| The Palo Alto History Project |
| The Closing of the Yacht Harbor Embarcadero Road |
| The Closing of the Yacht Harbor: The Battle by the Bay There have been numerous controversial political battles in the history of Palo Alto, but perhaps none has resulted in as much bitter feeling and long-lasting resentment as the 1980 decision to close the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. In some ways, it was a classic culture clash. It featured two groups, the yachters and the environmentalists, each possessing vastly different worldviews, with little in common in how they saw the destiny of Palo Alto Harbor. What resulted was perhaps the most compelling political campaign in the city’s history. Not only was it exciting, always in doubt and full of rhetorical sparks, but in the end, the campaign itself really mattered. Because despite the close divide in public opinion, the environmentalists’ campaign was so utterly victorious and the boaters’ campaign so profoundly defeated, that by 1985, the public had twice backed what was once almost unthinkable --- the complete demolition of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. Before 1980, it seemed rather hard to imagine that the city would ever really close it down. Would the city council really be responsible for tearing out the docks, piers and yacht buildings, kicking out the well-to-do boaters and letting a functioning harbor return to the mud and weeds of nature? And yet today a newcomer visiting the former yacht harbor would be hard-pressed to guess that water ever lapped up against the Palo Alto shoreline. In fact, the Bay had been connected to Palo Alto for centuries. In the 1800’s, the harbor area served as a major point to transfer goods and people to and from San Francisco and by 1928 the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor had been developed to accommodate local boaters. Over the years, however, the harbor began to change. How and why it changed was actually a matter of public debate. Boaters said it was because the city allowed airport and golf course developers to divert the San Francisquito Creek and the Mayfield and Charleston sloughs, thereby eliminating the natural flushing action of the harbor. The city cited the destruction of local wetlands. In any case, by the 1950s, the harbor was perpetually filling with silt and bogging down in mud, meaning that every few years it had to be dredged. This process required excavating an enormous amount of mud (some 50,000 cubic yards) and dumping it on already fledging marshlands. Environmentalists contended that this practice was an ecological abomination that over the years had destroyed some 500 acres of tidal marsh. And although the Santa Clara County took over the role of the actual dredging of the harbor after Palo Alto’s own machinery broke in 1957, the city still had to pay for the cost of moving the mud. Some of the members of the more environmentally friendly council elected in 1978 were opposed to such a questionable and expensive policy for so many to support the boating of so few. And so on June 2nd, 1980, they surprised many observers by agreeing to dredge the harbor only one more time in 1981 and then to allow it to dry up and return to its “natural state.” Yacht owners hit the roof. Not only were there more than 120 boats docked at the harbor and few other berths to move to in Northern California, but the Palo Alto Yacht Club had become a way of life for a small group of marine enthusiasts. The harbor was also the home to the highly popular Sea Scouts and had a long history as being Palo Alto’s link to the Bay. The boaters quickly got organized, collected nearly 5,000 signatures and managed to put the issue on the November 1980 ballot. It would be the city’s voters who would decide the fate of the Yacht Harbor. The pro-harbor forces had also brainstormed an alternative to dumping in marshland. As it so happened, at the time, the city was looking for a way to turn its ever-growing dump into landfill, as had been recently been mandated by the state. So the yachters proposed turning lemon into lemonade by using the dried mud dredged from the harbor to cover the garbage. It would be the cost of this proposal that would become a key topic of debate during the campaign. As both sides attempted to woo voters in the fall of 1980, statistics became a major source of contention. For instance, harbor opponents such as city council member Emily Renzel said using topsoil from a nearby abandoned International Telephone & Telegraph plant would be a million dollars cheaper than using dredged mud from the harbor to cover the dump. Boaters vehemently disagreed, saying that their plan was actually the more economical. Furthermore, boaters argued that the harbor would only need to be dredged once every three years, while their opponents said that the correct figure was actually closer to three times each year. The statistical disagreements contributed to a tense debate on October 9th, 1980 between harbor supporter Dan Peck and Mayor Alan Henderson. As reported in the Peninsula Times Tribune, Peck first accused Henderson of knowingly sabotaging a plan to dredge the harbor in order to doom the boaters. Then Peck said that the mayor was “perpetuating a lie” in promoting the 3 times a year statistic. Henderson, visibly irritated, shot back that “he hoped personal attacks would be avoided.” As Election Day approached, both groups repeatedly traded barbs in the local press. Meanwhile, voters were left rather bewildered. With so many numbers and plans flying about, the average voter had little idea whose statistics were correct. But it was here that the more politically savvy anti-harbor campaign seemed to step into the void. With financial estimates in such dispute, they presented a more emotional, visceral argument that seemed to convince many Palo Altans that the harbor was not worth saving. They were able to effectively use campaign literature and print advertising to paint the boaters as elitist and exclusionary --- ultra-rich executives abusing the public coffers by making the city pay to dredge their water playground. One anti- harbor ad showed an ominous black and white photo of the “members only” sign at the Palo Alto Yacht Club. And campaign literature rhetorically asked voters if they were willing “to pay more than a $1,000 per boat subsidy per year to 108 boat owners (only 40 of whom live in Palo Alto)?” And it seemed that no matter how many times the boaters professed to being just "middle-income people," they could not convince the public. The accusation had stuck. On November 4th, 1980 Palo Altans went to the polls and voted down a measure by a 53.5%-46.5% margin that would have continued dredging and saved the harbor. At the time it seemed likely Palo Alto had seen the end of the yacht harbor debate. And yet, five years later the yachts were still there. In the meantime, the Palo Alto Harbor Association had been able to keep the harbor operational by acquiring its own dredge and leasing the docks and piers from Santa Clara County. And as the decreed 1986 closing date for the harbor approached, the boaters managed to put the issue back on the election ballot. This time the voters were asked to allow the harbor to stay open if yachters did their own dredging. But by 1985, the environmental movement had further matured in Palo Alto and harbor opponents successfully argued that the dredging and mud-dumping required was too harmful to local marshlands. The public voted to close the harbor again --- this time by a 55%-45% margin. After the 1985 election, the yachters’ actions became increasingly desperate. After obtaining the legal representation of former U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, they sued the city, arguing that the closing of the harbor violated the California Constitutional guarantees that ensure public access to navigable waterways. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge dismissed the suit. And even by 1987, after the city had dismantled virtually all traces of the harbor and all but a few abandoned boats had fled, the Palo Alto Harbor Association was still trying to raise $20,000 to take their case to the California Supreme Court. Even in the late 1990s, there were angry old harborites like perpetual city council candidate Edmund Power, who raged against the council for their “immorality” in closing the harbor. Still, looking across the mud today toward the lonely posts standing in the weeds alongside a decaying Sea Scout building, one wonders if the vitriol of that campaign didn’t hurt Palo Alto in the end. While a forward- thinking council certainly took bold actions to help the local environment, at times they seemed more interested in beating their opponents than working towards a compromise. Somewhere in the fierceness of the debate of 1980, the yacht harbor issue seemed to become a zero sum game. And when yachters lost in the end, the city seemed to lose something as well. -Matt Bowling |
| A 1941 shot of the newly built Sea Scout Building, designed by Birge Clark. (PAHA) |
| An aerial view of the Yacht Harbor from 1943. The Duck Pond, and Sea Scout building are viewable. (PAHA) |
| Palo Alto: Then & Now |
| 2008 |
| 1985 |
| Sources: Palo Alto Times, Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Daily News, Palo Alto Historical Association, Peninsula Times Tribune, Palo Alto Times, San Jose Mercury News |
| A big part of the Palo Alto Harbor Association's campaign emphasized the kids who would be deprived of the use of bay waters if the harbor closed. (Peninsula Times Tribune) |
| A wide shot of the bay in 1980 as campaigning proceeded. (Palo Alto Times Tribune) |
| The harbor in 1986 as boats were preparing to leave for the last time. (PAHA) |
| Camapaign literature for boaters emphasized the many uses of the harbor. (PAHA) |
| Ken Lundquist prepares to leave the harbor for good. (Peninsula Times-Tribune) |
| Today weeds, grass and mud grows where water once flowed. |
| The harbor dredge was at the center of the controversy. (PAHA) |
| Above left is Palo Alto Yacht Harbor in 1985 before the final boats were made to leave. This shot looks west toward the hills with the Waste Treatment Plant in the back. Today the Yacht Harbor is no more, although this side of the area has more water than some of the spots further west. |
| Pete McCloskey consults with three members of the Palo Alto Historical Association: Dan Peck, John Walker and Greydon Wellman. (PAHA) |
| A map of the East of 101 area of Palo Alto. |
| A sea scout campaigns on Embarcadeo Road to save the harbor in 1985. (PAHA) |
| This ad tried to emphasize that the harbor was not only for well-to-do yachters. (PAHA) |
| The Sea Scout Building looking out on the former bay. |
| Emily Renzel was the most adamant opponent of the Yacht Harbor during her time on the council. (PAHA) |
| Pete McCloskey did his best to save the yacht harbor but it was too late. (PAHA) |
| Ed Power ran for city council numerous times as a single-issue candidate. (PAHA) |
| Mayor Alan Henderson represented the anti-harbor forces at a 1980 debate. |
| An ad from the anti-harbor forces emphasized the exclusivity of the Palo Alto Yacht Club. (PAHA) |
