By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Opponents appeal trail decision to LUBA

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Jim

Good luck I hope it goes in favor of the Farmers.

Shasta

"Opponents had been clamoring for the past few years for a farm impact study similar to what the county requires applicants to submit in certain types of land use proceedings. When the county relented and produced one, however, they disagreed with the findings."
It sounds like the county already did decide in favor of the farmers....the farmers just didn't like the outcome.
At what point do they realize the majority of people want this trail to happen, and allow it to move forward for the long term benefit of the citizens?

Jim

Shasta if I’ve read everything right the county did their own impact study. That’s kind of like me doing my own IRS audit. Not everyone in this county wants this trail and I don’t know how you can say it’s a county wide majority because I really don’t see Dayton,Sheridan,Newberg,Dundee or Willamina getting much benefit from it and their tax dollars will help fund it.

Shasta

Jim, if I've read everything correctly, the county has not voted for any new taxes to pay for the trail. Was that on a ballot that I'm not aware of?

Shasta

Also Jim, as far as usage goes, do you believe only people from Banks and Vernonia use that trail? According to the Banks-Vernonia trail website, annual usage is over 70,000 people. I'm guessing not all of them are from Banks or Vernonia. I would also guess a lot of those folks spend money at one end or the other or both, to the benefit of both communities.

Jim

How do they pay for a trail with fences,blacktop,bridges and so forth? It’s going to be tax money of some kind to pay for the construction and maintenance unless you’re writing a check for it Shasta. I didn’t say anything about raising taxes. As far as usage that’s my biggest fear. You can’t drive anywhere in this county and get away from traffic. This project will only make it worse.



Culbert

Creating a master plan for the trail, and trail development, is planned to be funded with grant dollars. So, in one sense, while it IS state and federal tax money that provides for desirable statewide developments, here those funds would be made available, in this particular case, to provide for a multi-use recreational trail in Yamhill County. In addition, the Friends of the Yamhelas Westsider Trail have committed in writing to providing future trail maintenance. Their funding will come from fund-raising and donations, and might also include future grants.

Now that the farm impact study has been approved, what other issues do the farmers have that have not been addressed? NIMBY is NOT a real issue, rather it is an unreasonable fixation on a personal bias. I cannot see how a LUBA appeal will be successful based upon existing facts. So, it appears this is just a delaying tactic on the part of specific individuals.

Jim's comments fail to recognize the facts. The Friends have collected over 1000 expressions of interest from persons in favor of the trail, which is far above the numbers the trail opponents have mustered. Yamhill County dollars will not be used to develop or maintain the trail. Jim does not recognize this. This project is anticipated to remove some vehicular traffic from Hwy. 47 when the trail is complete between Yamhill and Carlton, as some people will be able to bicycle or walk between the towns rather than drive. Blaming a future trail for exacerbating perceived current vehicular traffic problems is ludicrous.

Jim

Culbert if you think that “0” tax dollars will be used in the purchase,construction,and maintenance of the trail then I’d like to see a written guarantee from the supporters of the trail. It doesn’t matter if it’s grants,state funded,county funds or federal money it’s still tax payer money. I’ve lived here my entire life and if you don’t see a change every time we add more tourists you are mistaken. I am willing to bet you’ve never tried hauling a load of cattle or grain through this unrelenting traffic. I am still astounded how special interest groups try to tell the general public how good something is going to be for them.

daffymom

The trail is a good idea and should be allowed to happen for so many reasons.

Shorty

Shasta-you write that "the majority of people want this trail to happen ..."
I'm curious what that is based on.

Shorty

Culbert--"Friends have collected over 1000 expressions of interest from persons in favor of the trail"
Given the population of Yamhill County, 102,659 (2015) that is hardly a large number of persons in support. The farmers most likely haven't "collected" as many expressions of opposition because they are busy farming and haven't the time to organize and collect them.

Shorty

"Findings require the county to fence the segment with materials that can keep both dogs and people out of adjacent farms fields." The problem with this is that it will disrupt wildlife. The fence will disrupt the natural habitat of foxes, coyotes, deer among many other animals. Perhaps, the impact on wildlife should be examined also.

Shorty

KLYC conducted a survey on June 14, 2018: Yes or No: Do you want the Yamhelas Westsider Trail? Answered 186, skipped 0, response total 186. NO-96 / 51.613% YES 90 / 48.387%.

daffymom

Shorty I was not asked if I had been the answer would have been yes. My reason would be because I am tire of seeing kids risking the walk on 47 just to be able to see their friends in the next town. This trail will give them a safe place to walk or ride.

Seems to me nobody that is saying no is seeing the big picture and they clearly could careless about those who walk or ride on 47 to get where they are going and just a reminder some of them dont have a choice in mode of transportation.

vanfarm

Daffymom, I drive 47 daily between Yamhill and Carlton and I've never seen a kid walking on the highway. Kids are walking down 47 to see their friends.
It's also crazy to think that kids will use the proposed trail to bike back and forth to school. Oregon's weather during the school year isn't exactly prime for biking or walking 3 miles to school every day.
I'm also curious why this article doesn't mention that the county conducted THEIR OWN farm impact study, and how is that not a conflict of interest? A study should be conducted by an independent 3rd party. The county wouldn't allow anyone else to skate by like this, so why do they get to?

daffymom

Vanfarm. Used to drive school bus for YC and I would a kid or 2 walking home from practice or to practice about every other day. Some ride their bikes or walk because they thought the buses were to crowded which depending on the season,day or week I agree with

daffymom

vanform. I should clarify I agree about crowded buses but think it unsafe for them to be of 47. Also my son was on cross country team and one of their practice routes occasionally put them on 47. So this trail could also benefit our districts runners

Nicole Montesano

Vanfarm, the county followed the same procedures it requires of other applicants. Applicants typically conduct their own farm impact studies. Oregon law requires that applicants demonstrate that a proposed use will not force significant change in accepted farm or forest practices, and that it will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forestry practices. There is no requirement for a third-party study. It is not unusual for opponents to disagree with the findings of an applicant's farm impact study. Opponents of Riverbend Landfill, for example, vehemently disagree with the results of Waste Management's farm impact study.

daffymom

Seems to me no one complained when it was a railway line. So why complain about the tracks being replaced by a trail? Seem like the rail road would have caused more of an impact than one trail could. I think the complaining is more about wanting that narrow strip of land for them selves

vanfarm

When the railway went in, WAY back when, there was harsh opposition from the landowners. I have documents that show it. But the railroad just kind of did whatever they wanted, regardless of the landowners it affected. Kind of like the trail group.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS