Comments on: Oceanside boycotts its Anchor

by: Stephen Kumor

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:43:08 +0000

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

by: Elliott Cruikshank

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:20:05 +0000

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?

by: Sam Petite

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:02:51 +0000

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.

by: Kaitlan Monroe

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:30:05 +0000

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-

by: Stephen Kumor

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:40:16 +0000

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

by: Kaitlan Monroe

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:21:55 +0000

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…

by: Stephen Kumor

Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:19:31 +0000

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.

by: Craig Swinford

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:03:17 +0000

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

by: Natalie Panzer

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:19:07 +0000

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

by: Steve Macartney

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:48:16 +0000

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.