Remember: It's always about the money.

"Last summer, it [Newport] outbid and outmaneuvered three ports in Washington."

Or

"Could the move to Newport be connected to the fact that the new administrator of the oceanic agency is Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a former professor at Oregon State University, which has a major marine research center in Newport?"

"But Justin Kenney, the oceanic administration spokesman, said the Newport decision was made in the Bush administration, and without participation by Dr. Lubchenco, Mr. Locke or elected officials."

"Don Mann, the general manager of the Port of Newport, “As far as we’re concerned,” Mr. Mann said, “it’s a done deal unless the sky falls. We don’t anticipate that it will.”

Good for Newport BUT
Of course Lubchenco influenced the decision and of course NOAA would deny that.

Is Don Mann related tio Michael Mann?

IMO, The best option would have been to not move at all and save the millions.

Newport will benefit but the current location will suffer and the country will foot the bill.

It's a done deal. The tempest in a teapot is the Washington governor doing some (expected) political due diligence. The NYT story makes it appear far more doubtful than it actually is.

I just don't get why they don't either:

1. Keep it where it is, or,

2. If they can't stay where they are, move it to the abandoned Tongue Point naval base (east of Astoria). It's already got the piers, docks, warehouses, office buildings...and despite numerous attempts to redevelop it, the attempts fail miserably each time. Using it for its intended purpose (to service government ships) makes sense, and would be low cost.

Tongue Point is a good idea, but it has been busy since the 1960's
http://tonguepoint.jobcorps.gov/home.aspx

The marine side of Tongue Point is not controlled by the Job Corps Center, it's controlled by Washington Development:

http://www.washdev.com/industrial.asp?m=industrial

http://www.northtonguepoint.com/