JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
It is common for developers in Western Oregon to go into a fully-stocked stand of Douglas Fir and cut out the streets and lots. They get revenue from the logging, and leave scattered mature firs dotting the subdivision. These trees grew surrounded by their fellows, and because of the dense stand, no one tree was exposed to the full effect of high winds. They supported each other, and didn't have to develop a root system strong enough to resist being tipped over by the wind. Now, without the support of their fellows, they are vulnerable to "windthrow" and no matter which way they go, the housing density means they are likely to fall on a house.

Eventually, some clever attorney will succeed with a negligence claim against a developer. It will be fun to watch.
Oregon has laws that restrict forest land development outside growth boundaries.
 
True, but the development I'm talking about happens within the urban growth boundaries.
I clear cut ~10 acres of my forest, but left a strip of trees on the prevailing windward sides (west & SW) around my house. This has helped keep the wind down around my house, and provided shade. I've not had any conifers fall due to wind. A few hardwoods have fallen - as far as I can tell, because of rot.

That said, my remaining trees are on the upper side of a gully, so they have always had some wind against them - not all of it, because the trees that were clear cut were fairly tall, although they were on a lower ground, and did cut down on the wind somewhat. I can tell the difference in the wind between my property and the property upwind to the south, where they clear cut everything (except a few trees near the house and on the leeward side).
 
The biggest problem people have is being patient. I've been looking for the "right" hunting property for better than 10 years now. Still hasn't come up. But I'm not going to compromise. Buying a residential home requires even more patience and due diligence, but unfortunately far too many people buy on emotion rather than dispassionate, objective rationality. Every possible hazard, not just flood, fire, earthquake, proximity to health care, etc., but including quality of neighbors, has to be evaluated realistically. Think of compromises as risk: the more you compromise, the higher risk you will incur in that purchase.
 

Do not rely on others to rescue you. Make your own preps.
Well you know where this will lead now. Soon we will hear people there screaming for the law makers to "do something" and make this illegal. Can't be "fair" that some paid good money to protect what was theirs while others had nothing. I had LONG wondered why more did not have some set up to use their pool like this. Since so many homes in places like this have one. Have a power source and pump to use that pool water.
 
The biggest problem people have is being patient. I've been looking for the "right" hunting property for better than 10 years now. Still hasn't come up. But I'm not going to compromise. Buying a residential home requires even more patience and due diligence, but unfortunately far too many people buy on emotion rather than dispassionate, objective rationality. Every possible hazard, not just flood, fire, earthquake, proximity to health care, etc., but including quality of neighbors, has to be evaluated realistically. Think of compromises as risk: the more you compromise, the higher risk you will incur in that purchase.
You NAILED it! People buy something, little or no research. Then when they find out insurance is expensive because of where they chose to buy and or the way people around them vote? They start screaming its all the insurance Co's fault. Then they of course want tax payers to fix it for them.
 
This is a VERY old technique that works. Problem is kooks started in decades ago trying to stop it. Then when disaster strikes they scream climate change 🤬
 
On this topic, I recently received a letter notifying me of nonrenewal of my homeowners insurance from American National. It reads in part: "The Company made the business decision to cease writing Homeowners and Rental Owners Insurance in Oregon. This is not in response to any action on your part and is not intended to reflect negatively on your future insurability. We have also notified the Oregon Divisions of Financial Regulation of our decision."

I dumped them 18 months ago on my auto policies when they hit me with a 42% increase from the previous 6-month period. I went with Progressive for that. My agent indicated Progressive hasn't added the home product to Oregon yet, so he is looking elsewhere to cover me. Mine expires in a couple of weeks.
 
On this topic, I recently received a letter notifying me of nonrenewal of my homeowners insurance from American National. It reads in part: "The Company made the business decision to cease writing Homeowners and Rental Owners Insurance in Oregon. This is not in response to any action on your part and is not intended to reflect negatively on your future insurability. We have also notified the Oregon Divisions of Financial Regulation of our decision."

I dumped them 18 months ago on my auto policies when they hit me with a 42% increase from the previous 6-month period. I went with Progressive for that. My agent indicated Progressive hasn't added the home product to Oregon yet, so he is looking elsewhere to cover me. Mine expires in a couple of weeks.
Insurance Co's are in the market to make money. When a state makes it so they can no longer do that they just leave. Then most of the people who paid no attention to what their state has been doing get real mad at the insurance Co. :s0092:
 
Insurance Co's are in the market to make money. When a state makes it so they can no longer do that they just leave. Then most of the people who paid no attention to what their state has been doing get real mad at the insurance Co. :s0092:
No reason to get mad at an insurance company. Even when I got the 42% (attempted) rate hike. It's simply time to move along. I ended up paying less for my auto than I paid before the 42% increase. If they hadn't tried to completely rape me - say maybe an 8% increase - I probably wouldn't even have been looking around. In hindsight, they did me a favor. :D

It's easier to be mad at the State of Oregon. Sure. As a fairly conservative person, I find myself perpetually mad at the lunatics running this asylum. Especially with regards to gun control.
 
No reason to get mad at an insurance company. Even when I got the 42% (attempted) rate hike. It's simply time to move along. I ended up paying less for my auto than I paid before the 42% increase. If they hadn't tried to completely rape me - say maybe an 8% increase - I probably wouldn't even have been looking around. In hindsight, they did me a favor. :D

It's easier to be mad at the State of Oregon. Sure. As a fairly conservative person, I find myself perpetually mad at the lunatics running this asylum. Especially with regards to gun control.
This is like so many times when competition is great for those who buy. If there is a market where money can be made and competition is encouraged then people will be able to choose. What happens with much insurance is regulation. Both Fed and State. Many LOVE to hate on ins companies. So when law makers start telling voters they are going to "fix this" many will blindly cheer and vote for them. The norm of what happens is law makers make less competition and add more regulation. This then makes the cost rise. CA is a PRIME example of this at work. Voters really do get just what they ask for. They often then don't like it :s0092: Health Ins is another PRIME example of this. It is HEAVILY regulated and the regulation adds HUGE cost to it. Then the people who voted for it scream :s0092:
 
This is like so many times when competition is great for those who buy. If there is a market where money can be made and competition is encouraged then people will be able to choose. What happens with much insurance is regulation. Both Fed and State. Many LOVE to hate on ins companies. So when law makers start telling voters they are going to "fix this" many will blindly cheer and vote for them. The norm of what happens is law makers make less competition and add more regulation. This then makes the cost rise. CA is a PRIME example of this at work. Voters really do get just what they ask for. They often then don't like it :s0092: Health Ins is another PRIME example of this. It is HEAVILY regulated and the regulation adds HUGE cost to it. Then the people who voted for it scream :s0092:
I hear ya. Sadly, there is very little going on in Oregon that I voted for. I joke with my wife on election night that the news folks could just take my ballot and announce the winners as the ones I voted against, instead of waiting for results. If I was a Major League Voter, I would get DFA'd, because my batting average would be below .100. :( Doesn't stop me from trying. I would at least like them to understand there are SOME who disagree with them.
 
Insurance Co's are in the market to make money. When a state makes it so they can no longer do that they just leave. Then most of the people who paid no attention to what their state has been doing get real mad at the insurance Co. :s0092:
Very true. We found that out recently when looking for travelers' insurance. Since most American health insurance policies either won't cover overseas heathcare or force you to pay out-of-pocket and then attempt reimbursement upon return, travelers' insurance can be critical. There are at least a dozen potential companies that offer that insurance, but not in the State of Washington. Only found a couple available in Washington, and cost was incredibly high for the relatively short time period of travel. The State Insurance Commissioner created this negative insurance market and was no help, more a joke, absolutely useless.
 

Upcoming Events

New Classified Ads

Back Top