A Working Waterfront Needs More Than New Buildings
As things heat up on the Sausalito waterfront, we received the following letter from a concerned reader:
As someone who cares deeply about Sausalito’s waterfront and the maritime community that still calls it home, I’m concerned that Measure X could fundamentally change the character of the Marinship.
The argument for Measure X is that more development will revitalize the waterfront. But a working waterfront isn’t simply a collection of buildings that happen to be near the water. It is the boatbuilders, marine trades, fabricators, artists, chandlers, welders, designers, mechanics and small businesses that depend on access to the waterfront, and on being able to afford to remain there.
That is where Measure X concerns me.
The measure would substantially increase what can be built on waterfront properties, repeal the Marinship Specific Plan, and allow a broader range of commercial uses. It also removes existing protections that have helped preserve the industrial and maritime character of the Marinship.
Once land becomes more valuable because substantially larger and more profitable buildings can be developed on it, rents tend to follow. A marine business that needs a large, affordable workspace cannot necessarily compete with an office tenant, retail operation or other higher-paying use.
The same problem applies to artists. Sausalito’s artists are not decorative accessories to the waterfront. Their studios and workshops are part of the working fabric of the community. If redevelopment causes commercial rents to rise, many artists will simply be priced out.
And once those people leave, they are difficult to bring back.
There is a legitimate need to address Sausalito’s aging infrastructure, flooding and deteriorating waterfront buildings. But we shouldn’t confuse redevelopment with preservation. We can improve the waterfront without making it economically impossible for the people who currently work there to remain.
If Measure X is supposed to preserve Sausalito’s arts, industrial and maritime heritage, then those protections should be explicit and enforceable — not dependent on hoping that new development will somehow benefit the people who are already here.
A working waterfront should continue to work.
Let’s make sure we don’t “revitalize” it by pricing out the very people who make it a working waterfront in the first place.
– Captain Jaz
Exactly, thank you, Captain Jaz! I share similar concerns; we need to invest in the industry itself and be talking about things like a maritime high school. We need to protect our family-owned yards and marinas, not loosen policy that would affect zoning protection on privately owned waterfront infrastructure.
Don’t be fooled by the intentions of Measure X. Sharna Brockett, who manages the Positive People for Sausalito and Sausalito Thrive websites, and is partnered to planning commissioner and land use attorney Andrew Junius, clearly states here in a blog post from February 2025 that the idea behind repealing Ordinance 1022 is about HOUSING, not artists or maritime (they even use some of the exact same photos as marketing materials distributed for their Measure X campaign):
https://www.positivepeopleforsausalito.com/blog/sausalitos-housing-mandate-what-to-know-amp-do-for-positive-solutions-oriented-results
If those behind this measure won’t provide transparency like voters deserve then residents and mariners like myself will.
Other endorsers near MLK Park, for example, are (perhaps understandably) deeply upset about Measure J affecting their neighborhood (an area carefully selected by our city council as one of the leading sites for new housing due to sea level rise concerns). But instead of taking it up with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and newly tightened formulas used by our state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for holding Sausalito to a mandate of 724 new units—an egregious 816% increase over its previous cycle (nearly the same allocation as Mill Valley received, with twice the buildable space and half the density), some of them began contributing to Measure X (what I view as an incredibly deceptive policy grab for our waterfront disguised as solution-oriented change).
Moreover, as we all know, there are no working waterfronts that are both thriving and have sold out to developers for high-density housing; you cannot subsidize maritime infrastructure with income from it, you must always require that the maritime infrastructure be built first. Alameda is a perfect example of a once thriving working waterfront with endless economic potential that died following one zoning change. Measure X allows 3 evolving city council seats to be the ultimate decision makers 10 days after the election, that is playing with fire and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
Moreover, for those unaware, in California transitioning mixed-use land into 100% housing has been made easier through a combination of recent state laws, streamlined review pathways, and legal mechanisms that bypass restrictive local barriers. Now is not the time to repeal the Ordinance 1022 Fair Traffic Initiative, we can start with a few subtle amendments to update language without taking a 40-year step backwards to a waterfront with no protections.