By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

County trail decision remanded again

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Jim

Glad to hear the local farm crew backed the county off. We need no more major decisions like this decided by three people. We need to spend taxpayer money on mental health, road repair and other infrastructure that is badly needed. Another playground for the Wine Crowd is not what we need to spend our tax dollars on.

actionjax

I wonder if the pot farmer commissioner would be willing to donate part of his property?

Mike

It is good that the County is required to deal with infrastructure things like an appropriate fence and more importantly the water pressure all along the way to deal with fire potential. And it is important the County come to terms with the 3 poisons the farmers use on their land. How they poison their land impacts their farm production and livelihood. I think about the future. Just put the train tracks back and let's have a train ride instead of being stuck in traffic.

rosebloomer

Thanks to those working on the trail system, sorry for the "not in my backyard" opposition.

Tuvey

So is the poison used that requires a 100 foot setback the only one that can be used? Is there one that doesn't require the setback that can also be used? (and by the way it concerns me that poison is being used on crops regardless of their necessity). How much has the Banks Vernonia trail impacted parking from within the trail? I know each end gets busy but when I biked it and it crossed a road I did not see cars parked. What about the water tankers that the firemen have? We don't have a hydrant, they bring the truck. Why can't that be used on the trail? Why is there no public response during the master planning process? What if they change something that the public doesn't want? Kind of feels like we give permission and off they go.

Lindsay Berschauer

This is a significant win for our farmers. One of the most troubling aspects of this trail proposal is how normal farming activity (aerial spray of pesticides and herbicides) would be impacted by recreational trail users, especially if any of them experienced drift or overspray. Any occurrence would immediately halt farming activity and impact the private property rights of our farmers. Yamhill County should not be in the business of trampling on private property rights.

gregtompkins

The ones pushing the hardest and being the most vocal about that stupid trail are townspeople who aren’t even from here (Californians and ex Portlanders) trying time purposely set up a conflict between City ways and outdoor recreation and traditional farming. This state has a shameful legacy of confiscating private properties (Willamette River greeNway in the 60’s SB100 Urban Growth ridiculousness, Metro.gov, DLCD Measure37/49 controversy and Thousand Friends of Oregon.)

A New Generation

One question in the remand was "how to prevent trail users from
parking along roadsides and blocking farm equipment".
Can I suggest Carlton Corners post their 'Don't park here' towing signage? A win (or potential boon) for local industry. They're local and very responsive with 24-hour towing. Seems to work in the rest of the 'no parking areas of town.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable