City of Everett Councilwoman Brenda Stonecipher conveniently wrote a biased commentary with regard to how citizens of Everett, aka “herself” would like to see the Kimberly-Clark property be used in the future. (Sunday Viewpoints, “What is the right use for old mill site?”)
Brenda does acknowledge that there are four alternatives, coming before the City Council, for a decision on land use at this site. She fails to mention that she is one of the council members, forgoing the irony and on with her sales pitch, using assumed figures of employment and tax revenue. It does not consider the tens of thousands of jobs that international trade and shipping support in aerospace. Do not limit our region’s ability to support foreign trade.
After reading her article, I assume she has little to no experience with heavy industrial waterfront property.
The Kimberly-Clark site boarders the Port of Everett, Naval Station Everett, and BNSF Railroad. Anything but cargo handling and water-dependent heavy industry would be a waste of extremely unique resources; the deep water frontage and the multiple rail lines.
Light manufacturing and non-water-dependent industry can of course be located relatively anywhere, hence the term “non-water dependent.” Why on earth would you try to convince the citizens of Everett that an extremely unique waterfront property should be the site of an run of the mill, nobody yet interested, very expensive business park.
Is a park bench worth risking a working waterfront?