This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 16, 2012 7:43 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Spring fling.
The next post in this blog is Hales: "I'm not a maintainer".
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
In the end, he seems to be using it as some sort of wedge to gripe about the Interstate Bridge replacement project, but O columnist Steve Duin makes the right call on ripping up bald eagle habitat for another Port of Portland boondoggle.
Comments (16)
What is the future of shipping anyway? It is my understanding that the world is moving to ever bigger ships with deeper drafts that will not fit in the Columbia River, nor do shipping companies want to spend the extra time getting in and out of Portland along the Columbia River. There are better alternatives like the deep draft harbors of Tacoma and Seattle nearby, so Portland has languished for years. A new terminal will not change geography. What IS the Port's growth or business plan that justifies this or any of the terminals it now has?
Absolutely , and the new canal in Panama proves your point.
Hello!? Portland is about 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean and all ships must cross the Columbia River Bar which is rated as one of the most dangerous crossings in the world! The river is shallow and navigation is circuitous. I know because I have gone up and down the river for years and crossed the Bar too may times to count in good weather for obvious reasons.
$150 million for what? The money should go to other more productive uses...and I am sick to death of hearing the argument about how "this money can't be used for that".
If Puddletown was going to be a great shipping center it would have been such by now. It's not, and the Port of Portland needs to get over itself.
"The cost of the project, estimated at $134 million in 2003 to calculate its cost-benefit, has grown by 33 percent and taken years longer to complete than expected."
"Bill Wyatt, the Port of Portland's executive director, "The measure of success won't come for years."
You betcha Billy. But you'll soon be enjoying your retirement that will probably top Fred Hansen's 186K/year.
It seems more reasonable to enhance facilities at Port of Astoria and run more frequent trains between Portland and Astoria. Granted, it seems kind of weird to be talking about enhanced rail services, but it's not light rail or WES - this would be real rail that actually serves a purpose other than to boost some politician's ego.
"The part I have such a hard time understanding," Lahsene said, "is that if we need land for the future; if we want to be an international community; if the president has called for the doubling of exports over the next five years, why wouldn't we do all that we can do to create this sustainable marine terminal and improve the natural resources on West Hayden Island?"
Good points by Nolo and Portland Native.
I will add that just doubling of exports may sound good in language, but what are we exporting? Coal?
Our food?... which then increases our food costs locally. We are getting food in here from China now. Why do we need to be shipping food and increasing costs of our food? Is it because of financial interest in food commodities?
In my opinion, we exported more than enough out of our country when the road was paved for manufacturing to export the business and manufacturing equipment out. So now, it looks like the next export business will be to extract our resources and ship away, never mind how this is done leaving a trail of coal dust behind.
Basics such as food/water ought not be part of the "commodities" scene that is detrimental to our people.
Nature and the environment ought not just be up for grabs if the "right" elected officials allow it. It is set up for some to benefit financially at the expense of quality of life for others. The community once again footing a huge bill when for all practical purposes, the conditions as Portland Native described, make it difficult for Portland to compete for the huge container ships. Even if the waterways were perfect, 100 miles inland?
Bald Eagles are all over the place now. Surely we can designatie a few hundred acres to helping grow the local economy. And what little faith in the ability to do both commerical/industrial economy and keep a decent environment. Such little faith and NIMBY'ism from BoJack here.
NO! Not "little faith", just the facts, Bob Clark. The so called Port of Portland was obsolete 100 years ago because of its geographic location 100 miles up stream from the ocean on a shallow river, with a dangerous bar crossing. How many wrecks are out there?...100s!
The geography has not changed. However ships are getting bigger and with deeper drafts, and Portland is now even more of a maritime backwater.
Spending $150 million on this type of development is a shortsighted waste of a lot of money.
If we want to "grow the local economy" tell the SamRand twins to stop chasing away real jobs, like Columbia Sportswear, Siltronic, and Widmer.
Real Jobs pay living wages, provide health care, build buildings, and make stuff people can use and consume!
The Port just produces people who will collect huge pensions off the backs of the taxpayers!
Nothing wrong with Nimby'ism.
In fact, people have a right to say not in my back yard when detrimental to livability. It doesn't mean it is right to put in other's back yard either. This is just a term manufactured to try to "shut" people up.
Seems to me we need a few terms for those who do not act in the public's interest.
Why no concern about the increased water rates that as a result businesses will be leaving and who would come into the area if that
critical issue is not addressed?
Or is this export facility going to allow having our water shipped out too?
Increasing exports is another method to sell off the assets of our country. I don't want to shut down commerce, but a lot of this export business is very unbalanced as far as who benefits.
We have given away large portions of resource-rich lands to a few wealthy persons. There needs to be a significant review of this policy before we just let them sell it all to China.
I think the wildlife habitat argument is a bit weak. There are a pair of Ospreys nesting in a cell tower near my office. That doesn't make the cell tower valuable wildlife habitat. There ain't much future for coal. Even the Chinese are trying to move away from it. So building a coal terminal on Hayden Island to ship coal to China is pretty short-sighted. That is valuable industrial land on Hayden Island and it can be put to better use than as a parking lot for coal.
The Port has categorically stated that the terminal will not be for coal. Of course, that tune could change once the pavement's in place and the eagles have moved on.
We shouldn't forget the recent history of how Planners have pushed out industry, and in some cases, the shipping industry throughout our metro.
SoWhat comprised over 400 acres. Inner NW Portland along NW Yeon is being pushed out with accompanying Pier 1. Industrial Linnton is proposed to have housing/condos along the waterfront. The inner southeast along the Willamette is having its manufacturing, warehousing, shipping being pushed out. Industry/shipping is a dirty word.
These displacements that are being caused more by Planners than economics, is hurting our economics.
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (16)
What is the future of shipping anyway? It is my understanding that the world is moving to ever bigger ships with deeper drafts that will not fit in the Columbia River, nor do shipping companies want to spend the extra time getting in and out of Portland along the Columbia River. There are better alternatives like the deep draft harbors of Tacoma and Seattle nearby, so Portland has languished for years. A new terminal will not change geography. What IS the Port's growth or business plan that justifies this or any of the terminals it now has?
Posted by Nolo | April 16, 2012 9:00 AM
Absolutely , and the new canal in Panama proves your point.
Hello!? Portland is about 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean and all ships must cross the Columbia River Bar which is rated as one of the most dangerous crossings in the world! The river is shallow and navigation is circuitous. I know because I have gone up and down the river for years and crossed the Bar too may times to count in good weather for obvious reasons.
$150 million for what? The money should go to other more productive uses...and I am sick to death of hearing the argument about how "this money can't be used for that".
If Puddletown was going to be a great shipping center it would have been such by now. It's not, and the Port of Portland needs to get over itself.
Posted by Portland Native | April 16, 2012 9:25 AM
This is vital INFO
"The shipping vessels Oregon and Washington leaders were counting on may not arrive."
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/columbia_river_dredging_ends_t.html
"The cost of the project, estimated at $134 million in 2003 to calculate its cost-benefit, has grown by 33 percent and taken years longer to complete than expected."
"Bill Wyatt, the Port of Portland's executive director, "The measure of success won't come for years."
You betcha Billy. But you'll soon be enjoying your retirement that will probably top Fred Hansen's 186K/year.
Posted by INFO | April 16, 2012 10:08 AM
It seems more reasonable to enhance facilities at Port of Astoria and run more frequent trains between Portland and Astoria. Granted, it seems kind of weird to be talking about enhanced rail services, but it's not light rail or WES - this would be real rail that actually serves a purpose other than to boost some politician's ego.
Posted by Max | April 16, 2012 10:09 AM
"The part I have such a hard time understanding," Lahsene said, "is that if we need land for the future; if we want to be an international community; if the president has called for the doubling of exports over the next five years, why wouldn't we do all that we can do to create this sustainable marine terminal and improve the natural resources on West Hayden Island?"
Good points by Nolo and Portland Native.
I will add that just doubling of exports may sound good in language, but what are we exporting? Coal?
Our food?... which then increases our food costs locally. We are getting food in here from China now. Why do we need to be shipping food and increasing costs of our food? Is it because of financial interest in food commodities?
In my opinion, we exported more than enough out of our country when the road was paved for manufacturing to export the business and manufacturing equipment out. So now, it looks like the next export business will be to extract our resources and ship away, never mind how this is done leaving a trail of coal dust behind.
Basics such as food/water ought not be part of the "commodities" scene that is detrimental to our people.
Nature and the environment ought not just be up for grabs if the "right" elected officials allow it. It is set up for some to benefit financially at the expense of quality of life for others. The community once again footing a huge bill when for all practical purposes, the conditions as Portland Native described, make it difficult for Portland to compete for the huge container ships. Even if the waterways were perfect, 100 miles inland?
Posted by clinamen | April 16, 2012 10:19 AM
Bald Eagles are all over the place now. Surely we can designatie a few hundred acres to helping grow the local economy. And what little faith in the ability to do both commerical/industrial economy and keep a decent environment. Such little faith and NIMBY'ism from BoJack here.
Posted by Bob Clark | April 16, 2012 10:29 AM
NO! Not "little faith", just the facts, Bob Clark. The so called Port of Portland was obsolete 100 years ago because of its geographic location 100 miles up stream from the ocean on a shallow river, with a dangerous bar crossing. How many wrecks are out there?...100s!
The geography has not changed. However ships are getting bigger and with deeper drafts, and Portland is now even more of a maritime backwater.
Spending $150 million on this type of development is a shortsighted waste of a lot of money.
If we want to "grow the local economy" tell the SamRand twins to stop chasing away real jobs, like Columbia Sportswear, Siltronic, and Widmer.
Real Jobs pay living wages, provide health care, build buildings, and make stuff people can use and consume!
The Port just produces people who will collect huge pensions off the backs of the taxpayers!
Posted by portland native | April 16, 2012 11:06 AM
Nothing wrong with Nimby'ism.
In fact, people have a right to say not in my back yard when detrimental to livability. It doesn't mean it is right to put in other's back yard either. This is just a term manufactured to try to "shut" people up.
Seems to me we need a few terms for those who do not act in the public's interest.
Why no concern about the increased water rates that as a result businesses will be leaving and who would come into the area if that
critical issue is not addressed?
Or is this export facility going to allow having our water shipped out too?
Posted by clinamen | April 16, 2012 11:13 AM
Increasing exports is another method to sell off the assets of our country. I don't want to shut down commerce, but a lot of this export business is very unbalanced as far as who benefits.
We have given away large portions of resource-rich lands to a few wealthy persons. There needs to be a significant review of this policy before we just let them sell it all to China.
Posted by Tim | April 16, 2012 11:24 AM
I think the wildlife habitat argument is a bit weak. There are a pair of Ospreys nesting in a cell tower near my office. That doesn't make the cell tower valuable wildlife habitat. There ain't much future for coal. Even the Chinese are trying to move away from it. So building a coal terminal on Hayden Island to ship coal to China is pretty short-sighted. That is valuable industrial land on Hayden Island and it can be put to better use than as a parking lot for coal.
Posted by dg | April 16, 2012 1:58 PM
The Port has categorically stated that the terminal will not be for coal. Of course, that tune could change once the pavement's in place and the eagles have moved on.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 16, 2012 2:05 PM
We shouldn't forget the recent history of how Planners have pushed out industry, and in some cases, the shipping industry throughout our metro.
SoWhat comprised over 400 acres. Inner NW Portland along NW Yeon is being pushed out with accompanying Pier 1. Industrial Linnton is proposed to have housing/condos along the waterfront. The inner southeast along the Willamette is having its manufacturing, warehousing, shipping being pushed out. Industry/shipping is a dirty word.
These displacements that are being caused more by Planners than economics, is hurting our economics.
Posted by lw | April 16, 2012 2:19 PM
I don't believe anything the Port says; or the City either!
Why should we believe their pronouncements?
Posted by Portland Native | April 16, 2012 2:20 PM
Portland Native,
Agree.
In fact, some people have said that they think I am Portland Native.
Posted by clinamen | April 16, 2012 2:25 PM
Too funny! We could surprise eachother!
Posted by Portland Native | April 16, 2012 3:06 PM
The more I think about it, old Billy was right:
Let's kill all the planners; kill 'em tonight
(apologies for the slight change to The Eagles lyric).
Posted by Max | April 16, 2012 6:08 PM