
East Bay Cities Propose Paving Over Oakland Estuary
Given the swelling confluence of issues facing the Oakland Estuary, a group of East Bay city governments has suggested “filling” or effectively paving over the bustling waterway water bisecting Alameda and Oakland.
“There are just so many controversies facing the Oakland Estuary right now,” said one municipal official, who described themselves as part of a coalition of city governments including Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro, and who spoke to Latitude on condition of anonymity. “Between the proposed ballpark development at the Port of Oakland — and the related debate over the inner-harbor turning basin — the ongoing legacy of anchor-outs, and now, discussions about a pedestrian bridge, our coalition thought this would all be a lot easier if there was no water involved!”

When being accused of using the very real but completely solvable problems facing the Estuary as a Trojan horse for development, the official admitted, “There is no denying the economic windfall that would come from developing what is now a waterway.” When Latitude pointed out that there were numerous economies, including the Port of Oakland itself, dependent on the Estuary, the official replied, “We just… don’t understand the so-called ‘boating economy.’ Land-based businesses just seem like they should be more profitable than any water- and/or boating-based ones.
“And it’s easier to build housing onshore,” the official added, saying that people living on boats are of particular concern. Last year — and this is true — the City of Alameda passed a kind of rent-control ordinance for an Estuary-based floating-home marina, which also included that marina’s liveaboard sailboats. Alameda has been studying whether sailboat liveaboards in Alameda marinas, officially called “other maritime residential tenancies,” should receive the same rent-control protections as the floating-home marinas.
Numerous federal laws govern waterways, and muddy the responsibilities of cities bordering those shores. (This murky jurisdiction has also led to decades of finger-pointing and blame games between local, state and federal governments.) Because of the federal laws governing boats — many of which are at odds with extending renters’ rights to liveaboards — the official said it was in a city’s best interest to “reduce the medium and barrier of water.”
Non-contiguous ponds, or saved areas of the Estuary, such as marinas, are rumored to have been proposed as a means to preserve housing stock while eliminating federal waterways, and therefore laws.

An executive for the Oakland Athletics, who also spoke to us on condition of anonymity, confirmed the idea of so-called non-contiguous ponds. Paving over the Estuary would surely pave the way for a new Oakland Athletics ballpark, but much of the stadium’s appeal was centered around its proximity to a shimmering band of water, according to the A’s executive.
“Look at Oracle Park. Look at Chase Center. We have proven, exhaustive data showing that people who will spend thousands of dollars on tickets, concessions and merchandise just love to look at and be near the water. They love the ‘mythology’ [the executive made air quotes] of the water. They love the ‘idea’ of boats [air quotes again] and the history of sailing in San Francisco,” the executive said.
Investment in sports franchises and surrounding high-end, high-density housing, the exec added, “is the most sensible use of public money both to provide housing, and to effectively pay an advance on future tax revenue.”

The executive said that a “non-contiguous pond, or maybe even some sliver of the Estuary wide enough for kayaks and stand-up paddle boards, which are super-popular right now, will be preserved to fulfill the need for the physical appearance of water around high-end development.”
The proposal to pave the Estuary is, at the moment, just that. Will the BCDC approve the mass filling of an entire section of the Bay? Will enough sailors be able to organize themselves to lobby against the gargantuan forces of money and gentrification? Will the appeal of water ironically be its own destructor, drawing housing and stadiums to its sparking edges while at the same time eliminating boating infrastructure that actually gets people ‘on’ [air quotes] the water?
Will people read this far in the story to learn that April Fools’ Day came one day early this year?
April Fools!
Hahaha!! You got me! ????
You have to be kidding on the day before April 1.
This is a brilliant idea! Especially one aspect: with one stroke you can add hundreds of affordable housing units at hardly any cost!! Just leave the marinas as they are, water and all. But instead of sail or powerboats, put houseboats there, permanently attached to the docks. Everything is already there: bathrooms, parking, garbage service, wifi. And since this a housing facility, you can have 100% live aboards!! AND it gets rid of all those useless pleasure boats, that are there now! Can’t wait to see those pretty little neighborhoods: houseboats in different colors, plants, people everywhere…… a dream!
Got me too…. the sad thing is our governments in the Bay Area are so crazy I think this could be a true story…let’s’ hope this does not spark any ideas among them!!!
April fools indeed ,but given the developers greed ,who knows ! People ,myself included ,scoffed at the feasibility of Foster City !
That works!
I’m fooled!
But with the state of today’s political climate…..
Reminds me of the federal plan to cut down all the Presidio forests
Great joke! Sadly it sounds too close to a possible reality!!! Will life imitate satire????
Got me again you b%$$!÷ds!
This gave me a boiling high blood pressure. Not funny!
It is like saying you have stage 4 cancer, by the way April Fools day!
The liveaboards have been a very sore subject with the stupidity of alameda city council. Stop putting ideas a in their heads!
Big Yellow ? ? Taxi!
Read it all and fully believed there are city governments who want to do away with pesky marine businesses that don’t provide nearly the tax dollars that new high priced developments would bring.
What an original idea! To make it a win-win, the benefitting cities and developers should, in exchange for the hassle, provide affected boaters on the estuary with amphibious conversion kits, and to allow continued access to the bay, guarantee special access swamp lanes. https://photos.app.goo.gl/q94Rb1acnnsgFERF9
Are theBay Are Politicians just batshit crazy because the people keep electing them or is the populace nuts for voting for them??? I swore off the city after getting my car broken into every time I went there but found Alameda a little piece of boating paradise. Now it looks like Oakland is trying bulldoze the Estuary into history. Sure hope the voters wake up and stop this nonsense.
Omg!! You guys had me going!! I was like Ru Fn kidding me?!?!
Guess you were. Good one. ?
I would have caught the April Fool earlier but for Alameda’s proposal to build a pedestrian/bike bridge over the Estuary that’s so low it would require an opening for almost every sailboat over 30 ft – hundreds if not thousands of boats docked at marinas and YCs in the Estuary!
yea, ya got me too, I read to the end while thinking “What will they come up with next”?