Oregon lawmakers approve money to buy an iconic waterfall listed on Redfin
apnews.com
apnews.com
Seems like reasonable use of public dollars (~$2.1M) to protect and preserve a public good as public land.
> “There were a lot of people that were hiking on the property, and while we welcome that, we wanted to ensure that the proper stewardship was overseeing it.”
IIRC, it was a fairly hard trail -- the hike in has ~500ft elevation gain in only ~1 mile. That does need a lot of seasonal upkeep.
Also no signs or parking lots.
Note that there are TWO possible paths down to Abiqua creek that are quite close to one another at the top of the (quite deep) ravine in which the falls are located. One is hard, but not impossible. The other one is the "death trail" which isn't really a trail - it's a series of broken shale rock slides covered with fallen trees and steep "waterfalls of rock" but helpfully someone has put some ropes down it to make it seem like yes, this leads somewhere. It does not. One summer evening we thought it would be a nice after-dinner hike to take the "other trail" to the falls. Yeah... my thighs were sore for two days after the up/down/sideways, and the water was too deep to even go upstream to the falls. But it was an adventure.
I know what you'd like it to be, and I can agree with you, but it's not a public good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhjkemEyUo
Not Hydropower Real Estate?
Love this!
It'd attract all sorts of billionaires to bid on it and make it unaffordable for the public.
(The story seems to be old though, so hopefully it did end up being sold to the public.)
>The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.
>The listing worried fans of the natural wonder. But at the tail end of the legislative session this month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped in and approved $2.1 million to buy the falls and its surrounding land.
Zero chance this wasn't arranged in some capacity off record. The state doesn't "just" buy waterfalls without such plans being tacitly agreed to beforehand or at least deemed viable by people who "know things".
Sometimes the government is forbidden from buying land but nothing stops an individual or charity.
Third option:
Monks want to put up some minor tourist attraction, put in some parking and hand rails or engage in literally anything, doesn't really matter what since it's all invariably regulated near water. Bureaucrat who doesn't "get it" says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do XYZ first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford XZY, that would make this whole thing a nonstarter or defeat the point. Site languishes for a decade or two because while the subsequent bureaucrats may know what's right they can't necessarily ignore what the first guy said without sticking their necks way out. Eventually the monks find someone to help them out who gets the state to take it off their hands. Maybe they monks get a fair deal, maybe they're losing their ass, who knows.
This fact pattern is really common with redevelopment of eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.
This has nothing to do with government and a lot more than nothing to do with sneering jerks who dismiss the potential for systemic failures and stupidity by handwaving it away as "catastrophizing" enabling the systems to produce exactly those sorts of failures. Any bureaucracy can screw up in the manner I'm describing, insurance, bankers, it's not just government.
Bad outcomes are very, very, very sticky because the people that rise to positions that could undo them don't get there by being disposed to such actions. Some non-standard organization (a bunch of monks who aren't pro RE developers) with a nonstandard situation are high on the list of places these failures will happen. They submit something to some agency and use the wrong words, some dude who doesn't see many of these cross his desk denies it on some grounds and you've just locked in a problem that's gonna cost a lot of money to undo and monasteries aren't typically engaging in the sort of high dollar economic activity where they can just fight through it knowing it'll be paid back later.
I'm not saying that's what happened here but this is exactly the kind of place it could happen.
>(Buildings in prime locations aren’t equivalent.)
There are old mills on the outskirts of town and then there are historic mills on the river on main street.
There are overgrown farmers fields and there are forests with waterfalls in them.
See what I'm getting at?
In 2 of these states, it just rains all the time. You never ever want to visit these waterfalls, because you're perennially living in a waterfall. The local population is always depressed/suicidal. The only Oregonian of note got in trouble for that whole Nancy Kerrigan fiasco. And Washington is under the grip of Bezos and Gates. If you think Windows is bad ...
And Idaho, is, well, Idaho. There's a reason people doubt its existence.[1] It's because there is absolutely nothing of note there.
Texas is great! Lots of land. Number 1 in green energy. Go there.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/221739400799965/posts/302745...
The idea (and it's a semi joke) is that it will discourage more people from coming so it doesn't get spoiled.
A bit like telling people some tiny restaurant isn't all that good, because if too many people eat there, you will never get a table again.
These are the Seattle Tourism marketing months. Microsoft's college interns got the best weather of the year.
What they don't tell prospective residents is that the other 9 or 10 months of the year will be gray and drizzly/rainy, esp. December to March.
I could deal with the inclement weather, but one person I knew had to get a bright light to treat his seasonal affective disorder.
And I don't have any data to back it up, but it feels like the weather has gotten better (less gray, less drizzle) over the decades. Or maybe that's just Stockholm syndrome.
Still, I'll likely never move away.
I am hoping the Cascadia fault stays quiet another few decades, until I'm dead and gone. That, not the weather, is the thing that worries me.
I tell you h'what*
I kid you not when I say it took over 20 minutes for me to drive one block to get on to the freeway. There was no accident or other problem.
I go to LA often. Seattle is way worse.
Personally I'd pay a solid chunk of change for a campsite size chunk of land on the east fork of the Sandy River near Mt. Hood, right where Nottingham Campground is. I'd never leave.
Sounds like the perfect place for me, I love rain. If only the housing was more affordable though.
Another example of the meme style is this ski resort "tier" map: https://www.reddit.com/r/skiing/comments/1d96f93/my_tierlist...
Which is actually funny. And the "joke" is that the person who made the tier list is trying to "hide" the resorts they want to ski (Mt Rose., Mammoth, Kirkwood, Sugar Bowl, Alpine) from whoever's reading the blog post. While falsely "praising" the famous places in an effort to divert the crowds there. (The Reddit post is great b/c the author clearly communicates that they're being ridiculous.)
stop telling people to move here, I-35 just keeps getting worse