Hay paved lots make easy hunting for birds of prey.

Not if they have nowhere to live.

Hummm. my sarc tag did a dissapperd.

Re: Port plan for island gets tepid response

When the Brookings Institution recently published Export Nation, greater Portland-Vancouver made a big showing: number two exporter among all U.S. metro regions, second-greatest five-year growth in exports, and number one in computer and electronics exports to China. Much of this distribution runs through the Port of Portland.

The problem is that Greater Portland is rapidly running out of shovel ready industrial land. The City of Portland has a unique opportunity to expand our industrial and marine distribution land supply by annexing 800 acres on West Hayden Island to respond to market demand as we exit the Great Recession. One out of twelve jobs in our region is directly attributable to the Port of Portland.

Unfortunately many in the conservation community would prefer to export living wage jobs out of our region to other parts of the country. Unemployment is a weapon of mass destruction. Employed Portlanders are becoming an endangered species.

West Hayden Island (“WHI”) was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary for the Portland metropolitan region in 1983 to serve marine industrial needs. The west side of Hayden Island is not currently included in the City of Portland boundaries. More than 20% of West Hayden Island is manmade via 100+ years of dredging of the Columbia Rvier.

The City of Portland’s economic opportunities analysis demonstrates that the city does not have an adequate supply of industrial land over the next 20 years. West Hayden Island development offers the opportunity for the City of Portland to capture living wage waterfront jobs and the revenue associated with them. Local waterfront industrial land is needed.

There is an identified scarcity of waterfront industrial lands within the City of Portland per the city’s industrial land inventory and the City’s Draft Economic Opportunity Analysis. Additionally, the city’s “Portland Plan,” a required land use planning process that is currently being conducted, identifies the need for over 600 acres of industrial land within city limits. In my opinion the shortfall is in excess of 1,500 acres and we have less than a five-year supply of land. Portland currently only has five sites in excess of 25 acres that are in a “shovel ready” condition.

The environmentalists are proposing that Oregon outsource good paying industrial jobs to Vancouver or worse yet, completely out of our region. How does exporting jobs out of Portland help Oregon when all tax revenue would go to Olympia or other states? WHI is one of the few locations that provides deep water for ships, access to rail and is in close proximity to existing infrastructure investments and homes for workers.

The report cited in this article considers whether the Port of Vancouver could supply some land to accommodate the shortfall in the city of Portland. I do not believe the City can or should absolve itself of the responsibility of providing sufficient employment land by imposing that responsibility on a jurisdiction outside the state and not governed by Oregon land use laws.

In addition, the methodology used to analyze land availability by the city of Portland differs from that used to analyze the Port of Vancouver, and so the comparison of land availability and efficiency is inaccurate and should not be used. More than half of the 750 acres in the Port of Vancouver stated in this article is already committed to users that will use the property for deep water marine port. Some of this land is not even on the river and is not suitable for deep water marine business. The Port of Vancouver is a competitor to the Port of Portland.

For example, many of the sites in the Port of Vancouver land inventory are not wholly available for development. Therefore, the actual available land theoretically available to be used as a substitute for West Hayden Island is significantly less than the report cites.

At 300 acres, our region is losing 500 acres of potential deep water marine land. Based on current market value for industrial land, this value is in excess of $100,000,000. Is the Audubon Society going to write a check in this amount to pay for the loss of this land?

The Port of Portland is one of the most environmentally responsible ports in the United States. There headquarters is the ONLY LEED platinum Port facility in the country.

As I see it, the social pollution of relentless human poverty and Portland’s continued unemployment above the national average for the past 20 years is far more frightening than the environmental “what ifs” that preservationists use to strangle our regional economy.

I believe we can achieve a balance of uses on West Hayden Island for job creation and it can be done in such a way as to minimize impact to residents and the environment. “Sensible” sustainability, social equity and job creation do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Brian Owendoff, member of the West Hayden Island Advisory Committee

"Brian Owendoff"
(email verified)
Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:52 PM

"Based on current market value for industrial land, this value is in excess of $100,000,000. Is the Audubon Society going to write a check in this amount to pay for the loss of this land?"

Yes they will pay for their "takings". From the same checking account where they bought out the timber industry so that the Spotted Owl could live. Just ask all the loggers who retired early to Maui with their windfall profits.

And I love your quote here:
"As I see it, the social pollution of relentless hipster poverty and Portland’s continued unemployment above the national average for the past 20 years is far more frightening than the environmental “what ifs” that preservationists use to strangle our regional economy."

Brian Owendoff, member of the West Hayden Island Advisory Committee

Shame on you! Again. Take your dirty development back to Cleveland.

Portland used to have plenty of waterfront industrial land.
Until they started turning it into condo bunkers for hipsters.

"problem is that Greater Portland is rapidly running out of shovel ready industrial land"

For what purpose? What does this even mean? What industries are racing here, or would be if only they could find a prime 100 acre plot in the city center to exploit?

Not only is there is plenty of shovel ready land seating empty in Vancouver right now, but there are numerous ports down river which could be expanded. Most of our imports/exports are low value goods, coal depots and car parks do not generate many jobs. We are a full day upstream from the ocean, and in today's world of just in time shipping that matters. We are never going to compete as a port of call. We export basic commodities, and that we will continue to do, at Portland, Vancouver, St. Helens, or wherever.

"The Port of Vancouver is a competitor to the Port of Portland."

So what? We are one economically integrated region, we may be bisected by state lines, but our port leaders should be working together in the greater interest of the region rather then racing to compete for 40 longshoreman jobs to offload cars. The LongBeach/LosAngeles cooperation comes to mind. If we are that dumb we get what we deserve.

Look I don't disagree with you about needing to build up jobs, nor do I think West Hayden Island is particularly attractive or an important wildlife refuge. However, just making an argument to destroy it in order to serve a mythic purpose is shoddy thinking. What are the jobs that you speak of? What industries need land here? Why would they come here? Would they even give our hipsters jobs? How much is it going to cost in incentives? or infrastructure?

We're GREEN, tell that to the 800 trees to be killed, and at night no less, good luck sleeping around the bridge area for the next several weeks.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/04/crews_to_begin_removing_about.html

"LEED platinum port facility"....what a crock!!!
Go back to Cleveland! Brian. And take that snake oil you're selling with you.

Jack What is with the "shame"? How is my expressing my opinion which is contrary to yours shameful? The expansion of the Port has nothing to do with Goldschmidt and has everything to do with whether our region values living wage jobs vs. the relocation of pileated woodpeckers from an area that was 30% manmade from 100 years of dredging. I do not have a dog in the fight but for the fact I hope that 20 years from now when my children are grown that they can relocate back to Portland. That means there has to be jobs. The Port is a large driver of our economy. Economies and regional prosperity is all about inertia: you are either moving forward or backwards, and if you are staying the same you are moving backwards.

This is your sandbox, Jack. If one cannot respectfully express a view counter to yours without being attacked (and attacked by mostly anonymous posters)I guess I will stop visiting this blog...

Portland: Group Think or ELSE!

PS: You did get my vote over the divorce attorney

We are one economically integrated region, we may be bisected by state lines, but our port leaders should be working together in the greater interest of the region rather then racing to compete for 40 longshoreman jobs to offload cars.

The fault in this logic is that you're assuming that the Port authorities have the best interests of the region as a whole, or even their own constituents, in mind.

One look at their new headquarters building at PDX ought to dispel that notion. It's all about money, budgets, staff, and most of all, control.

Brian, it's amazing to me that you can't see the irony that you, of all people, complain about anonymous posters attacking you.

But to get to a question of substance, so I'm not myself accused: Why don't you try to address the questions posed in Shadrach's last paragraph. As a commercial RE broker, you're in a very good position to know the answers.

Shovel-ready jobs

TRANSLATION" Keep digging deeper and deeper into debt using public assets so a few can profit

Living wage jobs is fine as long as those jobs aren't being subsidized by public assets. Public assets include land and the use of that land.

I would wager that shipping coal to China is going to benefit very few and a create a potential mess for everybody else.

Nothing is more American than cutting down Bald Eagle aeries to ship coal to China.

Brian Owendoff: How is it "outsourcing" if the jobs move to Vacouver, WA? Why not work together with the region's ports and expand on that side of the river? Isn't it better to concentrate on the side of the river that already has many port facilities? Plus it'll help relieve traffic on the I-5 bridge.

I'm the rare Reagan Republican who comments on this site, and I've only had comments deleted or suppressed a handful of times. Freedom of speech is much more difficult at Oregonlive or WillyWeek, in my experience.

The Chinese will continue to import and burn all the coal we choose not to burn in the U.S. so long as it is the cheapest path to meet their energy requirements. That's why I held the Kyoto Treaty in such low regard. Global emissions matter just as much as local emissions. We're going out of our way to reduce our carbon footprint and the PRC is commissioning AT LEAST one new coal burning electric plant every month.

Hayden Island is ripe for development or environmental preservation: it's got to be one or the other. If the best economic use is a trans-shipment point for U.S. coal exports, then I would vote in favor of preserving it for wildlife and (eventually) some eco-tourism.

What is with the "shame"?

You're paving over bald eagle habitat for something that isn't needed. Even leaving aside your personal motivations, you should be ashamed of that.

I guess I will stop visiting this blog...

Suit yourself. You can even go back to Cleveland.

The "green" hypocrites of Portland government will burn for what they're about to do out there.

Where are all those followers of the green, eco this and that, the Portland Sustainability Institute, the PSU students for sustainability, the Coalition for a Livable Future, etc?
How about Metro and their "green" programs?

Situational ethics?

Thanks for posting Jack. This project is bad from an environmental, community AND economic perspective. How does it serve our economy in the long run to build inefficient, duplicative Port facilities that are focused on stealing business from one another rather than competing effectively with Ports in California and Seattle? The result will be a massive waste of public funds (This pr0ject is going to cost between $25 and $100 million for transportation upgrades alone at a time that we can't even afford to fill potholes), destruction of irreplaceable natural areas, destruction of local communities and half empty and failed Port facilities that continue to bleed red ink. There are real models of sharing of Port facilities between not only states, but also between countries---We need visionary leadership to put in motion a process for real inter-port cooperation and collaboration to protect our environment, our communities and our economy....not continued indulgence of irresponsible Port of Portland empire building.

Bob Sallinger
Conservation Director
Audubon Society of Portland