The Port has some interesting logistical issues with going back into the log export business. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It does make things more complicated. Jack Crider has his hands full with this one.
I don't agree with those who are giving the message that the log export proposal is incompatible with Astoria. To the contrary. It fits very nicely with what people would expect to see in a town surrounded by a wealth of natural resources. It fits us historically. It fits us economically because we have a underemployed trained workforce readily available.
I would also point out that we really don't know how big this will be. We don't really know how many log trucks we're talking about. A traffic study is being performed that will make that part clear.
No, I'm just not worried about those issues. I am concerned about how the Port will end up handling it's current occupants. In a story today commissioner Holcom said he talked with Ted Bugas about it and Bugas told him that the tenants should hammer out a working arrangement
amongst themselves. He said essentially that Crider should facilitate a meeting with all the parties involved. That makes sense. Up to this point if it were not for our coverage the current tenants wouldn't have a clue about any of this.
We should also be very cautious about that agreement with the log handling outfit in view of the port's history of being less than careful about the leases it signs. I'm also concerned about just how much background checking has been done on Westerlund Log Handlers. The Port generally does a poor job in that area as well so historically they've ended up holding the bag more than once. It's important to perform this due diligence before any agreement is made.
Comments expressed
There are some former board members and employees of the Port who are voicing concern that the proposed log export business does not dovetail with a previous strategic plan for maritime business at the Port. To me, it seems rather strange to consider that this ISN'T a maritime business that ought to be able to be accommodated, inasmuch as exporting logs by ship would seem to meet any reasonable definition of a maritime operation: Clatsop and surrounding counties in OR & WA have plentiful logs to export; Astoria has a close port from which to ship them. Ergo, what's not to like, given the revenues that will accrue to the Port, which ought to be doing just this sort of thing to earn its keep.
ReplyDeleteI would hope there is a solution where concerns of existing tenants can be worked out. I can certainly understand why Englund would want to see the Port retain its boat yard proximity to its wonderful new store, which is hardly mobile. I understand those who worked hard on a strategic plan in prior years might feel justified in asking for answers and receiving input. I cannot imagine that any strategic plan is so cast in concrete that it can't adjust to opportunities or, for sure, economic conditions, both of which are always capable of turning out to be quite different than projected or desired. We are living in rather difficult economic times, and the more rosy general business expectations that were probably part of the motivations behind previous boards at the port only a few years ago have truly disappeared in more ways than one. Revenue of any kind that can be acquired by the Port ought to be seriously considered, but with due regard for the current tenants, who ought to also be understanding of the need for the Port to operate its business in a viable, profitable manner.
Hopefully, Astorians who were here when the Port shipped logs will look back to that time to determine if that is where we want to go. They will remember the acres of logs stacked 30 or more feet high surrounded by bark and dirt that had fallen off the logs, water that had to be sprayed almost continually to reduce the fire hazard, oil that leaked from the machinery used in the process, the smell of wet lumber mixed with dirt and oil and huge cranes that loaded and unloaded the ships. The Port today is a relatively clean looking place with businesses that are relatively clean. The view of the waterfront is clear and the height of most buildings do not detract from what the Port has become. People who clammored against Jon England's condos because they were too high, or the Comfort Inn because it was too bright, or the seals because they are too noisy or more building in the downtown becaused it will block the view of the River, cannot honestly be in favor of a log shipping port, since that function will fulfill all the things they were against. Likewise, the local businesses the Port has coopted into its improvement program cannot be in favor as the image of the log shipping Port is contrary to the open for business image they have developed. We should also remembered what happened when the Longshoremen ran off AT&T and the logging industry just went away. The City of Astoria alone had to cut its services by hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Port should stick to its business oriented plan. It's better from them and better for Astoria.
ReplyDeletePort (pôrt, prt)
ReplyDeleten.
1. Abbr. Pt.
a. A place on a waterway with facilities for loading and unloading ships.
b. A city or town on a waterway with such facilities.
c. The waterfront district of a city.
2. A place along a coast that gives ships and boats protection from storms and rough water; a harbor.
3. A port of entry.
Maybe the terms..."Business Park" and "Marine Service Center" were overlooked in developing the definition of a "Port" but, they don't seem to be a relevant part of that definition.
So, are we "The Port of Astoria, Oregon", doing what a "Port" is supposed to do or do we just want to limit ourselves to just being another "Business Park"?
And by the way, how is it The Mayor of Astoria, Oregon can make promises to anybody regarding "Port Business" and is it prudent business practice for any wise business owner to use that kind of judgement in relocating his/her business?
And another question would be....How many new, family wage jobs did those business moves provide to our community workforce?
And now Westerlund wants to move in a long-term Log Export operation with 50 new jobs, jobs that we can damned well qualify for and I still believe these are non-longshoreman jobs and the biggest issue is Housekeeping and we cannot work out a solution to this?
I say let's do something novel and a total departure from the usual rhetoric of blame casting and pooh-poohing of ideas on this one....let's work towards a solution to the issue.
@ Art, When we adopted the strategic plan way back when, we viewed the plan as a dynamic plan (not static). I don't believe any former port commissioner thinks the plan is not flexible. BUT, exporting logs is such a radical shift that gives cause for alarm because it affects almost all of the existing port tenants and threatens the boat haulout facility which I believe to be the port's number one asset.
ReplyDeleteI'm not against exporting logs as long as it can work with the existing tenants and pencils financially. My concern is the port's number one asset - the boat yard/haulout facility.
The port has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into that infrastructure and it is slowly starting to recapture the investment.
My assumption is the port wants to displace the haulout facility (move it tongue point?). The port needs to be transparent in how the numbers crunch in regards to this. That includes transparency on how the boatyard/haulout facility is going to work elsewhere.
I am anxious to see how the commission addresses this. Frankly I can't see how it will pencil.