the legislature and is referred to voters to determine if their proposed law is enacted. It must be passed by both chambers and NOT vetoed by the governor.

https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/referral.aspx


Most laws are simply created in the legislative process and when passed by both chambers and not vetoed by the governor, it becomes law by January 1st of the following year. If the bill has an Emergency Clause it becomes effective on the date is is signed by the governor. Bills can be introduced by any lawmaker (sponsor) based on something want want created, amended or rescinded or a request they receive from constituents.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ci...comes-Law.aspx
__________________
Common sense isn't evenly distributed
Don G Baldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 09:03 AM   #65
dewpoint
Chromer
 
dewpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 536
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Oregon, the only place where we are opposed to both sprawl and density!

(Now of course I comfortably say this from the safety of my historically designated neighborhood.)

There are no easy answers:

*Growing economy
*Protected rural areas and farmland
*Density limiting urban growth restraints
*Affordability

Pick your favorite three!
dewpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 10:47 AM   #66
Don G Baldi
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 10,112
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

I confess that I read the local Statesman Journal online. Haven't paid for a print copy in many years, but the wife sometimes buys a Sunday for the coupons.
__________________
Common sense isn't evenly distributed
Don G Baldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 02:22 PM   #67
uhmw
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: westlinn
Posts: 5,336
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by positize View Post

My wife and I are in the process of selling our Portland home and moving to rural Oregon. Man am I looking to getting out of this before the density goes bananas.
OOOOhhhh maybe I could buy that and take the saw zall to it and quarter that old house and rent each trendy "flat" for $1900 + first and last then add some small homes to the back yard as the rent piles up and rent them out as short term housing Europa here we come

Last edited by uhmw; 07-08-2019 at 02:58 PM.
uhmw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 03:49 PM   #68
dirtman
Tuna!
 
dirtman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Tigard
Posts: 1,624
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

High density seems to work well in another place where soccer is popular and there are hills above the city - Rio de Janeiro. But I wonder how the fire department handles fires in such a place.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gonyuxg5cr401.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	195.9 KB
ID:	726491  
dirtman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 03:53 PM   #69
Don G Baldi
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 10,112
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtman View Post
High density seems to work well in another place where soccer is popular and there are hills above the city - Rio de Janeiro. But I wonder how the fire department handles fires in such a place.
Looks like Portland to me.
__________________
Common sense isn't evenly distributed
Don G Baldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 04:14 PM   #70
Buccaneer
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,297
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtman View Post
High density seems to work well in another place where soccer is popular and there are hills above the city - Rio de Janeiro. But I wonder how the fire department handles fires in such a place.
Great example. It's extreme, but a not too far off representation of Oregon's metro area future.

It seems silly to me. The Urban Growth Boundaries in the major metro areas are really responsible for the property values out distancing peoples ability to afford a home. Scarce land equals high prices. It's only going to get worse. Adding the boundaries to small towns trying to grow their economy through growth (the only way to do it), has bogged down their future.

In this day and age, we know what land is viable farm land, forest land and so forth. We can grow better than this high-density crap---in my opinion.

I read somewhere that Oregon's population encompasses something like 4-5% of the land mass of the state. There is room to grow into the countryside without affecting farming, forests or recreation.

Last edited by Buccaneer; 07-08-2019 at 04:17 PM. Reason: Finished a thought.
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 02:36 AM   #71
Bonecrusher 0.338
Ifish Nate
 
Bonecrusher 0.338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Troutdale
Posts: 2,460
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Pathetic, all it does is ruin the livability of the area. Massive congestion and pollution. Also get used to increased noise. Don't plan on parking in front of your own house on the street, your neighbors and their company will be parked there!
__________________
Forget the past the past is gone forever, right now is where it's happening..
Bonecrusher 0.338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 06:08 AM   #72
Soulakala
King Salmon
 
Soulakala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northwest
Posts: 5,484
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtman View Post
High density seems to work well in another place where soccer is popular and there are hills above the city - Rio de Janeiro. But I wonder how the fire department handles fires in such a place.

Its a form of renovation, burn um then rebuild bigger and better.
__________________
Free speech may not be pleasing at times but its our right and I thank those in the military that defend our right to free speech!
Soulakala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 07:48 AM   #73
willametteriveroutlaw
King Salmon
 
willametteriveroutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 8,585
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G Baldi View Post
Yes, not really accurate. The initiative process is created by someone outside the legislative process by filing a measure with the Secretary of State. It can be used to create a new law, amend an existing law, or eliminate an existing law.

https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Doc...ve-process.pdf


The referral process comes out of the legislature and is referred to voters to determine if their proposed law is enacted. It must be passed by both chambers and NOT vetoed by the governor.

https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/referral.aspx


Most laws are simply created in the legislative process and when passed by both chambers and not vetoed by the governor, it becomes law by January 1st of the following year. If the bill has an Emergency Clause it becomes effective on the date is is signed by the governor. Bills can be introduced by any lawmaker (sponsor) based on something want want created, amended or rescinded or a request they receive from constituents.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ci...comes-Law.aspx
It's the referendum process vs the initiative process. The emergency clause is a work around to the referendum process. Initiatives are much harder create than referendums and pass than just using the simple referendum process. The legislature used the Emergency clause to silence voters on a couple issues that were already voted down.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lp...dumProcess.pdf
__________________
The worst part is, now I have to agree with WRO. Which causes me much pain and grief.

-Flatfish
willametteriveroutlaw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 08:37 AM   #74
ccw
King Salmon
 
ccw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,499
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobber Downey Jr. View Post
Yeah I really don't see why outdoorsmen would dislike this. I slows down urban sprawl. From a city planning standpoint, I've always though well thought out density makes sense. Some people don't need or want a piece of land. I personally can't live in a densely packed city, but my lifestyle isn't the same as your typical city dweller.


I'd rather stick 100 people on two acres of land over in the city than have 100 people on 20 acres of land out by me. Pack them in, figure out mass transit solutions to get them to work, and stop over-developing the areas we need to keep our fisheries healthy.

Yes, with the human population doubling every 40 years, pack them in where there are more amenities. Affordable housing is part of the American Dream too. I’m also glad I can choose to live way outside of major cities. It was no accident. I worked hard and educated myself and planned a life to avoid them most of the time.

I’m sure Los Angeles was awesome in the 1930s. When I grew up on Mercer Island next to Seattle a kid could run all up and down the waterfront and fish and explore anywhere. Now it’s multi-million dollar homes with security fences and no-trespassing signs. Yuck!

Time does not stand still, nor do cities.

If you want to see into the future, go visit China. I’ve been there.

CW
__________________
"To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."

(from Ulysses - Tennyson, 1833)
ccw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2019, 02:59 AM   #75
caster79
Ifish Nate
 
caster79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Rainier, OR
Posts: 2,863
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobber Downey Jr. View Post
I mean, the population is growing and you have to put people somewhere. We can pack them tighter in the city or spread them out where we hunt and fish. I know which one I choose.


Growing population sucks for any of us. But I think this is as decent of a solution as I can think of to mitigate the damage of future development.
This is kinda how I look at it. This new bill keeps the population in the cities and slows urban sprawl. It slows the loss of farm and recreation land by keeping the growth focused on the cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Guy View Post
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. All those people will need somewhere to go play and recreate.
Yes but at least they are only there to visit and not to stay. When they are there to visit and play, you build businesses to take advantage of that and take their money. You get to take their money and send them home. At least they are living in an existing higher density city and not a new development that used to be a piece of prime farm land with a farmer who allowed hunting.
__________________
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain ... Time to roll the dice." From FoH, Mat Cauthon
caster79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2019, 06:25 AM   #76
Bobber Downey Jr.
Chromer
 
Bobber Downey Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Gresham
Posts: 512
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccw View Post
If you want to see into the future, go visit China. I’ve been there.

CW
Oh I've been a few times. I don't envy living there for a second. But at the same time I really admire how some of those cities operate. The efficiency of how those places run is really a modern marvel. There's certainly issues within those systems, but it's still really remarkable what they were able to do with their density.


I feel like people's main gripe is that population growth is a thing. Nobody likes it. We like some of the affects of it like economy growth, but I don't think anybody likes when any place, city or otherwise, gets more crowded. Lashing out at the powers that be simply because it acknowledges population growth is a thing and makes an effort to plan for it doesn't seem particularly productive. I honestly don't see how else we could do this. Keep in mind: sprawl = traffic. Because those people are no longer able to live close to where they work. If people are able to live close to where they work in the city, they have other commute options than putting another car on the road.



Those areas we can sprawl to just aren't areas we fish and hunt, but part of the bigger ecosystem that supports the places we fish and hunt. You start paving over areas that serve as a clean water runoff area for the local salmon rearing habitats, and it adds up and we see declines in fish runs down the line.

Last edited by Bobber Downey Jr.; 07-10-2019 at 06:28 AM.
Bobber Downey Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 01:34 PM   #77
flatman
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: north coast
Posts: 7,836
Default Re: HB2001 - Housing density gone amok

affordable housing just brings in people that dont want to work to improve their lot in life.
you cant live anywhere you want to in the same lifestyle for the same price. some places are going to cost more and not allow some to live there because of it. and that is good.
flatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:39 PM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.21644 seconds with 39 queries