Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
annoyed wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:45 PM:
Why is it that the newspaper writes all these stories about this when it's against Mr. Guirado but when he is found to not be at fault they stay quiet and print nothing. Newspapers are supposed to be impartial and report the news reguardless of personal opinion.
Bandon wrote on Apr 8, 2009 3:24 PM:
wow, are we getting sue happy for a business failing?? Just think if everyone sued if their business failed...why must you blame someone else for your failed business?? I do hate to see a business fail but we are in a bad economy and unfortunately businesses fail every day.
Biblical reference wrote on Apr 7, 2009 5:30 PM:
Only a fool builds his house on the sand and another fool to build his business below it.
longtime area resident wrote on Apr 7, 2009 8:26 AM:
I feel that it doesn't seem very sensible to decide to build at the bottom of a known slide area, dig out the toe of the hill creating more instability and then try to blame the engineer who was looking for ways to stabilize the area. I believe this is a case of trying to get to the insurance of a reputable company.
nb business owner wrote on Apr 6, 2009 9:08 AM:
The situation has soured alot of people,and the reponsibilty should be equaly shared between the three parties,house owner,city,and saphires- ALL three are negligent from one perspective or another. The owner of the rest. should recover his losses due to the slide,but the loss of value,well that was the same hill that was there when he built-the same sliding slope. Doesnt the city have to approve the building site in the first place? What about the insurance angle for the rest.-I am sure that the premium jumped dramatically after the first slide. Everyone has there own opinion,I thought the food was awesome ! Eugene,move into the old pizza hut building,a great corner for excellent food and choices !
Citizen wrote on Apr 4, 2009 6:32 PM:
Sapphires should not get a cent out of this. The real estate agent either needs to lose their licenss or not. The engineers involved need to go back to school, get a backbone, or at least have more pull. Building a house on sand on the edge of a hill next to a large body of water in an area that see near rain forest amount of rain... How many people actually thought this was stable? The Sapphires building is ugly to boot!
Citizen wrote on Apr 4, 2009 6:23 PM:
Random drug testing would have helped avoid this entire mess. Investigate that!
a HILL that is not related... wrote on Apr 3, 2009 10:08 PM:
well if you ask me, whose bright idea was it to build the mill OVER WATER ON OLD PILINGS? that is more of a hazard than a sliding hill... what are they going to do when the casino falls in the water? wow, alot of people at risk there... GO ALL THE WAY EUGENE HILL.. GETTEM' FOR ALL THEY GOT... and by the way, i loved the set-up inside and the food... too bad its gone. that is what coos bay really needed. personally eugene, i think you should take over lloyds, and set it up in there... big big revenue for you in bandon, and much closer to home. i wish the best for you.
Hmmm. . . wrote on Apr 3, 2009 8:48 PM:
Sounds like maybe Sapphire's should just be responsible for their own situation. Bad things happen. Suck it up. The hill did NOT diminish their business. You don't have a business plan. Don't have three years of capital expenses for a start up. Most restaurants fail in the first year, THAT is not a reason for a lawsuit.
ALFRED E. NEWMAN wrote on Apr 3, 2009 7:06 PM:
Whom ever issued the permits for the restaruant, should have checked into the history of that hill side. Had they done so, they would have seen that it has slid a few times before. In the sixties, it slid and took out two homes. Others were condemed because of it. There used to be about five or six homes in the area. The Pancake House, it used to be the TOP HAT DRIVE IN, had never been in the line of fire for slides. I can't say about the slides of later years, as I moved from the area in the late 1960's. But I did come and visit about 4-5 times a year. I still have family there. So I was able to catch up on some of the goings on. In my opinion, I think that whom ever issued permits, and approved the contruction of any building at the bottom of the hill, should have lost their job.
BuckStopsThere wrote on Apr 3, 2009 3:24 PM:
Whomever issued permits for any work to be done or for Saphires to be built is the sole responsible party. The City/County only wanted $$$ and issued permits for both properties.
If you look around the county you will see many more instances of this poor judgement on who gets a permit. The rule must be if you got the bucks you get a permit to build whatever, wherever, however.....
If you look around the county you will see many more instances of this poor judgement on who gets a permit. The rule must be if you got the bucks you get a permit to build whatever, wherever, however.....
Another Engineer wrote on Apr 3, 2009 9:27 AM:
Justice,
You should get your facts straight before you spread false information. Ralph Dunham is a licensed Professional Engineer. Maybe if you knew how to spell "licensed" then you could figure out that he is.
You should get your facts straight before you spread false information. Ralph Dunham is a licensed Professional Engineer. Maybe if you knew how to spell "licensed" then you could figure out that he is.
To Local Engineer wrote on Apr 3, 2009 9:18 AM:
Eugene Hill's engineer did not "sign off" on the building permit. Is that who you are referring to? Or are you referring to the city's engineer? Regardless, you seem to be somewhat short on facts, and your knowledge of the building permit process seems to be lacking. Remember, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
local engineer wrote on Apr 2, 2009 8:54 AM:
The person that Sapphire's SHOULD BE SUING is the engineer who signed off on Eugene Hills' building permit application saying the site was a safe location to put a building. He probably wasn't qualified to make that call. In my opinion, the City is in no way liable, nor is Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry.
THEY HAD TO KNOW wrote on Apr 2, 2009 8:41 AM:
The whole town remembers the slide that took out the house below it and was fatal for a child. Sapphires had to know this before they built there. Sapphires is just looking for $$.
Bad fo Sapphires wrote on Apr 1, 2009 5:32 PM:
The deadly slide happened in the late 60's or early 70's. And the house that was destroyed wasn't on top of the hill, but near where Sapphires stands now.
huh wrote on Apr 1, 2009 4:37 PM:
What bank are you referring to, there's just Sapphires and the Pancake Mill.
To Good For Sapphires wrote on Apr 1, 2009 4:10 PM:
So if the slide in the 80's was so deadly that the house on the top of the hill should have been taken out, who would be so smart as to build something at the BOTTOM of the slide??? Looks to me like poor judgement on the city's side for allowing them to build that restaurant there in the first place.
asimov wrote on Apr 1, 2009 3:35 PM:
I think I am going to file a lawsuit for the mental stress of having to hear one more story about that stupid house and the failed restaurant!!!
Come on wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:55 PM:
The owner of Sapphire's has every right to sue after what happened whether his food was good or not - nice of you to kick him when he's down. The house owner and people he hired are at fault.
Phyllis wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:11 PM:
Well, let's see now....was the house and bank there before the restaurant was constructed? Guess if I was putting lots of money in a construction project, I would have considered the possibility of the bank and/or house sliding. Especially since a portion of the bank, just south of the bank in question slid years & years ago.
Justice wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:03 PM:
Dunham isn't a liscensed engineer and Stuntzner should have hired a geotechnical engineer. What were they thinking?
and... wrote on Apr 1, 2009 12:40 PM:
Gee - sue happy for sure. I do NOT miss Saphires - it had poor tasting food and the workers were not really all that clean under OSHA standards. Dont keep stiring this pot. It was overcooked a long time ago.
wow wrote on Apr 1, 2009 12:19 PM:
I think that Mr Hill Had a flop of an idea. Why would you build a large building where a hill has slide once bebore. He could of leased an area to see how the community liked the food.
Get real how many jobs have Stuntzers done and I have not heard complaints about them..
Get real how many jobs have Stuntzers done and I have not heard complaints about them..
Sapphires failed wrote on Apr 1, 2009 12:16 PM:
That restaurant did not fail due to the Hill.....It failed for many reasons.Now they are just trying to sue to make up for poor business decisions on their part........And the fact that he built that restaurant at the base of a hill,with a bad history for slides...Well...what can you say ? The guy that bought the house on the Hill....He will lose everything,and he didn't build it there .He just bought it. The Lawyer's smell Blood in the water.....Its just like being in California.
good for sapphires wrote on Apr 1, 2009 11:53 AM:
I'm glad to see the sapphires owners pursuing this. That property should've been condemned long ago - after the deadly slide of the 80s (?) - and it's a shame it was ever still on the real estate market all this time.
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines