
We accept advertising through Blogads. If you're interested, click the "Advertise here" link above, or go here to place your ad through Blogads. For assistance, e-mail me here; I'd be glad to help. Reach lots of viewers -- we're up to about 2,900 unique visits a day, and more than 53,000 page views a week (as of October 4). Our rates are dirt cheap for the exposure you'll get!
Robert Mondavi Solaire, Cabernet 2005
Castello Monaci, Liante, Salice Salentino 2006
Ricardo Santos, Malbec 2006
Quinta da Espiga, Tinto 2006
Charles Smith, Holy Cow Merlot 2006
Charles Smith, Boom Boom Syrah 2006
Charles Smith, The Honorable Pinot Gris 2007
Santa Rita, Cabernet Reserva 2005
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2007
Gloria, Douro, Tinto 2002
Bogle, Petite Sirah Port, Clarksburg 2005
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Noir 2004
Silkwood, Red Duet Cabernet-Syrah 2004
Portuga, Vinho Branco 2006, 2007
Osborne, Solaz 2004
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Reserva 2005
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill, Shiraz Cabernet 2006
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2004
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Merlot, Horse Heaven Hills 2004
Hannah Nicole, Red 2004
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2005
Protocolo, Red 2005
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2006
Portuga, Vinho Branco 2006
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1998
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1996
Kirkland, Roogle Shiraz 2004
Garda, Classico Chiaretto
A to Z, Oregon Pinot Gris 2005
I Giusti & Zanza, Nemorino 2006
Treana, Marsanne-Viognier, Central Coast 2005
Fife, Syrah, "Stanford" 2000
B.R. Cohn, Silver Label Cabernet 2005
Marques de Casa Concha, Cabernet 2005
Santi, Sortesele Pinot Grigio 2006
Al Muvedre, Tinto Joven 2006
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2006
Gritti, Ca' Andrea, Umbria red 2005
Altos de Luzon, Jumilla 2004
Thomas Leithner, Zweigelt 2004
Cain Cuvee NV 3
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Merlot 2003
Meridian, Sauvignon Blanc 2005
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2003
Paringa, Shiraz 2005
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2005
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2003
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2005
Kris, Pinot Grigio 2006
Silvan Ridge, Pinot Gris 2006
Fife, Mendocino Syrah, "Stanford" 2000
Castle Rock, Cabernet, Paso Robles 2005
Willakenzie, Pinot Gris 2006
The Show, Cabernet 2005
Essencia Valdemar, Rioja Rose 2006
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Merlot, Horse Heaven Hills 2004
Beaulieu Vineyard. Napa Valley Cabernet 2004
Irony, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2003
Rosenblum, Petite Sirah, Heritage Clones 2005
Fra Guerau, Montsant 2002
Barefoot Chardonnay
Kana, Syrah 2004
Castell Salegg, Chardonnay, Alto Adige 2004
Fetish, The Watcher Shiraz 2004
Gold Note, Fair Play Zinfandel 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Canoe Ridge Estate Cabernet 2003
Ponzi, Pinot Noir 2004
Red Diamond, Merlot 2003
Mateus, Rose
Benton Lane Pinot Noir 2004
Penya Cadiella Vins de Comtat 2003
Kamiak, Cellar Select Red 2003
Anselmi, San Vincenzo 2005
Rubrato, Aglianico dei Feudi di San Gregorio 2004
Le Grand Noir (Black Sheep) Cabernet-Shiraz
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2005
Los Vascos, Cabernet, Reserve 2004
Jackaroo, Shiraz 2003
Paul Jaboulet Aine, Crozes Hermitage Syrah, "La Jalet," 2001
Paul Jaboulet Aine, Cotes du Rhone, "Parallele '45,'" 2003
Rolf Binder, Barossa Valley Shiraz 2003
Oyster Bay, Sauvignon Blanc 2006
Woodbridge Chardonnay 2005
Barnard & Griffin, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2004
Quinto do Carmo, Alentejano Red 2000
Forefathers, Alexander Valley Cabernet 2001
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Miles run year to date: 28
At this date last year: 102
Total run in 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (13)
I especially like the quote at the very end of the article:
"Your right to a fist ends where my nose begins."
It almost (but not quite) makes me wish I had focused on land use law instead of patents.
Posted by hilsy | January 6, 2005 1:25 PM
This article just illustrates the problem with all these folks who think they should be able to do whatever they want on their property or else be compensated. What happens on your property affects your neighbor's ability to use her property. There was a reason Oregon adopted land use planning back in the dark ages. We wanted the whole state to be liveable for the whole population. That meant and still should mean some sacrifices.
Posted by grumpyhippy | January 6, 2005 4:44 PM
How quaint. Kind of like the Geneva Conventions, I guess.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 6, 2005 5:02 PM
Yeah, I just moved here and I can see I will be moving to Alaska someday. Not that there aren't the same jackasses in Alaska, but at least they are spaced farther apart.
Posted by felixrayman | January 6, 2005 11:27 PM
Just love those folks who would turn down 57 million dollars in new development...and 800 new houses in a state that claims it lacks affordable housing...and force a family to keep growing pears at a loss
with government like that, you don't need Osama
lars
Posted by Lars | January 7, 2005 7:51 AM
How dare that family not continue growing pears at a loss!
Don't they realize that by utilizing their property for development that they will be trampling all over our collective public easement to watch them harvesting pears as we drive by?
Posted by PanchoPdx | January 7, 2005 8:45 AM
While Lars, as usual, goes for the hyperbole, he and PanchoPDX have a point. The reason this measure passed is that a reasonable concept, protection of agricultural land, was carried to a logical extreme, no new non-farm dwellings on land that might support a farm. The State LCDC tightened up already tight rules in 1994 with some new administrative rules, which by the way received no property owner notice at the time. Cue the horror stories played so prominently by the Measure 37 proponents. A simple rule that anyone with an existing legal lot could put one house on it would have defused enough of the outrage to prevent a Measure 37 from ever being passed, but the land use purists wouldn't allow it. And now we have Measure 37 to deal with.
Posted by Gordo | January 7, 2005 8:50 AM
As for Lars' specific comments, "$57 million dollars in new development" translates into a fiscal loss for local government if that development is residential. There have been numerous, numerous studies proving that point.
But when you're Lars and think that any government expenditures other than new freeways and prison cells is a waste, I guess you have a point.
Posted by Gordo | January 7, 2005 8:52 AM
One more comment in a series - the pear orchard may not get quite to 800 homes on it. While Mr. Pear Grower may have a zoning right to quarter-acre lots, the City of Hood River is under no obligation to provide the property with public sewer or water service. Which means that the entire site will be served by septic tanks and wells - which will effectively make lot sizes at least one or two acres.
If Mr. Pear Grower's proposal has any public health and safety impacts, such as to water quality from excessive septic systems, or water supply from excessive pumping, or traffic safety from excessive traffic on little rural roads, then he doesn't get to do what he wants either. He will have to limit the number of new lots and houses commensurately.
And finally, unless Mr. Hunnicutt, Lars, and all the other Measure 37 zealots are really selfish pigs feeding off the public trough in disguise, any neighbors of Mr. Pear Grower whose property values are devalued by his actions will have the ability to sue him for his misdeeds. Oregonians in Action wants to prevent this, apparently believing in socialism for their supporters, but not others.
Posted by Gordo | January 7, 2005 8:58 AM
Gordo,
Property owners feeling tertiary effects will only be able to sue if the their respective counties allow for such action. Not all counties allow for 3rd party suits.
Otherwise, I agree that overzealousness caused 37 to be passed. And, should anyone really be surprised since its precursor measure 7 passed?
Posted by hilsy | January 7, 2005 9:58 AM
If you don't want to lose money growing pears (or engaging in farming at all, for that matter), don't buy an orchard (or other farm property) in a rural community.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 7, 2005 12:56 PM
To have a claim that overrides SB 100, this family must have owned the property for over 32 years. It isn't like they invested with no idea of how to farm pears. They could not have run it at a loss for three decades.
Times have changed since 1973. The truth is that pears are cheaper to import than to grow. Maybe the owners could eke out a small profit if we ditched Oregon's minimum wage, but progressives will never consider that.
At the end of the day, a lot more people will benefit from the proposed development (farm owners, builders, construction workers, new home purchasers, increased tax base) than the current use (urbanites who like to drive by orchards).
Posted by PanchoPdx | January 11, 2005 9:41 AM
"Times have changed since 1973. The truth is that pears are cheaper to import than to grow. Maybe the owners could eke out a small profit if we ditched Oregon's minimum wage, but progressives will never consider that."
I grew up in the Rogue Valley, one-time pear capital of the world, or so they said. Pear production has gradually declined as a percentage of the economy, and acreage over the last decade or so has been cut 20 percent. A few years ago I saw former pear orchards paved over for residential areas, shopping areas, and senior assisted-living areas by which the Medford area has, with medical services, been reinventing a significant portion of its economic base.
A part of my soul regrets and will miss the land that nurtured it. But pears are more densely grown now. And I doubt a reduction in the minimum wage will help, as Chileans work for a day on less than Americans do an hour. Mind -- back in the day no small part of the labor was performed by migrant Mexicans. As recently as a decade ago, some of those little shanty-housing camps were still in use, as I used to see them on my bikerides over nearly every inch of that valley. (Bikerides, not camps, over all those inches or miles.)
I am actually glad that Medford has found a surer economic way to go forward than parts of the state. The ventures into medical industrial complex and senior care and living are better than half smart.
Posted by Sally | January 11, 2005 10:25 AM