(Originally posted at 11:11 a.m.)

Three new reports have been released by the Port of Seattle on the the potential impacts of a new sports arena on the Sodo area's maritime industries. We haven't had time to look through them (primary election day and all that...) but you can download them below and have a blast:

  1. Economic Issues Report (pdf)
  2. Peter Steinbrueck Land Use Report (pdf)
  3. Port of Seattle Impacts (pdf)

Among the primary concerns: "Additional events at a new arena will make it harder for trucks to reach the Port, increase cargo shipping costs, and affect the Port’s ability to retain and attract customers," says the report on port operations.

Meanwhile former Seattle City Council member and staunch arena critic Peter Steinbrueck offers five recommendations that include beginning to "examine alternative sites."

UPDATE: Dominic Holden here. We just got a furious call from Port of Seattle spokeswoman Charla Skaggs, irate that we posted these reports on Slog before a 1:00 p.m. embargo and purportedly didn't give other outlets a level playing field. But Skaggs has it backwards: The port never shared these records with The Stranger, never told us about the embargo, and instead made their deal with other news outlets. We got the records from another source and never heard about any embargo. So even though Skaggs says we "violated a contract," they never presented us with a deal. For the record, we don't violate embargoes and would have honored it if we'd known about it.

Ironically, it's the port that tried to create a slanted playing field by hand-selecting certain media outlets to see advance copies of their report—perhaps media outlets like the Seattle Times, which shares the port's opposition to the arena—while withholding the reports from The Stranger. In essence, the port gambled that they could frame the coverage by picking the media who would get a head start on this. But they lost the gamble.

Skaggs and her boss asked us to take down the reports. We're not doing it, even though Skaggs says it "will affect the way we interact with you in the future." By that, I assume she's not threatening to withhold information (after all, it's not much of a threat if that's already her modus operandi). I assume Skaggs means she will contact us proactively and professionally instead throwing a tantrum when her media strategies backfire.