Facing a dire situation at the Marina, the City Council more than ever needs a clear-eyed, realistic vision for the future. Instead, it chose to embark last week on a waterfront pipe dream.
Thank you for the clear eyed post. I thought this presentation was going to be about replacing the now dilapidated & barely functional marina via private funding. Unfortunately, we got another “vision” of what could be built on our waterfront (mostly excluding marina rebuild & vaguely reference viaduct that would destroy a whole section of downtown.) Believe me folks, my hometown in Columbus, NE built several viaducts over the UPRR in the last few decades. These are not small engineering undertakings & would destroy the look & feel of downtown.
I am sorry we have leaders that have mainly abandoned any Climate Change strategy for our waterfront. We need to make plans to protect (build a wall or levee), accommodate (move back as the water rises) or retreat. That is basically the point we are at.
Thanks, Jenner. Always appreciate your support. Yes, most, if not all, of the council members are subscribers to Martinez News & Views as well as several other city officials.
Ditto! Thx for thoughtful comments. In all this hubbub I have heard for 33 years, how about a business plan? Or some market research about what it takes to make a hotel successful, let alone 3! You hit the points, Craig. Write on!
Took the Vallejo ferry to S.F. a few weekends ago. Easy access, plentiful parking, smooth ride. Why WETA would ever see a need to put a ferry terminal 15 minutes away with all the logistical/traffic hurdles of accessing our waterfront is a mystery to me.
Well that was a different take on what I have been hearing. I wasn’t at the City Council meeting & haven’t seen the recording so I can only say from what I have read it did seem a bit over the top but was keeping an open mind to see where it would go. I do agree our unhoused needs is lacking, we do need sensible affordable housing but I did see a whole heck of a lot of kids at the 4th of July parade & see lots of young mom & dads walking their kids downtown so we must be attracting new folks.
I do like your idea of EBRPD taking over the marina, would hate to loose the boating though. Also I have faith in our new Mayor & council to stir us in a good direction. Let’s see how this all falls out.
Thanks for your comments, Elaine. I know that events like the July Fourth parade give the impression of lots of kids/young families in Martinez, but it's all relative. The school district's declining enrollment has been a big topic of discussion at school board meetings in recent years, and is a big factor in its budget problems. All the long-term projections for K-12 enrollment statewide and locally show steady declines over the next 10 years. California, at least the coastal areas, are just too expensive for many families to afford to live, and fewer people are having children in large part because of costs. It's a direct result of our failure to take the housing crisis and our failure to take it seriously.
Once again your commentary is right on the mark. So called marina presentation was pie in the sky about everything other than the actual marina. I too have voiced by displeasure with the San Diego vision in MTZ.
You also mentioned the housing crisis. There are 2 items I know of that you might discuss in your next newsletter. First, there is an unfinished apartment building at the corner of Ferry and (I think) Masonic; 2 story blue and white. A count of the meters outside indicate 14 units. This remodel has been going on for years; my memory recollection is about 6 yr now. Doesn't the City have a time limit for this sort of construction ? Second, City might consider selling the land on Center Ave just beyond Kaiser. It's a large parcel the city owns that could be developed for affordable housing ( unlike Pine Meadows housing of $1 million each).
Thanks for your support, Marta. I'll see if I can find out something about the apartment building project. I've been planning to write a broader piece on housing for a while and am hoping to get to it in the next month.
The good news is that the city is finally starting to make some progress on housing, though we have a long, long way to go. Of course, you'll never see a council chamber of residents clamoring for that the way we saw them cheerleading for pie-in-the-sky marina fantasy last week, which says a lot about how we and the rest of the state got into this mess.
Craig’s post is heavy on sarcasm but light on what actually governs the marina and how we got here. SB 1424, passed in 2014, didn’t call for wishful thinking or passive preservation. It gave the City of Martinez the authority—and the responsibility—to use the marina lands to generate revenue and reinvest in public-serving infrastructure. That includes exactly the kind of redevelopment being discussed: one that balances public access and recreation with commercial uses that can finally fund dredging, maintenance, and shoreline stabilization.
No one is mistaking Martinez for San Diego. But pretending we can preserve a failing marina through nostalgia and underuse ignores the clear mandate we were given: revitalize, reinvest, and protect the asset for public benefit. That’s not illusion. That’s statute.
If Craig has a better revenue model that meets trust obligations, funds long-deferred repairs, and expands shoreline access without costing taxpayers or deferring maintenance another decade, I’m all ears. But in the meantime, this proposal reflects the kind of realistic action SB 1424 envisioned—long before any architects took the mic.
If state bills are all it takes to get things built, then we should be able to hit all our Housing Element numbers no problem, given all the state legislation that's been passed in recent years to spur housing construction.
Where's the public-private partnership, and community cheerleading, for that?
Also, I never said the status quo is an option. Here is what I wrote, as well as some suggested paths forward that don't depend on fantasy:
"Yes, the status quo is not an option, but what also should not an option is wasting time and resources on pie-in-the-sky fantasies given the urgency of the situation."
Craig, I’m not suggesting SB 1424 guarantees results—but it does set the terms. It’s a trust grant, not a policy goal, and it requires the City to generate revenue, maintain the marina, and preserve public access. That obligation doesn’t go away with skepticism.
The comparison to housing legislation doesn’t quite fit—SB 1424 isn’t aspirational, it’s fiduciary. And the proposal being considered is the beginning of a public-private partnership designed to meet those obligations.
We agree the status quo isn’t an option. That’s why the City is moving beyond short-term fixes and starting to act within the framework it’s been given.
So putting roofs over people's heads amid an historic housing crisis is aspirational while building Disneyland at the Marina is a fiduciary responsibility?
Housing is only aspirational to those who are secure in their homes, in other words those most likely to fill a council chamber on a Wednesday night and cheerlead a bunch of pie-in-the-sky amenities at the waterfront from a smooth-talking San Diego developer.
What happened in that chamber last week is a microcosm of our broken political system and misplaced priorities.
Craig, housing is critical—and no one’s arguing otherwise. But the marina isn’t zoned for housing, and more importantly, it’s held in public trust under SB 1424, with specific obligations the City is legally required to meet. That includes generating revenue and maintaining access and infrastructure.
This isn’t about choosing amenities over housing—it’s about not ignoring state-mandated responsibilities that come with real financial risk. The General Fund is already being used to prop up the marina. Without a viable funding plan, we’re not just delaying action—we’re draining resources that could support housing and other priorities elsewhere in the city.
I know it isn't zoned for housing. My point is that if it were, and there were a proposal for housing there like there was for the development presented last week, the public reaction would have been the exact opposite. That's why we have a housing crisis in a nutshell. Everyone pays lip service to the need for affordable housing, but it's never a true priority for the privileged who set policy priorities.
I followed the TLUP process closely, including the public meetings where the economic viability of various amenities were analyzed and debated, and it was made clear during that process what was realistic. We talked about hotels, amphitheaters, etc. Now, because it turns out out the infrastructure problems at the Marina are a lot worse than anyone imagined when the TLUP was adopted, we're just going to throw out all that work and bring in a SoCal developer who doesn't know the realities of our city and waterfront to try to save us with a bunch of development that is complete fantasy? SB 1424 isn't a gun to our head to buy into whatever crazy fantasy a developer decides to pitch to us. If Tucker Sadler actually believes half of what they presented last week, they don't know the realities of our waterfront. My guess is they're promising us the moon to get access to our land, and will probably deliver crumbs, if that. I've watched these pie-in-the-sky waterfront fantasies for 20 years in Contra Costa, and they always lead nowhere. This guy has it all figured out because of his track record in San Diego, which is nothing like Martinez? As soon as he started promising us a ferry, I knew he was full of hot air. All you need to do is look at the WETA website to know what the odds of that are anytime in the next quarter century. Then when he mentioned his three hotels (including ballrooms), I almost fell out of my chair in laughter.
Craig, this feels like a distraction. I’ve worked in Berkeley and seen how that city actually invests in affordable housing—through public-private partnerships, city-backed grants, and developers ready to engage. Martinez doesn’t have that level of funding or pipeline. We’re not turning away affordable housing—we’re trying to meet an entirely different obligation under SB 1424: to maintain our trust lands and generate revenue to support them.
As for ferry service, I was at the WTA meeting back in 2002 when Martinez was first identified as a future terminal. WTA eventually became WETA, and today, Martinez is listed as a Tier 2 priority in their long-range service vision. That doesn’t mean it’s coming next year—but it absolutely means we’re still on the map. The only thing that’s been missing is local momentum and funding to match that vision.
Now we have a proposal that could help move both forward. With shrinking state support under Trump’s second term, dismissing a public-private partnership outright doesn’t feel like pragmatism—it feels like missed opportunity.
Sad, sounds like you don't want your city to be successful. Maybe if locals did more writing about the things that make this city good, instead of pointing out all the bad things or trying to lead people to believe this is fantasy, maybe use that energy to helping make it better instead of tearing it down. Journalism is not biased, your opinion is.
Thank you for the clear eyed post. I thought this presentation was going to be about replacing the now dilapidated & barely functional marina via private funding. Unfortunately, we got another “vision” of what could be built on our waterfront (mostly excluding marina rebuild & vaguely reference viaduct that would destroy a whole section of downtown.) Believe me folks, my hometown in Columbus, NE built several viaducts over the UPRR in the last few decades. These are not small engineering undertakings & would destroy the look & feel of downtown.
I am sorry we have leaders that have mainly abandoned any Climate Change strategy for our waterfront. We need to make plans to protect (build a wall or levee), accommodate (move back as the water rises) or retreat. That is basically the point we are at.
Thanks, Rob. I agree.
Thanks again, Craig! Informative, insightful and sobering as well as delightfully entertaining. Are the City Council members on your mailing list?
Thanks, Jenner. Always appreciate your support. Yes, most, if not all, of the council members are subscribers to Martinez News & Views as well as several other city officials.
Ditto! Thx for thoughtful comments. In all this hubbub I have heard for 33 years, how about a business plan? Or some market research about what it takes to make a hotel successful, let alone 3! You hit the points, Craig. Write on!
Thanks, Janine. Couldn't agree more!
I can send it by email.
Sure thing. My email is craig.lazzeretti@gmail.com
Took the Vallejo ferry to S.F. a few weekends ago. Easy access, plentiful parking, smooth ride. Why WETA would ever see a need to put a ferry terminal 15 minutes away with all the logistical/traffic hurdles of accessing our waterfront is a mystery to me.
Great piece, Craig! Vallejo's Merritt Island would be even more of a gem. We've been waiting for that for decades since the base closed
I'd like to send you a report I just did for 20 years out Vallejo Benicia area. Back's what you are stating.
And kind of shocking.
Well that was a different take on what I have been hearing. I wasn’t at the City Council meeting & haven’t seen the recording so I can only say from what I have read it did seem a bit over the top but was keeping an open mind to see where it would go. I do agree our unhoused needs is lacking, we do need sensible affordable housing but I did see a whole heck of a lot of kids at the 4th of July parade & see lots of young mom & dads walking their kids downtown so we must be attracting new folks.
I do like your idea of EBRPD taking over the marina, would hate to loose the boating though. Also I have faith in our new Mayor & council to stir us in a good direction. Let’s see how this all falls out.
Thanks for your comments, Elaine. I know that events like the July Fourth parade give the impression of lots of kids/young families in Martinez, but it's all relative. The school district's declining enrollment has been a big topic of discussion at school board meetings in recent years, and is a big factor in its budget problems. All the long-term projections for K-12 enrollment statewide and locally show steady declines over the next 10 years. California, at least the coastal areas, are just too expensive for many families to afford to live, and fewer people are having children in large part because of costs. It's a direct result of our failure to take the housing crisis and our failure to take it seriously.
You are absolutely right. What we need at the marina is good maintenance of what we have.
Yes, Fantasyland is an appropriate characterization of this nonsense.
Craig,
Once again your commentary is right on the mark. So called marina presentation was pie in the sky about everything other than the actual marina. I too have voiced by displeasure with the San Diego vision in MTZ.
You also mentioned the housing crisis. There are 2 items I know of that you might discuss in your next newsletter. First, there is an unfinished apartment building at the corner of Ferry and (I think) Masonic; 2 story blue and white. A count of the meters outside indicate 14 units. This remodel has been going on for years; my memory recollection is about 6 yr now. Doesn't the City have a time limit for this sort of construction ? Second, City might consider selling the land on Center Ave just beyond Kaiser. It's a large parcel the city owns that could be developed for affordable housing ( unlike Pine Meadows housing of $1 million each).
Thanks for all your work.
Best,
Marta Van Loan
Thanks for your support, Marta. I'll see if I can find out something about the apartment building project. I've been planning to write a broader piece on housing for a while and am hoping to get to it in the next month.
The good news is that the city is finally starting to make some progress on housing, though we have a long, long way to go. Of course, you'll never see a council chamber of residents clamoring for that the way we saw them cheerleading for pie-in-the-sky marina fantasy last week, which says a lot about how we and the rest of the state got into this mess.
Craig’s post is heavy on sarcasm but light on what actually governs the marina and how we got here. SB 1424, passed in 2014, didn’t call for wishful thinking or passive preservation. It gave the City of Martinez the authority—and the responsibility—to use the marina lands to generate revenue and reinvest in public-serving infrastructure. That includes exactly the kind of redevelopment being discussed: one that balances public access and recreation with commercial uses that can finally fund dredging, maintenance, and shoreline stabilization.
No one is mistaking Martinez for San Diego. But pretending we can preserve a failing marina through nostalgia and underuse ignores the clear mandate we were given: revitalize, reinvest, and protect the asset for public benefit. That’s not illusion. That’s statute.
If Craig has a better revenue model that meets trust obligations, funds long-deferred repairs, and expands shoreline access without costing taxpayers or deferring maintenance another decade, I’m all ears. But in the meantime, this proposal reflects the kind of realistic action SB 1424 envisioned—long before any architects took the mic.
If state bills are all it takes to get things built, then we should be able to hit all our Housing Element numbers no problem, given all the state legislation that's been passed in recent years to spur housing construction.
Where's the public-private partnership, and community cheerleading, for that?
Also, I never said the status quo is an option. Here is what I wrote, as well as some suggested paths forward that don't depend on fantasy:
"Yes, the status quo is not an option, but what also should not an option is wasting time and resources on pie-in-the-sky fantasies given the urgency of the situation."
Craig, I’m not suggesting SB 1424 guarantees results—but it does set the terms. It’s a trust grant, not a policy goal, and it requires the City to generate revenue, maintain the marina, and preserve public access. That obligation doesn’t go away with skepticism.
The comparison to housing legislation doesn’t quite fit—SB 1424 isn’t aspirational, it’s fiduciary. And the proposal being considered is the beginning of a public-private partnership designed to meet those obligations.
We agree the status quo isn’t an option. That’s why the City is moving beyond short-term fixes and starting to act within the framework it’s been given.
So putting roofs over people's heads amid an historic housing crisis is aspirational while building Disneyland at the Marina is a fiduciary responsibility?
Housing is only aspirational to those who are secure in their homes, in other words those most likely to fill a council chamber on a Wednesday night and cheerlead a bunch of pie-in-the-sky amenities at the waterfront from a smooth-talking San Diego developer.
What happened in that chamber last week is a microcosm of our broken political system and misplaced priorities.
Craig, housing is critical—and no one’s arguing otherwise. But the marina isn’t zoned for housing, and more importantly, it’s held in public trust under SB 1424, with specific obligations the City is legally required to meet. That includes generating revenue and maintaining access and infrastructure.
This isn’t about choosing amenities over housing—it’s about not ignoring state-mandated responsibilities that come with real financial risk. The General Fund is already being used to prop up the marina. Without a viable funding plan, we’re not just delaying action—we’re draining resources that could support housing and other priorities elsewhere in the city.
I know it isn't zoned for housing. My point is that if it were, and there were a proposal for housing there like there was for the development presented last week, the public reaction would have been the exact opposite. That's why we have a housing crisis in a nutshell. Everyone pays lip service to the need for affordable housing, but it's never a true priority for the privileged who set policy priorities.
I followed the TLUP process closely, including the public meetings where the economic viability of various amenities were analyzed and debated, and it was made clear during that process what was realistic. We talked about hotels, amphitheaters, etc. Now, because it turns out out the infrastructure problems at the Marina are a lot worse than anyone imagined when the TLUP was adopted, we're just going to throw out all that work and bring in a SoCal developer who doesn't know the realities of our city and waterfront to try to save us with a bunch of development that is complete fantasy? SB 1424 isn't a gun to our head to buy into whatever crazy fantasy a developer decides to pitch to us. If Tucker Sadler actually believes half of what they presented last week, they don't know the realities of our waterfront. My guess is they're promising us the moon to get access to our land, and will probably deliver crumbs, if that. I've watched these pie-in-the-sky waterfront fantasies for 20 years in Contra Costa, and they always lead nowhere. This guy has it all figured out because of his track record in San Diego, which is nothing like Martinez? As soon as he started promising us a ferry, I knew he was full of hot air. All you need to do is look at the WETA website to know what the odds of that are anytime in the next quarter century. Then when he mentioned his three hotels (including ballrooms), I almost fell out of my chair in laughter.
Craig, this feels like a distraction. I’ve worked in Berkeley and seen how that city actually invests in affordable housing—through public-private partnerships, city-backed grants, and developers ready to engage. Martinez doesn’t have that level of funding or pipeline. We’re not turning away affordable housing—we’re trying to meet an entirely different obligation under SB 1424: to maintain our trust lands and generate revenue to support them.
As for ferry service, I was at the WTA meeting back in 2002 when Martinez was first identified as a future terminal. WTA eventually became WETA, and today, Martinez is listed as a Tier 2 priority in their long-range service vision. That doesn’t mean it’s coming next year—but it absolutely means we’re still on the map. The only thing that’s been missing is local momentum and funding to match that vision.
Now we have a proposal that could help move both forward. With shrinking state support under Trump’s second term, dismissing a public-private partnership outright doesn’t feel like pragmatism—it feels like missed opportunity.
Sad, sounds like you don't want your city to be successful. Maybe if locals did more writing about the things that make this city good, instead of pointing out all the bad things or trying to lead people to believe this is fantasy, maybe use that energy to helping make it better instead of tearing it down. Journalism is not biased, your opinion is.