Regarding the Friday letter, “Water-dependent industry only”: I attended the Planning Commission hearings and agree with the preferred alternative for the Kimberly-Clark property. But the letter writer depicts the intentions of Brenda Stonecipher with falsehoods. Many people wanted the plan to include public access and light industry, with and without water dependent use. It wasn’t just her idea. And the figures she used were researched, not just assumed. Those figures were discussed at length in the planning Commission hearings.
Any decision is based on how we hope the future might look. I would like an industrial park where green energy products are made, adding to our local tax base and supplying livable wage jobs. Include sculptured parks with breathtaking views. Let’s add a trolley shuttle to a cobblestoned, traffic-free downtown, with unique shops that draw visitors to dine and shop.
But not knowing the future, I feel we have to keep a deep water port available as an option. But I’ll tell you this; shipping doesn’t offer the highest number of jobs, Alternative three does. If we are to have an economically healthy future we need to discuss many options, including clean energy industries. Disagree if you want, but let’s not hammer City Council members for doing what we elected them to do. Councilmember Stonecipher is asking the questions and doing her job. I think we should be appreciative and pleasantly surprised by that.