Who gets the credit, really?

Those of you fortunate enough to receive news releases from the Port of Seattle will want to take a look at today's story about the Airport winning an award for its environmental program, oh boy!

It would be interesting to have an accurate accounting from the Port, detailing how many tens of  millions the Port spent fighting against the environmental requirements that it now boasts about.  Legal fees, consultants' fees, staff time ... all paid for with public money, too.   The story is far too long to tell in a blog posting.  But for sheer stubbornness in defying environmental law, THAT'S the award the Port should have received.

Will Port spend own money for noise relief?

Does the Port of Seattle have $73 million in Airport money that could be used for noise relief?

When dealing with the Port of Seattle about Airport-related noise, the Port's consistent message has been that it will not, cannot, or is not allowed to spend its own money.  We recall former Commissioner Paige Miller insisting (for years) that no Port money could be used to help with the noise in the buildings of the Highline School District.  FAA money or nothing.  In the end, the Port agreed to provide $50 million for school insulation & rebuilding from tax revenues.

There is, of course, no general legal barrier to the Port District spending its own money (tax revenue, net profits from its various lines of business) for such things as property buy-outs, insulation of noise-affected homes & schools, investment in real estate, buying abandoned railway right-of-way, helping to fund a new South Park bridge, &c.  There are some restrictions on use of money from direct operation of the Airport.  But it is our understanding that what are called "non-aero" profits are free of FAA-imposed constraints (as are general revenue from property taxes).

So the "Miller Doctrine" (FAA money or nothing) was not based on legalities. Maybe it was nothing but stinginess.

A staff briefing to the Port Commission on 17 August revealed that the Airport expects to make net operating income (profits) on "non-aero" business of $73 million this year (2010).  The Port District needs to be very clear & straightforward with the community about how this money can be used.  If it is legally not available for noise relief, let's see an understandable explanation (not the "Miller Doctrine" re-stated).  Otherwise, the study team for the Part 150 noise study, & the interested public should feel free to make recommendations for noise relief actually paid for by the Port.

+ + +

The staff briefing (in 36 Powerpoint slides) can be downloaded from the Port's website.  The "non-aero NOI" is discussed on Slide 8.  Go to 

http://www.portseattle.org/about/organization/commission/meetingagenda.shtml

Then click on the agenda for 17 August, & then find agenda item 7 b & click on PowerPoint. That will give you the slideshow.

II-010-008-D