A Gearhart property owner, Kevin Kidd, in November 2025 blocked a traditional public access to the beach by building a fence. City officials allowed it because, they said, the land was in fact private property, not public, despite the use of this access point for over seventy years by members of the public. His fence is, among other things, prohibiting septic inspections needed by adjacent owners. Researchers recently unearthed the Kidd LLC deed to determine whether in fact the land is private or public. It turns out that the land claimed by Kidd LLC is public, owned either by the City of Gearhart or State Parks. Deeds are instruments of property ownership, and are expected to be stable in their descriptions — except on coasts and other moving landscapes. In Gearhart’s case, the beach has accreted massively over the last half century; that is, more sand is being deposited onto the Gearhart beach, and the beach is growing ever westward. Perhaps this impacted the amount of property owned by Kidd LLC? 

It seems that the deed does not indicate that Kidd LLC owns further westward thanks to accretion. The deed shows that his ownership goes to the line of the Gearhart Donation Land Claim, and no further west. Though the County Assessor’s tax map shows Kidd owning even further west than the statutory vegetation line (embedded in Oregon law from the Beach Bill), tax maps do not have legal validity for showing ownership. The conclusion must be that Kidd’s blocking of the 13th Street public access with a fence, and destruction of part of the actual access path, have no basis in law, as he does not own the lands on which he took these actions.

Local researchers have asked Gearhart City Council to review the city’s decision allowing the access closure, now that the Kidd deed has been located and appears to show his ownership does not extend west of the donation land claim. City Council at its April meeting had brief discussions about the matter, without reaching any conclusions or indicating they understood the issues in depth. But (most importantly) they agreed to pay the city attorney to investigate, and report to Council at its next meeting on May 6th. ORCA has been following this issue closely because of its importance in other, similar cases of private owners seeking to extend their jurisdiction into public lands on the coast. We thank Gearhart City Council for taking the initiative and looking into this important problem.

Botts Marsh LLC is once again trying to get a large development into place in the tiny town of Wheeler. Their property, an old piece of fill land on which once sat a shake and shingle mill until the 1960s, fronts directly onto Nehalem Bay. Over the years, the company has proposed a fish processing plant, and/or a hotel and restaurant. After extensive litigation and mediation, the company is back, with another large project proposal called Nehalem Bay Village. This proposal is to contain a 26-room hotel and restaurant; the long-range plan includes a residential cottage cluster as well.

There are serious questions about this development. The most urgent ones concern public health and safety. The property is right on Nehalem Bay, and in the event of an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, would certainly liquefy (being old fill) and also be in the direct path of the tsunami trapped in the small bay. Even more important is the 2025 updated geohazard report, which has some very sobering language. The report makes it clear there are “...several challenging geologic conditions (i.e., it is not an ideal site for development). Development of the site is possible, provided that the geotechnical engineering recommendations are followed and the risk assessments are acceptable.” (p.3, emphasis added). The report stresses that “excessive settlement” is to be expected, even with use of lightweight foam and a rigid mat foundation. In addition, the mat foundation is not capable of preventing or mitigating potential structural damage due to earthquake; and the development is in a highly vulnerable location in the event of a tsunami. These cautions are all based on older studies, as Certerra has not done any subsurface explorations for the project (p. 4).

There are also brownfield issues on the property due to the old shake and shingle mill. While there are no overt toxins on the land surface, the principal environmental report recommended caution in development, due to subsurface contamination. The extent of the contamination, and its effects on the health of full-time residents should the development be built, is not known at this point, but is clearly an important question for decision-makers.

This project has been a source of contention in Wheeler for at least nine years now. Because it is so large a project for so small a town, and clearly does not fit the requirements of the town’s Vision Plan for maintaining a small town atmosphere, not to mention the problems with building on this site, the best course of action would be for Botts Marsh LLC and Wheeler to negotiate a land exchange, whereby this bayfront property could be turned into a small city park, and the company would end up with a parcel on solid land that they could much more safely develop. ORCA has provided testimony on this project, and will continue to do so as the hearings move forward.

The next hearing before the planning commission of Wheeler will be May 14th.

Bay City has before it a proposal to expand the UGB by some fifteen acres, by bringing in the adjacent Green-Williams property. In April 2025, City Council chose this property as the one they wanted to pursue under the provisions of the Legislature’s new one-time method under SB 1537. The necessary land use hearings should have begun in April of this year, but the applicant has requested an extension. 

ORCA has pointed out in testimony that this UGB expansion “opportunity” is only related to needed housing, and any city pursuing it must prove the need for both the additional affordable housing and the additional land. As far as appears, Bay City meets neither criterion; more disturbingly, city officials have neither discussed, nor even mentioned, the criteria the law requires them to meet. ORCA is watching this situation closely, and will be providing testimony whenever the local hearings do begin.