I think they are alluding to removing beach access in their areas to the point where there is only private access, rendering their beaches practically private. I don't know if that would pan out like that in actuality for many places.
People have been suing private landowners who put trails on their property when they hurt themselves on the trail. Some trails may close down because it’s not worth the liability.
**Field vs Newport**:
"In January 2019, Nicole Fields, a friend and their dogs followed the Ocean to Bay Trail in Newport to reach Agate Beach. After spending a couple of hours on the beach, they walked back on the same trail and came to a wooden bridge.
“As plaintiff put her foot down on it, she noticed that the bridge was slippery,” the Oregon Court of Appeals wrote. “Plaintiff immediately warned her friend that the bridge was slippery, and then promptly fell. Her left leg was badly broken beneath the knee.”
[https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/12/15/oregon-coast-trails-hiking-recreational-immunity-oceanside-tillamook-newport-oregon-legislature/71908514007/](https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/12/15/oregon-coast-trails-hiking-recreational-immunity-oceanside-tillamook-newport-oregon-legislature/71908514007/)
"Fields sued the City of Newport, claiming the bridge was “unreasonably hazardous” because it used “materials that become unusually slippery, but do not appear slippery.” The lawsuit also said the city had failed to apply anti-slip measures to the bridge surface and hadn’t provided warning of the conditions, according to court documents. "
IMO:
If she knew it was slippery, she can't claim it did not appear slippery. Anyone should know that wood gets slippery when wet.
That’s the argument. The recreational immunity applies to “unimproved access trails,” which a bridge is not (unless its a naturally fallen log bridge, I guess). So what she’s saying is someone should’ve been practicing upkeep on the bridge following its construction (aka trail improvement), assumedly making it less slippery.
I, personally, have no idea what the bridge looks like or how slippery it is, to be clear. Also, I saw someone make the point that her lawyer is making the argument.
https://www.law.com/2023/07/07/recreational-or-beach-access-oregon-court-of-appeals-weighs-in-on-whether-city-can-claim-immunity-in-ocean-to-bay-trail-injury/
I can make a prediction about how this is going to play out and the reasons.
1. If you have not already seen the articles a number of coastal counties are closing or considering closing trails to prevent liabilities.
2. Those counties citizen are pretty conservative and do not want to pay higher taxes.
3. The Oregon Legislature will pass a law that will provide legal cover
4. There will be lawsuits to block the law, pick a nimby group. They will sue
5. By the it is over large sections of public beach will be inaccessible due to private property owner blocking access,and by law all beaches in Oregon are public. Que more lawsuits
6. In a decade or two it will all settle out, and public spaces will have become private.
The reasons, one coastal counties tend to be conservative and want the lowest taxes possible. Two those same conservative citizens would really like it if the tourism industry went away, they hate the traffic and crowding. Three developers have an incentive to take advantage because it will allow them to make more money.
Yup, fr, been in Lincoln County for 6 yrs now, after relocating from Salem. Went thru COVID lockdown here, saw the reaction to the crazy Trump flag waving loons that loudly drove thru to "protest" the state restrictions to save the lives of Oregonian who are elderly, economically marginalized, & those with health issues.
This county is significantly less conservative than Salem, (which is about 55% Repiblican voters).
Just sayin.
From what I’ve seen over the years it’s been traditionally conservative leaning in most of the towns, but in more recent years a lot more liberal leaning people have moved out there so it’s shifting. It also depends on the area you’re in.
What is as a nation we crowdfunded the cost so that they wouldn’t shut it down. Then outed the lady who did this. Scare any future person, you are stealing from everyone around you. And we will let you know how we feel
Learn about the case before smearing someone. The appellate judge agreed with her that for *this particular trail* recreational immunity didn't apply. She's not trying to get the entire trail system shut down. It's the insurers who are spreading this misinformation.
This is true, up to a point. It does appear that City/County Insurance will either refuse to indemnify or increase premiums for member municipalities for Muni operated trails in some situations, such as when those Muni operated trails are serving to provide access to facilities owned by others, like state beaches, state parks, etc. So it's a limited case, and would not result in the public losing access to state beaches.
But it is concerning for the state's highest court to adopt this new view of what constitutes "recreation" for the purpose of landowner immunity. The insurance pool and self insured municipalities have some valid concerns. And they understandably find it challenging to communicate those concerns in the context of modern, "car-fire" media. I'm not excusing the fear mongering. But I understand why it happens when most of us still can't be bothered to vote in these elections.
Or they could take reasonable steps to make that class of trails safer, which is what Newport should have done in the first place. If you left the sidewalk in front of your house in hazardous condition and someone got seriously hurt as a result, you would be liable. Why should the standard be different for municipalities?
You answer your own question I suspect.
Small municipalities in Oregon reliant on Muni liability pools like City/County for both the costs of litigating such claims and any settled or awarded damages arising from them are often, *by definition*, small budget entities. And so it is reasonable (as in a conclusion arrived at by reason alone) that in the case of some trails and other facilities the cost of heightened maintenance and constant vigilance over often remote or infrequently visited locations will exceed those budgets. In those cases closure and/or removal would be the anticipated response.
Of course where there is and isn't liability is going to have to be worked out in court. But it's hard to argue that making access paths safer isn't a good outcome. Blaming premature or budget-motivated closures for some putative right to have unsafe trails seems bizarre to me.
What constitutes "unsafe"?
This plaintiff suffered what is arguably an horrific injury. I have a neighbor about the same age, weight, fitness, who suffered an almost identical injury a few weeks ago stepping off her front porch steps. The assignment of liability for such injuries is often almost entirely divorced from any universal standards of "safety". Rights of way, however they are improved and for whatever purpose, can always be made incrementally "more safe".
We have agreed upon engineering safety standards for most common municipal rights of way, such as roadways, bike trails, sidewalks, etc. And Muni insurers can thusly rely on those engineering standards, educate them, and enforce them upon their pools as a condition of their insurance contract. But there are few or no such standards for many other kinds of purely recreational municipal rights of way. Recreational immunity has been crucial to the establishment and use of rights of way improvements for these other purely recreational purposes. If we withdraw that immunity from landowners then we are forcing insurers to guess at safety standards in a way that puts them in conflict with their pool members. And they will have to do so with no accurately quantifiable limit to whatever liability remains.
You seem to be using a slippery slope argument here. *rimshot*
I don't think this is going to result in loss of recreational immunity for actual recreational trails. But the fact is that there are a lot of dicey trails in Oregon whose main function is to connect point A and point B. Newport improved the Ocean to Bay Trail for exactly this reason. It would be a good thing if established standards of safety for those trails came out of this. There's an actual problem here, not legalistic hair splitting.
But that is exactly what may happen. Local governments cannot assume risk when everyone knows there is an inherent risk when hiking trails. Unless the ruling changes you are going to be seeing lots of trails close. All because someone couldn’t figure out that a wooden bridge could be slick after a rain. She is probably the most hated person on the coast right now. I know one of the most popular beaches in our area you cannot get to now because the county closed the only trail to it. People are mad and have a right to be.
So how will setting this precedent not effect other trails? I'm not saying it would shut down the entire trail system, but how many trails could be closed down due to this precedent? How is walking a trail to a beach not recreation? There are some incredible logical leaps going on that are frustrating to lay people.
If you haven’t read any background info, sharing a bold opinion on a controversial subject is wrong, itself.
https://www.law.com/2023/07/07/recreational-or-beach-access-oregon-court-of-appeals-weighs-in-on-whether-city-can-claim-immunity-in-ocean-to-bay-trail-injury/?slreturn=20231124134013
Appears the hinge is whether improved trails are included in recreational immunity, given the wording, which dictates it covers unimproved access. The argument is that since a bridge was installed, someone is required to maintain it.
Neither the qualities of the bridge, nor type of footwear were mentioned in the article.
As a heads up, her injury is mentioned, but it’s only a couple sentences; I say this as someone who has experienced an extreme version of the same injury, and I cringe when I read it. Just a heads up.
Are you implying that there is a kind of shoe she could be wearing that would justify her suing the state?
Or are you just arguing ridiculous things have no bearing on the actual case.
She is suing for a ridiculous fucking reason and now we are all suffering for it because all the seaside towns are closing their trails out of fear.
Lol *you're* the one literally saying that she shouldn't be suing because of her footwear, which you know absolutely nothing about.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in learning. I'm done here.
I think the difference is in common sense. It makes sense that McDonalds shouldn't serve scalding hot coffee through a drive-thru window. It's also makes sense that a wet wooden bridge is going to be slick, and we should exercise caution when crossing. There are tons of trails in this state with wooden bridges or walkways. A good 6-8 months of the year, those surfaces will be difficult to walk on. Not that that is a legal argument, just why so many people are deeply frustrated by this woman.
The difference between this case and the McDonalds case is that McDonalds serves coffee at a reasonable temperature now, but these trails will be shut down because there are no ways to reasonably keep them open if the city or county are liable for the inherent risks of hiking on a trail. The really frustrating thing is the basis of this woman's case is she wasn't recreating because she was simply walking on the trail to recreate on the beach. Which most people would consider walking on a trail to be hiking. I don't think it required a PR team for most citizens who utilize these trails to come to the conclusion that this is frivolous.
If the case were frivolous, the district court would have dismissed it as meritless. Instead the court granted summary judgment supporting the city's claim of recreational immunity, which the appellate court overturned and remanded. And you're wrong about her argument.
We don't know yet what the consequences, if any, will be because the case hasn't been litigated yet. You're just parroting fearmongering.
How is it fearmongering if it is already shutting down trails? The reality is that we are already feeling the effects of the case. And I never stated in legal terms it was frivolous, just that that is how it appears to lay people. Because to most people walking a trail to get to the ocean is hiking. Which would he recreating. The difference being that the publics opinion on her argument doesn't align with the legal definitions. Or maybe it does. It hasn't been litigated yet, like you said. And plenty of people have commented on this thread on why the consequences would be what they say they are.
Yes, yes, yes! Here in the Rogue Valley EVERYWHERE is a fire waiting to happen. Could we please maybe follow Butte Falls' example and selectively log with the goal of getting old growth/fire resistant forests?
Completely agree. As a real estate agent, I see far too many people who want to buy houses but can't get one. There's just not enough and they are too expensive.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of homes are used solely for Airbnb...I suspect not that many.
As for rentals, it would be nice if more rentals were locally owned, but we do need rentals, as sometimes people are not in a position to buy. Either they are living here temporarily, or have just moved here and are getting to know the area, or just aren't yet settled. But more apartments would definitely help that. The population has increased about 15% since 2010, but the housing stock has not nearly increased that much.
As much as I want it, I don’t believe it will happen, especially in Oregon.
Our current problem is a severe lack of supply. There are SO many people waiting to buy houses & if the rates/prices ever drop, everyone will rabidly flood the market to buy. So people are forced to wait until a house is available that they can afford & this just creates even more of a backlog of potential buyers that are trying to push their way through; which drives prices up.
I say this as someone who is frustrated that I can’t even afford a home in Salem anymore.
The only solution is to either improve zoning & build higher density housing, or to build more SFH. Unfortunately high density housing is kind of stigmatized & not nearly as many people want to buy a townhome or condo as a SFH.
Changing property tax to a land value tax would also help, especially if it was allowed to capture the ballooning Systems Development Charges levied on new construction
Massively increase taxes on all properties that aren’t owner occupied, or low income properties. Create programs for families to move into ownership. Disincentivize landlords. Incentivize owner occupied. When people own a property they generally care more about it. Create programs for city workers to get discounts on properties if its in a neighborhood that needs help. Give more tax breaks for ownership. Give tax breaks for those owners to help environmentally, solar panels, window efficiency, energy efficiency. Punish landlords strongly for all violations. No heat? Huge fine. No hot water? Huge Fine. Incentivize electric vehicles. Landlords should not exist.
The US already has lots of homeowner benefits, which drive up home prices and funnel wealth to people who already were going to buy.
Apartments are good, and discouraging them even more would worsen the state of housing in Oregon. Lots of people aren't in any position to buy. The issue is housing supply.
I still think single family homes should be going to owner-occupied & not landlords. I agree with your point apartments are needed, but I think the city needs to incentivize them to be reasonably priced & aim to help families be more stable, not line landlords pockets. Airbnb should be banned.
Well single family homes are not a fixed quantity. The fixed quantity is land. High home prices today reflect things like high construction and land costs. Even if a builder took no profit and built the most modest house per current code, it would still be many hundreds of thousands. There has been some progress lately as zoning/code requirements have changed to allow people to use less land, labor, and materials per unit. More work is needed there. Taxing land higher than we do now would also help by driving down land sales prices. (Could be offset by a reduction in the rest of property tax)
How would you disincentivize single family home-landlords? While you are right there are programs, most of them are inefficient or blocked to many.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/8-facts-about-investor-activity-single-family-rental-market
Here is a write up, showing how investors have severely increased prices, how investors own more single family homes than families do. This needs to be disincentivized, housing should be reasonable & not to line landlords pockets.
I agree we need more apartments & multi family housing, but we don’t need more slumlords, how do we prevent that from happening?
I’m not sure what the exact solution is, I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint
Tbh, I don't think that's going to happen for a while if at all. There's only so much land out there and California is really driving people out of the state.
Unpopular opinion but with the way things are going, fentanyl is gonna wipe out most of the people on the streets before the hospital would even get finished.
We used to have one of those though? Watch videos on Fairview, there is a reason all these psych wards got shut down.
There’s not enough money in caregiving, hell people complain about the care they get from nurses and doctors making 6 figures. Now imagine the person making $15/hr doing essentially the same thing, except with people who cant communicate. You get a fuck ton of abuse.
Unfortunately you’re right but are being downvoted unfairly so I’ll see this dip too. The problem keeps getting worse though and I don’t think it’s reversible. I see Portland and Eugene headed the way of Vancouver, BC and The Bay Area where Fairview was. Both have the same crippling problems. High income/housing inequality, lax criminal punishments (open drug us, bipping/theft), and a seemingly uncontrollable homeless and opioid crisis. A lot of the people who would be punished for some of the quasi-legal crimes should (big should) have access to state funded mental care if needed. But the cops won’t do anything cuz theyre scared of a cop being racist and killing someone again. So they reduce total police numbers, instead of gutting the crazy people and properly training new recruits; they decriminalize drugs; and/or make theft under 1k$ “legal”. Idk. Ranting. We’re all fucked moving to the mountains
TLDR: fentanyl is fucking gonna kill everyone before the hospital gets built
I'm currently waiting to hear back for a county job that has a mon-thurs schedule... Shit would be a dream come true, especially after having experienced what it's like to work at USPS 6 days a week.
Mandatory treatment does slightly more than incarceration without treatment. To me, mandatory treatment for criminals is more to protect potential victims and society.
I agree, but waiting around for people to voluntarily get clean hasn't been working - next option is involuntary after a crime has been committed.
Voluntary is still an option, but if you commit a crime and are also addicted: you get free rehab, free room to stay in, free hot meals, free showers, all the good stuff. Colorado did a rehab campus concept that's seen booming success in getting people clean, off the streets, into stable work, and into affordable housing.That one is voluntary and I think it needs to be a nationwide undertaking.
Honestly, it should be more. The way this country treats childcare is pretty abhorrent and part of the root of our problems. Childcare should be way more affordable, and preschool should be mandatory and free for everyone. Setting kids up for success early will have a positive butterfly effect for everyone socially and economically. You guys have your work cut out for you as parents.
And some people wonder why the birthrate is declining..
Happy Festivus.
A place to live.
Been homeless and living in my truck since July.
1602.00 on SSDI and can't find an affordable one bedroom apt. Anywhere.
I'm on every homeless wait-list out there and the times are so far out they won't even quote a time line.
Anyways... Merry Christmas All.
San Francisco has flush toilets at sites around the city.
You can find Pit Stops in 31 locations around San Francisco. The Pit Stop is a project operated by San Francisco Public Works that provides portable toilets and sinks, used needle receptacles, and dog waste stations in San Francisco's most impacted neighborhoods.
To piggyback off of this I would like public places to stop smelling second hand crack smoke, piss, and shit everywhere in urban environments. Especially on TriMet. If we could actually do something about people openly using on MAX that would really be something.
Yeah it's super annoying when businesses think they can block public walkways with tables/tents/signs/whatever. It's an unwanted clutter that is just cumbersome to pedestrians. If you need more space for you business, rent or buy it.
I wish my best friend since childhood would clean up and get off drugs. I was raised with her and love her dearly. She's trying her best. We grew up together and people that thought they were caring for her put her in a bad place. Then covid hit and made it worse. We saw each other recently and she's looking better so that's promising. I love you Downtown Portland!! We're all in your corner!
Only at the federal level so all Americans have decent health care and Oregon won’t be overrun (more than it already is) by folks moving here to access services.
I would like for the legislature to go back in time and actually go to work so that house bill 2011 would have been approved and I would be safer at my job. But no, those idiots did not show up for work causing the bill to fall in the toilet. I seriously hope that those who did not show up to work do not get to run for re-election again! Hear that Suzanne Weber?
These specific candles from the Eugene saturday market and Sundance market that were popular in the 90s, bowl shaped and rich layered colors that looked like mountainscapes.
She clearly knew it was slippery. She should have been more responsible for her own actions. Now she is just taking our tax money and possibly beach access because she is greedy.
People to not make assumptions about neighborhoods without actually physically spending time there. The media has been really good at over exaggerating the reality.
Universal same day access to Buprenorphine would do more to clean up the streets than most things. It would probably pay for itself in taxes collected and lower law enforcement cost. A lot more people could work on a Buprenorphine maintenance program. These are all things erasing measure 110 or more cops won't do.
Safer than methadone, with one pill a huge percentage of addicts can have a normal life. *That means you can too*.
When somebody says they're the law and order candidate who will clean up the streets but they don't mention Buprenorphine I know they either haven't thought about it, or more likely they're bullshitting for votes.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/11/state-policies-can-expand-access-to-buprenorphine-for-opioid-use-disorder
It won't fix the housing crisis but it will help a lot of downtowns and housing stability.
I would love to have those who have moved to Oregon in the past 6 months or year to return to the state where you originated. That would make me the happiest.
We cannot even take care of our own Oregonians, unemployment is rampant, homelessness is rampant, drug addiction is rampant. Many people haven't seen what I've seen. I live in a suburb of Portland, and I've seen many homeless people. Tents are lined up on both sides of the freeways. I've seen and heard the stories personally told to me by homeless people. I've worked at a homeless woman's shelter, and I've heard the stories of these women. The DHS is overwhelmed as it is, and by adding more and more people to our Oregonian population, we're just adding to the problem.
Weeeeell, Id like just you to leave. Guess our wishes canceled each other's out. Ive been here a decade but i bet some fresher transplants would agree.
Edit: damn, that profile is a trip looool
For a bunch of our trails to not be shut down because a lady slipped on a slick bridge on a trail to the beach.
[удалено]
I am fully out of the loop on this one, what’s the deal with this being a windfall to landowners etc.?
I think they are alluding to removing beach access in their areas to the point where there is only private access, rendering their beaches practically private. I don't know if that would pan out like that in actuality for many places.
Ooof, even if it just panned out there that’d be some absolute bullshit. Thanks
People have been suing private landowners who put trails on their property when they hurt themselves on the trail. Some trails may close down because it’s not worth the liability.
**Field vs Newport**: "In January 2019, Nicole Fields, a friend and their dogs followed the Ocean to Bay Trail in Newport to reach Agate Beach. After spending a couple of hours on the beach, they walked back on the same trail and came to a wooden bridge. “As plaintiff put her foot down on it, she noticed that the bridge was slippery,” the Oregon Court of Appeals wrote. “Plaintiff immediately warned her friend that the bridge was slippery, and then promptly fell. Her left leg was badly broken beneath the knee.” [https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/12/15/oregon-coast-trails-hiking-recreational-immunity-oceanside-tillamook-newport-oregon-legislature/71908514007/](https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/12/15/oregon-coast-trails-hiking-recreational-immunity-oceanside-tillamook-newport-oregon-legislature/71908514007/)
Damn. Thanks for replying
"Fields sued the City of Newport, claiming the bridge was “unreasonably hazardous” because it used “materials that become unusually slippery, but do not appear slippery.” The lawsuit also said the city had failed to apply anti-slip measures to the bridge surface and hadn’t provided warning of the conditions, according to court documents. " IMO: If she knew it was slippery, she can't claim it did not appear slippery. Anyone should know that wood gets slippery when wet.
That’s the argument. The recreational immunity applies to “unimproved access trails,” which a bridge is not (unless its a naturally fallen log bridge, I guess). So what she’s saying is someone should’ve been practicing upkeep on the bridge following its construction (aka trail improvement), assumedly making it less slippery. I, personally, have no idea what the bridge looks like or how slippery it is, to be clear. Also, I saw someone make the point that her lawyer is making the argument. https://www.law.com/2023/07/07/recreational-or-beach-access-oregon-court-of-appeals-weighs-in-on-whether-city-can-claim-immunity-in-ocean-to-bay-trail-injury/
I can make a prediction about how this is going to play out and the reasons. 1. If you have not already seen the articles a number of coastal counties are closing or considering closing trails to prevent liabilities. 2. Those counties citizen are pretty conservative and do not want to pay higher taxes. 3. The Oregon Legislature will pass a law that will provide legal cover 4. There will be lawsuits to block the law, pick a nimby group. They will sue 5. By the it is over large sections of public beach will be inaccessible due to private property owner blocking access,and by law all beaches in Oregon are public. Que more lawsuits 6. In a decade or two it will all settle out, and public spaces will have become private. The reasons, one coastal counties tend to be conservative and want the lowest taxes possible. Two those same conservative citizens would really like it if the tourism industry went away, they hate the traffic and crowding. Three developers have an incentive to take advantage because it will allow them to make more money.
Have you ever been to Lincoln County? I find it absolutely astonishing to hear somebody try to paint it as "conservative."
Yup, fr, been in Lincoln County for 6 yrs now, after relocating from Salem. Went thru COVID lockdown here, saw the reaction to the crazy Trump flag waving loons that loudly drove thru to "protest" the state restrictions to save the lives of Oregonian who are elderly, economically marginalized, & those with health issues. This county is significantly less conservative than Salem, (which is about 55% Repiblican voters). Just sayin.
From what I’ve seen over the years it’s been traditionally conservative leaning in most of the towns, but in more recent years a lot more liberal leaning people have moved out there so it’s shifting. It also depends on the area you’re in.
What is as a nation we crowdfunded the cost so that they wouldn’t shut it down. Then outed the lady who did this. Scare any future person, you are stealing from everyone around you. And we will let you know how we feel
Learn about the case before smearing someone. The appellate judge agreed with her that for *this particular trail* recreational immunity didn't apply. She's not trying to get the entire trail system shut down. It's the insurers who are spreading this misinformation.
This is true, up to a point. It does appear that City/County Insurance will either refuse to indemnify or increase premiums for member municipalities for Muni operated trails in some situations, such as when those Muni operated trails are serving to provide access to facilities owned by others, like state beaches, state parks, etc. So it's a limited case, and would not result in the public losing access to state beaches. But it is concerning for the state's highest court to adopt this new view of what constitutes "recreation" for the purpose of landowner immunity. The insurance pool and self insured municipalities have some valid concerns. And they understandably find it challenging to communicate those concerns in the context of modern, "car-fire" media. I'm not excusing the fear mongering. But I understand why it happens when most of us still can't be bothered to vote in these elections.
Or they could take reasonable steps to make that class of trails safer, which is what Newport should have done in the first place. If you left the sidewalk in front of your house in hazardous condition and someone got seriously hurt as a result, you would be liable. Why should the standard be different for municipalities?
You answer your own question I suspect. Small municipalities in Oregon reliant on Muni liability pools like City/County for both the costs of litigating such claims and any settled or awarded damages arising from them are often, *by definition*, small budget entities. And so it is reasonable (as in a conclusion arrived at by reason alone) that in the case of some trails and other facilities the cost of heightened maintenance and constant vigilance over often remote or infrequently visited locations will exceed those budgets. In those cases closure and/or removal would be the anticipated response.
Of course where there is and isn't liability is going to have to be worked out in court. But it's hard to argue that making access paths safer isn't a good outcome. Blaming premature or budget-motivated closures for some putative right to have unsafe trails seems bizarre to me.
What constitutes "unsafe"? This plaintiff suffered what is arguably an horrific injury. I have a neighbor about the same age, weight, fitness, who suffered an almost identical injury a few weeks ago stepping off her front porch steps. The assignment of liability for such injuries is often almost entirely divorced from any universal standards of "safety". Rights of way, however they are improved and for whatever purpose, can always be made incrementally "more safe". We have agreed upon engineering safety standards for most common municipal rights of way, such as roadways, bike trails, sidewalks, etc. And Muni insurers can thusly rely on those engineering standards, educate them, and enforce them upon their pools as a condition of their insurance contract. But there are few or no such standards for many other kinds of purely recreational municipal rights of way. Recreational immunity has been crucial to the establishment and use of rights of way improvements for these other purely recreational purposes. If we withdraw that immunity from landowners then we are forcing insurers to guess at safety standards in a way that puts them in conflict with their pool members. And they will have to do so with no accurately quantifiable limit to whatever liability remains.
You seem to be using a slippery slope argument here. *rimshot* I don't think this is going to result in loss of recreational immunity for actual recreational trails. But the fact is that there are a lot of dicey trails in Oregon whose main function is to connect point A and point B. Newport improved the Ocean to Bay Trail for exactly this reason. It would be a good thing if established standards of safety for those trails came out of this. There's an actual problem here, not legalistic hair splitting.
But that is exactly what may happen. Local governments cannot assume risk when everyone knows there is an inherent risk when hiking trails. Unless the ruling changes you are going to be seeing lots of trails close. All because someone couldn’t figure out that a wooden bridge could be slick after a rain. She is probably the most hated person on the coast right now. I know one of the most popular beaches in our area you cannot get to now because the county closed the only trail to it. People are mad and have a right to be.
So how will setting this precedent not effect other trails? I'm not saying it would shut down the entire trail system, but how many trails could be closed down due to this precedent? How is walking a trail to a beach not recreation? There are some incredible logical leaps going on that are frustrating to lay people.
She shouldn't be suing in the first place. She's trying to make money off the state because she wore the wrong shoes in wet conditions.
Like I already said, learn about the case before you smear someone. You're just displaying your ignorance.
What specifically was wrong about what I said?
If you haven’t read any background info, sharing a bold opinion on a controversial subject is wrong, itself. https://www.law.com/2023/07/07/recreational-or-beach-access-oregon-court-of-appeals-weighs-in-on-whether-city-can-claim-immunity-in-ocean-to-bay-trail-injury/?slreturn=20231124134013 Appears the hinge is whether improved trails are included in recreational immunity, given the wording, which dictates it covers unimproved access. The argument is that since a bridge was installed, someone is required to maintain it. Neither the qualities of the bridge, nor type of footwear were mentioned in the article. As a heads up, her injury is mentioned, but it’s only a couple sentences; I say this as someone who has experienced an extreme version of the same injury, and I cringe when I read it. Just a heads up.
Lol tell us how you know what kind of shoes she was wearing. Every single assertion you made is incorrect.
Are you implying that there is a kind of shoe she could be wearing that would justify her suing the state? Or are you just arguing ridiculous things have no bearing on the actual case. She is suing for a ridiculous fucking reason and now we are all suffering for it because all the seaside towns are closing their trails out of fear.
Lol *you're* the one literally saying that she shouldn't be suing because of her footwear, which you know absolutely nothing about. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in learning. I'm done here.
You promised us you were “done here” but I see you have made more comments.
Are you suffering? Or are you simply anticipating something that hasn’t yet come to pass?
She may not be trying to get other trails shut down but it's going to set a preceent for other property owners.
[удалено]
I think the difference is in common sense. It makes sense that McDonalds shouldn't serve scalding hot coffee through a drive-thru window. It's also makes sense that a wet wooden bridge is going to be slick, and we should exercise caution when crossing. There are tons of trails in this state with wooden bridges or walkways. A good 6-8 months of the year, those surfaces will be difficult to walk on. Not that that is a legal argument, just why so many people are deeply frustrated by this woman.
[удалено]
The difference between this case and the McDonalds case is that McDonalds serves coffee at a reasonable temperature now, but these trails will be shut down because there are no ways to reasonably keep them open if the city or county are liable for the inherent risks of hiking on a trail. The really frustrating thing is the basis of this woman's case is she wasn't recreating because she was simply walking on the trail to recreate on the beach. Which most people would consider walking on a trail to be hiking. I don't think it required a PR team for most citizens who utilize these trails to come to the conclusion that this is frivolous.
If the case were frivolous, the district court would have dismissed it as meritless. Instead the court granted summary judgment supporting the city's claim of recreational immunity, which the appellate court overturned and remanded. And you're wrong about her argument. We don't know yet what the consequences, if any, will be because the case hasn't been litigated yet. You're just parroting fearmongering.
How is it fearmongering if it is already shutting down trails? The reality is that we are already feeling the effects of the case. And I never stated in legal terms it was frivolous, just that that is how it appears to lay people. Because to most people walking a trail to get to the ocean is hiking. Which would he recreating. The difference being that the publics opinion on her argument doesn't align with the legal definitions. Or maybe it does. It hasn't been litigated yet, like you said. And plenty of people have commented on this thread on why the consequences would be what they say they are.
No forest fires
I agree on this one. The last sets were terrible in the PDX area
Yes, yes, yes! Here in the Rogue Valley EVERYWHERE is a fire waiting to happen. Could we please maybe follow Butte Falls' example and selectively log with the goal of getting old growth/fire resistant forests?
To have a housing market that is affordable for all
Same. Sasquatch exists and it lives above me at my apartment complex.
I heard he has been doing some great stuff in the tap dance community lately
I'm convinced the Sasquatch above me is diligently practicing for the Harlem Globe trotter tryouts.
He’s innovative, tapping while wearing a marching quad, marching to the beat of his own drum.
His two brothers live above us 🙄🙉
Yes, we need to build many more truly affordable homes, condos, and apartments.
There should be more programs for families to move into ownership, building more housing just for landlords to bleed us won’t help
Completely agree. As a real estate agent, I see far too many people who want to buy houses but can't get one. There's just not enough and they are too expensive.
Could stop people from buying homes for rentals/airbnb types? Would help a lot of local hotels and would boost local economy too.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of homes are used solely for Airbnb...I suspect not that many. As for rentals, it would be nice if more rentals were locally owned, but we do need rentals, as sometimes people are not in a position to buy. Either they are living here temporarily, or have just moved here and are getting to know the area, or just aren't yet settled. But more apartments would definitely help that. The population has increased about 15% since 2010, but the housing stock has not nearly increased that much.
As much as I want it, I don’t believe it will happen, especially in Oregon. Our current problem is a severe lack of supply. There are SO many people waiting to buy houses & if the rates/prices ever drop, everyone will rabidly flood the market to buy. So people are forced to wait until a house is available that they can afford & this just creates even more of a backlog of potential buyers that are trying to push their way through; which drives prices up. I say this as someone who is frustrated that I can’t even afford a home in Salem anymore. The only solution is to either improve zoning & build higher density housing, or to build more SFH. Unfortunately high density housing is kind of stigmatized & not nearly as many people want to buy a townhome or condo as a SFH.
Changing property tax to a land value tax would also help, especially if it was allowed to capture the ballooning Systems Development Charges levied on new construction
Massively increase taxes on all properties that aren’t owner occupied, or low income properties. Create programs for families to move into ownership. Disincentivize landlords. Incentivize owner occupied. When people own a property they generally care more about it. Create programs for city workers to get discounts on properties if its in a neighborhood that needs help. Give more tax breaks for ownership. Give tax breaks for those owners to help environmentally, solar panels, window efficiency, energy efficiency. Punish landlords strongly for all violations. No heat? Huge fine. No hot water? Huge Fine. Incentivize electric vehicles. Landlords should not exist.
The US already has lots of homeowner benefits, which drive up home prices and funnel wealth to people who already were going to buy. Apartments are good, and discouraging them even more would worsen the state of housing in Oregon. Lots of people aren't in any position to buy. The issue is housing supply.
I still think single family homes should be going to owner-occupied & not landlords. I agree with your point apartments are needed, but I think the city needs to incentivize them to be reasonably priced & aim to help families be more stable, not line landlords pockets. Airbnb should be banned.
Well single family homes are not a fixed quantity. The fixed quantity is land. High home prices today reflect things like high construction and land costs. Even if a builder took no profit and built the most modest house per current code, it would still be many hundreds of thousands. There has been some progress lately as zoning/code requirements have changed to allow people to use less land, labor, and materials per unit. More work is needed there. Taxing land higher than we do now would also help by driving down land sales prices. (Could be offset by a reduction in the rest of property tax)
How would you disincentivize single family home-landlords? While you are right there are programs, most of them are inefficient or blocked to many. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/8-facts-about-investor-activity-single-family-rental-market Here is a write up, showing how investors have severely increased prices, how investors own more single family homes than families do. This needs to be disincentivized, housing should be reasonable & not to line landlords pockets. I agree we need more apartments & multi family housing, but we don’t need more slumlords, how do we prevent that from happening? I’m not sure what the exact solution is, I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint
Tbh, I don't think that's going to happen for a while if at all. There's only so much land out there and California is really driving people out of the state.
A big new hospital for people who can’t function on the streets. And a law change to allow it to happen.
love this idea!
Unpopular opinion but with the way things are going, fentanyl is gonna wipe out most of the people on the streets before the hospital would even get finished.
We used to have one of those though? Watch videos on Fairview, there is a reason all these psych wards got shut down. There’s not enough money in caregiving, hell people complain about the care they get from nurses and doctors making 6 figures. Now imagine the person making $15/hr doing essentially the same thing, except with people who cant communicate. You get a fuck ton of abuse.
Unfortunately you’re right but are being downvoted unfairly so I’ll see this dip too. The problem keeps getting worse though and I don’t think it’s reversible. I see Portland and Eugene headed the way of Vancouver, BC and The Bay Area where Fairview was. Both have the same crippling problems. High income/housing inequality, lax criminal punishments (open drug us, bipping/theft), and a seemingly uncontrollable homeless and opioid crisis. A lot of the people who would be punished for some of the quasi-legal crimes should (big should) have access to state funded mental care if needed. But the cops won’t do anything cuz theyre scared of a cop being racist and killing someone again. So they reduce total police numbers, instead of gutting the crazy people and properly training new recruits; they decriminalize drugs; and/or make theft under 1k$ “legal”. Idk. Ranting. We’re all fucked moving to the mountains TLDR: fentanyl is fucking gonna kill everyone before the hospital gets built
As long as you're paying for it!
The people of Oregon _have been paying for it_ That money just keeps getting siphoned away to the bureaucratic black hole.
how about the shitheads in charge? Their problem, not mine or yours.
Right, fuck everyone else, couldn't ever happen to you, right?
Affordable housing, affordable groceries, livable wages, money out of politics
This! A million times this!
Reflectors on all the roads that are replaced as soon as they fail
4 day work weeks for every employee living in Oregon.
I'm currently waiting to hear back for a county job that has a mon-thurs schedule... Shit would be a dream come true, especially after having experienced what it's like to work at USPS 6 days a week.
Good luck, I did 4X10s for 15 years or more and it was glorious.
Efficiently and effectively spend the tax dollars we allocated and paid to address homelessness and addiction.
Safe, affordable (free for most) drug and mental health treatment. Mandatory treatment for convicted criminals.
Mandatory treatment achieves nothing. People have to want help, and have to want to get clean.
Mandatory treatment does slightly more than incarceration without treatment. To me, mandatory treatment for criminals is more to protect potential victims and society.
How can we get them to WANT help?
I agree, but waiting around for people to voluntarily get clean hasn't been working - next option is involuntary after a crime has been committed. Voluntary is still an option, but if you commit a crime and are also addicted: you get free rehab, free room to stay in, free hot meals, free showers, all the good stuff. Colorado did a rehab campus concept that's seen booming success in getting people clean, off the streets, into stable work, and into affordable housing.That one is voluntary and I think it needs to be a nationwide undertaking.
All citizens do things that they don’t “want” to do. If you can’t manage that, what are we to do with you?
Winter.
Affordable housing.
For all Greater Idaho people to move to idaho
I was going to ask for snow for a good ski season and summer water. But you have a great idea there.
There is another option, though. They could move to [Worse Idaho](https://i.redd.it/ag4hkzgo3a8c1.jpeg)!
If they don't like oregon, why can't they move to idaho and spend $5mil on a house just as big as their own?
This
For everyone to get along
Figure out a way to address the homeless situation in a meaningful way.
I want it to dump snow please!
I want people who could use a helping hand to be able to find it.
It’s currently giving me and my wife 26 weeks of combined parental leave pay, it’d be greedy to ask for more right now
You’re welcome.
Thank you!
No, thank you for trying to raise a good person. We need more of those please.
Honestly, it should be more. The way this country treats childcare is pretty abhorrent and part of the root of our problems. Childcare should be way more affordable, and preschool should be mandatory and free for everyone. Setting kids up for success early will have a positive butterfly effect for everyone socially and economically. You guys have your work cut out for you as parents. And some people wonder why the birthrate is declining.. Happy Festivus.
A place to live. Been homeless and living in my truck since July. 1602.00 on SSDI and can't find an affordable one bedroom apt. Anywhere. I'm on every homeless wait-list out there and the times are so far out they won't even quote a time line. Anyways... Merry Christmas All.
Sending you love, I hope you find housing soon ❤️
Fried clams, French fries, and a big ol' mess of homemade tartar sauce to dunk it in.
A huge kicker rebate. All homeless gone.
Remove measure 110.
More housing of all shapes and size so we stop pricing people out of the place where they live and work.
For that big ass mine to not get put in
This needs more visibilty
A successful Blazers rebuild
Now that would be a huge pull for Santa.
Based on this season, that’d be a huge pull for Jesus
A huge pull for God himself.
OHP for everyone.
Only at the federal level.
How ‘bout that kicker?
10 grand little man put that shit in my hand🎶 On a serious note maybe take those dollars I’ve already paid and use them appropriately.
[удалено]
Honestly though, how about we charge interest on that nice loan to the state. If I borrow money I get hit hard
Clean up the streets and homeless
House the homeless
Peace.
The war is over if you want it ~ John Lennon
Cheese flight, and a giant bowl of shrimp 🍤
Housing I can afford
Better tax bracket structure. A solution to the unhoused crisis
Less drugged out homeless.
Less human sh!t on public sidewalks.
San Francisco has flush toilets at sites around the city. You can find Pit Stops in 31 locations around San Francisco. The Pit Stop is a project operated by San Francisco Public Works that provides portable toilets and sinks, used needle receptacles, and dog waste stations in San Francisco's most impacted neighborhoods.
This is what every big city needs
[удалено]
To piggyback off of this I would like public places to stop smelling second hand crack smoke, piss, and shit everywhere in urban environments. Especially on TriMet. If we could actually do something about people openly using on MAX that would really be something.
Yeah it's super annoying when businesses think they can block public walkways with tables/tents/signs/whatever. It's an unwanted clutter that is just cumbersome to pedestrians. If you need more space for you business, rent or buy it.
For people to stop moving here and complaining about things that aren't the same as they were in the state they moved from.
You live in Bend? This is so prevalent here.
It's not unique to Bend, it's prevalent across the state. West of the Cascades they especially like to complain about the rain and gray skies.
I’ve lived in Oregon my whole life. Definitely agree about people complaining that move here, it’s wild.
Same and same!
OMG! No kidding! People move here and then complain about farm land being built over by housing. Really?! What do you think your house is built on?
A few feet of snow would do.
I wish my best friend since childhood would clean up and get off drugs. I was raised with her and love her dearly. She's trying her best. We grew up together and people that thought they were caring for her put her in a bad place. Then covid hit and made it worse. We saw each other recently and she's looking better so that's promising. I love you Downtown Portland!! We're all in your corner!
My tax dollars to actually be used to fix the damn roads
Friend I’ve driven across a good chunk of the country this year and lemme tell ya. Oregon has it prettty good compared to most.
I travel for work and moved to Colorado in 2022. Can confirm. Oregon roads are above average.
Drove through Colorado once. Front Range freeways are *wild*.
Freeways yes, Portland city roads look like they’ve been shelled
To be left alone.
Tax reform. Specifically property tax, but it would ultimately affect many state taxes. Bad taxes currently fill in the gaps
To be able to afford a house haha
OHP for all with access to any Dr at any hospital/ clinic, so reasonable reimbursement rates gotta be baked in.
Only at the federal level so all Americans have decent health care and Oregon won’t be overrun (more than it already is) by folks moving here to access services.
A benchmade knife
Law and order? Bus load after bus load after bus load of homeless tweakers being shipped out.
Fat Kicker Checks for all!
Make the homeless and all the garbage everywhere disappear
Just close your eyes everywhere you go
It’s actually good advice lol
I would like for the legislature to go back in time and actually go to work so that house bill 2011 would have been approved and I would be safer at my job. But no, those idiots did not show up for work causing the bill to fall in the toilet. I seriously hope that those who did not show up to work do not get to run for re-election again! Hear that Suzanne Weber?
New tires from your shitty ass roads
These specific candles from the Eugene saturday market and Sundance market that were popular in the 90s, bowl shaped and rich layered colors that looked like mountainscapes.
My boyfriend 
She clearly knew it was slippery. She should have been more responsible for her own actions. Now she is just taking our tax money and possibly beach access because she is greedy.
That everyone learns how to drive in the rain
Tom McCall, time to rise up buddy, we need you.
New drivers tests!! So they can drive out of state without killing anyone!
More people working hard, less welfare society.
Trump off the ballot like Colorado.
For Oregon residents to receive priority on Psilocybin treatment.
People to not make assumptions about neighborhoods without actually physically spending time there. The media has been really good at over exaggerating the reality.
Three months of solid, steady rain with cooler temps that will give us a very good snow pack for 2024.
Trains that run a few times a day to the coast and all the valley and to the cascades
Universal same day access to Buprenorphine would do more to clean up the streets than most things. It would probably pay for itself in taxes collected and lower law enforcement cost. A lot more people could work on a Buprenorphine maintenance program. These are all things erasing measure 110 or more cops won't do. Safer than methadone, with one pill a huge percentage of addicts can have a normal life. *That means you can too*. When somebody says they're the law and order candidate who will clean up the streets but they don't mention Buprenorphine I know they either haven't thought about it, or more likely they're bullshitting for votes. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/11/state-policies-can-expand-access-to-buprenorphine-for-opioid-use-disorder It won't fix the housing crisis but it will help a lot of downtowns and housing stability.
A framework for sustainable UBI.
I would love to have those who have moved to Oregon in the past 6 months or year to return to the state where you originated. That would make me the happiest.
Why is that?
We cannot even take care of our own Oregonians, unemployment is rampant, homelessness is rampant, drug addiction is rampant. Many people haven't seen what I've seen. I live in a suburb of Portland, and I've seen many homeless people. Tents are lined up on both sides of the freeways. I've seen and heard the stories personally told to me by homeless people. I've worked at a homeless woman's shelter, and I've heard the stories of these women. The DHS is overwhelmed as it is, and by adding more and more people to our Oregonian population, we're just adding to the problem.
Xenophobia has no place in Oregon.
Weeeeell, Id like just you to leave. Guess our wishes canceled each other's out. Ive been here a decade but i bet some fresher transplants would agree. Edit: damn, that profile is a trip looool
Did I connect telepathically with big foot?
To pay less in taxes to programs that I didn't vote on and will never effect ne or my family
1,000,000 single family homes built A law prohibiting companies from owning empty homes longer than 6 months time
What about an empty plot of land?
Yeah there should be penalties on that if its zoned for residential
Less MAGAts and criddlers
snow for skiing dammit
White Christmas. Snow snow snow
Kind of want snow?!?
Snow
10 inches of rain before the end of the year
Peace on earth and a blue wave
My ex to have stood up for me and her own happiness, rather than kowtow to her family as to not disappoint them...
Less regualtion
Remind me, how did that work out for Ohio back in February?
I want Washington to take Portland off of our hands. Just keep the cancer in one state, why ruin two?
*from* Oregon? Weed. *for* Oregon? Self service gas pumps.
well i’ve got good news for you