Port, Huh: Good God Y'All. What Is It Good For?

There are all sorts of things a Port could do. But what should its focus be? Back when Seattle was prouder to be known as a blue-collar shipping hub, cargo containers lining the horizon, the Port used its property tax dollars to encourage things like rail transportation.

Looking over our absentee ballot for this August's primary elections, we wonder what the criteria should be for choosing between people running for Port Commissioner. In thinking about new hands on deck, the question we're asking ourselves is what for? If you're trying to choose between Gael "Port Security" Tarleton and Jack "Working Waterfront" Block, Jr., you're voting for different futures. (We're not sure what the shoe guy brings to the party.)

The Mic Dinsmore years brought a lot of Port property development -- and a game of musical chairs between shipping and cruise ship interests. Big deals all around! Now the tide has turned and there's a "good governance" posse -- John Creighton, Alec Fisken and Lloyd Hara -- who can at least agree that deals need to pencil out in favor of taxpayers. But consider that Fisken is also a critic of the property tax subsidy. Should the Port be a profit-driven engine? Or does it have a vital, soon-to-be-$68-million role to play in strengthening the regional economy? (The shoe guy and Sound Politics say no.)

Or how about Bill Virgin's article in the P-I, arguing that competition between the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma isn't a bad thing, no regional Port authority needed. Having watched the Port the last few years, we don't agree with that, but for different reasons. It's not market competition we're worried about but a lack of coordination and accountability. Reattaching the Ports to state-level strategic oversight might encourage them to work at complementary development.

Consider this, anyway: for the last few years, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have been running about the same cargo volume. Tacoma, with a $12 million property tax subsidy, turned a $19 million profit last year. Seattle, with a $62 million subsidy, projected $54 million in income after depreciation.

Just about everyone is out to "Reform the Port." That was Pat Davis's tune, back in the day. The Port tends to reform the reformers, instead. We're more interested in direction than process. What's the Port best at? Their mission statement is: "Creating Economic Vitality Here." We weren't aware Seattle needed yet another player in the property development arena. But those big ships have still got to tie up somewhere. Planes gotta land those passengers.

We were thinking of something like (a la Guy Kawasaki) "frictionless freight." Screw economic vitality. We'd like to see a day when the only thing we hear about the Port is how smoothly cargo (passengers and containers) moves through it.