I've heard some talk in the community about the Port getting back into the export business. I don't think they completely left that business. The fish processors that are out on the port docks have been sending fish out for some time now. While we haven't heard much about sardines lately that was a pretty big shipping business last time we heard. Most of it was going overseas because Americans who do eat those fish prefer the tiny variety.
On the "air" side I understand that Seaport Air has been doing a pretty good freight business. It's going somewhere besides here.
I mention these things to set the stage for why log shipping from the Port of Astoria shouldn't be considered unusual. It has been quite some time since the Port was actively engaged in the log export business so it may seem to recent residents to be off track.
Tonight the Port commission considers a letter of intent with a Washington company that will allow them to use areas for storage and staging of logs for Asian export. The very preliminary information suggests that logs would be unloaded in the pier three area then as ships come calling for that cargo the logs would be staged for loading on pier one.
The challenge for the Port comes in the mixed use aspect of this proposal where a number of other businesses have been attracted to the Port over the years. When we were log loading
30 years ago those businesses were elsewhere, or did not yet exist. Traffic patterns have changed somewhat as a result. Moving truckloads of logs for storage on pier three then picking them up and moving down to pier one seems unduly complex. I'm not in that business of course but it would seem more practical to store the piles of wood closer to the staging area.
How about....Where the Red Lion is now?
The Red Lion has been on shaky ground (literally) for years. There is a lot of room between the face of pier one and the footprint of that hotel. Taking the structure down entirely and filling it would save the Port in the long run. But I speculate.
The point to this rant? I may strongly disagree with some of the things the Port is doing but it is still important to give consideration to a plan that will put people here to work. Fifteen to eighteen jobs that are permanent full time positions that pay well means something.
My recall was the reason that log exports stopped years ago was because there was legislation that no longer allowed unmilled raw logs to leave the country from Oregon ports. I recall it was an effort to save our mills. Is this not true? Or has this law expired?
ReplyDeleteIt's true that logs exported from Oregon are harvested exclusively from private lands. Both State and Federal laws combine to prevent the export of timber taken from government lands.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm asking as silly question here but, weren't logging exports and fish processors co-habitating ang working at "Port" before this "Gearin Era" swing to "Business Park"?
ReplyDeleteAs long as Pier One(Cruise Ships) can be kept flexible enough to manage the timber staging and loading and kept clean, why not?
Boat haul-out and parking? Why would it not work just as well at Tongue Point?
To the first part of your comment: at the time the port was log loading in the past there was little else going on at the docks and the surrounding area. There was an old tank farm where Englund is now. The sardine processor wasn't there and the building was empty except for some communty events and crab pot storage. The old terminal three building was empty for the most part except for some storage. It was demolished.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the second part of your comment: It looks like the Port is heading for something industrial at Tongue point although I think it would make a nice boatyard location.
So, what we are looking at now is a "Main Port Core" that is a multi-faceted, flexible revenue producing facility that may have to establish some very stringrent housekeeping rules for the log processor to make certain the facility is always clean and as dust-free as possible but, is that really a major hurdle?
ReplyDeleteI would hope that by now the Port manager and commission would have learned that before they do something new they need to find out what the profit, costs and consequences are. This means a study, probably q financial analysis, by someone who is not a Commissioner, not an employee of the Port, certainly not a longshoreman and not related to a Commissioner or employee or the longshore union in any way. The Port has too many short and long term failed projects for it so do anything else on its usual whims.
ReplyDeleteAnd, even before this, should not a public institution take care of what it has first (like the Red Lion and its current tenants) before committing public resources to some other pet project?
And isn't that what Crider's job is...to vet and Due diligence all proposals brought to "Port" to prevent some kind of rush to judgement and potential bone-head deals before it gets to Commission?
ReplyDeleteHow much we paying that guy anyway?
The exporting of logs ended around 1995ish. If memory serves me right, it was Cavenham who pulled the plug citing financial reasons.
ReplyDeleteAt about the same time, we hired J. Krebs as port manager to look at other opportunities to pursue. He came up with the marine hub concept that would later be spearheaded and developed by Gearin and Cook.
One of the things we used to lure both Bornstein and especially Englund was the Boat Haulout facility.
In my humble opinion, moving the haulout would be a devestating blow to Englund Marine.
Adding in the log traffic would not work well either. Log yards are not exactly the cleanest operations. The Red Lion complained often about the operations of the log yard when it was on Pier 2.
We worked hard in developing the marine area concept and master plan that laid the foundation for businesses in the marine sector to thrive.
Yeah Tom, you might add 18 jobs but I can't honestly see how other business located on the surrounding areas can coexist. So in effect, you will create 18 jobs for the next 3 years and chase away 5 or so businesses in the process.
If I were still on the port, you can guarantee my vote would be a huge NO and I would lobby everyone I could to support this vote.
Exporting logs at this point in time from that area is a huge step backwards.
The port should be focusing on making their existing client base more profitable and build around it.
I urge the port commission to rethink their decision on entertaining this idea.
I find it interesting that this "G" guy is against jobs when he clearly shows that much of the Port's problems today came from his tenure as a commissioner. Does he expect us to forget his personal gains as a commissioner? Isn't the Port spending legal money trying to cleanup his building on Pier 1? Doesn't that project still owe money to several plumbers and workers who worked on that building?
ReplyDeleteAnon: What part of my statement mentioned being against jobs? Or was that just a segway for your misguided and misinformed attack on me?
ReplyDeleteThe port has a lot of problems. My tenure is the least of them.
Protect the current tenant base.
Urge your commissioners to vote no on log exporting.
Curious Glenn whay your Commission under Gearin chose to take the approach at "Port" that was destined to lead it into what amounts to nothing more than a "Business Park" under the guise of what was coined as a "Marine Service Center"?
ReplyDeleteHow many news jobs did Englund Marine bring?
Russ Warr's Astoria Granite Works?
Bornsteins?
Why cannot "Port" mix revenue generators and especially those that offer achieveable employment?
Patrick: If you say so. I disagree log exporting will offer "achievable employement" or better yet, sustainable employment and at the same time will disrupt current business. I'm going to get more into detail on my blog so stay tuned.
ReplyDelete