Oregon Insanity, could this be true?

Someone sent this to me this morning and I haven't been able to confirm its validity.  If it is true it might require a trip for public comment on my part.

UPDATE:  Thank you all for your comments on this post, but PLEASE understand 1) LCDC has not authorized staff to prepare rules on this proposal - that will be considered in their upcoming meeting on November 18-19, and 2) Even if LCDC authorizes Staff to prepare rules, THE NEW RULES WON'T APPLY TO EXISTING DWELLINGS, only new ones!

Farmers beware!  The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon's state land use planning agency, is considering a proposal that would require farmers to remove their homes if they cannot meet the income levels needed to put the home on the property in the first place.  
Oregon is the only state in the US to require farmers to meet income thresholds before building a farmhouse on the property.  In Oregon, a farmer must make $80,000 in farm sales for two years in a row before being allowed to build a farm house on the farm.  
Under this new proposal, DLCD would be able to demand that a farmer demolish a home if the farmer no longer meets the income levels that were met to get approval to build the home.  In other words, if a farmer has a down year and does not make $80,000 in farm income, DLCD wants to be able to demand that the farmer tear down the house!  Needless to say, this is nuts!
The new proposal is in the early stages and has not been drafted, but will be discussed by LCDC at their upcoming meeting on November 18-19.  Let's hope they rethink this idea before it ever gets off the ground.

Something similar seems to be brewing in UK

Few things would make me leave a state sooner than draconian laws like that.

BC takes a different approach, and not as draconian.

We have what are called "farm taxes" which are *much, much* lower than "municipal property taxes". They are based on income before many expenses are deducted, so a moderate operation, for example, use space for a couple of cow/calf pairs with the calves being sold when market ready at 2 per year, and you're there. If you have a bad year, you might have to pay more in property tax, but you certainly wouldn't loose your home. You may rent out land for hay or to market gardeners and this is also allowed. They are tightening up on this rule because people keep buying farmland, putting up a McMansion, and having a just large enough chicken flock with a run to make the lower limit. So I do get where the Dept of Making us Sad is coming from.

So Robert, particularly with this being the beginning, I'd try to write a *very* informative and positive proposal about how a permaculture property that might not sell a lot of market goods, is building soil, reducing the owners global footprint and energy footprint. When we applied for farm taxes, it seemed that "preserving a healthy forest" wasn't considered using the land as "farmland", but this narrow point of view, doesn't consider that a forested area upslope of our field is supporting both surface water and our well water. People don't know this stuff - water comes out of a pipe and is treated with chlorine or it's not safe, doncha know? See yourself as an educator. Get other people in your ecosystem to help you generate ideas (this thread could be your "drafting area" if you want) and I strongly encourage you to focus on the "this is how you meet those goals in a healthy planet way", rather than in anger/how dare you do such a thing sort of way.

I did a similar thing with what our province calls the "OCP - Official Community Plan" which is pushing building more houses at a higher density, when we have no Family Doctors for our existing population and *no* food security. I sent them a letter stating all the things I could think of that would reduce the carbon footprint of our Municipality, and the feedback I got was, "wow - positive suggestions instead of just complaining". That means that at least it got noticed. Good luck!

I am skeptical at best. If nothing has been drafted, it sounds like, maybe, one person came up with an idea and had it put on the meeting agenda.

I agree, it seems to be in the formulative stage so there will be plenty of time for public comment in the future.

Robert Ray wrote:I agree, it seems to be in the formulative stage so there will be plenty of time for public comment in the future.

I bounced around at the DLCD website but was unable to find any obvious discussions at this point.  Robert R, if you catch wind of this again and can locate a link to a draft of this proposal, could you please post it here.....sounds like something many rural dwellers would like to know about.  Thanks!

Did the same thing and could find no supporting documentation so far. Oregon Land Use in some cases I agree with and others not so much. Dissapointed in how LUBA handles some issues.

There seems to be some additional 'insanity' in OR: Oregon initiative would ban animal slaughter, breeding

Howdy,

Oregon has enough "idahoiots" already...

https://ktvl.com/news/local/greater-idaho-movement-expect-to-see-initiative-petition-on-may-ballot

And yet more:
https://www.wildcoastcompass.com/oregon-lawmaker-proposes-outlawing-of-diesel-fuel-in-oregon/

This one killed me too:
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/#:~:text=Mats%20sued%20the%20board%20in%202017%2C%20asserting%20that,and%20from%20describing%20himself%2C%20truthfully%2C%20as%20an%20%E2%80%9Cengineer.%E2%80%9D

I'm ok with them phasing out CAFO's: Animal cruelty, environmental disasters, and bad food for people.  I buy from an ethical humane meat producer. I want to support that.
JohN S
PDX OR

John, we buy our beef from a local source as well avoiding the use of CAFO's. From an environmental standpoint I think so much more could be done with generated waste.
  Scheduling with the local processors this last year was a challenge this year, months out from initial contact.
 Seriously though, artificial insemination of a stock animal a sexual assault?
The impact on freight into Oregon with the elimination of diesel fuel. Farmer's use of equipment? Maybe it will force a permaculture shift.

I always like it when someone who actually has been involved in the industry talks to  the regulators and figures out what actually needs to be banned, what can just be changed or adjusted, and what should be left alone.  I know diesel creates a lot of particulate exhaust, and hundreds of thousands of extra people die from exhaust each year, but how can it be changed so that business can continue to provide useful services?

John S
PDX OR