Reading this recent history is a must.

COVER STORY
PORT IN A STORM
by NIGEL JAQUISS
njaquiss@wweek.com

& Busting Up the Boys Club

http://www.wweekarchive.com/leada.html

Wow, a local public entity takes a chapter on secrecy from the Bush Administration. The justification; "what the public doesn't know can't hurt us". Hmm, seems like your distrust is well founded. The public has a significant stake in seeing improvement in the ecology of the Willamette. This issue cries out for judicial oversight. If the litigation strategy deserves protection, a short-term redaction of just that portion might be appropriate. Once the litigation is initiated the redaction should be lifted. Instead of focussing it's resources on hindering public oversight, the Port should initiate the litigation making the issue moot.

So... The Port of Portland. Another "economic engine" in Portland Metro. They get money from their own special taxing district on the property tax dole, despite their being a revenue-generating entity. They're supposed to take the lead in "economic development" in the Portland area.

Portland is a transportation transfer mode. Road to water and vice versa. So, the Port owns a fair amount of land on the waterfront...right? They have gotten together, with the private owners that share their waterfront dilemma....right? Is that a contract? Does entering a contract with a government entity always assume open public scrutiny? I'd certainly be interested to know who promised what to whom.

Let me give you a little hint: Every time you see the term "economic development", you need to stop an look closely and critically at what is being claimed. Follow the money. Who gains; who loses? In my experience, there is a high possibility of there being an inequitable distribution of public funds.

The other little detail, is that the way the EPA laws read the entitey who polluted is the entity who is ultimately liable to clean up or make restitution for the mess, not the public. Also this stuff tends to migrate, and if bad stuff migrates into the water or onto another persons property the entity that polluted is still responsible. Pubic record is handy when you drill a montitoring well and find strange substances that cost big bucks to clean up. If there is public record, you then go look at the adjacent property to help with clean-up, and stop the migration. In the case of waterfront, who knows where this bad stuff will be found downstream in the muck. I can see no reason other than to avoid liability that this would not be public information.

Maybe it has to do in part with that nasty de-icer stuff they use out at the airport.

""""Let me give you a little hint: Every time you see the term "economic development", you need to stop an look closely and critically at what is being claimed""""""

Every time you see that around here someone should be arrested.

... still responsible. Pubic record is handy when you drill a montitoring well ...

Well, that at least explains the 'porn' designation for this site.

It is comforting to know Mike Thorne is chairing the new "big look" land use task force. This and the fact that editorialists at the O seem to use every chance they get to prop up Teddy K. make me wonder about Phil Stanford's assertion that the Goldscmidt machine may be crumbling. It reminds me more of a gooey, stinking cheese that spreads and reeks as it melts.