Oregon buys more trees, less education

I’m no economist, but I think they’d call this a violation of the law of diminishing marginal utility:

The Elliott Forest package, part of Gov. Kate Brown’s effort to keep the forest under state ownership, drew the ire of local legislators. Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, said he wasn’t happy about it.

“Quite honestly, it’s a gift to the environmental community, who would prefer we never cut another tree,” Kruse said.

He also said adding in the $100 million in bonds meant taking away bond dollars from universities and community colleges, including UCC, whose share for its Industrial Arts Building dropped from a requested $10 million to $8.1 million.

The Elliott Forest had been up for sale until Brown introduced her most recent plan to keep it under public ownership. Lone Rock Resources and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians had offered $220.8 million for it. The land was originally set aside to generate timber revenues for the Common School Fund.

Rep. Dallas Heard, R-Winston, said it made no sense to sell bonds to pay for land the state already owns.

“That’s the single dumbest thing we could do,” he said.

Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Oregon buys more trees, less education

  1. Salty says:

    “Rep. Dallas Heard, R-Winston, said it made no sense to sell bonds to pay for land the state already owns.”
    Ok, good, I just commented on this in another uomatters post, but this is the same basic conclusion I’ve come to with the info I’ve got at the moment. Why sell the golden goose just because it is only laying copper eggs? Timber is a renewable resource and a long term source of income for this state. Let’s not make hasty, short sighted decisions.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.