Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The aspirational goals of what you wish these laws and regulations actually do is likely pretty small.
There is also the opportunity cost of what not may be happening and possibly even better solutions that are not being promulgated.
Based on my 35 yrs in business all over this country and world, I would hazard to guess that for every person who you believe these regulations help, there are 4-6 who are harmed.
How?
1. It costs a lot of money to prove compliance. This is Non value Add activity diverts investment from more productive activities. The additional investment could lead to more job or learning opportunities for those you claim are being helped by NVA regulations.
2. Anytime a regulation is created, there are charlatans wanting to make a buck scamming the system. I have been involved in too many claims and litigations from crap renters, employees and others who want to use the regulations and race card as an excuse to steal. Fewer onerous regulations than can be scammed means fewer losses.
3. The biggest danger from excessive regulation is over long term, segments of society become dependent on either government or others. This can become generational. Tough love and cutting them off would eventually solve the societal problem that gov't created but many people can't allow that to happen.
Government is not meant to solve problems, government is meant to create more government. I offer that Government creates more Societal problems than it solves.
For example - how does Portland look to solve it's HOBO problem? Not be kicking them out. Not by cutting them off. Rather we the taxpayer, will subsidize hundreds of jobs and a large bureaucracy over the next decades to "Solve the problem."
Pretty accurate to guess that every HOBO taken off the street will likely cost PDX and Oregon taxpayer several thousands of dollars. yea _great Government solution!!
It goes beyond that. Imagine, you are a lumber industry worker in central-Oregon. You're already paying 9.9% of your income to the state in income tax but are lucky to get a paved road to your single-wide mobile home. Meanwhile, a Portland area population majority overrides the rest of the state and votes in more progressive socialist entitlements for themselves and passes a carbon tax and massive gas/diesel tax, virtue signaling to the far left. The same Portland area voters complain from their lumber and plywood homes/apartments that too many trees are being cut down and it's threatening the habitat of the spotted brown banana slug, pass a measure to close logging in several areas. The lumber company, now facing increased costs in trucking and processing, is now not competitive with out of state/Canadian lumber products, has less places to log, and ends up laying off their workers who fall into unemployment and food stamps and is now the "lazy porch sitting redneck" family on government handouts that progressives rant about. The lumber is still coming in, the fuel(now more actually-as product comes from afar) is still being burned, but you've simply exported the positives elsewhere. Then, the un-logged forest grows too dense, trees over-age and rot out in the center and attract beetles which kill them, and finally the whole thing goes up in flames, burning the trees and the spotted brown banana slugs alive, and maybe the lumber workers single wide as well. Now, due to increased materials costs, your latest new liberal land government subsidized apartment building now costs 20% more and requires even more taxpayer dollars. Costs of living/taxes increase and more people end up homeless. Even more tax dollars are needed to "study" and "fix" the homeless problem. Word gets out, and other states put their druggie/mentally ill/rapists/arsonists on a bus to become your problem....and the cycle of stupid repeats. Then, we wonder why the conservative areas want a "divorce" from the progressive ones?
I'm sorry, but that "study" sounds like hogwash. There is no way that the rest of Oregon is actually financially supporting the Portland area.
If the border of Washington dipped down to include the Portland area, Washington would probably end up being the richest state in the country. It's already on the verge of being so now. Add another very prosperous city (despite Portlands issues, it's economy has been very strong nearly a decade), and it's a shoe in.
Of course, you're right. People simply don't comprehend how state finances - or, really, basic economics - work.
Personal income tax accounts for 86% of Oregon's budget. Oregon, like every other state, has a graduated income tax system, which means the more one makes, the more one pays (because higher brackets have higher rates). The top three counties for income in Oregon? Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah. Those three counties have 45% of the state's population. Then come Deschutes, Sherman, Hood River, Gilliam (less than 6% of the state's population in those four counties). These seven counties total are the only ones in Oregon that have higher-than-average incomes; the rest are below the state average. Anyone who can comprehend the nature of a graduated tax system and those facts knows beyond any doubt that the Portland area (with a bit of help from those four other counties) is subsidizing the rest of the state to varying degrees.
But it gets more complicated. Why? Economies of scale. Government is more efficient in densely-populated areas. The roads get heavier use. School districts serve tens of thousands, rather than thousands or hundreds. On a per capita basis, it's much cheaper to pay for law enforcement, for example, for a city of 650,000 (Portland) than it is to pay for hundreds of separate law enforcement agencies (and hundreds of redundancies in every aspect of them) spread out over the 23 counties in Oregon (spread out over 70,000+ sq miles that have, combined, fewer people than Portland. And that's how every last government service in the state works - one department in Portland, hundreds combined spread out over most of the area of the state (which, again, is making less money on average than people in the Portland metro, and thereby paying fewer per capita taxes).
This is economics 101. Profoundly basic. Yet some people are beholden to the fantasy that rural areas subsidize metro areas, and will not let go of that treasured notion, facts be damned!
It goes beyond that. Imagine, you are a lumber industry worker in central-Oregon. You're already paying 9.9% of your income to the state in income tax but are lucky to get a paved road to your single-wide mobile home. Meanwhile, a Portland area population majority overrides the rest of the state and votes in more progressive socialist entitlements for themselves and passes a carbon tax and massive gas/diesel tax, virtue signaling to the far left. The same Portland area voters complain from their lumber and plywood homes/apartments that too many trees are being cut down and it's threatening the habitat of the spotted brown banana slug, pass a measure to close logging in several areas. The lumber company, now facing increased costs in trucking and processing, is now not competitive with out of state/Canadian lumber products, has less places to log, and ends up laying off their workers who fall into unemployment and food stamps and is now the "lazy porch sitting redneck" family on government handouts that progressives rant about. The lumber is still coming in, the fuel(now more actually-as product comes from afar) is still being burned, but you've simply exported the positives elsewhere. Then, the un-logged forest grows too dense, trees over-age and rot out in the center and attract beetles which kill them, and finally the whole thing goes up in flames, burning the trees and the spotted brown banana slugs alive, and maybe the lumber workers single wide as well. Now, due to increased materials costs, your latest new liberal land government subsidized apartment building now costs 20% more and requires even more taxpayer dollars. Costs of living/taxes increase and more people end up homeless. Even more tax dollars are needed to "study" and "fix" the homeless problem. Word gets out, and other states put their druggie/mentally ill/rapists/arsonists on a bus to become your problem....and the cycle of stupid repeats. Then, we wonder why the conservative areas want a "divorce" from the progressive ones?
So much nonsense here to unpack.
First, what are these state administered and funded "progressive socialist entitlements" of which you speak? Remember, if you are complaining about Portland voters then we are talking about STATE programs here, not Federal programs like the Affordable Care Act or pandemic relief. What kind of state-based "socialism" is soaking up all your state income tax dollars?
Second, your crappy local roads are not the fault of Portland voters. They are the fault of your own county voters who refuse to raise property taxes to pay for local roads. So put that on the voters in Douglas or Curry or Josephine County, not liberal Portlanders. Local roads are a local responsibility. Always have been and always will be. It is your choice if you want to exchange low taxes for crappy gravel roads, poor schools, and inadequate fire and police service. That seems to be a choice that many rural southern Oregonians are willing to make. Just have the integrity not to whine about it.
Third, Portland voters and public opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with habitat protections in national forests. That is all Federal policy governed by Washington DC. Spotted owl? That was all Federal. Liberal Portland voters had absolutely nothing to do with it. That was the Forest Service following national environmental laws that were actually signed into law by Richard Nixon.
Fourth, I grew up in rural Oregon in the 1970s and the reason so many mills closed back then was because private timber companies were making more money exporting raw logs to Asia than milling them locally. And a lot of small mills also closed because the timber industry also consolidated and does most of its milling in larger regional mills than small rural ones.
The fact of the matter is that urban areas subsidize rural areas, both in Oregon and every other state in the country. That is because urban areas are both more productive and more efficient than rural areas. And it isn't just the US. It is the same everywhere else in the world too.
Last edited by texasdiver; 02-06-2023 at 02:36 PM..
I thought pot was a big earner throughout western Oregon. More than likely, its statewide from border to border. Isn't pot Oregon's top crop?
In Eugene it's hard to drive a mile without passing one or more cannabis shops, but I don't know how profitable they are, as the prices have been quite low since last Spring. Bargain shelf product is mostly cheaper than what one normally expected to pay in the 1970s, and that's without correcting for inflation. The quality is usually better as well, beginning with the total absence of seeds.
Quote:
And that just covers the legal growers. Imagine how much more there is if you include illegal neighborhood grow houses, those on national forest lands, state parks, etc...
Surprisingly there is a lot of illegal cannabis farming in Oregon. It's rather a mystery to me especially considering the low prices these days, and of course the easy availability of the drug legally. On the other hand, for all I know there might be whole counties/regions where local governments have banned the shops. I don't think they can prohibit possession, but they can presumably refuse to license sellers, or set up onerous restrictions that are impossible to avoid.
Quote:
Idaho would have a helluva lot of additional law enforcement work on their hands if they ever wanted to attempt to stem that tide. What are the chances of that?
Derek
I wonder about that myself. An Idaho resident who buys cannabis in Ontario, Oregon and returns home violates Idaho law as soon as they pass the middle of the bridge; the potential penalty is up to a year in county jail if its less than three ounces and up to five years in state prison if more. I imagine there would also be a separate charge for transportation/importation. What I'd like to know is whether there are any local DAs or LEO leadership along the border that want to crack down on this and make an example of some people. To be clear, that's definitely not something I want to see happen, and I don't think most Idahoans do either.
Surprisingly there is a lot of illegal cannabis farming in Oregon. It's rather a mystery to me especially considering the low prices these days, and of course the easy availability of the drug legally. On the other hand, for all I know there might be whole counties/regions where local governments have banned the shops. I don't think they can prohibit possession, but they can presumably refuse to license sellers, or set up onerous restrictions that are impossible to avoid.
Legally grown pot at regulated pot farms can only be sold by legal pot shops within the state. Which is a pretty saturated and highly regulated market.
Illegal pot farms are constrained by NONE of that. They can and do ship their product out of state to states where pot is illegal. Where do you think pot smokers in the 29 states where pot is illegal get their pot? From illegal grow operations in Oregon and elsewhere. And illegal grow operations avoid all the cost and expense of complying with the very restrictive regulations that govern legal grow operations.
Has anyone bothered to ask Idahoans if they want it?
I live in Boise, not interested in redrawing boarders. As much as I'd like not needing an out of state license to fish the Owyhee River, it's just not worth it. Infrastructure spread out over a vary sparsely populated and arid region. Roads, electric grid, water systems, schools... no thanks. If you want to live in Idaho then move here.
Has anyone bothered to ask Idahoans if they want it?
I live in Boise, not interested in redrawing boarders. As much as I'd like not needing an out of state license to fish the Owyhee River, it's just not worth it. Infrastructure spread out over a vary sparsely populated and arid region. Roads, electric grid, water systems, schools... no thanks. If you want to live in Idaho then move here.
It isn't going to happen. No states have ever redrawn their borders since the Civil War when West Virginia separated from Virginia over slavery.
It is just a bunch of kvetching by a few grumpy old mostly retired conservatives in Eastern Oregon who are mad because Republicans don't win statewide elections anymore in OR. Which is mostly because the GOP has gone completely off the rails and no longer puts up the kind of moderate Republicans that could actually win in Oregon. Like Tom McCall who was an ardent environmentalist, pro public education, pro-choice, and a fiscal conservative. Now days we are more likely to get QAnon freak shows like Jo Rae Perkins who was the candidate that the GOP decided was the best choice to run against Ron Wyden in 2020. When the GOP decides to start running candidates like Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, and Vic Atiyeh who were all centrists, they might start winning again.
I may have posted this earlier, but Congress would need to approve State redrawing. Ain’t going to happen in our lifetimes. Further, despite the bickering some may not realize how W WA and W OR compliment their eastern cousins to create strong economies.
"Further, despite the bickering some may not realize how W WA and W OR compliment their eastern cousins to create strong economies."
It isn't going to happen. No states have ever redrawn their borders since the Civil War when West Virginia separated from Virginia over slavery.
It is just a bunch of kvetching by a few grumpy old mostly retired conservatives in Eastern Oregon who are mad because Republicans don't win statewide elections anymore in OR. Which is mostly because the GOP has gone completely off the rails and no longer puts up the kind of moderate Republicans that could actually win in Oregon. Like Tom McCall who was an ardent environmentalist, pro public education, pro-choice, and a fiscal conservative. Now days we are more likely to get QAnon freak shows like Jo Rae Perkins who was the candidate that the GOP decided was the best choice to run against Ron Wyden in 2020. When the GOP decides to start running candidates like Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, and Vic Atiyeh who were all centrists, they might start winning again.
Yes, that's more or less my read of the situation. And they don't want to move because they have large land holdings / grazing rights / water rights. Sorry, not interested in rearranging our entire state and politics to accommodate these folks.
The Greater Idaho website FAQ has the gall to say that Oregon would be happy to jettison the eastern half of the state because it's subsidized by the western half. Beware of those who come bearing gifts.
Yes, that's more or less my read of the situation. And they don't want to move because they have large land holdings / grazing rights / water rights. Sorry, not interested in rearranging our entire state and politics to accommodate these folks.
The Greater Idaho website FAQ has the gall to say that Oregon would be happy to jettison the eastern half of the state because it's subsidized by the western half. Beware of those who come bearing gifts.
The first thing they would all start doing is complain about how their taxes went up under Idaho because of the sales tax. And then have to drive back to the Willamette Valley to do their tax-free shopping.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
