Santa Barbara or Oregon Coast ??

Bob13 · Coal Joined: Dec 30, 2007 Posts: 1

Which one do you think is better located to endure peak oil? I am thinking Santa Barbara will require less a/c and heat. I am not sure of their water situation. I am not sure if the Oregon coast is too wet to grow crops. Also, is the Oregon coast livable without heat?

thuja

What kind of situation on the Oregon Coast? Town, back country?

It stays wet and cool year round and it gets into your bones so you need lots of warmth. It is also traditionally economically depressed...but...

its beautiful, lots of firewood, elk, fish, rain, you can grow crops...dairy farms, low pop. density...

I would never live in Santa Barbara for one main reason... worsening drought...

mmasters

While the Pacific Northwest is one of the more popular places mentioned on the board I don't think enough consider the fact that it's geologically one of the world's most dangerous places. Cali isn't much better off either...

joeltrout

I would have to pick the Oregon coast. I live in Los Angeles and all of southern California has the same problem including Santa Barbara, lack of water and expensive real estate.

My grandfather lives in Medford, OR which is located in the southwest part of Oregon. They receive cold weather but not anything like the surrounding mountains that most people think of Oregon. Medford is lucky if they receive snow and in the summer it can get hot and dry. He lives in a farming community and there are many fruit trees, vegetables, etc... grown year around. Some of the best strawberries ever.

As long as you dont live in the mountains of Oregon, you wont freeze. And if you move inland a few hundred miles you dont even have to worry about too much rain. If anything you have to worry about to little rain during the dry months. Oregon is a great place to live and more people know about farming, hunting, etc.. than in southern california. If you have to be on the coast, Brookings or Gold Beach are great little towns near the California border.

Good luck.

Joeltrout
_________________
ENERGY is the basis of our industrial civilization and sustains our standard of living. It is the foundation stone of our national wealth. A nation starved of energy.....will be a nation of starving people.

timmac · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 136

What about Eastern Oregon, any one ever consider this area, land is low priced, how ever does it get very cold in this area..

dunewalker

Santa Barbara was a veritable garden of eden back in the Jesuit Mission days. However, the main consequence of peak oil is hordes of desperate people. Santa Barbara not only has an abundance of people, but is on one of the main routes of escape from the Los Angeles basin, home to possibly 10 million or so. An excellent illustration of this horrible concept is "The Parable Of The Sower" by Octavia Butler, the story of refugees making their way north from LA after things get rough. I'd choose the Oregon coast over Santa Barbara, but only if those were the only two choices.
_________________
"I believe that a wise Vermonter lives more by lack of expense rather than from income."--some Dartmouth professor from across the river

bobaloo · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 464

The Oregon coast (southern) is great if you don't have any need to make money. It's pretty much a 3d world environment, a few business owners making big bucks selling trinkets to the tourists, lots of people working temporary part time minimum wage jobs working for them. Like most places with few people, there's a reason there's few people, unfortunately. The Coast Range would be a great place if you didn't need to work, mild year round climate and 12 months of gardening. Rainfall varies from spot to spot, depending on the rain shadow. One place might get 60 inches of rain and 2 miles away they might get 120 inches per year. There's areas that get over 200 inches per year.

Eastern Oregon is great if you can handle the cold weather, but it's mainly country where you need 40-80 acres to run one cow. It's high desert, sage and juniper. Very, very low population density because it takes a LOT of land to make a living off it. There are areas that get more rain and have pine trees and grass, but you have to really research the area. Lots of land in Christmas Valley for sale on Ebay. That land was homesteaded in the early 1900's, the homesteaders lasted a couple of years and then moved away because even with free land they couldn't make a go of it. That area gets 8 inches or so of rain per year, not enough to grow any crops, and the subterranean water table is dropping like a rock. Even if you buy land, you don't necessarily get the right to drill a well and use the water, you need a water right which you probably won't get.

We ended up on the edge of the Willamette Valley, in a fairly remote area. Plenty of water, nice climate, but too expensive these days. We bought 20 years ago for maybe 10 percent of what land goes for now. Wish we weren't so close to population centers, but on the other hand I can walk out my back yard into woods and pretty much stay in forest all the way to the Canadian border, it's pretty wild once you get out of town. On the other hand, I am able to find a good job and make a living, which I could not as easily do in the other areas.

pstarr

I live 100 miles south of Oregon on the California coast, 260 miles north of San Francisco. I have to agree with what everyone said. It's paradise but without a lot of employment. Good if you can find the work or can afford to bugout/retire.

Where I live on Humboldt Bay will be a great place post peak. Eureka/Arcata is a complete little city about 75,000 people surrounded by intact Redwood forest and very rugged mountains. Nno towns, no nothing for 100 miles in all directions. Closest city 100 miles by car. A real deep sea harbor for a big fishing fleet, dairy industry. Mild climate and water all year.
_________________
director

ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap wav

Stratovarius · Heavy Crude Joined: Nov 17, 2006 Posts: 435

Is there a mountain range that divides Oregon? I'm guessing you should simply stay away from the leeward side of the mountains since it will be very dry which is never a good thing.

dunewalker

I agree with pstarr about the current situation of Humboldt Bay area, having lived there for more than 20 years. However, post-peak is an entirely different story. So much for the deep harbor/large fishing fleet when the fish stocks are decimated. Feed 75,000? Nice dairy farms yes--feed 75,000? Agricultual potential? Potatoes do well, so do snow peas. Feed 75,000? Community organization is excellent though, especially on the north end of the bay (60's by the sea). Just too many people/too little food potential.
_________________
"I believe that a wise Vermonter lives more by lack of expense rather than from income."--some Dartmouth professor from across the river

Ludi

pstarr

pstarr

dunewalker

pstarr, I admit to not being an expert on "agroeconomics". However, I am aware, as you are, that the industrial level of food production you refer to at present is possible with cheap oil energy. I suppose that with 75,000 folks turned out in the fields, barns, gardens, shores, it still would be possible. We'll see.
_________________
"I believe that a wise Vermonter lives more by lack of expense rather than from income."--some Dartmouth professor from across the river

Ludi