Harbor Facility Photographs Spark Questions Over Public Property Use And Housing Allowance

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Crescent City Times.com

By Investigative Reporter, Linda Sutter – May 16, 2026

Photographs taken inside a publicly owned Crescent City Harbor District building are
raising new questions regarding the condition and use of Harbor property, as well as the
District’s approval of a monthly housing allowance for Harbormaster Michael Rademaker.
The photographs depict a Harbor-owned structure filled with furniture, stacked personal
belongings, boxed materials, tables, bags of recyclables, and dozens of large white sacks
reportedly containing empty bottles. Large portions of the facility appear crowded with
stored items, prompting public concerns regarding safety, maintenance, and oversight of
taxpayer-owned property.

The controversy intensified following a welfare check conducted May 14 at the Coast Guard
building after concerns were raised regarding Rademaker’s well-being.

Following publication and circulation of the photographs, Crescent City Times Editor, Donna
Westfall, sent a letter to Harbor Commissioners questioning why the Harbor continues
paying approximately $1,156 per month in housing assistance if Rademaker maintains a
significant presence at Harbor facilities.

“Didn’t the Harbor Commission vote to approve $1,156/mo for Rademaker to move into an
apartment,” Westfall wrote, “and didn’t he say he had signed a lease. If that was back in
January or February of this year, why is he still living at the Coast Guard building?”
Westfall further questioned whether continued receipt of the housing allowance under
those circumstances could constitute misuse of public funds and asked commissioners
whether reimbursement would be sought.

In response, Rademaker denied residing on Harbor property and stated he maintains an off-
site residence leased in February.

“Chairman Rick Shepherd has personally seen my residence, which is located off harbor premises,” Rademaker wrote. “I began leasing my residence in February; however, the Harbor’s housing allowance did not commence until March.”

Rademaker stated he merely stores limited personal items inside the Abalone building and
asserted that much of the material visible in the photographs belonged to former occupants
or other individuals associated with prior Harbor uses of the property.

“I am not certain which specific photographs you are referencing; however, it should not be
assumed that all personal property located at the premises belongs to me,” he wrote.
Rademaker also stated that the building had previously been inspected by the County and
found compliant with applicable regulations. Additionally, he explained that he maintains a
strong on-site Harbor presence because of the demands associated with operating a 24-
hour maritime facility.

“The fact that I am on-site more than I am home should not be interpreted as me ‘living’ in
the harbor,” he stated.

In the latter portion of his response, Rademaker referenced a documented medical
condition and stated that use of a bed and related medical equipment at the Coast Guard
building had been established as a reasonable workplace accommodation under the
Americans with Disabilities Act during the tenure of a former Harbormaster.

The issue now places Harbor Commissioners in an increasingly difficult public position.
The Harbor District continues facing public scrutiny regarding financial management,
transparency disputes, litigation expenses, and questions surrounding oversight of public
assets. The newly surfaced photographs and correspondence are likely to intensify calls for
clarification regarding:

• Authorized use of Harbor facilities
• Public Property maintenance
• Workplace Safety
• Housing allowance oversight, and;
• Whether the current conditions are appropriate for a publicly owned structure funded
• by taxpayers.

At present, no formal action regarding the matter has been publicly announced by the
Harbor Commission.

For many residents, however, the larger question remains simple:
How should publicly owned property be maintained — and who is ultimately responsible
when taxpayers believe that standard is no longer being met?