Dear Captain Moore:

A friend who's heavily involved in local marittime issues forwarded me your editorial on Crosscut, in honor of this week's convention for the American Association of Port Authorities.

In it, you argue that the "100 year-old model" for the port—elected reps instead of mayoral appointees—is better for everyone because:

Port commissioners in Seattle and Tacoma are directly accountable to voters. That keeps them singularly focused on their core missions—creating jobs, being good neighbors by encouraging companies to improve their environmental performance, and restoring polluted industrial land so it can be put back into productive use.

I'm not sure I buy that, Captain Moore. In theory, publicly elected commissioners are good, because The People care and pay attention and hold their commissioners accountable.

But The People don't seem all that interested.

The last port election was in 2009. The most contested race (between David Doud and Rob Holland) drew 459,010 votes. That was around 30% of King County's over-18 population (and around 43% of King County's registered voters). And that race was a big one by port standards. The most contested port race in 2007 drew 360,623 voters. In 2003, just 300,893.

The port claims to be responsible for around 200,000 jobs. So, in the best-case and highest-drama elections, roughly everyone who works for or around the port, plus his or her mom/spouse/best friend, chooses the leadership of a $17.6 billion source of local revenue that influences the lives of 1.9 million people.

And the only candidates who seem to get into mix are either union folks (because they have union money) or business folks (because they have business money). That bipartisan consensus—"same selfish pricks, different dress codes" as someone recently put it in an off-the-record conversation—is not the democratic ideal you describe, Captain Moore.

You argue against appointees by raising a Chicago-flavored specter in which commissioners are on a short leash to city hall. (The horror!) But a) we're not Chicago and b) in reality, we get more political turnover at city hall than in the city's business vs. union leadership. Being tethered to the shifting winds of city hall might create more turnover—and more regular scrutiny—of the port commission.

You say:

In California, port commissioners are appointed by mayors, and the ports are run like any department at city hall. Instead of a sharp focus on investing to create jobs, California ports have become the extension of the political ambitions of local politicians.

I say: In Seattle, instead of a sharp focus on investing in the health of the city (economic, environmental, etc.), the port has become an extension of the economic ambitions of longshoremen, teamsters, and the shipping industry.

Which is fine. I've got nothing against anyone who wants to organize, lobby, or finagle for a buck. But that's not the democratic dream you paint in your editorial, Captain Moore.

Welcome to Seattle, representatives of the American Association of Port Authorities.