In a recent city council meeting, discussions centered around the ongoing complexities surrounding the sale of submerged parcels to waterfront property owners, a matter that has lingered for eight years. The council addressed the status of six remaining parcels that have yet to be sold, following a previous agreement that allowed 84 property owners to purchase their parcels for $10,000 each.

Council members expressed frustration over the prolonged timeline, with some questioning why it took so long for the city to resolve ownership and permitting issues. The delay has left the six property owners unable to improve their docks, which have fallen into disrepair, while their neighbors have enjoyed the benefits of ownership and permits for years.

The city’s appraisal of the remaining parcels has led to proposed prices ranging from $10,000 to $14,000, significantly higher than the original agreement. This has sparked concerns among the affected property owners, who argue that the city should honor the initial commitment made in 2016. Public comments during the meeting reflected a strong sentiment among residents that the city should adhere to the original pricing structure, especially given the lengthy wait and the lack of access to their properties.

City officials clarified that the appraisal was based on the current market value and the specific characteristics of each parcel, including easement widths and public access considerations. However, residents argued that the city’s failure to facilitate timely permits and improvements has exacerbated their situation, leading to increased costs for necessary repairs.

Additionally, the council discussed the implications of the California Surplus Lands Act, which requires public entities to offer surplus land for affordable housing. The city is exploring potential exemptions for the submerged parcels, which could affect the sale process.

As the council deliberates on the pricing and sale of the remaining parcels, the outcome remains uncertain. Residents are advocating for a resolution that honors the original agreement, emphasizing the need for fairness and accountability from the city after years of delays. The council is expected to revisit the issue in future meetings, with the hope of reaching a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved.