https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhjkemEyUo
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.)
>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.
I tell you h'what*
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.)
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...
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...
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