The proposed redevelopment of Brett’s Waterway Café’s location in Fernandina Beach, set for demolition in early 2026, has sparked heated debate. While redevelopment might make sense for a private developer seeking profit, it’s a problematic choice for a city-managed waterfront project at the heart of the historic downtown. Opting to redevelop Brett’s—likely with another large restaurant—sacrifices public control, exacerbates parking issues, and misses a rare opportunity to enhance the waterfront’s aesthetic and economic vitality. Choosing not to redevelop, however, preserves parking, opens stunning views, and supports existing businesses, delivering a win for the community. Here’s a detailed analysis of why forgoing redevelopment is the better path, grounded in the concerns raised about control, parking, views, and local business impacts.
1. Loss of Public Control Over the Waterfront’s Core
The Brett’s site, located at the foot of Centre Street, is the centerpiece of Fernandina Beach’s waterfront, a critical public asset tied to the city’s identity as a historic, tourism-driven coastal gem. Redeveloping it, especially as another large restaurant (e.g., the survey’s Option 6: a $3,070,000 landward restaurant with pier and pavilion), hands significant control to a private lessee, as seen with the current Brett’s lease, which expires in December 2025.
• Private Developer vs. Public Interest: A private developer might prioritize a high-capacity restaurant to maximize revenue, but the city’s role is to steward the waterfront for public benefit. Leasing the site to a new restaurant operator, likely at an outdated, below-market rent rate (as noted with Brett’s current lease), limits the city’s ability to dictate terms, maintain the property, or adapt to future waterfront plans. Historical issues with Brett’s—difficulty addressing maintenance and planning around proposed marina or waterfront changes—illustrate how leasing erodes control.
• Long-Term Constraints: A new lease, even with updated terms, could lock the city into a decades-long commitment, restricting flexibility for waterfront projects like marina expansions or public amenities. The current lease’s “abysmally dated” rate suggests the city has struggled to extract fair value, a risk that persists with redevelopment.
• Public Alternative: Choosing not to redevelop keeps the site under full city control, allowing it to be transformed into a public space (e.g., a plaza or park) that serves residents and visitors without private interests dictating use. This preserves the city’s ability to shape the waterfront’s future in response to community needs.
2. Parking Pressures from Redevelopment
Parking is a perennial issue in Fernandina Beach, with downtown and waterfront areas already strained by tourist and resident demand. Redeveloping Brett’s, particularly with a 200-plus-seat restaurant, would intensify this problem, while forgoing redevelopment frees up parking for surrounding businesses and visitors.
• Brett’s Current Parking Dynamics: Brett’s doesn’t always operate at full capacity, meaning its parking demand fluctuates. However, a new, high-capacity restaurant could consistently draw large crowds, increasing competition for limited downtown parking spaces. The survey’s Option 5 ($1,565,000 landward restaurant) or Option 6 ($3,070,000 restaurant with pier) would likely attract more diners than Brett’s current setup, especially if marketed as a modern waterfront destination.
• Impact on Surrounding Businesses: Businesses along Centre Street—restaurants, shops, and bars—rely on accessible parking to attract customers. A new restaurant with 200-plus seats could monopolize nearby spaces, making it harder for patrons to visit other establishments. These businesses, which pay taxes and provide jobs, would face economic strain, as parking scarcity deters customers.
• No Redevelopment, No Added Pressure: By not redeveloping, the city avoids adding a major parking sink. The existing parking spaces currently used by Brett’s patrons (when it’s operational) would remain available for other downtown businesses and visitors. This is especially critical given the 96% resident opposition to paid parking, which suggests the community values free, accessible parking over new revenue schemes that could accompany redevelopment (e.g., paid parking to fund the project, as proposed in the survey).
3. Transforming Views and Public Space
The Brett’s site currently obstructs one of Fernandina Beach’s most valuable assets: its waterfront views. Redeveloping with another restaurant perpetuates this problem, while clearing the site offers a transformative opportunity for stunning vistas and a vibrant public space.
• Current Eyesore: The back of Brett’s, visible from Centre Street, is far from picturesque. It features a trash area, mechanical equipment, air conditioning units, and a kitchen receiving deliveries—hardly the postcard image of a historic waterfront. This blocks views of sunsets, docked boats, and the Amelia River, diminishing the area’s appeal.
• Redevelopment’s Missed Opportunity: A new restaurant, even with modern design (e.g., Option 6’s pavilion), would likely retain similar functional elements—kitchen, utilities, delivery zones—that obstruct views. While renderings from Passero & Associates might promise aesthetic improvements, practical realities of a 200-plus-seat restaurant mean some visual clutter will persist, limiting the waterfront’s potential as a scenic draw.
• No Redevelopment, Stunning Views: Demolishing Brett’s and leaving the site open (e.g., as a public plaza or park, potentially aligned with survey Option 1’s $365,000 dock extension) would create an unobstructed view corridor down Centre Street. Residents and visitors could enjoy sunsets, sailboats, and the river’s beauty, enhancing the waterfront’s allure. This aligns with Fernandina Beach’s tourism-driven economy, as iconic views attract visitors who spend at nearby businesses.
• Public Space Benefits: An open site could host public amenities like benches, greenery, or event spaces, fostering community engagement without the exclusivity of a private restaurant. This would make the waterfront more inclusive, serving all residents rather than just diners.
4. Supporting Existing Businesses Over Competition
Redeveloping Brett’s as another large restaurant pits the city against its own tax-paying businesses, while forgoing redevelopment strengthens the existing economic ecosystem.
• Unnecessary Competition: Fernandina Beach’s downtown already boasts a vibrant dining scene, with restaurants along Centre Street and nearby areas competing for tourists and locals. A new 200-plus-seat waterfront restaurant would directly compete with these establishments, potentially drawing customers away. This is especially concerning given the reported 96% opposition to paid parking, which could further deter diners if implemented to fund redevelopment. Existing restaurants, which contribute taxes and jobs, don’t need a city-backed competitor.
• Economic Win Without Redevelopment: By not building a new restaurant, the city avoids flooding the market with dining capacity. The parking spaces freed up by Brett’s closure would make it easier for patrons to visit existing restaurants and shops, boosting their revenue. These businesses, already integrated into the community, would benefit from increased foot traffic drawn by an open, scenic waterfront.
• Job Considerations: While a new restaurant would create jobs, so do existing businesses when supported by better parking and views. The net economic impact of adding a competitor could be neutral or negative, especially if it cannibalizes sales from established venues.
5. Practical and Financial Drawbacks of Redevelopment
The practical challenges of redeveloping Brett’s, combined with the city’s history of managing the site, further argue against it.
• Outdated Lease Terms: The current Brett’s lease, described as “abysmally dated,” has locked the city into a low-rent agreement, limiting revenue and complicating maintenance. A new restaurant lease risks repeating this mistake, especially if the city prioritizes filling the space over securing market-rate terms. The survey’s high-cost options (e.g., $3,070,000 for Option 6) suggest significant public investment, yet a private operator would reap much of the profit.
• Maintenance and Planning Challenges: The city’s struggles to address maintenance at Brett’s, as noted, stem from the lessee’s control and the site’s integration into broader waterfront plans. A new restaurant would face similar issues, especially if marina or waterfront changes (e.g., dock expansions) require flexibility the lease restricts.
• Lower-Cost Alternatives: The survey’s cheaper options, like Option 1 ($365,000 dock extension) or Option 2 ($1,135,000 timber pier), avoid the complexities of a restaurant while enhancing the waterfront. These could be paired with an open plaza, funded without paid parking, given the community’s opposition.
6. Community and Political Context
The decision not to redevelop aligns with Fernandina Beach’s current dynamics:
• Paid Parking Opposition: The 96% resident opposition to paid parking, as reported, underscores the community’s preference for accessible, free parking. Redevelopment, especially if tied to paid parking revenue (as the survey suggests), risks alienating residents and businesses. An open site avoids this contentious funding mechanism.
• Commissioner Disconnect: Reports that four of five commissioners may support paid parking, based on public comments, suggest a disconnect with residents. Choosing not to redevelop sidesteps this conflict, focusing on a solution (open space, freed parking) that aligns with community priorities.
• Pending Public Input: With public input still scheduled for a future meeting, the city should prioritize community feedback over a survey that, as previously analyzed, manipulates results by bundling paid parking. An open waterfront plaza would likely garner broader support than a new restaurant.
Conclusion: A Win for Everyone
Redeveloping Brett’s old location as another large restaurant, while potentially profitable for a private developer, is a poor choice for Fernandina Beach’s public waterfront. It sacrifices control to a private lessee, worsens parking pressures, obstructs views, and competes with existing businesses that pay taxes and provide jobs. The city’s history of struggling with Brett’s lease—outdated rents, maintenance issues, and planning constraints—shows the pitfalls of this path.
Choosing not to redevelop, however, delivers a transformative win: full public control, freed parking for surrounding businesses, breathtaking views of sunsets and boats, and a vibrant public space that enhances the waterfront’s appeal. By demolishing Brett’s and creating an open plaza or park, the city supports its tourism economy, boosts local businesses, and avoids contentious paid parking. With 96% opposition to paid parking and public input still pending, Fernandina Beach has a chance to prioritize community benefit over short-term revenue. Let’s seize it for a waterfront that truly serves everyone and solves a piece of the parking puzzle.
How much would it cost to alleviate 200 plus cars and associated parking if the Brett’s location is not redeveloped? Why not choose the smarter path of enhancing downtown business instead of competing and adding an added parking burden…not to mention at quite a cost?