Measure 49 online poll at Business Journal

Click here to vote on the online Business Journal Poll on how you would vote on Measure 49.

The question they ask: Measure 49, which appears on the November ballot, seeks to modify Measure 37, passed by Oregon voters in 2004. Measure 37 requires the government to compensate landowners or lift land-use restrictions when development rules reduce property values. Proponents of Measure 49 say a yes vote will limit large developments and protect farmlands and forestlands. A no vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged.
Click here to vote.

  • Joe

    It is beyond reasoning why anyone who owns land would choose to give others the authority to control their assets by voting for measure 49. We have just gained back more control after 34 years. It is not just about land use, it is about freedom and the reponsibility that comes with it.

  • Snow

    Check out the results of the vote. At this point the yesses have it by 49%. I’m assuming they are all portlanders. For those of you who have not voted, better get on line and do so. It is your freedom that is at stake. Remember yes gives it all away and no keeps it until they pull their next trip

    • dean

      Joe and Snow,

      I don’t live in Portland, own a 5 acre small farm, and voted yes on M49 in the poll.

      Beyond reason? You decide. Maybe I care about the future of the whole state more than I care about maximizing how much I could one day sell my land for.

      Property rights are important, and for many of us our land is our most valuable asset, so I understand why others feel differently. But reasonable control over land use by government is necessary to protect us from each other’s mistakes.

      • Richard

        Like trampling on you neighbor rights or landowners are equal but some land owners are more equal to others.

      • Snow

        Are you aware that only 4 % of Oregons land has a human footprint, habitant? You are so greedy. If the population doubled it would only cover 8%.

      • Sybella

        Lets just say for the sake of argument that your small farm is currently worth 200,000 dollars. Your plans are to live there until you retire then sell and move to montana and live on the proceeds and your pension. Then the state comes along for the good of the people and the state of course and says you can not do with your land what you planned and the most it is worth now is $50,000, ten thousand less than you paid. What do you think you would do? Lets just say, I have nothing to do with your land and don’t care because it’s for the good of the people, oh, and lets don’t forget “the children”. I think it’s wonderful and your plans just went out the window. Life in a pension can be mean unless you are a PERS retiree.

        Yes, it is hypothetical, but my educated guess is you will rant, rave, and hate those that said. It’s ok Dean, You didn’t want it anyway.

        This measure is about our freedom, maybe you are young enough you haven’t experienced the freedom this country used to offer. Ok, I buy that, you can’t miss what you never had. Of course if measure 49 passes, it could just be the start of something new and you might just kiss your $50,000 goodbye too. Better really give this some thought. Get serious. Don’t listen to politcal noises. Use your head, make up your own mind based on good common sense. If you still feel 49 is the way to go, then it’s your bed you just made and I hope you enjoy lying in it.

        • Anonymous

          you made ZERO sense

          for one thing. if you have a house, and its worth 200,000, that’s not going to change unless the market changes. nothing in the law can change such that you no longer are allowed the dwelling. perhaps no dividing, but the house is legal an gets to stay

  • Shep

    You’ve shown yourself to be an idealogue and political hack who cares not about any of the neighbors who complain about the Metro or other government planner’s development. No it’s only M37 development that has legitimate complaints by neighbors. Is that about right pal?

    You’ve misrepresented everything about both M37 and M49 with your misinformation.
    The so called reasonable control you defend has Pleasant Valley locked in the planner’s bureaucracy since a 1998 UGB expansion, Damascus facing similar long delays, North Bethany cancelling meetings and following suit and other UGB expansions facing long delays and enormous costs. All while out cities are being packed tighter and tighter by out of scale non-fitting infill, wild schemes suck up countless millions for mixed use development, traffic snarls everywhere and property owners allover the State are blindly prohibited from using their land without any legitimate reason at all.

    But it is you who cares MORE about the future of our State?
    You couldn’t be any more insulting.
    I notice you have yours with a nice 5 acre parcel. So you prefer that choices for others remain bleak and rare under our current system.

    Never mind M37 leaves intact that system while providing a few opportunites for others to get their little piece of Oregon.

    • Captain_Anon

      like his view or not, dean has articulated quite well what he believes and why – relying on published facts while most who disagree with him resort to personal name calling and attacks. idealogue and political hack? No – just someone who has a different opinion than you AND has a lot at stake with his farm.

      as for Pleasant Valley… once again someone blames planners. that’s not a planners problem. that is a jurisdiction not having money to annex and provide services. Portland and gresham took in portions of the area already and only after developers whined and cried about the cost of infrastructure is the city using tax payer money to subsidize thier development. the area has been available – people didn’t want to be annexed in portions of it and those areas that have been annexed are expensive to develop.

      a huge delay? no. due process? yes. neighbors wanted a say in what the area would look like. different jurisdictions (roads, sewer, utilities, schools, parks, public safety) needed to give input and coordinate. once the public decided what they wanted, then the city writes the new plan to be consistent with state law. the state reviews and concurs. then they area goes through annexation and developes build. again the hold up? people who live there wanted to have a voice in the process (local control is good!) as is required by state law. services must be provided and planned by public and private utilities and service providers, getting a comp plan takes time especially when the state must review it. the area has to be annexed and then developers must pony up money to build. and considering todays marekt, its no wonder they have been slow to put money into the projects. regardless of that, they still whinned about paying to develop and begged the city to subsidize thier developments.

      thats not planners. thats a whole mess of reasons and individuals that caused the problem. Shep, your response provide no reasonable arguments, no facts, inflamitory language that just puts people on the defensive rather than debate intelligently and reasonably, and really makes no point. your whole post is that of an idealogue which you accused dean of being.

      And correct me if i’m wrong, but those property owners building in the cities, they have a right to use thier land as they wish do they not? so if they want to build “out of scale non-fitting infill” shouldn’t they have a right to do so?

  • Shep

    Hey Cap,
    Thanks for the elementary Metro sermon. What a farce.

    The reason Pleasant Valley and the other areas are stuck is because of the form Metro et al insist they adopt. Of course the infrastructure is expensive. Far more than it needs to be.
    I was told by a major developer Metro’s requirements for North Bethany will add $100k to each housing unit.

    As far as:
    “so if they want to build “out of scale non-fitting infill” shouldn’t they have a right to do so?”
    I guess neighbors don’t matter when it comes to infill?
    Or the masive direct subsidiies for many of those City and Metro developments and schemes?
    Or the fat that there is no plan to handle the higher densities, provide affordable housing, move traffic or anythig else. It’s chaos.
    If the plannning establishment wasn’t spending billions on their toy trains, TODs and other smart grwoth nonsense we would have plenty for generic infrastucture expansion.
    Dean and you don’t articulate facts. You peddle the same garbage that justifies all of the boondoggles in the region and State while defending the very land use planning system M37 voters loudly said they want relief from.
    NOT wipe away the whole system as you and yours lecture dishonestly. M37 doesn’t and can’t do that.

    Stop lying about M37 and Metro planning.

    • Trevor Stewart

      There goes Shep, Richard, Charlie again… calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar.


    I’m afraid this will pass, luckily I am not affected nor will I be investing in any Oregon land in the future.

    When I retire I’ll move and sale my in town house, I do feel sorry for the people who bought a lot of acreage in the country though. Sounds like people who didn’t contribute to the investment risk are the ones who think they should tell them how to use it.

  • eagle

    Yep, Oregon is an evil state. Sadly I worked my youth for a small piece of land which I can’t do anything with. I too, will move soon.

    • carol

      That’s because you only thought it was ‘your’ land because you paid for it. In Oregon it became ‘OUR’ land according to the law of the neighboring property owners. Just try to sell unbuildable land if M49 passes, unless you have a large farmer nearby who will buy it at the price for ‘unbuildable’ land, hence making it ‘farm land’ Tough luck if it’s rocky and fit only to build, if it’s w/in EFU zoning, it’s still hi-value, but the farmers won’t want it.

    • Captain_Anon

      when did you buy and and what were the rules in place at that time? if the law changed after you had it, you have the opportunity to file a measure 37 claim. if they haven’t then it sounds like due dilligence wasn’t done

  • Chris McMullen

    “Captain” Anon sputtered: “local control is good!”

    If you really believe that (which I guarantee a big government lover like you does not) then you would not support 49. M37 did a pretty good job in wrestling away state control over properties in local jurisdictions. SB100 was a statewide mandate that changed zoning and land use on private plots.

    M37 claims still have to meet local zoning ordinances and regulations. M37 developments still need to meet city requirements. M37 claims will not be developed unless it’s economically feasible to do so. THAT’S local control. M49 gives control back to big state government.

    M49 proponents have done a great job in lying to people regarding this point and deceiving the public with scare tactics.

    If M49 passes, you socialists can all toast people like Eric Lemelson — while he rakes in another few million in wine grapes, leases cheap ag land and further pollutes our streams with fertilizer and silt.

  • eric


    I am tired of a handful of “folks” like you claiming to know something relevant about my business. I could use another word, but I won’t.

    Our vineyards are certified organic and have been organic since we started in the business. We use no synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fungicides, period, regardless of the losses from mother nature (like this fall, for example – we’ve lost as much as 25% of our crop to fungal diseases because we don’t spray chemicals that prevent rot). I imagine you will have a snippy answer to that point.

    From the beginning, we’ve taken major steps to prevent soil erosion in our vineyards – every year, regardless of the amount of work involved or the cost We don’t contribute to erosion or siltification of streams adjacent to our farms – period. I don’t lease land from anyone and never have. Not that you would know anything relevant about erosion or leasing or anything remotely on point.

    Contrary to your statements, and those of others of your ilk, I am not looking to buy more vineyard land, now or in the future. You have never met me and your information about me is either regurgitation or fabrication. Any other salient points to contribute to this “discussion”?

    • dean apostol

      Working my way from Eric on up….

      Eric, bully for you for putting your support behind M49 and for the extra work it takes to go organic. Our small farm is also organic, albeit part time and we are not dependent on the meager income from our tomatoes, hay and willow stakes. I will start shopping for your wine.

      Chris, you are mistaken. M37 overrides LOCAL zoning. There is no such thing as state zoning. It is true that the state planning system has requirements that counties and cities much adhere to, but the zoning that is waived under M39 is local.

      Crawdude…bon voyage. May you find peace and happiness and the good road to your land use bliss.

      Trevor…calling names is what one does when one is losing an argument. I take it as a sign of progress.

      Shep (the name caller)…there is nothing I can say that will convince you of anything because your mind is closed for business. But what the heck. Metro does not “require” any particular form in PV or elsewhere. They do require an average density of 10 units per acre. The STATE requires all new housing to be “allowed” to be (depends on the market you free-marketers) multi-family types. The infrastructure costs of extending sewer, water, and roads are determined by how many linear feet are laid down. The higher the density, the LOWER the per house cost. That is basic math. Metro does not require that developers provide parks or park money, but CITIES like Gresham do. Schools could not levy ANY fees on developers until now. All local systems development fees (Metro does not charge any) are paid on a per unit basis, and the cost is passed along to the homebuyer. The developer does have to upfront these costs and they are going to be considerable in PV, Bethany, and Damascus. But Metro has NOTHING to do with these fees.

      The regional “plan,” such as it is, places higher density along corridors and in centers, with densities high enough and walking distance close enough that people don’t have to drive so much, so we don’t end up with more cars. Densities lower than 6-8 units per acre are too low to have services & transit within walking distance. THe typical Portland single family home neighborhood is around 8 units to the acre.

      Lower density = more driving, it is that simple. If you need proof visit Atlanta.

      Captain Anon….what can I say? I agree with you. Most of the PV delay was initially due to a lack of funds to pay for planning. Then, once the planning was done, lack of funds to pay for extending the critical infrastructure. Now there is an agreement in place, but the housing market has gone south and so have the developers.

      Shep again…I “have mine” because I work for a living, went small farm shopping, found a beat up old place, took out a mortgage, and am paying for it. There are a lot of homes on acreage in and around Damascus and Boring that were mostly built before the UGB went into place. As I have said elsewhere, it costs as much or more to buy a 1500 square foot home on a 5000 square foot lot in Portland as it does to buy a 3000 square foot home on an acre out here. Why? If so many people are dying for ex-urban housing, why haven’t Damamascus-Boring-Estacada home prices accelerated way past these horrible, crammed, jammed, urban matchboxes? Location location location. There is higher demand for housing that is close to the action. This supports building higher density closer in. And that is what is being done because that is what THE PEOPLE in the Portland metro area have chosen, both through the political process AND through the marketplace.

      Sybella…under the scenario you paint I would be royally pissed off. As I said in my post, our homes and property are important as investments to all of us, and none of us wants our investments to go south. But ALL the analysis I have read suggests that few Oregon property investors have lost any money in Oregon real estate over the past 40 years based on changes in land use regulations. According to Eco Northwest (an economics firm) farm land purchased in 1970 is now valued much higher, and the difference beats what a similar investment in the Standard & Poors would have provided over that time. Forest land value as always depends on the age, condition, and stocking level of the trees.

      I was not here at the time, but didn’t those who had development rights in say 1960 or 70 have the chance to subdivide and build BEFORE their land was rezoned in the late 70s? Its not like the new zoning just magically appeared one day. There must have been notices, meetings, hearings and so forth. Many landowners DID opt for rural residential zoning instead of EFU. Other went ahead and filed plats to subdivide well ahead of the change. Now…30-40 years those that took EFU zoning and 30-40 years of tax breaks want TODAYs dollar value for the subdivision they never built when they had the chance. And had they subdivided back in the day, they would have made very little on the lots, I can assure you.

      The government owes people plenty of notice if they intend to change a land use rule. And they owe property owners plenty of time and opportunity to argue their case before the change is made. And they should be reasonable, and not overly restrict land use beyond what is necessary for the greater good. I admit sometimes they are not reasonable and make bad or unfair decisions. This is why we have elections. I think the $80K farm income rule was not reasonable for many properties for example. And I support modifying that rule, OR allowing a home or 2 to be built, as M49 does.

      Snow…I am greedy because I want to vote to help maintain rural land in Oregon? Only 4% has a “human footprint?” I beg to differ. Just about all of Oregon’s land has been impacted by either building, farming, roads, logging, ski areas, golf courses or grazing. Wilderness is a very small proportion, and even many wilderness areas were over grazed by sheep and have never recovered. Rivers have been damned, creeks channelized, and 85% of the original wetlands in the Willamette Valley are gone. Fortunately much of Oregon is still lovely, still productive, still worth caring about, footprints or no. I don’t apologize at all for wanting to help keep it that way.

      • Snow


        What can I say, you did make your point and even though I do not agree with you on all points, I appreciate you taking the time to make your statements. Thank you for not being nasty about it. I still do not want M49 to pass, I really believe it is a land grab on the part of the state. I really believe our freedoms are being eroded, and it scares me. I really believe M49 is another step in that direction. I will too be leaving Oregon within the next year or so, the Socialist climate here adds fear also.

        • dean


          We don’t have to agree on a ballot measure to remain civil to each other. Thanks for your understanding. It will be Oregon’s loss if you leave, but I hope you find what you are looking for.

          For me M49 simply takes us back to pre-November 2004, but with allowance remaining for some land owners to build at least a few new homes if they choose to do so. I don’t fear it leading to socialism, but I appreciate your position.

      • carol

        Let me work my way thru your statements, and state my feeling about those I feel strongly about, and I do appreciate your civility in respect to the name callers. However there are lots of those on the Yes on M49 blogs, and they get REALLY nasty, I mean nasty, nasty. I can swear like a sailor when I want to, but I don’t swear in print. I heard that name calling is what one does when he doesn’t know the facts.

        You are to be commended, most of the small farms that I see nearby, the old house has been replaced by a McMansion.
        I agree with you that the land we own has appreciated at a much greater rate than the stock market, and we have been offered beaucoup $$ for it, but, I DON’T WANT TO SELL! I would like to pass it on to my kids, who would like to have an equal portion, not a 2 acre parcel. Sure each could build, and the farm could be a communal property, but theymay someday want an out, ie, an equal part. Let me tell you my girls couldn’t live ‘clustered’

        I am not sure what publicity was given the original law, I was a lot younger then, and more naive, and didn’t know that I would get old, or that the original law would turn into so many restrictive regulations. I do know of one parcel close by that was divided into 4 acre lots that couldn’t get a septic permit separately, and had to be combined into larger plots to be salable. That is the reason that I say the dooms-criers are wayoff base in assuming that there will be enormous, instant development. One must have a PERMIT, and septic permits ain’t easy to get. As for the age level of the trees, it’s not high, most have been clear-cut, and not thinned, what other reason for the extreme fire danger. most of the depicted fire-scene photos are of skinny close set trees.

        As for greedy, I don’t consider myself greedy when I want to see others ahve the same life-style that I have always enjoyed, rural. The situation now is that only the wealthy can have a house in the country, and that is partly due to the way that wealth is distributed in the world, but also, as far as Oregon land values are concerned, due to restrictive land-use laws.

        In closing this rather lengthly diatribe, let me say that I know that M37 will never result in extreme development because of the ‘health and safety’ clause therein, and there will be no more claims because we the benefiaries of that measure are OLD. There are no more claimants existing in Oregon, the clock has run out.

        Please feel free to dispute me in a civil manner after you have read the measure.

    • carol

      I am presuming from your signature that you are Eric L. The problem that I have with your huge contribution to the am49 campaign, is that it may prevent other people from buying a small piece of land, there are not many available. I have read the whole of M49, and as nearly as I can understand what it says, no more than 3 parcels per CLAIM, each no more than 2 acres, and they must be clustered. How they are to be clustered is up to the state, presumably LCDC.

    • Anon

      It must be nice to be an elitist trust fund baby.

  • carol

    Not a few new homes, three, and if there is already a dwelling on the CLAIM, then two. the plots must be no larger than two acres, and ‘clustered’. The clustered clause is one of the few clauses that are not defined in the measure, and the state will apparently explain to us what the definition is when it becomes necessary. Since the LCDC has been the state land-use department since 1973, I imagine that they would act in that capacity for this purpose. When the original laws were set in place, there was a 20 acre minimum set, as time passed, more regulations were added. There was also an intention to compensate people who were harmed by the enactment of the law. As I understand it, that intention fell by the way-side.

    • dean


      I think I see your points. As I understand it, the “clustering” is to keep a chunk of the land available for efficient farming. I’m not sure who would decide where the clusters get located, but I assume that would happen at the County level, and the state would only intervene if and when there is an appeal (perhaps by a neighbor?)

      The continuous land division, each generation dividing down for the kids, is in part what the state land use system and EFU zoning was intended to prevent. Yes, it impacts individuals negatively, and sometimes flat out unfairly. Presumably this is for the greater good and for future generations. Not all agree, clearly.

      On rural land affordability, my experience is we were able to buy this place, a run down old farmhouse on 5 farmable acres, for about the same as a modest house on a 5000 sq foot lot in Portland at that time (1996). I assume land values have inflated about the same inside the city and out, and it has sadly gotten to the point where NOTHING is affordable to a truly working class family absent some subsidy. I’m not convinced that opening up thousands of acres of rural land for home building is going to change the picture. What is going to change it is the housing mortgage crunch, which may well result in lower prices for a time.

      I am not at all sure what the overal impact will be, either with M37 as is or with M49 passing. I agree with many opponents of M49 that the impacts will not be “total,” that is every claim filed will not end up getting built, for a host of reasons. But I disagree with those who say the impacts will be negligable, that it is only 1.5% of the land in the state (less than 20% of the state is farmable) and so forth. The fundamental problem I have with M37 is that it turns the clock back in time, allowing some landowners a pass on rules that were vetted through a democratic process, while holding all others to those rules. I am also as worried about potential future claims as I am about current ones.

      I have heard it said there was going to be follow up legislation to offer some compensation to landowners who were downzoned in the 70s. Other than the farm and forest tax breaks (which are not trivial,) that did not happen. Why… I do not know.

      The compensation I would offer, even now, would take the form of “transferable development rights.” Too complicated to explain here, but basically these amount to selling your rights to build homes to others in appropriately zoned places. That does not solve your kid problem, I know. It is a financial gain only.

      So there you have it. We disagree, we have our reasons, we both love Oregon, and we can remain civil and be neighbors no matter the outcome. Or so we should hope.

  • carol

    The way I read the measure, granted my eyes were crossed by the time I reached that point, was that the state would administer the siting of the cluster. I have printed and passed on copies of the actual measure, and I no longer have a copy, and I can’t find it anymore on the site where it was originally. Until I can find it and re-read it again, I can’t argue effectively, memories fail with age, along with many other things. The point I try to make is that all the claimants for M37 benefits are getting older, and there will be no more. Many of us were guided by attys who encouraged them to go for broke, and file for as much as possible. We didn’t, as we had a specific purpose in mind, three homes, two already in existance, but our claim won’t be realized under M49.

    The original law that was passed in 1973 allowed 20 acre parcels, but regulations that followed, soon negated that. What you feel is fair, and what others feel is fair, are not often the same. This measure specifically excludes those within the UGB, why, I can’t understand. So many of the ‘yes’ on M49 group decry the plight of the farmer in Oregon. I am sure that you, having kept abreast of the battle from the start, subscribe to the Land Use News from DLCD. On last week’s newsletter, about 8-10 columns down, there is an article concerning farm profits in Wa state, up again this year. Apples and pears are mentioned, as well as other specialty crops. I noticed the apples and pears specifically, because of the publicity given to the lack of migrants to pick, and competition from abroad. I am sure that you are aware of the fact that WA doesn’t have such a stringent planning system, and yet the farmers appear to be doing well.

    As for ‘development rights’, in all the other farming states, the development rights are purchased by conservation groups, In my opinion, that is at least one reason for the conservation group in Oregon to have made such a large contribution to this campaign. I would love to have access to such a contribution, I would be glad to sell the rights to development on my farm, It would make my old age much more comfortable, but I’ll be damned if I’ll sell them under duress. I am a stubborn, tough old bird, or choose another word that begins with bi–, I don’t care. I won’t lease my land to a neighbor who votes for M49, either, let the weeds take over!! Childish? Of course, I am old enough to be that way and get away with it.

    In closing let me say that if this passes, it will be an atty’s dream, and an elders nightmare, and I sincerely hope that I don’t have a chance to say I told you so. The measure is not presented fairly, the ballot title doesn’t even begin to describe what lies within the measure and I wouldn’t be surprised if even you would admit that. I am a Libra, and ‘fair’ is ultra important to me.

    I too, love Oregon and wish that Metro, or whoever, would stop offering incentives to industry to bring jobs, therein lies our main problem, but I won’t go there.

  • dean


    I’m with you on the incentives issue, but I think it is more the state and counties that are in the incentives game. Metro’s role is limited to making sure there is enough vacant “industrial” land within the regional UGB.

    Washington does have urban growth boundaries now, though their system has more slack than Oregon’s. I think the big difference is more geographical. Most of Washington’s agricultural economy is east of the Cascade Mountains, from the Chelan-Wenatchee orchards down through the Yakima valley. Very fertile volcanic soil that needs irrigation to produce. This area is of course way out of commuting range from Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia or Spokane. Thus there is not much in the way of development pressure on the productive farmland.

    In Oregon, our best ag land is also where our urban areas are, so unless we find a way to restrict subdivisions on farms we can kill off the goose in short order. One could live just about anywhere in the W. Valley and be within a 1/2 to 1 hour drive of Eugene, Salem, or Portland. Basically that means the whole valley is up for subdivision grabs unless we hold pretty tight to urban growth boundaries.

    That relationship by the way, our best farmland being near our cities, is what drove MaCall to create our land use system back in the day.

    The transferable development rights I referred to are not the same thing as conservation organizations buying conservation easements on your land. You are correct in that if your land can’t be divided, then a conservatione asement probably would not fetch a high price.

    What I was reffering to is a system that is used in states that lack urban growth boundaries, and where rural areas are still zoned for 1-5 homes per acre. In Maryland for example, the most productive farmland owners were allowed to sell their development rights (say 50 homesites on 100 acres) to developers within urban areas, who could use these rights to increase their density allotment. Once the development rights are sold, THEN a conservation easement is place on the land, and it can never be developed in the future. Maryland has set aside over 40,000 acres of farm land using this method.

    King County Washington has a similar program to protect forest land from subdividing, and it appears to be working well.

    A program like this for M37 claims would not solve your specific desire to subdivide for you kids, but might give you a chunk of money that could be used to buy them homesites or old beater homes (like mine) nearby.

    To learn more about TDRs, check out the American Farmland Trust web site.

  • carol

    I am aware of the ‘development rights thing, I have read about it in the Farm Journal for years, always aware that in Oregon there was no neccessity for such a thing, always sitting on the side-lines, wishing that there were.

    I guess we must make sure that the W Valley stays pure for seed to grow grass for Calif golf courses, and wine so we don’t have to drink C. Pinot. Of course there is nursery stock. It’s for sure that in the Valley there is very little food-stuff grown with the exception of smaller organic farms. The Old-Believers have planted some berries, primarily to have a ‘farm plan’ in order to build a very large dwelling, however they took a beating this year, when the cannery canceled. Oh! I almost forgot the Christmas trees.

    Sorry, I am feeling just a tad sarcastic, I spent the afternoon at a hospital and I’m gonna go have a glass of C. wine, I have sworn off of the O. stuff. I told you I was childish!