By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Commissoners reject waterfront trail language in bypass agreement

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

Oregonian

I never would have thought the commissioners in a county could be such a negative influence on the livability of their county. I was so wrong.

Jean

Voter apathy in action. It's our own fault that we get leaders like this.

Bleepbloop

Is there a phobia of walking trails? I think our commissioners might have it. I’ll submit it to the New England Journal of Medicine and see what they say.

yamhillbilly2

Why do the two BS commissioners have so much contempt for a trail? I thought a third commissioner was elected last time around. Why is there never any mention of what he has been doing? One has to assume he is only there to rubber stamp everything the BS clowns decide to do.

JWC

Perhaps we should be asking questions?

Who owns the land that is coveted for a trail?

If the land that is desired for a trail is privately owned, what coercive tactics will be employed by the community to obtain the right of way?

Will Yamhill County be emulating the Tualitin Hills Parks and Recreation District whose surrogates obstructed development of Bonny Slope West for over a decade in an attempt to compel the land owners to sell for pennies on the dollar?

Will Yamhill County or the City of Newberg be exploiting a series of arson fires that were set by their own security guards (and/or the police) to falsely implicate a land owner so as to justify a civil forfeiture lawsuit?

I actually had a THPRD official threaten me with such a lawsuit even after their own security guard, John Michael Townsend, who had set the fires had signed a plea bargain agreement.

BigfootLives

Newberg and Dundee want a trail, they can pay for it. Why is that hard to understand? What other nonsense negative headline can the NR come up with to describe the commissioners being fiscally responsible and questioning how our tax dollars are spent? It’s shameful.n

madmacs

Read the article, they weren't asking the county to pay for it....

JWC

Madmacs:

That's the problem. The trail proponents have no expectations that the property owners will be fairly compensated for their land. They will simply intervene in the various government regulatory processes to prohibit the land owners from actually utilizing their land in an economically beneficial manner. They will then agitate to have the land confiscated outright or purchased via eminent domain for pennies on the dollar. If the property owner protests, they will be maliciously prosecuted for arson fires that were actually set by government agents. King Henry 2 who muttered "would someone not rid me of this meddlesome priest?" would be proud of them.

sbagwell

Eminent domain is not involved in any way, shape or form in the Chehalem Heritage Trail project. And, as noted by madmacs, neither are county tax dollars. None have been granted, requested or even contemplated.
This is a Newberg-Dundee project. If the county truly respected local control, it would butt out.
Steve

JWC

Sbagwell:

If the County adopted the proposed language to include a trail along the river as part of the bypass planning, that would enable more stringent regulations by the City of Newberg on the affected properties.

I don't really object so much to County, City or State tax dollars being utilized to acquire trail Right of Way at fair market value and construction of a trail. What I do object to is government regulation being abused as weapon to devalue property and extortion to obtain the right of way. So far I have seen no evidence that the City of Newberg has any more integrity than Multnomah County, the City of Portland or the Tualitin Hills Parks and Recreation District. I have dealt with these people, you have not.

M. Isaac

"If the County adopted the proposed language to include a trail along the river as part of the bypass planning, that would enable more stringent regulations by the City of Newberg on the affected properties."

That is not the case. The agreement (available online) was ODOT trying to confirm that all parties were on the same page as to the project. The agreement did not do anything in the way of adopting any regulation or enabling the city of Newberg to adopt additional regulations. If the city wished to place additional regulations on property, then the city is required to send out notice to affected property owners 45-days in advance of the regulation being adopted.

On a side note - I am sorry for your apparent experiences with local government.

Patrick97132

Proposed new motto for the county: Yamill County We Hate Trails

MR. S

@Jean "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

JWC

Misaac

I am not as experienced with government land use regulation in Yamhill County as I am with Washington County, Multnomah County and the City of Portland. Unfortunately; I see no reason to believe that the land use regulation process as well as hazard designations are not going to be abused gratuitously to effectively expropriate private property for the benefit of the community or special interests without just compensation to the property owner.

Unfortunately; many of the people of Yamhill County have demonstrated an extreme hostility towards private property. They feel entitled to simply take what they want without any compensation. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will oppose any planning or designation of trail corridors or natural areas on private property. A 45 day notice IS NOT compensation. I would be elated if you would prove me wrong.

madmacs

JWC I am not aware of any property taken, or attempted to be taken for any parks, trails, or recreation in Yamhill county in the past twenty years. If you are referring to the westside trail, there was no land being taken there either. The county bought that land from the rail company. At least get -some- fact straight.

madmacs

JWC -you are the one accusing the county and city of taking private land in this case. It is not up to anyone else to prove you wrong, the onus is on you to back up your claim with something more than conjecture.

yamhillbilly2

Before you go demanding evidence to show your accusations to be false, you might try offering some “evidence” to support your acusations.

Bleepbloop

This is a PSA for everyone that reads the comments. It is best to ignore JWC and Bigfoots comments. JWC is a troll looking to get his tired opinions out into the world. He is trying to anger most readers. We are after all just snowflakes in his mind. Something tells me his family is tired of hearing his opinions. Bigfoot is such an extremist with her opinions that she will not be rational. I actually have some level of respect for her, but because she is so unflinching in her beliefs, she spouts opinions even when basic facts disprove them.

From now on, we should all see that they commented and skip right past them. This board would be much more interesting and productive without them.

When JWC criticizes this post, I am going to not even read it. The one thing that really upsets him. I bid you adieu JWC. Let your hatred for local judges and politicians go on deaf ears.

M. Isaac

"Unfortunately; many of the people of Yamhill County have demonstrated an extreme hostility towards private property. They feel entitled to simply take what they want without any compensation."

If you are talking about the county government, I have been following that for over 20 years and have not seen actions to take private property. But if you are talking about trail opponents, then I agree. The trail opponents want (and get) to use the railroad right of way owned by the county without compensation.

tagup

When facts cannot be presented to make a point… credibility should be questioned….a recurring issue for the posters you mentioned.

Shorty

Carlton Lake

yamhillbilly2

Hey Bleepbood, A handy acronym to remember when you see those three initials might be Just Worthless Crap

JWC

Shorty,

Please explain about Carlton Lake.

JWC

Yamhillbilky, Bleepbloop, Tagup et el:

Please explain why the OMMP and OLCC were issuing address specific grow site permits and cannabinoid processing licenses without the knowledge or consent of the property owner? Look up Oregon House Bill 3200 from the 2019 session and Oregon Senate Bill 302 from the 2023 session. Look up Oregon residential tenancy laws that preclude eviction for converting a rental property into a marijuana grow or processing site. SB-326 also stiffs property owners with the cost of cleaning up the toxic wastes from marijuana grows that they didn't consent to.

Shorty

Carlton Lake is privately owned land. Back in the late 80’s and early 90s a group of people decided they wanted to bring the lake back. The owners said the land was not for sale but this group pressed on. There were meetings, fundraisers and attempts to say the land was a wetland. It is not. Everyone just ignored that the land was not for sale. A fair amount of pressure was leveled against the owners to try to take the land by declaring it a wetland. It was finally determined that the land was not a wetland so the group couldn’t get the funds to continue to try to take the land and it died out. My point is, the landowners were completely disregarded. I think a lot of people that want trails and recreation areas around farmland don’t first, own any and second tend to dismiss landowners rights in the name of what’s being created is better for the good of the community.

yamhillbilly2

Shorty a very major flaw in your comment! The people of yamhill county do own the old railroad right of way that runs thru the area surrounded by farms. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Shorty

Yamhillbilly2: Whoa!! I was explaining what happened with Carlton Lake, I made no correlation to the Yamehalas trail,. I’m actually not opposed to that so I have no difficulty understanding it.

Shorty

The only reason I posted was because people on the thread seemed to be intimating that property owners are considered when these recreational areas are conceived and promoted. From personal experience, this just isn’t always true. And Yamhillbilly2, your rudeness is uncalled for and not appreciated

JWC

Shorty:

Thank you for the clarification on Carlton Lake.

I am not opposed to Parks and trails. I am not opposed to invoking eminent domain to acquire land for Parks and trails. What I am opposed to is refusing to pay a land owner fair market value for the property that is acquired. The property should be fairly appraised based on research of similar property sales as well as a financial analysis of what impact the loss of part of a farm will have on the entire farming operation. The acquisition of nearby replacement property for trade should be the preferred compensation.

JWC

Yamhillbilly:

Thank you for acknowledging that with few exceptions, the people of Yamhill County own a RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY, not the actual land.

yamhillbilly2

JWC.....Sorry to be such a source of distress for you, but I guess that is what “bumpkins” do. I am no expert but the research I have done indicates the Oregon & California Railroad that built the Yamhales Westside Railroad acquired the property for the rail line thru a grant from the US government and sold land on either side of the right of way to the settlers. They did not sell the right of way to the settlers. I cannot confirm it yet but it seems the right of way is “fee simple” which means the railroad owned the land with no restrictions.

yamhillbilly2

Shorty....in your comment you stated “I think a lot of people that want trails and recreation areas around farmland don’t first, own any....” . I may be a “bumpkin” , but that certainly comes off as a slam against anyone who supports the trail.

Oregonize

T.D.S., Trail Derangement Syndrome. We should just be more honest and change the name of our county to Hazzard, you remember the Duke boys. Boss Mary

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable