A federal judge rules the handcars in Marina can remain operating indefinitely.

Todd Clark, co-owner of the Museum of Handcar Technology—the Marina business that offers handcar tours on the tracks of the Monterey Branch Line—scored a critical victory in federal court on Monday, April 14, that will allow his business to keep operating indefinitely. 

This came after Clark, on Nov. 30 of last year, filed a federal lawsuit against the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and the City of Marina, which asserted the two agencies refused to renew Clark’s sublease to operate on the tracks last year due to his vocal opposition to Monterey-Salinas Transit’s SURF! busway project, which will pave over the tracks for an off-highway, bus-only road between Marina and Sand City. 

Clark’s business first started on the tracks in 2021 with a three-month trial lease with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, which owns the Monterey Branch Line. After it proved to be successful, TAMC entered into a two-year lease with the City of Marina in November 2022, which in turn allowed the city to sublease the tracks to Clark’s business for two years, with the option to renew for another two-year term. 

When Clark began learning more about the SURF! project in 2023, he felt it violated Prop. 116, a 1990 state ballot measure that set aside nearly $2 billion for the purpose of establishing passenger and commuter rail systems in California—TAMC used $9.23 million of Prop. 116 funds to purchase the line in 2003. 

Clark believed those funds, per the stipulations of the ballot measure, could only be used for a rail project, and he took his concerns to the California Transportation Commission in early 2024. That in turn sparked the CTC to send a letter to TAMC in May 2024, stating the Monterey Branch Line could not be used for a busway, as it was acquired for that purpose. That sparked a series of negotiations that resulted in TAMC still being able to allow a busway over the tracks, so long as the agency devoted a comparable amount of funding to other rail projects in the county. 

In Clark’s lawsuit, he alleges his First Amendment rights were violated because he believes the refusal to renew his lease was retaliation for his speech—i.e., his stated and repeated opposition to the SURF! project, which is slated to begin construction sometime in the coming months, though with delays, the timeline keeps getting pushed back. 

The April 14 ruling from U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee grants Clark’s business its sought-after injunction to prevent it from being evicted from the tracks until it can show the court construction will “commence imminently,” along with “a detailed evidentiary showing that the project is fully funded; that all required permits and approvals have been obtained; that all pre-construction conditions have been met; and construction cannot begin unless the Museum is evicted.” 

In the beginning of the order, Lee writes that “based on the current record, the court finds that Museum has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its First Amendment retaliation against the TAMC.” (The City of Marina has dismissed its unlawful detainer action against the Museum; TAMC’s remains.)

The record Lee lays out in reaching that conclusion—evidence that might indicate retaliation for protected speech—comes from statements made by various public officials.

The first comes from TAMC Executive Director Todd Muck at a June 4, 2024 Marina City Council meeting, where he told the council, “So as my role as the executive director, as an advisor to the board who makes the decision, and, and I’ve seen the handcart folks have actively opposed and tried to delay the public benefit project. So my recommendation to the board would be to not extend their contract.” 

But, Lee writes, “perhaps most significantly” are two statements by Marina Mayor Bruce Delgado and County Supervisor Wendy Root Askew, both TAMC board members, and whose statements “purport to reflect the views of the TAMC board as whole.” 

In an October 2024 thread on the social media platform Nextdoor, Delgado wrote, “In my opinion, TAMC is evicting handcars for the trouble TAMC perceives handcar owners have caused for TAMC”; "Eviction of hand cars would be the same even if SURF doesn’t happen. The damage done to relations between [handcar] operator and TAMC would take a miracle to heal”; “Bad blood between landlord and tenant is not surprising given the details of what has been said publicly.” Delgado further added when responding to questions from commenters, “perception by tamc that tens of millions of dollars lost due to mistakes made that handcar ops took to state agencies, insults made by handcar ops on t.v., social media, urging public [to] oppose SURF. All within their rights but terrible for landlord relations;” “TAMC hasn’t handled handcar lease termination well but from my inside view I’m not surprised. You poke the bear and bear is not always kind.” 

Todd’s son Mason Clark, who shares ownership of the Museum, further attests that Root Askew told him Sept. 6, 2024 “that she and the other TAMC board members would not feel comfortable in extending the lease or having any other lease agreements with [the Museum], even for the northern track that is not needed for the SURF! project.” 

When reached April 16, Muck couldn’t comment about Lee’s decision, and said he hadn’t yet read it. 

The Museum of Handcar Technology has a separate lawsuit, filed Jan. 3 in Sacramento County Superior Court, against the California Transportation Commission, which alleges the CTC is violating Prop. 116 by allowing SURF! to move forward.

Todd Clark says he’s only able to afford the lawsuits because his business is successful, and that he wouldn't be suing if he didn’t think he could win.