This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Op-Ed: Why The Hurry To Evict People?

Attorney Alison Madden, co founder of the group "SF Bay Marinas For All," said Ms. Webster of the "Save Pete's Harbor" group, does not speak for everyone. In this op-ed she responds to an article Patch published on Monday.


While the Redwood City City Council, City staff, State Lands Commission and other parties spar over the fate of the outer harbor at Pete’s, several remaining tenants are facing unlawful detainer actions or the prospect of one. This includes those who were sold boats in non-working condition at the marina, in most instances by the harbor itself.

JD was leased a slip in June for a boat that had sunk at Pete’s on the very spot he leased it. He is now working feverishly to repair it sufficiently to move the boat in a safe condition. Another tenant is fixing up a historic Chinese junk that was sold at the harbor and requiressufficient opportunity to prepare it for a safe move.

Jarrod is now in the end-slip in Redwood City waters outside the harbor’s lot line, and was sold that very boat by the harbor, with knowledge that the complex diesel engines are fully ruined. Instead of being given time to invest his resources in fixing and upgrading the boat, as promised, he spent significant amounts of money in a dangerous, failed attempt to be towed to Napa. Luckily, he returned to the emergency dock outside the lot line on the same weekend that a family went missing in the Bay’s roughwaters, narrowly escaping the same tragedy. The harbor has not clearly acquiesced that his unlawful detainer must be dismissed.

The harbor won an unlawful detainer action with regard to another boat outside its lot line. All of this reinforces the view of many tenants that they cannot get a fair hearing in San Mateo County courts, which is the reason many of them left by January 15th although they believe that a public harbor should remain. In the unlawful detainer cases and TRO that had been filed, the County courts have taken a hardline against the tenants, failing to recognize the special use case of boat owners intersecting with the claims that the outer harbor is public trust land that the harbor does not own, and only has a conditional use lease for. Many motions were denied preventing dismissal of UDs, with the ruling being that these must be considered at trial.


Most disconcerting has been the total silence respecting Mr. and Mrs. Stone, who need very close access to the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Hospital. Very recently, Mr. Stone spent nearly eight consecutive days in the E.R., ICU and Intermediate ICU and the harbor and court permitted only a single week’s continuance of his trial. After spending four full days obtaining doctor’s notes and asking the Court via ex parte process to extend the trial, he was successful in obtaining a three-week extension, when the doctor had strongly recommended six weeks. To obtain that extension Mr. Stone had to agree not to ask for a stay past May 20, 2013 if he lost. 

It remains to be seen whether his judge will allow consideration of the complex public trust lease issue. That issue should have taken every single UD case out of the fast-track “right to immediate possession” framework. The unlawful detainer statute is intended to give fast possession so that a landlord can re-lease or use property they own as they see fit. However, here the outer harbor is not fee simple land of the harbor, nor is it to be used for any purpose, including private boat slips.

It is to be used as a commercial harbor and marina, and was enacted specifically to preserve Pete’s Harbor for Pete Uccelli as it was then operated, which included live aboards and individuals working on boats to fix them up in their slips. These are both residential and commercial uses, and were intended to be protected by the 1983 Act, giving Pete the conditional leases.

In addition, the City Council of Redwood City reversed the Planning Commission’s approval of the permit based in large part on the State Lands input, the City Manager has been exploring traffic flow and parking requirements for a public and commercial marina, and the State Lands Commission will hold hearings in June respecting the outer harbor. All of this will determine whether a commercial marina, and potentially liveaboards, will remain at the site. So why the hurry to evict people with old non-working boats, who were promised time to work on boats, and who have compelling hardship cases like the Stones?

The City’s General Plan calls for keeping the condos and the liveaboards and the SLC hastime and again stated its intention to require a commercial public marina. The developer has withdrawn its privatization attempt. Yet Mr. and Mrs. Stone are being evicted, at risk of having to pay $30,000 of attorneys’ fees to the harbor’s lawyers, and they have nowhere to go. They have lived on their boat for 20 years, and have nowhere to haul it out, put it “on the hard” as they say for storage, and pay double rent for their boat and a land-based dwelling at the same time.

We appreciate and need the continued support of the public. Almost everyone I speak to wants to keep the boaters.


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?