8 comments

  • toomuchtodo 2 hours ago
    https://www.redfin.com/OR/Scotts-Mills/Abiqua-Falls-Lot-400-...

    Seems like reasonable use of public dollars (~$2.1M) to protect and preserve a public good as public land.

  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 1 hour ago
    Very cool visible basalt
    • chowells 1 hour ago
      A lot of the Cascade range is basalt, and you don't need to cut down very far to expose it. A result is that most waterways in Oregon have revealed a lot of basalt around them, at least in the mountains.
    • ericyd 51 minutes ago
      Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.
    • jjulius 1 hour ago
      ... how is a comment observing the really cool basalt rock formations in the photo being downvoted? Most HN readers are (I'd assume) nerds, are we not allowed to nerd out about geography?
  • cucumber3732842 1 hour ago
    > Its owner, a nonprofit that supports a community of Benedictine monks, put it on the market earlier this year.

    >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.

    • hadlock 1 hour ago
      Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades, and nothing had happened, so they escalated. Here in California in east bay there are thousands of acres of land around Mt. Diablo that are held by a non profit trust because the state/parks department is too lazy to aquire it/don't have funds to manage it. The privately owned/managed land around Mt. Diablo is roughly equal in size to the state park it surrounds.
      • cucumber3732842 1 minute ago
        >Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades

        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. Over achieving bureaucrat with a stick up their ass says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do X first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford X, 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 eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.

      • bombcar 56 minutes ago
        This kind of thing exists in many places in the USA for many reasons (tax relief, government stupidity or inability or lack of funds, etc).

        Sometimes the government is forbidden from buying land but nothing stops an individual or charity.

    • wing-_-nuts 1 hour ago
      Drat! I was going to buy this and put the entrance to my secret lair behind the waterfall. I would have gotten away with it too if not for those darn kids!
      • toast0 45 minutes ago
        meddling kids. :P
    • Aboutplants 1 hour ago
      One of the rare times where I’m probably kind of ok with it
  • ariablaze 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
  • SBNakta 1 hour ago
    It feels like it's back where it belongs.
  • BeetleB 1 hour ago
    I just want to remind everyone: Washington, Idaho and Oregon are terrible places to live.

    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...

    • petcat 1 hour ago
      Yes everyone should stay away from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho! Terrible places to live! California is a dream compared to those hell-holes.
      • BeetleB 1 hour ago
        Indeed! No one made a song with the title "Washington Dreamin". Same with Oregon and Idaho.
    • jmcqk6 1 hour ago
      Yep, this is sooo true. Washington and Oregon are especially terrible. I tell you what, you're going to be sitting in traffic in Seattle just as much as you do in LA. And it's all very expensive. Texas is a much better decision.
      • seattle_spring 20 minutes ago
        > I tell you what ... Texas is a much better decision.

        I tell you h'what*

      • Aboutplants 1 hour ago
        Have you seen Texas city traffic lately?
        • BeetleB 1 hour ago
          Have you visited Seattle in rush hour?

          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.

    • noumenon1111 33 minutes ago
      Please move to Texas. Those of us who like waterfalls, are not suicidal, and who will accept beautiful nature in lieu of a functional state government appreciate you freeing the capacity for someone else.
    • aliasxneo 1 hour ago
      I guess the OP has never experienced any part of eastern Oregon or Washington.
    • mrnotcrazy 44 minutes ago
      Going around shitting on other states is a very Texan thing to do
    • wing-_-nuts 1 hour ago
      That I don't get about the PNW is the property prices of places hours away from any economic center that pays well enough to justify them. Are that many people still working remote for FAANG that those prices can be justified?
      • noumenon1111 32 minutes ago
        No, but rich assholes like getting away from it all too.
      • antonyt 44 minutes ago
        I have no doubts you're right, but got any examples? Just curious to see them.
      • coding123 48 minutes ago
        [dead]
    • deaton 31 minutes ago
      As a Texan,

      stop telling people to move here, I-35 just keeps getting worse

    • yoyohello13 1 hour ago
      Is this a meme? I've never heard it before.
      • mrDmrTmrJ 28 minutes ago
        The meme is "<____> sucks, dont' go there." Traditionally spoken by a "local", in reference to stuff they love. It kinda/sorta makes sense in the broader culture of "locals define themselves by excluding others" left-coast parochialism. (I don't think HN is the correct place for it.)

        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.)

      • ninglor 42 minutes ago
        Sort of. Phrasing varies, but at least for Idaho it's very common for people who live in Idaho to go on the internet and tell people how awful Idaho is and how you should absolutely not move there. On a related note, for people who do move to Idaho, one of the things they are advised to do as soon as possible is get new license plates so that they're not constantly advertising the fact that they came from out-of-state. Idaho has received a massive amount of immigration from other states and many people are unhappy about this.
    • sidkdkdmdm 1 hour ago
      [dead]
  • bitbasher 47 minutes ago
    As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education, crime and homelessness are running wild, budgets are being cut (schools being permanently closed), we bought a waterfall. Thanks.
    • rdtsc 37 minutes ago
      > As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education

      That's wild. I would have never guessed Oregon to be that low somehow. I could have seen some poor southern states maybe or West Virginia.

      Wonder what data you found? I found https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho... and it's 40th with a downtrend. Not sure how reliable that is though.

      • pinevale 19 minutes ago
        Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.

        I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.

      • cloverich 6 minutes ago
        Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
      • bitbasher 34 minutes ago
        The number bounces around a bit, but 47/48 is widely found.

        https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...

      • satellites 20 minutes ago
        It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
        • bitbasher 14 minutes ago
          That is certainly a large part of it.

          1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).

          2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.

          3. Attendance doesn't matter.

          4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.

          5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.

          6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.

          The list goes on and on.

          Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.

          • cloverich 5 minutes ago
            Also 2 years back the teachers strike in November for funds that... weren't there... that was pretty damaging to my argument to get my kids out of private and into public (we ended up moving to WA in the end).