Thank you for the update on the "Grouse Glenn Development", Patriot Jeff Tozzer~!
We here wish the good folks of that community the best and hope that this "commercial development" does not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of their properties there. I don't generally favor more limitations being imposed upon lawful property owners, however I know that many good Americans have had their properties and lives negatively impacted by developers who acquire property in neighborhoods to build commercial projects that were never planed or wanted~! I strongly believe that the small residential property owner should have their rights to enjoy their properties as they intended to use them, protected above the commercial developers efforts to materially and substantially negatively impact a specific neighborhood! Too many small private property owners have been severely damaged and had their lives upended by commercial developers and crooks in the government who have ignored their property rights~!
Thank you Mike! I totally agree that we don’t need a more government restrictions. But like you say, the neighbors also have rights. Most of the neighbors have lived there for decades, collectively over 100 years, and this out of town developed held the property for a few months at the time of application.
This is about upholding the expectations of the neighbors who live in a rural and natural setting intentionally far from commercial development. This developer is corrupt to the core, their application was full of inaccuracies about the property, their presentation to locals was full of lies, and they failed to address any neighbors concerns. We cannot allow these extractive leeches to infiltrate our neighborhoods.
The truth is that I actually have a MASSIVE amount of professional experience in the field of real estate, with most of it in the field of "real estate valuation" (real estate appraisal - real estate analyst). So I know exactly how negative commercial projects can often be on the small property owner and the community. I seriously doubt that when this community was first planned and approved, that anyone anticipated that some commercial developer would swoop in to dramatically alter the initial plan and Intentions of folks who Invested in property there. Yes, as I have been following this story for quite some time, thanks to Jeff Tozzer's efforts, I have been aware of the developer in question and their shady tactics, fake science, and outright lies to attempt to gas light folks and especially the Individuals involved in the permitting process~! I know EXACTLY what goes on behind all of those closed door meetings and secret handshake deals, of the ever-present criminals in government and the general population of shysters who are ALWAYS scheming to take undue, unfair, and often criminal advantage of good folks and decent communities~! There are always some who don't want any changes to their community, and sometimes no changes are best, but I have found that IF the change (project) makes sense and it is actually designed to improve and enhance the community, that most folks will not only accept it but also work to make the project happen in a win/win outcome. People who come to the table with the usual lies and deceptions, constantly deceiving others, obviously can't be trusted and should NEVER be rewarded because very clearly they have bad Intentions and bad will right from the start~! If I had seen this developers shady BS as a decision maker, I would have shut this project down based upon the lies, deceptions, and outright fraudulent tactics that this developer attempted to inflict upon the community right from the beginning~! Come to the table honestly and in good faith, or don't come to the table at all~!
One thing I’d like to add to the discussion regarding neighboring property owners and their expectations.
I believe property owners have rights, but I also believe those rights are defined by applicable zoning, land-use regulations, easements, and other established laws and policies, not by personal expectations of what someone hopes their neighborhood will always look like.
How long someone has lived in a neighborhood doesn’t necessarily give them additional authority over how an adjoining property can be used.
I say this from personal experience. We once had a beautiful five-acre wooded parcel directly behind our home. We loved the trees and the privacy they provided. We actually contacted the owner about purchasing the property to preserve it, but they weren’t interested. Eventually, the property went up for sale at a price we couldn’t justify. We simply weren’t financially prepared to make that investment at the time. Another buyer purchased it, cleared the entire property, and built two houses.
Was that what we wanted? Absolutely not. Was it the reality of someone else purchasing property and exercising their rights? Absolutely.
Now, whether the clearing and development complied with all applicable regulations is an entirely different discussion, and that’s where enforcement belongs.
I think the same principle applies here. Neighbors deserve to have their concerns heard, and developers should absolutely comply with applicable regulations. But personal preferences about maintaining a particular neighborhood character shouldn’t automatically override the legal rights of another property owner.
We have to distinguish between what we would like our neighbors to do and what they are legally entitled to do with their own property.
What position have Tribal entities taken on Grouse Glen? I ask in earnest, because not having a reliable, unbiased newpaper locally, one finds little information about "developments" in our area. CC Watchdog is light at the end of the line, otherwise, locals would be in the dark entirely. If one does not know the question to the answer in these times of deceitful narratives and actions, research is quite time consuming, and most productive people do not have "extra" time outside of maintaining thier living requirements. As always, Jeff, Thank you for shining light in areas intentionally omitted and overshadowed by fluff from daily "news" print and electronic platforms. From what I observe, our sovereign neighbors to the east and west have not announced their stand, pro or con; in re: Grouse Glen Resort, and is so, I stand corrected, not knowing without my trusty old Port Angeles Evening News. If anyone has the ability to dynamite the brakes on such projects, Tribal Treaties and interests stand head and shoulders above all other authority(ies), especially with County Commissioners, members of our State Legislature and Congress in their hip pocket(s). Be sure to "reach out" for their assistance.
Speaking of Sol Duc resort developments, I hear rumors that M&R is planning a massive resort up the 2918 road. Has anybody else heard anything about it?
Yes, they were issued the permit in 2025 to build a 20 acre glamping tent resort. M&R holds the land and a third party, “Under Canvas”, will do construction and management. You can look up Under Canvas to see similar resorts throughout the US. Last I looked, they were having difficulty beginning construction due to the road conditions.
Separately M&R recently told the county they are planning on building a cabin resort on Undi Road, south of town. I don’t believe the application has been submitted yet.
If you own a piece of property which has no streams and you maintain a reasonable set back from public roads ,adequate access between neighbors, adequate septic system. You should not have to contend with government overreach. Not everyone can afford a view of the harbor or a dog washing station. For example, I believe the fire department on the last levy request mentioned a percentage of fire related calls at 6 or 7 percent. Do we need the expense of residential sprinkler systems. Some insurance companies do not like them because of water damage because someone burned the bacon and no one knows where the water valve is to turn off the water. All these rules and regulations are expensive, and should be options left up to the landowner (taxpayer).Waiting for rebuttal.
I’ve been following the discussion, and I think there are some legitimate questions being raised about permitting, environmental impacts, zoning, and whether this project meets all applicable requirements. I absolutely believe everything should be done by the book.
However, I think there’s another side to this discussion that deserves some attention: the economic future of Clallam County.
Our region has experienced significant changes in its traditional economic base. Timber, manufacturing, and commercial fishing once provided substantial employment and revenue. As those industries have declined, tourism has become an increasingly important part of our economy.
In 2025, visitors spent approximately $305 million in Clallam County alone. That money doesn’t just go to lodging operators. It goes to restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, retailers, recreational businesses, and countless other local services. Visitors bring outside money into our communities that otherwise wouldn’t be here.
Yes, increased tourism brings challenges. More traffic, infrastructure demands, and seasonal congestion are legitimate concerns. But that’s part of the trade-off when attracting people and their spending to our region. We need to manage growth responsibly, not automatically discourage it.
I also think the criticism of outside investors deserves some consideration. We frequently hear that we’d prefer these businesses to be locally owned. I understand that sentiment. But developing a resort or campground requires substantial capital, and most local residents simply don’t have the financial resources to undertake something of that scale. Some local entrepreneurs have successfully built vacation rental businesses, while others have struggled. Meanwhile, restrictions on expanding residential short-term rentals have made certain opportunities more difficult for local operators.
We can’t make it increasingly difficult for local entrepreneurs to expand their businesses and then criticize outside investors for having the financial resources to do what local entrepreneurs may not be able to do.
I’m not suggesting that outside investment is automatically good, or that environmental protections and permitting requirements should be relaxed. Nor am I suggesting this particular project should receive special treatment. Developers should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
But I do think we need to look at the bigger picture. Clallam County needs economic diversification, investment, employment opportunities, and businesses that bring new money into our communities.
Perhaps the question shouldn’t simply be whether we want outside investors developing tourism businesses here. Perhaps it should be whether we can find a reasonable balance between protecting what makes this region special and creating economic opportunities for the people who live here.
I don’t think those two objectives have to be mutually exclusive.
The original proposal called for 32 mirrored cabins, saunas, pickleball courts, a 4,800-square-foot community center, and a 50-space overflow parking lot. The community center could accommodate weddings and events of up to 122 people. The original layout included eight vehicle connections to the road residents use to get home.
Thank you for the update on the "Grouse Glenn Development", Patriot Jeff Tozzer~!
We here wish the good folks of that community the best and hope that this "commercial development" does not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of their properties there. I don't generally favor more limitations being imposed upon lawful property owners, however I know that many good Americans have had their properties and lives negatively impacted by developers who acquire property in neighborhoods to build commercial projects that were never planed or wanted~! I strongly believe that the small residential property owner should have their rights to enjoy their properties as they intended to use them, protected above the commercial developers efforts to materially and substantially negatively impact a specific neighborhood! Too many small private property owners have been severely damaged and had their lives upended by commercial developers and crooks in the government who have ignored their property rights~!
Sincerely, Mike
Thank you Mike! I totally agree that we don’t need a more government restrictions. But like you say, the neighbors also have rights. Most of the neighbors have lived there for decades, collectively over 100 years, and this out of town developed held the property for a few months at the time of application.
This is about upholding the expectations of the neighbors who live in a rural and natural setting intentionally far from commercial development. This developer is corrupt to the core, their application was full of inaccuracies about the property, their presentation to locals was full of lies, and they failed to address any neighbors concerns. We cannot allow these extractive leeches to infiltrate our neighborhoods.
I COMPLETELY agree, Patriot Heather~!
The truth is that I actually have a MASSIVE amount of professional experience in the field of real estate, with most of it in the field of "real estate valuation" (real estate appraisal - real estate analyst). So I know exactly how negative commercial projects can often be on the small property owner and the community. I seriously doubt that when this community was first planned and approved, that anyone anticipated that some commercial developer would swoop in to dramatically alter the initial plan and Intentions of folks who Invested in property there. Yes, as I have been following this story for quite some time, thanks to Jeff Tozzer's efforts, I have been aware of the developer in question and their shady tactics, fake science, and outright lies to attempt to gas light folks and especially the Individuals involved in the permitting process~! I know EXACTLY what goes on behind all of those closed door meetings and secret handshake deals, of the ever-present criminals in government and the general population of shysters who are ALWAYS scheming to take undue, unfair, and often criminal advantage of good folks and decent communities~! There are always some who don't want any changes to their community, and sometimes no changes are best, but I have found that IF the change (project) makes sense and it is actually designed to improve and enhance the community, that most folks will not only accept it but also work to make the project happen in a win/win outcome. People who come to the table with the usual lies and deceptions, constantly deceiving others, obviously can't be trusted and should NEVER be rewarded because very clearly they have bad Intentions and bad will right from the start~! If I had seen this developers shady BS as a decision maker, I would have shut this project down based upon the lies, deceptions, and outright fraudulent tactics that this developer attempted to inflict upon the community right from the beginning~! Come to the table honestly and in good faith, or don't come to the table at all~!
Have a great week my friend~!
Sincerely, Mike
One thing I’d like to add to the discussion regarding neighboring property owners and their expectations.
I believe property owners have rights, but I also believe those rights are defined by applicable zoning, land-use regulations, easements, and other established laws and policies, not by personal expectations of what someone hopes their neighborhood will always look like.
How long someone has lived in a neighborhood doesn’t necessarily give them additional authority over how an adjoining property can be used.
I say this from personal experience. We once had a beautiful five-acre wooded parcel directly behind our home. We loved the trees and the privacy they provided. We actually contacted the owner about purchasing the property to preserve it, but they weren’t interested. Eventually, the property went up for sale at a price we couldn’t justify. We simply weren’t financially prepared to make that investment at the time. Another buyer purchased it, cleared the entire property, and built two houses.
Was that what we wanted? Absolutely not. Was it the reality of someone else purchasing property and exercising their rights? Absolutely.
Now, whether the clearing and development complied with all applicable regulations is an entirely different discussion, and that’s where enforcement belongs.
I think the same principle applies here. Neighbors deserve to have their concerns heard, and developers should absolutely comply with applicable regulations. But personal preferences about maintaining a particular neighborhood character shouldn’t automatically override the legal rights of another property owner.
We have to distinguish between what we would like our neighbors to do and what they are legally entitled to do with their own property.
Good to have you back!
What position have Tribal entities taken on Grouse Glen? I ask in earnest, because not having a reliable, unbiased newpaper locally, one finds little information about "developments" in our area. CC Watchdog is light at the end of the line, otherwise, locals would be in the dark entirely. If one does not know the question to the answer in these times of deceitful narratives and actions, research is quite time consuming, and most productive people do not have "extra" time outside of maintaining thier living requirements. As always, Jeff, Thank you for shining light in areas intentionally omitted and overshadowed by fluff from daily "news" print and electronic platforms. From what I observe, our sovereign neighbors to the east and west have not announced their stand, pro or con; in re: Grouse Glen Resort, and is so, I stand corrected, not knowing without my trusty old Port Angeles Evening News. If anyone has the ability to dynamite the brakes on such projects, Tribal Treaties and interests stand head and shoulders above all other authority(ies), especially with County Commissioners, members of our State Legislature and Congress in their hip pocket(s). Be sure to "reach out" for their assistance.
Speaking of Sol Duc resort developments, I hear rumors that M&R is planning a massive resort up the 2918 road. Has anybody else heard anything about it?
Yes, they were issued the permit in 2025 to build a 20 acre glamping tent resort. M&R holds the land and a third party, “Under Canvas”, will do construction and management. You can look up Under Canvas to see similar resorts throughout the US. Last I looked, they were having difficulty beginning construction due to the road conditions.
Separately M&R recently told the county they are planning on building a cabin resort on Undi Road, south of town. I don’t believe the application has been submitted yet.
If you own a piece of property which has no streams and you maintain a reasonable set back from public roads ,adequate access between neighbors, adequate septic system. You should not have to contend with government overreach. Not everyone can afford a view of the harbor or a dog washing station. For example, I believe the fire department on the last levy request mentioned a percentage of fire related calls at 6 or 7 percent. Do we need the expense of residential sprinkler systems. Some insurance companies do not like them because of water damage because someone burned the bacon and no one knows where the water valve is to turn off the water. All these rules and regulations are expensive, and should be options left up to the landowner (taxpayer).Waiting for rebuttal.
I’ve been following the discussion, and I think there are some legitimate questions being raised about permitting, environmental impacts, zoning, and whether this project meets all applicable requirements. I absolutely believe everything should be done by the book.
However, I think there’s another side to this discussion that deserves some attention: the economic future of Clallam County.
Our region has experienced significant changes in its traditional economic base. Timber, manufacturing, and commercial fishing once provided substantial employment and revenue. As those industries have declined, tourism has become an increasingly important part of our economy.
In 2025, visitors spent approximately $305 million in Clallam County alone. That money doesn’t just go to lodging operators. It goes to restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, retailers, recreational businesses, and countless other local services. Visitors bring outside money into our communities that otherwise wouldn’t be here.
Yes, increased tourism brings challenges. More traffic, infrastructure demands, and seasonal congestion are legitimate concerns. But that’s part of the trade-off when attracting people and their spending to our region. We need to manage growth responsibly, not automatically discourage it.
I also think the criticism of outside investors deserves some consideration. We frequently hear that we’d prefer these businesses to be locally owned. I understand that sentiment. But developing a resort or campground requires substantial capital, and most local residents simply don’t have the financial resources to undertake something of that scale. Some local entrepreneurs have successfully built vacation rental businesses, while others have struggled. Meanwhile, restrictions on expanding residential short-term rentals have made certain opportunities more difficult for local operators.
We can’t make it increasingly difficult for local entrepreneurs to expand their businesses and then criticize outside investors for having the financial resources to do what local entrepreneurs may not be able to do.
I’m not suggesting that outside investment is automatically good, or that environmental protections and permitting requirements should be relaxed. Nor am I suggesting this particular project should receive special treatment. Developers should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
But I do think we need to look at the bigger picture. Clallam County needs economic diversification, investment, employment opportunities, and businesses that bring new money into our communities.
Perhaps the question shouldn’t simply be whether we want outside investors developing tourism businesses here. Perhaps it should be whether we can find a reasonable balance between protecting what makes this region special and creating economic opportunities for the people who live here.
I don’t think those two objectives have to be mutually exclusive.
Great to have you back Jeff! Keep fighting like I know you will
The original proposal called for 32 mirrored cabins, saunas, pickleball courts, a 4,800-square-foot community center, and a 50-space overflow parking lot. The community center could accommodate weddings and events of up to 122 people. The original layout included eight vehicle connections to the road residents use to get home.
MORTIFYING ^^^^^^^^ Even on just paper.
Thank goodness on this restriction
No mirrored or reflective cabin exteriors.
Thanks for the update. I still can not even imagine this going in.