Google Maps isn't good for this one as it is off of a forest road. My understanding is that it is less than a mile from where you would park if you were to drive there.
Hopefully a non-profit that supports a group of monks would be motivated by more than just the bid with the highest amount of money, especially since they seem to have always allowed public access to the waterfall.
“The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.”
Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.
A lot of the Cascade range is basalt, and you don't need to cut down very far to expose it. A result is that most waterways in Oregon have revealed a lot of basalt around them, at least in the mountains.
Yep, there's a ton of it to be found especially in the Columbia River Gorge. For anyone not hip to Nick Zentner, allow me to introduce you to this national treasure...
Climbing on columnar basalt is interesting. Vantage / Frenchmans Coulee (2 hours or so east of Seattle) has a bit of a bad reputation but some of the routes are decent.
I've got some lovely basalt formation in my basement crawlspace. Evidently, the builder in the 1940s said "screw it" to excavating any further.
It also causes me grief digging fence posts or even a small hole for a plant.
... how is a comment observing the really cool basalt rock formations in the photo being downvoted? Most HN readers are (I'd assume) nerds, are we not allowed to nerd out about geography?
> Its owner, a nonprofit that supports a community of Benedictine monks, put it on the market earlier this year.
>The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.
>The listing worried fans of the natural wonder. But at the tail end of the legislative session this month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped in and approved $2.1 million to buy the falls and its surrounding land.
Zero chance this wasn't arranged in some capacity off record. The state doesn't "just" buy waterfalls without such plans being tacitly agreed to beforehand or at least deemed viable by people who "know things".
Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades, and nothing had happened, so they escalated. Here in California in east bay there are thousands of acres of land around Mt. Diablo that are held by a non profit trust because the state/parks department is too lazy to aquire it/don't have funds to manage it. The privately owned/managed land around Mt. Diablo is roughly equal in size to the state park it surrounds.
The East Bay Park district is the largest regional park system in the US, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to call them "lazy". There's an ongoing fight over whether they should prioritize improving/maintaining/restoring what they already have or acquiring new land.
>Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades
Third option:
Monks want to put up some minor tourist attraction, put in some parking and hand rails or engage in literally anything, doesn't really matter what since it's all invariably regulated near water. Bureaucrat who doesn't "get it" says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do XYZ first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford XZY, that would make this whole thing a nonstarter or defeat the point. Site languishes for a decade or two because while the subsequent bureaucrats may know what's right they can't necessarily ignore what the first guy said without sticking their necks way out. Eventually the monks find someone to help them out who gets the state to take it off their hands. Maybe they monks get a fair deal, maybe they're losing their ass, who knows.
This fact pattern is really common with redevelopment of eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.
This sort of cynical catastrophizing isn’t really helpful. If you have a concrete example that applies to this situation, please share it, instead of gesturing vaguely in the direction of “government bad.” (Buildings in prime locations aren’t equivalent.)
>This sort of cynical catastrophizing isn’t really helpful. If you have a concrete example that applies to this situation, please share it, instead of gesturing vaguely in the direction of “government bad.” (Buildings in prime locations aren’t equivalent.)
This has nothing to do with government and a lot more than nothing to do with sneering jerks who dismiss the potential for systemic failures and stupidity by handwaving it away as "catastrophizing" enabling the systems to produce exactly those sorts of failures. Any bureaucracy can screw up in the manner I'm describing, insurance, bankers, it's not just government.
Bad outcomes are very, very, very sticky because the people that rise to positions that could undo them don't get there by being disposed to such actions. Some non-standard organization (a bunch of monks who aren't pro RE developers) with a nonstandard situation are high on the list of places these failures will happen. They submit something to some agency and use the wrong words, some dude who doesn't see many of these cross his desk denies it on some grounds and you've just locked in a problem that's gonna cost a lot of money to undo and monasteries aren't typically engaging in the sort of high dollar economic activity where they can just fight through it knowing it'll be paid back later.
I'm not saying that's what happened here but this is exactly the kind of place it could happen.
>(Buildings in prime locations aren’t equivalent.)
There are old mills on the outskirts of town and then there are historic mills on the river on main street.
There are overgrown farmers fields and there are forests with waterfalls in them.
Drat! I was going to buy this and put the entrance to my secret lair behind the waterfall. I would have gotten away with it too if not for those darn kids!
I just want to remind everyone: Washington, Idaho and Oregon are terrible places to live.
In 2 of these states, it just rains all the time. You never ever want to visit these waterfalls, because you're perennially living in a waterfall. The local population is always depressed/suicidal. The only Oregonian of note got in trouble for that whole Nancy Kerrigan fiasco. And Washington is under the grip of Bezos and Gates. If you think Windows is bad ...
And Idaho, is, well, Idaho. There's a reason people doubt its existence.[1] It's because there is absolutely nothing of note there.
Texas is great! Lots of land. Number 1 in green energy. Go there.
30 years ago, listening to FM radio in the Seattle area (probably Marty Reimer on KMTT), the DJ was talking about the gorgeous weather we were experiencing and added “if you’re talking to folk down in California, be sure to let them know how gray and rainy it is”.
Yep, this is sooo true. Washington and Oregon are especially terrible. I tell you what, you're going to be sitting in traffic in Seattle just as much as you do in LA. And it's all very expensive. Texas is a much better decision.
Please move to Texas. Those of us who like waterfalls, are not suicidal, and who will accept beautiful nature in lieu of a functional state government appreciate you freeing the capacity for someone else.
That I don't get about the PNW is the property prices of places hours away from any economic center that pays well enough to justify them. Are that many people still working remote for FAANG that those prices can be justified?
I assume part of this is because there is a lot of national forest not that far from Portland, and aside from a few exceptions here and there you can't buy a piece for yourself. So if you do want your own piece of rural wilderness you have to buy farther way. And Portland does have millions of people, many of whom have the financial resources to buy a little chunk of their own paradise.
Personally I'd pay a solid chunk of change for a campsite size chunk of land on the east fork of the Sandy River near Mt. Hood, right where Nottingham Campground is. I'd never leave.
The meme is "<____> sucks, dont' go there." Traditionally spoken by a "local", in reference to stuff they love. It kinda/sorta makes sense in the broader culture of "locals define themselves by excluding others" left-coast parochialism. (I don't think HN is the correct place for it.)
Which is actually funny. And the "joke" is that the person who made the tier list is trying to "hide" the resorts they want to ski (Mt Rose., Mammoth, Kirkwood, Sugar Bowl, Alpine) from whoever's reading the blog post. While falsely "praising" the famous places in an effort to divert the crowds there. (The Reddit post is great b/c the author clearly communicates that they're being ridiculous.)
I think it originated in 1971, when OR governor Tom McCall famously said, "Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live." It wasn't meant as a joke, he was speaking in earnest. One of his ongoing themes was opposing growth for growth's sake and he helped pass the strict land-use policies that largely still exist. It has become a joke though, you will see "Welcome to Oregon, now go home" bumperstickers and such. And a quick way to get dirty looks at a party is to announce that you just moved here from California and can't believe how cheap the houses are.
Sort of. Phrasing varies, but at least for Idaho it's very common for people who live in Idaho to go on the internet and tell people how awful Idaho is and how you should absolutely not move there.
On a related note, for people who do move to Idaho, one of the things they are advised to do as soon as possible is get new license plates so that they're not constantly advertising the fact that they came from out-of-state.
Idaho has received a massive amount of immigration from other states and many people are unhappy about this.
What? This is absolute lunacy, I hope its sarcasm. It rains a decent amount but not all the time, summer in Oregon is absolutely beautiful and there's plenty of time to visit the waterfalls.
As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education, crime and homelessness are running wild, budgets are being cut (schools being permanently closed), we bought a waterfall. Thanks.
Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
Also 2 years back the teachers strike in November for funds that... weren't there... that was pretty damaging to my argument to get my kids out of private and into public (we ended up moving to WA in the end).
Paywalled but I remember hearing about that elsewhere. In a nutshell they started holding kids back if they don't pass the grade. Is that accurate?
Honestly seems smart. Letting kids pass even if they're failing does a disservice to everyone involved: the teachers who are trying to get through to them but can't, and the kids themselves who enter the adult world at a huge disadvantage.
There's more to it. It really sounds like it's worked well, at least at elementary age (which I can only assume is super important). The approach is based on:
- focus on "science of reading" approach for young children: "the key idea is that teaching strategies should align with a wide body of cognitive research on how young children learn to read. That research, amassed over decades, shows that in addition to a broad vocabulary, children need to understand phonics, or the relationship between letters and the sounds of spoken language."
- "Mississippi also made other changes, like investing in pre-K, and holding back third graders who cannot read well, one of its most debated policies."
- "raised academic standards and started giving each school a letter grade, A to F."
- "Mississippi also measures how much students progress toward proficiency. Schools get credit if students show improvement — and double credit for the improvement of students in the bottom 25 percent."
- "The Mississippi Department of Education sends literacy and math coaches into low-performing elementary schools, with the goal of teaching teachers, not children. And state officials vet and approve curriculum used by the vast majority of districts, unusual in a country that prizes local control of schools."
Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
Yeah this is the study people use when they want to rank Oregon 47/50
But as you mentioned it includes random things like “road safety” in the education rankings. 20 points of the “education” ranking are all “safety” related.
“WalletHub” may not be the best source of unbiased stats.
That said, Oregon does have education issues and there’s a lot we could do to improve. My understanding is that two of the big issues are high rates of absenteeism and short school years. These two come together to lead to less time in the classroom
Seems like reasonable use of public dollars (~$2.1M) to protect and preserve a public good as public land.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ddRk8RUzBfEd47ya7
It'd attract all sorts of billionaires to bid on it and make it unaffordable for the public.
(The story seems to be old though, so hopefully it did end up being sold to the public.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhjkemEyUo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSi17xJB1Sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjLO9ABKYU
>The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.
>The listing worried fans of the natural wonder. But at the tail end of the legislative session this month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped in and approved $2.1 million to buy the falls and its surrounding land.
Zero chance this wasn't arranged in some capacity off record. The state doesn't "just" buy waterfalls without such plans being tacitly agreed to beforehand or at least deemed viable by people who "know things".
Sometimes the government is forbidden from buying land but nothing stops an individual or charity.
Third option:
Monks want to put up some minor tourist attraction, put in some parking and hand rails or engage in literally anything, doesn't really matter what since it's all invariably regulated near water. Bureaucrat who doesn't "get it" says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do XYZ first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford XZY, that would make this whole thing a nonstarter or defeat the point. Site languishes for a decade or two because while the subsequent bureaucrats may know what's right they can't necessarily ignore what the first guy said without sticking their necks way out. Eventually the monks find someone to help them out who gets the state to take it off their hands. Maybe they monks get a fair deal, maybe they're losing their ass, who knows.
This fact pattern is really common with redevelopment of eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.
This has nothing to do with government and a lot more than nothing to do with sneering jerks who dismiss the potential for systemic failures and stupidity by handwaving it away as "catastrophizing" enabling the systems to produce exactly those sorts of failures. Any bureaucracy can screw up in the manner I'm describing, insurance, bankers, it's not just government.
Bad outcomes are very, very, very sticky because the people that rise to positions that could undo them don't get there by being disposed to such actions. Some non-standard organization (a bunch of monks who aren't pro RE developers) with a nonstandard situation are high on the list of places these failures will happen. They submit something to some agency and use the wrong words, some dude who doesn't see many of these cross his desk denies it on some grounds and you've just locked in a problem that's gonna cost a lot of money to undo and monasteries aren't typically engaging in the sort of high dollar economic activity where they can just fight through it knowing it'll be paid back later.
I'm not saying that's what happened here but this is exactly the kind of place it could happen.
>(Buildings in prime locations aren’t equivalent.)
There are old mills on the outskirts of town and then there are historic mills on the river on main street.
There are overgrown farmers fields and there are forests with waterfalls in them.
See what I'm getting at?
In 2 of these states, it just rains all the time. You never ever want to visit these waterfalls, because you're perennially living in a waterfall. The local population is always depressed/suicidal. The only Oregonian of note got in trouble for that whole Nancy Kerrigan fiasco. And Washington is under the grip of Bezos and Gates. If you think Windows is bad ...
And Idaho, is, well, Idaho. There's a reason people doubt its existence.[1] It's because there is absolutely nothing of note there.
Texas is great! Lots of land. Number 1 in green energy. Go there.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/221739400799965/posts/302745...
The idea (and it's a semi joke) is that it will discourage more people from coming so it doesn't get spoiled.
A bit like telling people some tiny restaurant isn't all that good, because if too many people eat there, you will never get a table again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrUu10MVvo4
I kid you not when I say it took over 20 minutes for me to drive one block to get on to the freeway. There was no accident or other problem.
I go to LA often. Seattle is way worse.
I tell you h'what*
Sounds like the perfect place for me, I love rain. If only the housing was more affordable though.
Personally I'd pay a solid chunk of change for a campsite size chunk of land on the east fork of the Sandy River near Mt. Hood, right where Nottingham Campground is. I'd never leave.
Another example of the meme style is this ski resort "tier" map: https://www.reddit.com/r/skiing/comments/1d96f93/my_tierlist...
Which is actually funny. And the "joke" is that the person who made the tier list is trying to "hide" the resorts they want to ski (Mt Rose., Mammoth, Kirkwood, Sugar Bowl, Alpine) from whoever's reading the blog post. While falsely "praising" the famous places in an effort to divert the crowds there. (The Reddit post is great b/c the author clearly communicates that they're being ridiculous.)
stop telling people to move here, I-35 just keeps getting worse
That's wild. I would have never guessed Oregon to be that low somehow. I could have seen some poor southern states maybe or West Virginia.
Wonder what data you found? I found https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho... and it's 40th with a downtrend. Not sure how reliable that is though.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
But wow... that is truly insane and worse than I could have imagined. If I had kids I wouldn't even consider raising them in Oregon schools.
Just for your curiosity - the remarkable progress in Mississippi really challenged my similarly held bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/mississippi-schools-tr...
Honestly seems smart. Letting kids pass even if they're failing does a disservice to everyone involved: the teachers who are trying to get through to them but can't, and the kids themselves who enter the adult world at a huge disadvantage.
- focus on "science of reading" approach for young children: "the key idea is that teaching strategies should align with a wide body of cognitive research on how young children learn to read. That research, amassed over decades, shows that in addition to a broad vocabulary, children need to understand phonics, or the relationship between letters and the sounds of spoken language."
- "Mississippi also made other changes, like investing in pre-K, and holding back third graders who cannot read well, one of its most debated policies."
- "raised academic standards and started giving each school a letter grade, A to F."
- "Mississippi also measures how much students progress toward proficiency. Schools get credit if students show improvement — and double credit for the improvement of students in the bottom 25 percent."
- "The Mississippi Department of Education sends literacy and math coaches into low-performing elementary schools, with the goal of teaching teachers, not children. And state officials vet and approve curriculum used by the vast majority of districts, unusual in a country that prizes local control of schools."
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...
But as you mentioned it includes random things like “road safety” in the education rankings. 20 points of the “education” ranking are all “safety” related.
“WalletHub” may not be the best source of unbiased stats.
That said, Oregon does have education issues and there’s a lot we could do to improve. My understanding is that two of the big issues are high rates of absenteeism and short school years. These two come together to lead to less time in the classroom