Regarding the opinion piece, “Help keep Oceano Dunes SVRA free of vehicles forever” (April 23), I have serious concerns.
As a local who supports keeping access to the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) open, I’m curious who exactly the “local” residents and businesses behind the Oceano Beach Community Association are. A visit to their website raises more questions than answers. Their calendar shows no activity. No beach cleanups. No community meetings. No visible engagement. There isn’t even a clear list of the local businesses or members they claim to represent.
So, which “local businesses” are advocating for closure? And what measurable benefits do they believe come from restricting access? During past temporary closures, what economic improvements did they actually see? And what do they expect from a long-term or permanent shutdown?
Transparency matters, especially when a small group claims to speak for an entire community. The future of the Oceano Dunes impacts far more than just Oceano, it affects the entire Five Cities region.
One line from the opinion piece stands out: “Patronize local businesses to increase revenues during the closure and prove that vehicles on the beach do not generate income.” That argument doesn’t hold up. If vehicle access truly has no economic impact, why the need to “prove” it through redirected spending?
And which businesses are we supposed to support? Only those aligned with closure efforts? Or are locals free to support businesses that recognize the value the ODSVRA brings?
If this is truly about community, then transparency, accountability, and honest economic discussion should come first.
Corey Clendenen
Grover Beach
This article appears in April 30 – May 7, 2026.
The idea that there is an immense throng of free-spending potential beach goers just waiting for the dunes to be closed to vehicles before they flood into town and make us all rich, is pretty laughable. Those who dislike vehicles already have most of the beach available for their use, from Grand Avenue to Shell Beach, and from Oso Flaco to the South, and there is no reason why they would only find the off road vehicle area attractive. Conversely, the loss of the folks who use the off road vehicle area would have a very negative impact on local business.
Mr Clendenen. Please answer one question…when does our environment take presidence over economic activity. Based on your convoluted thought process we should always place $$ ahead of what’s important for the environment. This thought impairment will eventually destroy all the beautiful nature that exists. God help us!
Mr. Blair,
I think you may have missed the point of my opinion piece. I wasn’t arguing that economic activity should come before the environment. I was asking for transparency, accountability, and an honest conversation about impacts, both environmental and economic.
To answer your question directly: it’s not about choosing one over the other. It’s about recognizing that the Oceano Dunes SVRA has played a significant role in funding, maintaining, and preserving access to our local coastline. Those realities shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed.
I also believe both sides could do better. Productive solutions don’t come from dismissing opposing viewpoints or assuming bad intent. They come from engaging with the full picture, including the people, businesses, and communities directly impacted.
From my perspective, many of the environmental arguments being made lack balance and, at times, don’t fully reflect the broader community. I’d encourage more direct engagement with the OHV community, rather than speaking about them from a distance.
If this issue is truly about representing the will of the community, then why not put it to a local vote? I’m confident the outcome would reflect a desire for continued access, alongside reasonable, common-sense protections.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a simple “environment vs. economy” debate. It’s about finding a path forward that respects both.
If we should celebrate the natural environment above all else, why not scrape all the man-made improvements here in SLO, and return the area to a natural state? Or does that only apply to unnatural activities and economic concerns of OTHER people?