Column by Gene McIntyre, Statesman Journal, October 29, 2007

Do you ever wonder why California is experiencing catastrophic fires that destroy hundreds of homes almost every year these days? Has it crossed your mind that the same debacles could happen and almost already have in Oregon's current, expanding and proposed housing subdivisions and multi-purpose developments?

Well, it may not be that the only difference is the population size. A main reason just could be that in California it's due to the massive build-up of homes (you guessed it!) in fire-prone areas.

People often want to build in places where they can embrace nature and appreciate a calm and peace not known to city or suburban dwellers. However, out there in the middle of nature is not the best place to build a house. In fact, it has proved to be destructively dangerous.

Developers and homebuilders have little concern for the long-term viability of a house or entire neighborhood. It would appear the rare one possesses a modicum of social, human and environmental responsibility. The common action on their part is to build wherever land's available for their purchase. It doesn't appear to matter to most of them if it's right next to a tinder dry forest or just below or on top of a steep ridge known by locals for its mud slides, vulnerable to our Pacific Rim fault zone or any number of other irresponsible housing locations. Then there are the crazies running around setting fires where it appears to these arsonists that a good blaze can get things burning wildly just by tossing a "well-placed" match in places they view as inviting their heinous acts.

Over the years of development in Oregon, a high degree of sanity has prevailed through strict zoning laws and protection of forest stands, marshy lands, slippery cliffs and the like, conditions for building seemingly unknown or ignored by our neighbors south of the OR/CA boundary. As a result, our land use laws have helped protect and preserve Oregon farmland, forests, and natural areas: but not since Measure 37!

We've had huge forest fires in Oregon; they've often burned millions of acres. Fortunately, we haven't had subdivisions throughout these areas, although there is a definite trend toward the CA syndrome. But just imagine what it's going to cost us taxpayers and insurance buyers if we must hire hundreds of firefighters and pay the insurance "freight" on property badly located and lost to conflagrations! Again, that's viewed as our problem not the developers; they simply move on to the next opportunity to make money.

No doubt you've heard from the dozens of large timber companies; they're using Measure 37 to propose subdivisions in Oregon's forests. These companies include Stimson Lumber, Plum Creek Timber, and on and on. I can imagine their conversations: "These Oregonian tree huggers won't let us fell every tree in the state; so, we'll show them. We'll develop the forest lands and then relocate with our obscene profits to a place where we can enjoy a pristine environment. To hell with these environmentalists who put preserving the land ahead of profits!"

Meanwhile, not only is it California that's in deep trouble. Georgia and Alabama are about to run dry. That's due to the sprawl and unchecked development that has sucked their aquifers dry. Other places in the nation are equally poorly off. Meanwhile, California, Florida and Texas are using up the greatest amounts and have no apparent intent of stopping their monumental water gulps at cost to themselves and their neighbors.

Oregon faces a very scary future. It's reported that 7,500 Measure 37 claims for development are proposed in water shed and fire-prone areas. You can also predict without much imagination that this next summer, or soon thereafter, places like Black Butte and Sunriver Resort, and the others like them, those that are springing up in or on the edge of our forests, are predictable victims of epic burns similar to San Diego's and much of Southern CA's.

The bottom line is to consider a "Yes" vote on Measure 49. Measure 49 limits subdivisions in rural areas, including forests and farmland. It clarifies and extends property rights for smaller claimants while precluding the type of real estate speculation and development that has led to the unmitigated disasters and subsequent evolution to desert-like conditions now underway in other states.