At a recent Snohomish City Council meeting, concerned citizens expressed nearly unanimous opposition to Port of Everett’s expansion. Because a proclamation to support Port was on the agenda, residents got acquainted with the facts about ports and their broad powers. After hearing the citizens and council members, the motion died for lack of a second.
Snohomish County voters elsewhere could benefit from what these county residents have learned. Their perspective goes below the surface layer of platitudes to explore the risks and harms.
Forcing a resolution to support the port put the City Council in an awkward position. Were they prepared to: Agree to an understated, forever tax marketed in the literature and voters’ pamphlet? Tell constituents what was best for them? Agree to add financial strain on homeowners, renters and the under-served?
Read what three constituents said in a “Community Survey for the port: “Let’s take care of/maintain what we already have instead of always looking to expand.” “Cities and county are better suited to take on projects.” “I have been discouraged by the attitude and direction.” “POE would prefer shipping terminals, high volume roadways and fenced industrial areas.” “The largest public marina on the West Coast is in a state of decay. Security (is) atrocious and virtually non-existent.” “The port seems to prioritize restaurants and bars over safety, security and good order.”
Just say no to the Port of Everett boundary expansion.
Pat Phillips
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
