I appreciate the concise and carefully constructed layout of the situation facing Talent and its taxpayers. I am new to Talent, recently moved from Brookings on the coast and worked for Curry County for 5 years. I had to do some deep diving into County records a few times only to find that oops, they disappeared. The stories of corruption are rife. One story of County corruption garnered the local radio station KCIW an Award (2023)from Edward R. Morrow for its excellent reporting. Our best protection is reliable information, being involved and seeking the truth. Thank you for your efforts.
This article does a valuable job of describing the can of worms Talent faces regarding the Belmont railroad crossing and the questionable development of the land behind it. But the article barely mentions what I consider to be a most compelling argument against the development, namely the single ingress-egress point for that prospective residential neighborhood. Even if the crossing were a bridge over the tracks (such that vehicles could pass regardless of the presence of a train), there would still be an intolerable bottleneck of commuter traffic, morning and night, at that intersection. And in the case of a mass emergency, there might be a crush of 49 households trying to escape, blocking access for emergency vehicles trying to get in! The whole idea of a single access to so many homes is unreasonable, and must be taken into account.
You're right, it's a good argument against the development. But the fact remains that the City was compelled by LUBA to allow it to be built regardless of the single ingress/egress issue. Do you think the City did the right thing by refusing to move forward with the crossing upgrade, given that concern? Genuinely curious how people feel about that decision.
Thanks for the feedback, Brandi. In my opinion what's missing is the community impact -- what would this development do "for" or "to" Talent? As I see it, the development would add to our population, our traffic, our demand on public services, our vulnerabilities to natural emergencies, demands on our educational resources and emergency services, library and other social resources, and a lot that we can't anticipate in advance of its manifestation.
It's really challenging to anticipate the total impacts of such a major project in our community and to deal with the expected and unexpected effects on our community. Let's consider this proposed project with a broad perspective, recognizing everything it might mean for this community, and the long-term effects on our lifestyle.
Thank you for the clarification, Jim! I love a good healthy discussion. Your concerns are 100% valid. A city creates revenue by property taxes, building fees and surcharges on utilities. The city of Talent is small and any growth in this area is a win for the city and the residents. In my personal opinion, the city is too reliant on grand money and additional government handouts to survive. Adding 40 additional net new units with property values starting at 400k to 500k would be a huge win to filling those depleted city coffers. In regards to over burdening our public services, I don’t think it works that was as the developments pays impact fees, permit fees to cover any additional foreseen costs. Again, adding additional revenue from property taxes allows a city to expand and staff those needed services. Here’s my issue with this case…1. Arguments have been made about the one entrance / one exit, and the safety concern of it. Totally valid. However, the city has approved other higher density properties (within the last 5 years with the same problem) examples, Old Bridge (40+ units, with ADU’s 80+ homes. ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT.) Renaissance Flats. (75+ units, same issue) So, in my opinion based on precedence from the city. This argument holds zero water. 2. This property is also zoned to have homes built on it. If the city changed their minds on what they want to happen with it, they need to compensate appropriately for that property. Without this compensation, in my opinion this is an illegal land grab by the city to keep it as an undeveloped property. Or, hear me out, do an actual UNBIASED impact survey on what this would do to Talent. THEN, actually do a town hall with those results and get the residents feedback, then actually listen to those residents. Imagine if you purchased land to build on, that was zoned and approved, and the city told you to pound sand sticking you with the bill and a worthless piece of land only because people don’t want to lose their walking path or view of the mountains. I feel the city made decisions based off feelings and personal opinions 3. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, If the city of Talent loses this case, or settles in any way, who pays for it? No seriously, who pays for this? Will they put another line item on our utility bills and force the citizens of Talent to pay for it? Not just for this case, but for both of the upcoming lawsuits.
Thanks for responding, Brandi Hodgdon, and let me assure you that mine is a curious mind, too. I'm especially curious about how you can consider city revenue more important to our community than the lives, safety and security of our citizens?
Your item #1, the matter of an irrational single ingress-egress for a proposed 49 new homes, you dismiss as holding "zero water," based on the fact that the City has already twice violated this bit of common sense. It's as if you're saying that "I've walked across this four-lane highway without looking both ways -- indeed, I've done so twice -- and I haven't been hit yet; therefore it's obviously unnecessary to look both ways." I believe strongly that my argument holds water better than yours. I look both ways before crossing.
#2 -- the buyer paid an exhorbitant price ($3.2 million) in March of 2014 (see County records) for unirrigated farmland zoned RT (rural tract). Prior to that purchase, the Real Market Value of the property had been reduced by the County Assessor persuant to BOPTA ORDER #128, from $953,000 to $320,000, with the note: "Land is annexed to the City of Talent, but currently not developable; access issues." So it's clear that Tony and Tori Nieto made that purchase on speculation that someday "access issues" would go away, resulting in a handsome profit. There is no "land grab" on the part of the City in this case; it was a bad bet on the part of the buyer. As for public input, there has been plenty, including at least one open hearing.
#3 -- "Who pays for it?" The mistake was made by the Nietos, over 11 years ago. The land was "not developable" at that time, and it still is not, for the very same reason. The current owner, TALENT VIEW INVESTMENTS LLC, bears sole liability and must suffer whatever losses result, in my opinion.
UPDATE: The October 7th, 2025 trial date was issued a stay on the day before. As reported in the RV-Times by Tony Boom, this was for the possibility of reaching a settlement. Apparently a settlement was not reached as a new trial date has been set for pretrial on 1/5/26 and a twelve-person jury trial on 2/17/26–2/20/26. Interesting the other Michael Oxendine lawsuit for $350K against Talent for breach of contract and fraud, etc. is scheduled near that same time. Article by Buffy Pollock can be found on the RV-Times website.
I appreciate the concise and carefully constructed layout of the situation facing Talent and its taxpayers. I am new to Talent, recently moved from Brookings on the coast and worked for Curry County for 5 years. I had to do some deep diving into County records a few times only to find that oops, they disappeared. The stories of corruption are rife. One story of County corruption garnered the local radio station KCIW an Award (2023)from Edward R. Morrow for its excellent reporting. Our best protection is reliable information, being involved and seeking the truth. Thank you for your efforts.
This article does a valuable job of describing the can of worms Talent faces regarding the Belmont railroad crossing and the questionable development of the land behind it. But the article barely mentions what I consider to be a most compelling argument against the development, namely the single ingress-egress point for that prospective residential neighborhood. Even if the crossing were a bridge over the tracks (such that vehicles could pass regardless of the presence of a train), there would still be an intolerable bottleneck of commuter traffic, morning and night, at that intersection. And in the case of a mass emergency, there might be a crush of 49 households trying to escape, blocking access for emergency vehicles trying to get in! The whole idea of a single access to so many homes is unreasonable, and must be taken into account.
You're right, it's a good argument against the development. But the fact remains that the City was compelled by LUBA to allow it to be built regardless of the single ingress/egress issue. Do you think the City did the right thing by refusing to move forward with the crossing upgrade, given that concern? Genuinely curious how people feel about that decision.
I feel strongly that LUBA was wrong in this matter, and I admire the City's refusal to proceed.
The article misses a lot to be honest, kinda just feels like someone with an axe to grind trying to make their point.
What is it missing? Curious minds want to know.
Thanks for the feedback, Brandi. In my opinion what's missing is the community impact -- what would this development do "for" or "to" Talent? As I see it, the development would add to our population, our traffic, our demand on public services, our vulnerabilities to natural emergencies, demands on our educational resources and emergency services, library and other social resources, and a lot that we can't anticipate in advance of its manifestation.
It's really challenging to anticipate the total impacts of such a major project in our community and to deal with the expected and unexpected effects on our community. Let's consider this proposed project with a broad perspective, recognizing everything it might mean for this community, and the long-term effects on our lifestyle.
Thank you for the clarification, Jim! I love a good healthy discussion. Your concerns are 100% valid. A city creates revenue by property taxes, building fees and surcharges on utilities. The city of Talent is small and any growth in this area is a win for the city and the residents. In my personal opinion, the city is too reliant on grand money and additional government handouts to survive. Adding 40 additional net new units with property values starting at 400k to 500k would be a huge win to filling those depleted city coffers. In regards to over burdening our public services, I don’t think it works that was as the developments pays impact fees, permit fees to cover any additional foreseen costs. Again, adding additional revenue from property taxes allows a city to expand and staff those needed services. Here’s my issue with this case…1. Arguments have been made about the one entrance / one exit, and the safety concern of it. Totally valid. However, the city has approved other higher density properties (within the last 5 years with the same problem) examples, Old Bridge (40+ units, with ADU’s 80+ homes. ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT.) Renaissance Flats. (75+ units, same issue) So, in my opinion based on precedence from the city. This argument holds zero water. 2. This property is also zoned to have homes built on it. If the city changed their minds on what they want to happen with it, they need to compensate appropriately for that property. Without this compensation, in my opinion this is an illegal land grab by the city to keep it as an undeveloped property. Or, hear me out, do an actual UNBIASED impact survey on what this would do to Talent. THEN, actually do a town hall with those results and get the residents feedback, then actually listen to those residents. Imagine if you purchased land to build on, that was zoned and approved, and the city told you to pound sand sticking you with the bill and a worthless piece of land only because people don’t want to lose their walking path or view of the mountains. I feel the city made decisions based off feelings and personal opinions 3. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, If the city of Talent loses this case, or settles in any way, who pays for it? No seriously, who pays for this? Will they put another line item on our utility bills and force the citizens of Talent to pay for it? Not just for this case, but for both of the upcoming lawsuits.
Thanks for responding, Brandi Hodgdon, and let me assure you that mine is a curious mind, too. I'm especially curious about how you can consider city revenue more important to our community than the lives, safety and security of our citizens?
Your item #1, the matter of an irrational single ingress-egress for a proposed 49 new homes, you dismiss as holding "zero water," based on the fact that the City has already twice violated this bit of common sense. It's as if you're saying that "I've walked across this four-lane highway without looking both ways -- indeed, I've done so twice -- and I haven't been hit yet; therefore it's obviously unnecessary to look both ways." I believe strongly that my argument holds water better than yours. I look both ways before crossing.
#2 -- the buyer paid an exhorbitant price ($3.2 million) in March of 2014 (see County records) for unirrigated farmland zoned RT (rural tract). Prior to that purchase, the Real Market Value of the property had been reduced by the County Assessor persuant to BOPTA ORDER #128, from $953,000 to $320,000, with the note: "Land is annexed to the City of Talent, but currently not developable; access issues." So it's clear that Tony and Tori Nieto made that purchase on speculation that someday "access issues" would go away, resulting in a handsome profit. There is no "land grab" on the part of the City in this case; it was a bad bet on the part of the buyer. As for public input, there has been plenty, including at least one open hearing.
#3 -- "Who pays for it?" The mistake was made by the Nietos, over 11 years ago. The land was "not developable" at that time, and it still is not, for the very same reason. The current owner, TALENT VIEW INVESTMENTS LLC, bears sole liability and must suffer whatever losses result, in my opinion.
What a weird "article" and take on this issue...
What makes it weird?
UPDATE: The October 7th, 2025 trial date was issued a stay on the day before. As reported in the RV-Times by Tony Boom, this was for the possibility of reaching a settlement. Apparently a settlement was not reached as a new trial date has been set for pretrial on 1/5/26 and a twelve-person jury trial on 2/17/26–2/20/26. Interesting the other Michael Oxendine lawsuit for $350K against Talent for breach of contract and fraud, etc. is scheduled near that same time. Article by Buffy Pollock can be found on the RV-Times website.