Oceanside boycotts its Anchor
Oceanside, Ore. – The boycott began as any successful one does. A small number of particularly verbal people drew the attention of many, and the whispers turned into a rallying cry.
Today, two years after troubles began brewing, 50 percent of the community has joined forces, sporting black-and-white boycott signs and bumper stickers in unified defiance. Last week, even the Oregonian trekked out to this tiny coastal enclave to report on all the fuss.
But first, the facts:
• In 2004, a developer by the name of Steve Camden, from Bellevue, Wash., decided to add a story to the Anchor Tavern on the main drag, which would block a large portion of the ocean view from the Prices and Steeles houses, perched directly behind it.
• A small number of concerned community members protested, and managed to negotiate the proposed 10 extra rooms (Camden was converting the building into an Inn) down to 5.
• In early 2005, Camden went ahead and built the extra story anyway, staying within the legal limit of 36 feet tall (it is, according to some, 35.5 feet high).
• The community began to protest, first at county level, and now at state level as they prepare to take their case to the Land Use Board of Appeals. In the meantime, they have launched a noisy “Boycott the Anchor” campaign.
• In July 2006 Camden sold the Anchor to another developer, Sam Piskorski, for $1.7 million, who has since introduced $1.99 “Boycott Burgers” to his menu and a sign that welcomes anyone who owns a boycott sign.
Driving into this quiet beach community of 326, the signs are impossible to miss. Not that they are large – they are simply everywhere. Some houses sport four or five of the black-and-white signs, and several cars and front doors boast the bumper sticker, “You won’t see me at the Anchor.”
But Piskorski, a 43-year-old divorced father of 3, says he will only remove the third floor if someone else foots the bill – which he puts at $700,000, less than he estimates he’d lose in the long run by not having those extra rooms.
Many in the community are quick to point out how friendly Piskorski is. The businessman grew up poor in Poland, fled at age 18, and made his own way in Las Vegas and then Portland through what he calls nothing but hard, hard work. He gets sympathy for his plight – but still, as so many have told us, when Piskorski bought the Anchor, he bought the problem.
Several members of the community were willing to speak with us about the hullabaloo, but most on condition of anonymity. Most just want the issue over. One woman says she wishes she would win the lottery so she could pay the $700,000 and be done with the boycott.
Piskorski himself anticipates that the community will grow tired of fighting and footing the legal bills. He even says new signs that read “Boycott the Anger” are popping up, though we couldn’t find any. If the boycott does not subside, however, Piskorski says he will be forced to sell – and it will likely go to a wealthy developer who will throw the money at an attorney to “make the boycott go away.”
After investigating the concerns of Oceanside residents, the real issue at hand is clear.
Oceanside is a relic, a quaint reminder of a bygone era when main street housed the post office, the tavern, and the community center. Come here and you have stepped back in time. There are no chain restaurants here. There isn’t even a grocery store. Everybody knows everybody else.
The raising of the Anchor has been a sign to people here of things to come. The boycott is not only a message of unity, but also a plea for preservation. In some ways Piskorski’s role is but a small one; if not him, then surely someone else.
Unless that boycott is successful at keeping the business away. As it stands now, only time will tell.
Posted by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore on Monday, September 18th, 2006 | Email This PostThis entry was posted on Monday, September 18th, 2006 at 11:15 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
15 Responses to “Oceanside boycotts its Anchor”
Leave a Reply
NOTE: Please submit your comment only once. It will have to be approved by the administrator before it is posted.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Hi Elizabeth and James,
I enjoyed talking to you and think you did a good job on the story. One correction: the building height is 37.5 feet, the limit is 35 feet. There is disagreement over the legality of the height because of the way it is measured–the average height of the different grade levels on each side, front, and back.
I’m glad you talked to the Prices!
Happy travels!
MARY
September 19th, 2006 at 11:13 am
I am frequent visitor to Oceanside and support of the efforts of the Oceanside Community to maintain their liveability. When Tillamook County Planners and an unscrupulous developer decide to ignore/stretch/bend the rules then it is not unreasonable to expect the Community to rally. I am sure that Sam Piskorski is a nice fellow but it makes me wonder how a Real Estate Investor could spend $1.7 million dollars without investigating the land use/planning issues and just expect it all to disappear because he is such a “good guy”. I agree with your assessment that Oceanside is a “relic, a quaint reminder of a bygone era”. I only hope that this treasured area will be preserved for all future generations. Good luck on your great adventures!
September 19th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
These small town “hullabaloos” as you put it remind me of how important civic connection is to civic pride and responsibility. These folks seem embroiled but are showing their cards not by blowing each other up but by civil and legal maneuvering. It\’s good to see folks in Oceanside still respect each other enough to fight by the rules.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Having visited this wonderful town, where my parents spent the early days of retirement, I say “Keep up the fight” to the residents of Oceanside. We live ourselves in a small seaside community in Southern California that has seen what ‘mansionization’ can do, we applaud you. Good luck.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
The story is well written and does capture the feelings and understanding of some involved. Being involved in this stand against Tillamook County has been frustrating to say the least. But what may be even more frustrating is how those who have not been involved from the beginning often look upon this.
This is a stand against Tillamook County. Sam Piskorski (the current Anchor owner) wants outsiders to pity him for the community’s boycott. This is a similar tactic that the original owner/”re”builder used. Both men have made poor business decisions. The previous owner Steve Camden, who actually completely rebuilt the facility, made a poor business decision. He purchased a business for more than it was worth. He claimed that he needed to expand in order to survive. He claimed that the regulations in place were unfair. If Steve Camden failed to do his homework before he made his purchase, then he should have been forced to pay the consequences.
Regulations were and will continue to remain in place to maintain Oceanside. Whether or not Tillamook County will enforce those regulation has yet to be seen. In this matter it will most likely be left to the Land Use Board of Appeals for the final outcome. Regardless, unfortunately for the community, Tillamook County did not prevent Steve Camden from rebuilding his establishment above and beyond the zoning regulations. To this day the building operates without a legal facilities permit.
Now like Steve Camden, Sam Piskorski claims that he is being treated unfairly. I do not know Sam personally; whether or not he is a “good person” has no bearing on the matter. This is not a popularity contest. This is a stand against Tillamook County. Then why the boycott?? This is an establishment that is operating wrongfully. It should not be open. Tillamook County is painfully aware of the boycott in Oceanside and the position of the majority of the community members. This boycott sends a message to Tillamook County that reckless abandon of community developed zoning regulations for the benefit of the County’s tax base will not go without political and legal appeal.
Sam’s business decision should not be confused with who he is. If Sam truly wanted to make Oceanside his home and wanted the community to embrace him, why would he purchase the most controversial piece of property in the area? If Sam truly believes that this entire matter is about who is good, bad, nice or mean, then he is in for a major disappointment.
Please support the community’s stand against Tillamook County. Whether or not the current owner made a poor business is not in question, it is a fact. The current owner’s persona has no relevance; this is a matter of Tillamook County upholding the community’s comprehensive plan. Tillamook County needs to know that it must answer to the community’s desires not a few businessmen.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Mary’s statement about the height of the Anchor, measured at it’s highest point above lowest grade, may be correct. However the building does meet County zoning height ordinances since for that purpose height is computed by calculating the average height the building relative to the average grade at the base of each exterior wall. But this fact does little to comfort the neighbors whose beautiful ocean views have been partially blocked.
But Anchor has moved on, Steve Camden has moved on, the appellate process is moving forward, but the Oceanside community has not moved on. After almost two years of controversy the boycott signs remain, a mean spirited vestige of an earlier battle that has moved on to a formal legal process.
The new owner of the Anchor has demonstrated good faith in trying to work with the members of the Oceanside community, taking all of the actions he promised to minimize impact on the community. Yet the signs remain. Fortunately he has a sense of humor; he sells ‘Boycott Burgers’ for two bucks.
At this point the signs only serve to hurt Sam, the new owner of the Anchor. The remaining grievances the community has concerning the Anchor are being pursued through a legal process that is moving forward. The boycott signs no longer have any influence on that legal process nor any direct impact on the approval processes, previous owner or County staff on which the community blames the problems.
Most of us whom call Oceanside home are here for the beauty and peaceful and friendly environment. The boycott signs, at this point, do not contribute to those qualities we all love so much. In fact they create an environment that is completely at odds with the reasons why many of us live here.
For the sake of the community it would be a more positive expenditure of time and effort to focus all that tremendous energy into crafting a vision for Oceanside of the future. The Oregon Coast is changing and we can help guide that process to help preserve the qualities we all treasure. Through proactive and strategic efforts we may be able to avoid future Anchors.
It is time for the community to look to the future and work together for our mutual benefit. I hope others will join me in encouraging our friends and neighbors to take down the boycott signs.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Steve Macartney:
So you believe in rolling-over for developers with deep-pockets and for incompetent Tillamook County Commissioners? Money ALWAYS wins - wouldn’t it be nice if for ONCE the RIGHT side won? As Chris Butler stated, we are not responsible for the poor business decisions of others. Camden knew he was working the system and that there was risk. He probably laughed all the way to the bank when Piskorski bought the place. WHY SHOULD WE BACK DOWN AND BE LEFT WITH THE MONSTROSITY A SLEAZY DEVELOPER GOT AWAY WITH?! The signs will stay up at our house Mr. Macartney. If you don’t mind developers raping the countryside for a buck, why don’t you “move on”!
N Panzer
Oceanside visitor for over 35 years & granddaughter of long-time residents
October 10th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Below is a letter to the editor that was published by the Oregonian on October 10, 2006 that may help clarify this situation. If you would like to read more about this subject, please click on the link in the body of this story “Boycott The Anchor.”
Thank you,
C. Swinford
Recently, we have heard Mr. Piskorski argue that Oceanside should not boycott the Anchor Tavern because it is unfair to him. The boycott signs were in place when Mr. Piskorski chose to buy the building. He chose to overpay for the building and to hope that once Oceanside saw that the tavern was owned by a more reasonable person, everyone would forget the underlying land use issues.
It is widely believed in Oceanside that Tillamook County is not capable of enforcing the Oceanside Zoning Plan. An unenforced zoning plan is equivalent to no zoning. This is a direct threat to the character of the town and each home owners’ property values. Part of what makes Oceanside real estate expensive is that the town is unique. The town will not be unique if Tillamook County fails to enforce the town’s zoning rules.
I am sorry Mr. Piskorski chose to step into the middle of this battle, but it was not realistic to hope that everyone would drop their concerns based solely on a change in ownership. This legal battle, like most, is being fought on many levels. The owners of the tavern have repeatedly engaged in tactics which drove up the legal costs of their opponents. It makes no sense for Oceanside residents to patronize that tavern and have their own money used against them.
David VanSpeybroeck
Portland, OR
November 18th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Yikes - what a story. I also feel sorry for the two residents whose views were affected.
I have to ask, were they asleep during the public hearing, initial permit development and construction phase? It seems like these people who had the most to loose, and did.
Did they not see during framing, roofing and finishing that this process was proceeding with all necessary permits and that this would be their new view?
It’s easy to see how two families, asleep at the wheel, can divert the attention to the current owner. They can blame it on an “Ambien moment”, but the responsibility for the building at this point rests directly on their shoulders.
Nice people, nice neighbors, great town - wrong focus.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:21 am
Hi, Stephen-
If you had ANY idea about the history behind this debacle, you wouldn’t be accusing my grandparents of having an “Ambien moment.” The truth is that the homeowners directly behind the Anchor have fought this at every stage of the game. They have followed every procedure and appeals process mandated by the county, which explains why it has taken so long. What would you have them do, light the place on fire? No, these law-abiding, community-focused citizens chose the high road, which is why they are spending their retirement money on fighting this battle the LEGAL way. They ARE nice people and nice neighbors, with the RIGHT focus…Which is why the vast majority of residents have banded behind them rather than one crooked developer and a few spineless county commissioners. Try doing a little research next time…
November 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Hello Kaitlan:
Thanks for your response - that’s what makes this a great country. The freedom to voice our own opinions.
I did quite a bit of research on this and found that many opportunities were missed by the residents along the way. I’m sure you’d agree that the commissioners have more to loose in the long run by not red tagging the building.
I’m sure they are nice people with sympathic, nice neighbors. I’d see if maybe you could talk them out of spending their retirement money on this - again, we have to pick our battles in life and spending money saved for living out our years looks like the wrong focus.
Art
December 4th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Funny, the extensive research I did showed just the opposite about “missed opportunities.” Although the commissioners may lose face by red-tagging the building, the community will be the real losers if they don’t. Both developers AND commissioners need to understand that Oceanside residents won’t stand by and watch as developers skirt the law and the county simply rolls over. If the county refuses to uphold the Oceanside Community Plan, the town will lose not only its historic culture but also its property values.
And I actually encourage my grandparents to spend their money on a cause in which they believe. They care deeply for their community, and this world would be a better place if more people were willing to sacrifice their own comfort for the greater good.
Best wishes to you-
April 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I was in Oceanside for about two hours on April 29. The signs got my attention and upon returning home to the Seattle area I immediately looked the matter up on the internet.
Congratulations to the people of Oceanside. Your efforts to make sure your community is developed in the manner the citezens want shows great merit. Like people in other occupations, developers are generally nice people and often have great passion for their work and an interest in creating better housing, work, and recreational environments for others. Unfortunately, there are times their visions are not what is best for communities. Our country is full of towns that are deteriorated and virtually out of business in their centers, while the outskirts are congested with strip malls that lack any individuality. If there were more people like those in Oceanside, we would likely have many more attractive communities with strong vibrant centers and a stronger sense of community.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Here we are, six months after Mr. Petite’s last post to this BLOG, and no mention of the Anchor’s newly proposed status as a strip joint. Is this true?!?? And, I hear Tillamook County’s Land Use Code has no ordinance for or against such a request, so the Anchor WILL indeed become a strip joint! Surely, the Boycotters of the Tavern did not intend the owner to propose a “permitted” (at least non-prohibited) use such as a strip joint. What’s to happen now? There will still HAVE to be a parking issue. Where will the patrons park? Which Boycotter will be taking photos of those who attend the club? Where will such pictures be published? Won’t the local constable rake in a lot of $$$ for county coffers pulling over the drunks as they leave this new den of iniquity? So many questions, so few answers. Does the chief Blogger have any information to provide?
December 17th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Hello Kaitlan:
Looks like I’ll be “coming” on down to the new cafe. Seems he was quite resourceful in getting a new profitable business going.
Stephen