.
Feedback

Harbor Tenants Reportedly Offered $50,000 to Drop Appeal

Terms of the deal allegedly offered by Pauls Corporation included $50,000 cash and keeping part of the marina commercial.

Pauls Corporation, the developer Paula Uccelli is trying to sell Pete's Harbor to, has reportedly offered current and former tenants a list of enticements if they agree to no longer get involved with opposing the development.

A handful of members of Save Pete's Harbor (SPH) told Patch Wednesday that representatives from Pauls Corporation presented them with a five-page proposal last week.

The proposal offered them, among other things, $50,000 toward "towing and relocation fees" if they agreed to a number of terms, such as vacating the marina, and agreeing to no longer pursue an appeal of the Redwood City Planning Commission's approval of the development, nor continue communication with any involved parties such as the City Council, Planning Commission or California State Lands Commission (SLC), which owns the outer harbor.

Several members of both SPH and Occupy Redwood City, which has actively supported the efforts of SPH and the tenants of Pete's Harbor, vocally expressed outrage at both the terms of the offer, and that it was reportedly only made to a handful of SPH members, and that all current and former tenants were not given the chance to weigh in on it.

"This sub-group is not representative of the SPH coalition," said Leslie Webster, a Pete's Harbor live-aboard tenant and SPH member. "We are appalled at Pauls Corporation's attempt at hidden deals."

SPH member Alison Madden, an attorney who lived in a Airstream at Pete's Harbor and now has a boat in the outer harbor, confirmed the offer and told Patch that only a dozen or two out of the 184 current and former tenants were present when the offer was presented.

"Obviously we did not have enough time to contact all 184 people to attend the meeting and receive the deal," she said Wednesday. "But we feel that the group was diverse and inclusive," she added, explaining that a few of all types of tenants were there, including cruisers who had only docked temporarily at Pete's, as well as both RV and live-aboard tenants, some of whom had lived at Pete's for as long as 20 years, and some who were newer to the marina.

Madden said that, in addition to the $50,000 cash, Pauls Corporation said they were willing to budge and agree to keep some of the boat slips at Pete's Harbor commercial, or open to the public, versus the company's previous stance that all slips would be privatized and retained for residents of the 411-unit housing community it planned to build.

"They feel that the State Lands Commission is going to require that anyway," Madden said.

However, Madden said the group has rejected the offer, in part because, though Pauls said it would keep some of the slips commercial, the offer had not specified that live-aboards would be allowed.

She also said that $50,000 was "nowhere near enough for 184 people," insisting that, though the offer was only presented to a dozen or so of the tenants, it would be intended for all.

Regardless, Madden said she is encouraged that, at least, talk of keeping some of the slips open is taking place.

"I'm grateful that some of our arguments are being validated," she said.

Still, Webster said any sort of monetary offer was not the goal of Save Pete's Harbor, which only wants to advocate for "responsible development" and the preservation of Pete's Harbor as a commercial marina.

Occupy Redwood City member James Lee called the "backroom" negotiations "dirty dealing."

"This was never about money," Webster said. "We have no plans to drop the appeal, and we will continue to work toward our original goal."

Patch has reached out to Pauls Corporation for comment, and this story will be updated with their comments if and when they return our call.

Webster also said she and other members of SPH were upset and surprised when they learned that the hearing for the appeal they had filed against the Planning Commission's approval of the development, previously scheduled for this past Monday night Jan. 28, had been postponed until May.

Webster said, again, Madden had spoken for the group as a whole without getting everyone's input when she agreed to the City's and Pauls Corporation's request to postpone the appeal hearing.

Stay informed on all the latest local news - follow Patch!

Sign up for Redwood City-Woodside Patch’s daily newsletter
"Like” us on Facebook
"Follow” us on Twitter

Want to share your opinions with the communities of Redwood City and Woodside? Start your own blog here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Redwood City-Woodside Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vanessa Castañeda (Editor) May 16, 2013 at 11:35 am
Pamela, are you following a conversation that's taking place on Patch?
Bret Baird May 18, 2013 at 09:05 am
Thank you for posting this. As a teacher who represents 500 teachers, we routinely pay out of ourRead More own pockets to support our students.
Linda Allen April 10, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jennifer, thank you for all your wonderful work on Patch. Life is a journey and you're on yours.Read More It will be an amazing change for you and family. Real estate will definately be cheaper, which is my bigest gripe with rentals in the bay area. I wish you all the happiness you deserve. Linda Allen
Kate Ashley April 5, 2013 at 06:18 pm
Tot ziens en veel geluk Jennifer!
Jacqueline Whittier Kubicka April 5, 2013 at 04:03 pm
Jennifer: I really enjoyed working with you on the story about the Barnes family and Ballet AmericaRead More back in December. Also liked "following you around town" on the other stories you covered. There will be lots of great people and exciting news back east -- not to worry. Best of luck.
Buck Shaw March 31, 2013 at 01:15 pm
So why do you keep voting for bigger Government? Seems the consumers have solved the problemRead More without "It's" help.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive March 31, 2013 at 12:43 pm
This is a much more effective means for dealing with the issue. Legislation is not.
roberta peters March 31, 2013 at 12:26 am
I agree, the public has the right to know what they are eating. It is absurd to be purchasing foodRead More that contains GMOs and not be able to know it is in the food.... why the secret if it is so safe??? I will not shop at any food stores that refuse to provide the public with information on what I am eating or serving to the people I care about. Trader Joes and Whole Foods have my loyalty for having the courage to stand up against the big guys and set an example by doing what is right for the consumer and not folding to pressure from Monsanto, Dupont and the other corporate giants that could care less about our safety and only care about how much money they can rake in.