Empire-Builders
Buff Daddy slaps down more coin in Corbett: Thompson, Simione buy the Royal Chinook Inn
By Dan Richardson, 12-24-05
 | |
|
So the plan is falling into place: Geoff Thompson and partner Angelo Simione told The Oregonian this week that they've bought the Royal Chinook Inn in Corbett.
The announcement comes only one month after Thompson and Simione won the right to operate the Viewpoint Inn in Corbett as a restaurant and five-room hotel.
The Royal Chinook is immediately off Interstate 84 at the Corbett exit in the Gorge, east of Portland; the Viewpoint Inn, built in 1924 on a crest above Corbett (and above the Vista House at Crown Point) boasts a panoramic view view of the western Gorge. The Royal Chinook's restaurant could be serving food by summertime; the Viewpoint awaits further wading through Gorge Commission red tape that could delay its opening another year.
With the Viewpoint and the Royal Chinook, Thompson and Simione will have a mini-empire of hospitality properties in the Gorge, midway between Portland and Cascade Locks. And this, as Cascade Locks awaits word on its potential Indian casino, which would draw thousands of visitors.
Thompson, you might recall, is the gentleman who spent many months fighting with Multnomah County over operating, illegally, the Viewpoint Inn. Eventually thwarted by a court order in 1999, Thompson moved to Los Angeles, before reappearing and taking his fight to the Columbia Gorge Commission.
(Thompson is nothing if not persistent. He's known euphemistically as a "colorful" character; colorful, as in a former soap salesman, nude model and caregiver to the mentally ill who was given to angry outbursts and a profane temper that got him banned from Multnomah County offices. Willamette Week, the lefty alt-weekly paper, called him "one of Portland's biggest bullies." But that was six years ago, ancient history. Now, he's merely colorful.)
After eight years of off-and-on struggle, Thompson and company won the right to operate the Viewpoint Inn as a business. (The Gorge Commission had held that since the Viewpoint was a private home when the scenic protections took effect in 1986 that it could not be reopened as a commercial enterprise.)
The tipping point came last month in a Gorge Commission meeting in Hood River. Having paved the way with hundreds of letters of support from property rights advocates and Portlanders who want to get married at the stunningly scenic Viewpoint Inn, Thompson and Simione bused in 60 supporters, passed out box lunches and sat through six hours of testimony and deliberations.
The 10-1 victory vote was sweet for Thompson. The Vancouver Columbian quoted him telling the commissioners that, "If you do the right thing today, justice will be served.... If you vote for injustice here, you support injustice all over the world."
Yes, you see, the slaughter in Darfur? The suicide bombers in Iraq? The attacks on Timorese Christians? The forces behind these atrocities would have basked in the Gorge Commission's moral support had the commissioners voted to turn down Geoff Thompson and Angelo Simione. Swayed by these arguments and the mob, er, mass of supporters, the Gorge Commission relented.
"The Viewpoint Inn owners simply want to take advantage of using their property for what it was intended for and therefore assist in the economy," wrote one vocal property rights advocate in a letter supporting Thompson and Simione. Many others wrote and testified, too, including several public officials.
One New West Columbia Gorge reader described the successful push to reopen the Viewpoint as the direct result of Thompson's personality and style: "it's time-proven and has everything to do with a good defense being an overpowering offense."
But there is a wrinkle: The commissioners didn't vote on the Viewpoint Inn alone. Rather, they reversed the policy against permitting commercial operations at historic buildings within the national scenic area, which includes the Viewpoint. And 57 other properties in rural areas of the Gorge.
Now, not just the Viewpoint but all old farms, schools and other businesses in the Gorge that are listed on the National Register of Historic Place can adapt with the times, and make their owners a few dollars. That means many of them can survive, add to the economy — and also add to development and traffic in the Gorge.
The conservation group Friends of the Columbia Gorge, calling the policy change too sweeping for the scenic 85 miles of the Gorge's protected area, has said it will likely file a legal action against it.
Meanwhile, Thompson and Simione say they hope to reopen the Royal Chinook's old restaurant by Fathers Day. That building is zoned for commercial use, so they anticipate smooth skating, Thompson told The Oregonian. They won't rename the Royal Chinook proper, but the restaurant inside will be graced with its own name, inspired by the title of a 1999 profile of Thompson in Willamette Week. The name: Buff Daddy's Bar & Grill.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If your are so concerned about traffic congestion from tourist facilities, you should initiate a petition to close down Multnomah Falls. The Chinook Inn and the potential roadhouse on Larch Mountain Road, as well as the half dozen or so historic properties that we may see open in the next century, represent so small an impact to traffic than what we will see every year in the Gorge as the Urban Areas grow to meet the demands of a market force that neither the Friends of the Gorge nor their buddies on the bench will be able to stop. The energy you put in to saving the Gorge from traffic congestion and Buff Daddy would be better spent sorting your sock drawer.
Isn't that sort of like saying that Measure 37 was NOT a victory for property rights, because it could reinvigorate the pro-regulation crowd to counter the measure and enact even more stingent land-use planning laws? My point is that, yes, there is always the potential for a ruling, a law, a measure or whatever to cause a reaction — but that doesn't nullify the original action.
Thompson, et. al., have a victory, at least for now, and even if it didn't take the exact form they were looking for.
Meanwhile, a petition to shut down Multnomah Falls? That's not a bad... I'm kidding. Like you, I presume. I mean, really, is simply stating the fact that the 50-some historic properties are now open to a certain amount of development really such a blow to the market, to their owners, or whomever? Does stating the obvious really make one (me) an opponent of economic development? Are we to state facts that only appeal to us?
I have no particular beef with Buff Daddy, or his inn(s), or even the possibility of additional historic places being opened or developed. But I won't shy away from applying a grain of critque, either. You've got a point that they'll likely add little in the way of traffic — compared to, say, a new casino.
I suspect you see the benefits of development, not to mention the exercise of private property rights, and shy away from calculating the impacts. I'm probably more prone to see the immediate impacts (traffic, smog, noise, whatever), and have to remember that those come from people investing their time, their energy, their dreams into a business. They go hand-in-hand, though, development and impacts. Look at any piece of farm land or open space paved over for another strip mall — free enterprise and entrepreneurship and more parking lots all rolled into one.
Too often today, people pick sides. I'm pro-business. I'm pro-environment. I'm against this or for that. Nuts to that. I'm not ready to abandon some of my values and concerns so that I might cultivate others. There's value in wrestling with ideas, rather than taking sides.
I'm off my soapbox now. The sock drawer is calling, and one has priorities.
Good day! Dan
Dan does,though,divert attention from your point with a little shuffle-ball-change about "winning" and "not winning." You, Steven, mean (as you have told me before)"ultimately winning," and he means "winning pro tem," or "ostensibly winning." (No one, though, at this stage knows how it will all pan out.) But a Pyrrhic victory is called a victory, though we all know that it is not, and "victory," in that context, is an irony. Very pleased to have been alerted to this very good web-site of diverse content.
Frank Maguire
publisher-www.libertyclarion.com
Fairview, Oregon
Would it be the legal clearance to operate the Inn as such? Would it be a court order barring legal challenges from the Friends of the Columbia Gorge? (A victory at the cost of shutting down the legal system?)
Would it be to keep long-winded fellows like me from raising pesky questions on a smart-alecky Web site? (A victory at the cost of free speech?)
Again, my question: When it comes to property rights generally, what is victory?
I suspect that most of us would say, As long as I and the next guy can do what we want with our land and homes, that is the right state of things. That is liberty; that is victory. But what if, to be painfully pointed, we were neighbors, you and I; and I, doing what I wished with my property, bull-dozed my house and erected a business. There would be many customers, perhaps, or many deliveries by tractor trailers at all hours, rumbling past your front door; your once-peaceful street now busy and loud; fumes; the neon light of my sign keeping your family awake as the garish pink and blue seeped around the edges of your window blinds. In short, I have freedom to do what I wish, but if affects you. Indeed, by doing what he wishes on his land, a man can severely erode his neighbor's life, liberty and property.
The Viewpoint, etc., has neighbors. More than that, it's located in a special place, this Columbia Gorge. There are special rules and regulations here. Yes, sometimes onerous ones. But Thompson, etc., knew that going in.
Isn't this a bit like building one's house next to a dog kennel, then complaining about the barking? But I've digressed.
Back to my question: What is victory? What would be ultimate, clear victory for Thompson and the Viewpoint?
Cheers! Dan
PS: Nice blog, at http://www.libertyclarion.com.
I completely disagree with your premise that most of us would say that as long as we can do whatever we want with our land, that is the right state of things. You go on to describe the impacts that can have on neighbors, which puts the lie to the premise, and leads me to think you are disingenuous in asking the question in the first place.
Thomas Paine, et al, gave us the right to the pursuit of happiness. A clear victory in any property rights issue is where the potential user is compensated for any loss suffered from regulations that prohibit the user from exercising a right to use the property in a manner that does not harm neighbors. In the case of the Viewpoint in, the neighbors were overwhelmingly in support of restoring the Inn to its designed and historical use. The immediate neighbors were all in support. The proposal, as it was finally presented to the Commission, eliminated the serious objections that were raised. A victory in this case would have been the Commission's denial of the gorge-wide alternative and adoption of the application that was before it. There was only one vote to do that, whereas at the meeting the month before a majority of the Commissioners (7-4 as I remember) voted for the Inn rather than the gorge-wide approach. As you know, that vote failed because the three Oregon county representatives on the commission all voted against the motion, so it did not have the required number of positive votes to pass. What in actuality occurred was the loss of 6 votes for the Inn. A very odd situation, to say the least. One in which I really think the Friends of the Gorge is not that displeased, because FOG will likely prevail in stopping the Gorge-wide approach; and the opening of the Inn will be swept away in that process, or delayed to such an extent that the current owners won't be holding the keys when and if the Inn ever does see its former life restored.
I would not go so far as to say that any devaluation of land caused by a neighboring use harms a landowner IF the owner can continue to use and enjoy his property as he had in the past. Generally, increased traffic on a public road will not impact the continued use of the property. A dog kennel would, and would need to be mitigated to the extent that the neighbor's pursuit of happiness is not impacted. Mitigation is the answer, not prohibition. That is why I am steadfast in support of public hearings and conditional use permits for reviewing proposed uses that have potential impacts to neighbors. If the impacts can't be mitigated, then the use should be prohibited. Where I believe the planning process has gone awry is where "planners" define "public interest" and prohibit uses they define as harming the interests they define. And this is where Measure 37 or Measure 38 or Measure 39 will eventually make the necessary corrections to that system. A victory for Measure 37, et al, will be to require the public to pay compensation to those property owners who have suffered as a result of regulations imposed under police power to protect the public interests that are accepted as having a legitimate public purpose.
Finally, for me, a working definition of property rights in equilibrium with state power: (Quoting you) “A clear victory in any property rights issue is where the potential user is compensated for any loss suffered from regulations that prohibit the user from exercising a right to use the property in a manner that does not harm neighbors.�
You make a second thesis point: “Mitigation is the answer, not prohibition.�
Taken together, these constitute a basic argument to which I’m sympathetic. Of course, the devil’s in the details. (Hashing out what constitutes “harm� in a given case, for example.)
You write that regulations are awry because planners have defined public interests and then prohibit property uses they say harm those interests. Okay, I get that. Not to be dense, but SOMEONE has to define public interest, right? Or, is the concept of public interest itself flawed, in your opinion?
I’m thinking, for example, of aspects more exacting and specific than a kennel of barking dogs: Water quality, for one. Logging and land damage. Road-building. Run-off water. Air quality. These things might very easily affect me, as a citizen and a property owner.
Don’t my rights as a property owner depend, in part, on a third party who (ideally) applies science and standards?
Dan
We're coming closer together on this. Almost there. What I am saying is that 'planners' and not elected officials are what has caused the system to go awry. We elect representatives to define the public interest for us. You're right, it can't be done individually, but that is what has morphed over the years with Oregon's planning program, in that administrative rules (e.g., OAR 660, et al)have created definitions. Same is happening with the Gorge Commission, which is nothing more than a stepchild to the Oregon program. Why Clark and Skamania Counties don't follow Klickitat County's lead and refuse to adopt the Gorge Commission's rules is beyond my understanding. As I look at the cost/benefit on its face, it just doesn't add up at all. It is simply a political decision, which, of course, doesn't have to make any sense at all. But I think the pendulum has reversed course, which leaves me some hope and the will to continue the fight.
--Steven