headermask image

header image

Propositon 1: Yea or Nay?


Stilwell up at the Northwest Progressive Institute weighs in on the Port of Vancouver's levy for purchasing the Alcoa-Evergreen acreage for development:

As for the port's proposal, I'm undecided. Cleaning up land is good. More jobs are good. Using up highway transportation capacity is mixed. Not putting the issue on the ballot in the first place is probably a deal breaker for a lot of people in Clark County. Promises of jobs always seem to be overblown, and for some reason all the dedicated "free marketeers" come running like pigs to a trough when there's public money to be had.

So, like I said, I'm undecided, probably leaning towards no.

Admittedly, I'm having the same concerns with the levy even though there's significant energies on the Yes side by the local ILWU and local Democratic players such as Val Ogden.  What I'm having trouble with is that no significant grassroots groundswell seems to have come about on the Yes side, as the yard signs sprung up overnight, financed by large dollar contributions.   Again, I would normally side with the ILWU on these issues, but astroturf just makes me feel dirty in the morning.

In the interest of balance, local cranky guy Larry Patella (and former Port of Portland dredging manager) maintains a mail list of arguments for the No side.  I have to admit that the Yes campaign's claims of "6000 jobs!" appears to ring hollow when reading through Larry's archive.   Also, the Port could be on the hook for some of the environmental cleanup if they move forward with the purchase.  What Larry's not telling you is that liability is apportioned for how long an entity owns the property, and when the polluting occurred.  My toxic torts knowledge may be a bit out of date, so your mileage may vary.

A further concern is that large corporations always appear to get property tax abatements from government agencies to lure them to a specific site.  So what may be promised as "more jobs! more tax revenue!" becomes vaporware.  Politically, the Port is in a bad position here, since what was an imposed levy that only the Port Commissioners voted on should have been sent to a vote by the people to begin with.  Only citizens initiative forced the Port's hand.  That's not good governance by any measure, and there's perhaps a lesson that local taxing authorities need the swift hand of voter disapprobation when they attempt to force through new taxes without the democratic process. 

Everyone's for jobs, and I'm pro-labor, but I'm not sure if the Port has made the case.

Last 2 posts in Local issues

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

This entry was written by Aneurin and posted on July 30, 2007 at 4:18 pm and filed under Local issues. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

4 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

  1. I got losts of petition signatures to get it on the ballot. It ticked me off the port would impose it w/o a vote. Let them do a bond or something. Vote NO.

    [Reply]
    1. Above comment written by g. kortesNo Gravatar on July 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

  2. I received a real slick piece of mail, and it stated that the port had put 83 million bucks back into our schools, roads, etc.

    If this is true, why do the taxpayers have to keep paying taxes to the port district? For that much money, they can finance themselves. They could also do as the previous post said, float a bond measure.

    Don’t our so called leaders realize that a lot of people can’t afford more taxes? We also need to make sure that this measure is not passed.

    They are also doing robot calls on this, as I received one yesterday. What a crock of manure. That property has been up for sale for about two years, or so I was told. If this is true, and all the big industry people that want some of it should get together and buy it.

    Also, when it comes to spending the taxpayers money on big ticket items, it should be a requirement that the people get to vote on it. But like the Hilton Hotel, annexing neighborhoods, etc. the bottom feeders don’t dare let the people have the vote, as they know it will not pass.

    [Reply]
    2. Above comment written by AllenNo Gravatar on July 31st, 2007 at 3:50 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

  3. Yes on Prop 1 signs are funded by “Citizens for a Strong Econonomy” I believe this is Dick Armey’s free market bullshit that essentially runs campaigns against any tax “NO NEW TAXES” that may benefit working Americans or underpriviledged people. Near as I can tell it seems to be because they want revenues to go to corporate America.

    I was on the fence until I say the $15,000 in local money donated by Vancouver investment guys to form “Clark County Citizens for a Strong Economy.”

    I want some answers before I vote yes.

    1. Why doesn’t the Port of Vancouver expand the district to include all land not claimed by Port of Camas, Ridgefield. (Increase the number, decrease the cost)

    2. What is the potential for unforseen. Last DOE report I saw included a mitigation that required non-use. (ie, they cleaned it up as a site that was not to be used…capped the problem so to speak) Is Alcoa going to be a partner if the reopening is $$ than expected?

    3. Is there any truth to the rumor (sorry, undisclosed source) that POV overpaid Alcoa by 4 million dollars? How was the negotiated price settled on? Why are the minutes and negotiations not available on their website.

    4. Increasingly tax-exempt properties are taking over commercial sites (that is the Mall churches all over the county) Not that I have anything against churches, but if exempt uses occupy property intended to produce tax revenue, each occupation increases MY tax burden. Are the commissioners going to stop this practice? Is there a limit to the number?

    I am leaning NO unless I am assured that the Union jobs are guaranteed, and an equitable portion of the profits are returned to the people. I’m getting sick of having our programs cut for the benefit of corporate welfare programs.

    [Reply]
    3. Above comment written by arturoNo Gravatar on July 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

  4. My bad.

    Dick Army’s group appears to not be associated with the Vancouver group.

    A friend said she was at the fair and went to the GOP booth to ask about Prop 1. They were adamently opposed. Which, of course, is a resounding endoresement,

    THey have my vote.

    [Reply]
    4. Above comment written by arturoNo Gravatar on August 7th, 2007 at 6:39 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Moderation Active: Old stuff here... Therefore your comment on this post will be moderated (i.e. don't submit twice !)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

Subscribe without commenting