Didn't this jagoff ever learn that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up?
So...they're all scum, and never, never trust a Gregoire, right?
are they beholden to public comment? outside of being elected? I am not really surprised about this - commissioners exist to enhance port revenue, period.

all this "let's wash our hands of the petroleum industry" green-than-thou rhetoric is great in the abstract, but rubber meets road, its going to happen. planes filled with jet fuel take off from the port all day long. why/how could the port draw a line at storing shell's platforms?
My guess is most people voters couldn't care less.
Max @3, you may be right. This might have been good policy. Maybe, maybe not.

The problem was that it was slammed through more-or-less in secret, with little or no public input. That's not the way any public agency should be run, particularly when dealing with what they have to know is a controversial subject. Furthermore, it appears to directly contradict one of their core public stances.

Maybe that isn't the right stance to take. Maybe storing Shell's rigs isn't that big a deal. But the Port isn't a private corporation, it is a public agency. Those sorts of decisions must be made in a public fashion, and be subject to input from the public, whom they serve and who pays their salary. If they don't like it, they should go work for Shell, not the taxpayers of this region.
@5 RP, has the Port ever functioned in the way you suggest?
Why not have a public vote on every lease? Why not allow voters in the Port District to propose lease terms by initiative, on each and every lease? How far do we carry the "Seattle Process"?

We elected these commissioners to provide broad policies for operating the Port and to make sure that policies are followed. They delegate to the Executive Director that they can hire and fire, authority to enact leases and other agreements necessary for the Port to function that are consistent with those policies.

The Sierra Club has it just right. Remember the Commissioners at the next election. Heck the Sierra Club can even put up a competing candidate and make the incumbent's allowance for this happening on their watch the central issue of the race. The voters can then decide.

Enough of this process, process, process.
Look up 'Fick' in a German-English dictionary -

All makes sense, now.
@7 try reading the article instead of spouting some offtopic nonsense. That advice applies to all your comments.
@9. Not off topic. The Port Exec. and Commission acted within their authority. No public process required. The port signs dozens of leases a year with less public process than happened this time. If you or other voters don't like it, then run a candidate that will beat and incumbent and change the policy so that the port can't sign a similar lease in the future. The answer is not a case-by-case public popularity context for each and every tenant.

The article suggests that the Commissioners and Exec. did something illegal, unlawful, or immoral. It may be unpopular with a majority of voters. It was unpopular with some of the groups quoted in the article and people they rallied to write in e-mails. So what? All that really counts is what the next election shows about what the majority of voters thought about it and whether they feel strongly enough about it to show the incumbents the door.

Enough hand wringing until then.
What a pickle port fuck Fick fiddled.
The Port of Seattle represents all of King County, not just Seattle.
As a resident of Pierce County I am far more familiar with the way the Port of Tacoma operates but this is par for the course. They have commission meetings in the middle of the day when the employed public is largely unable to attend, closed door sessions where all decisions are made, and token voices of "protest" from a commissioner or two before a unanimous vote is cast on damn near anything.

Here, public assets that have been maintained by port employees for decades are in the process of being handed over to private businesses under the banner of "a public-private partnership" while the port jukes the numbers so it looks like those assets don't make any money. Funny then that the private businesses would be so interested in them. The port cries poverty "we need this outside money" but the reality is the money already exists, they just move it around so it looks like this is necessary. The whole thing is a goddamn scam and all the Tacoma News Tribune does is regurgitate their press releases.

Soon enough the ports will merge under a port authority, run by the same clowns that are currently running the show, and we'll all get fucked together. God Bless America.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.