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!