The Daily Briefing

PORT STARTS ITS SPIN ON SCHIPSKE PROPOSALS–IN THE P-T

Dave WielengaTue. January 22
 

The Press-Telegram’s Kristopher Hanson checks in on Council member Gerrie Schipske’s proposal that Long Beach get a greater portion of Port of Long Beach profits – and does the early foot soldiering for the Port’s strategy for spinning against it – in his On The Waterfront column today.

Hanson calls Schipske’s proposal “just the latest City Hall grab at the Harbor Department.” He points out that the Port has already written this year’s check for 10 percent of its profits – about $17 million. He warns that Schipske’s proposal would come at the expense of the health of people and the environment. He suggests that this would really pain the health-and-environment-conscious officials at the Port.

Concludes Hanson: “Any city grab at port income now would likely result in less funding for future clean-air programs, and that’s a scenario port authorities and supporters would rather not see occur.”

That’s not necessarily true.

Besides the fact that the Port has been dragged kicking-and-crying into its environmental commitments — and that the sleight-of-hand nature of these agreements provide no guarantee they will result in a net reduction of pollutants — this is not an either/or equation. The City can get its extra five or 10 percent and still demand  reductions in pollution. The City owns the Port! It is a City asset!

The $17 million check the City has already received means the Port turned a $170 million profit last year. As Hanson points out, those profits are “plowed back into harbor-are road and rail improvements, bridge repairs and terminal maintenance and expansion.”

In other words, they attract more shipping traffic to the port — which ultimately will offset whatever environmental measures are eventually put into practice.

Schipske’s proposals are intended to examine a potential solution to Long Beach’s crushing budget problems. An unintended benefit may be to shed light on the all-too-secretive power players who operate at the Port.

Tags: , , , , , ,

RELATED

COMMENTS

  1. 1

    Oh, so true!

    The port can well afford to go much greener, much faster, AND give the city bigger cut… it can simply pass on any additional costs to its customers, who will simply pass on these costs to consumers. The net result is that folks in Utah may have to pay 99 cents for that WalMart sweater (rather than 98 cents)… I think we can live with that.

    [report]

    Posted By Greg on January 23rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm

     

  2. 2

    Oh, I don’t know, Greg. I drive down Cherry Ave and pass the $0.99 store, then the $0.98 store. I can’t imagine that the $1.01 store would survive the fierce competition.

    “Corporations need their stuff!”

    [report]

    Posted By Dan Kelson on January 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm

     

  3. 3

    i’m opening up a 97 cent store. i plan to blow all other competition out of the water.

    [report]

    Posted By pitter on January 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm

     

  4. 4

    The P-T is the Chamber of Commerce/POLB/developer’s mouthpiece and gets its talking points from those folks. The District could do daily just rebutting op-ed pieces in the P-T. And since the P-T doesn’t do any local investigative journalism anymore (now that Councilmemeber Dan Baker is no longer around for his weekly kick in the teeth), it doesn’t have to worry about offending its primary revenue sources.

    [report]

    Posted By Andy on January 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

     

Leave a Reply

DISCLAIMER: We do not screen comments in advance, but we do reserve the right to delete or edit any we find inappropriate. Please note that commenters are free to use whatever name(s) they choose.

 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.