LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Port’s “cash cow” raises questions

Array

To the editor:

The Langley Small Boat Harbor project may stand for years as a local civics lesson (perhaps along with Freeland’s futile planning process).

Since the port commissioners are not at all disposed to considering public opinion, the campaigning to raise awareness of the issues needs to begin. Here are a few observations:

The city of Langley gave away its marina because of looming costs. In embracing the facility, the port never publicly stated that its deeper taxing pockets made it an ideal owner. This missing level of honesty would have informed the public during the transfer. Now Commissioner Seitle says people have long known taxpayer support would be needed to rebuild the marina. Perhaps his friends and Langley government “people” knew this.

Establishing the viability of the marina as a self-supporting investment could be done in stages, as financial advisor Dane Anderson seems to suggest. The commissioners want the whole hog on their watch. This is a warning sign that ambition is trumping perspective.

The marina is touted as a cash cow, with the potential to produce more than 20 good jobs.

Really? Pleasure boating in the Puget Sound is dramatically affected by seasonal weather. Any observer can count the pleasure boat activity in the October-April period as minimal. How are “good jobs” supported on a part-year activity? Moreover, how are the full-time jobs necessitated by a large facility paid for?

The limited nature and obscure location of the Langley marina will clearly benefit Langley commercially. It seems that Langley’s leaders, and circling potential developers, have cleverly avoided having this conversation in public, with the help of the port commission. Having free public financing for the biggest development in its history would be a remarkable accomplishment.

Boat owners would be the chief beneficiaries of a deluxe facility that offers moorage. Fishermen have several free public launch sites already. Boat owners, as a group, share this leisure pastime because they can afford it. A recent supporter’s column in the Record asserted that, since he pays larger than average taxes on his larger than average house, willingly, then we should all consider kicking in on the marina. Unfortunately, this merely makes the arguments as to the affluence needed for the boating sport.

The port commissioners’ edict is taxation under all options, even citizen rejection. This goes beyond coercion to threatening language. I, personally, do not support having a port commission in order to be threatened.

George Rusch

Clinton

More in Letters to the Editor

Letter: Fear Navy wasn’t working in good faith now confirmed

Editor, I read in the Feb. 2 South Whidbey Record on Feb.… Continue reading

Letter: Something must be done now about global warming

Editor, Climate change is happening now. The latest climate report from the… Continue reading

Letter: Parks and Rec has work to do before asking for money

Editor, Your two front page articles in the Jan. 30 edition of… Continue reading

Letter: Exposure to jet noise is harmful to your health

Editor, Noise exposure from military jets has long been shown to cause… Continue reading

Letter: Wondering if the Navy has problem with credibility

Editor, The Navy Growler EIS makes dubious assertions, as well as verbal… Continue reading

Letter: Fractional reserve lending a good deal for state residents

Editor, Former state treasurer Duane A. Davidson is opposed to the citizens… Continue reading

Letter: Patriot Prayer can’t decide law is unconstitutional

Editor, First, a quote: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is… Continue reading

Letter: Dams came at high cost to tribes dependent on salmon

Editor, “Urgent warning: Elected officials, if breaching does not begin this winter,… Continue reading

Letter: Name is Tokitae — don’t label her a ‘killer whale’

Editor, I was very heartened to read Patricia Guthrie’s article about the… Continue reading

Most Read