Yesterday the West Seattle Blog had an informative post about Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani’s speech to the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The speech itself seems to have been mostly cheery drumbeating for the Port, but in the subsequent Q&A Yoshitani was asked to clarify his regressive stance on Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A for short), an issue I’ve been covering at length. Here is the key graph from West Seattle blog:
In the Q/A period, Yoshitani was asked about his opposition — which he said was “personal” — to a proposed federal reform, F4A, that would allow local governments to regulate port trucks (which The Stranger’s been covering). He said he took a “personal position” because he believes it would be problematic for “different states to have different laws” in this area, and says the Clean Trucks program is what the Port of Seattle implemented instead, with an expansion coming, he said, to encourage retrofitting of newer trucks.
A couple points here. First, I find it interesting that he characterizes his stance on the F4A reform as “personal”. (F4A reform would allow the Port to enact a much stronger and more progressive clean truck program than the one in place now, which places the burden of reform on low-income drivers instead of requiring trucking companies to do their part.) I’m sure it is “personal”, but what does that really mean? Yoshitani is still presumably the one who ordered the Port’s lobbyists to fight against it. His “personal” opposition has larger ramifications.
Second, Yoshitani’s stated reason for opposing reform is pretty weak. He argues that a progressive update of F4A would result in a confusing snarl of local regulations. There is a simple and rather obvious rebuttal to this. Namely, the major west coast ports (Seattle, Tacoma, Long Beach, LA, Oakland) collaborate with each other regularly on everything from marketing to railway issues. If F4A reform passes Congress, the major west coast ports could simply come together and adopt uniform standards to ensure that no confusion ensued. They could even model these coast-wide regulations on the Port of LA’s progressive clean trucks program, which would require port trucking companies to take responsibility for labor and environmental standards.
Lastly, I’d like to know more about the expansion of the Port’s current clean trucks program, which will apparently “encourage retrofitting of newer trucks”. Despite all my harsh words for the Port and Yoshitani’s anti-F4A position, I also recognize that something has to be done right now and that the current clean truck plan (which will put many drivers out of work, with no access to unemployment insurance) is better than nothing. I’d certainly be curious to hear about attempts to improve it. Updates to come.
Also, The Journal of Commerce has a good article on all these issues, which you can find here.
Legally, he’s supposed to maximize profits for the Port.
Which is strange, cause my property tax says they live off my property tax subsidy …
Dirty Jackass Jake, do you think we’re idiots? This issue has nothing to do with the environment. The teamsters want to monopolize trucking at the port, and you’re their useful idiot.
When are you going to call Yoko at the Guild and organize the scab Stranger?
I work near the Port of Oakland, and sometimes at the end of the day, I get a sore throat. But it doesn’t turn into a cold or flu. I think it’s irritation from the pollution. As for retrofits, I hear some drivers got their trucks retrofitted, and now their engines are blowing up. Doesn’t seem like a very good use of our tax dollars to invest thousands of dollars in old trucks that soon break down. The LA plan makes more sense and is a better way to spend our cents!
RCW 53.04.010 says the purpose of the Port Districts is to develop and operate harbors. It is not to make a profit, not to support the greed of Wal-mart stockholders, not to waste taxpayer money on boondoggles, not to pollute our clean air, and not to abuse poor, immigrant truck drivers in the process.
Retrofits are such a bad idea it can’t even qualify as a policy band-aid. What are they going to do, offer up a little taxpayer $$ to help the dirt poor drivers buy California’s leftovers and then tell them they’re shit out of luck when those engines are no longer compliant in a couple of years, thus starting the whole cycle all over again? Genius, I tell you. Is there a “how to become an ineffective bureaucrat because I’m utterly incapable of devising a real solution to real problems” school that descended on our Port?
Imagine UW president Emmert saying he “personally” endorsed a tuition raise for students. Or imagine Defense Secretary Gates saying he “personally” opposed repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell”. No one would take them seriously. How can Yoshitani keep a straight-face when he’s still announcing his “personal” opposition?
We’ve already seen he’s spending tax money on this. Maybe he views our tax dollars as his to “personally” spend, kind of like Dinsmore did.