Platypus to Port of Port Angeles: “Shit or get off the john”
Not in those exact words of course, but that's the gist.
Platypus Marine Inc. wants a straight Yes or No answer on Platypus' proposal to purchase the land it's presently leasing from the Port. Platypus owner Judson Linnabary has said Platypus can add 75 new full-time positions with an average annual salary of $48,500 — IF the company has the certainty that comes with owning the land rather than leasing it. He told Port commissioners:
“I’d just like to know when we can vote on a sale of the property, yea or nay, a schedule of when we can make things happen.”
Platypus Marine Inc. wants a straight Yes or No answer on Platypus' proposal to purchase the land it's presently leasing from the Port. Platypus owner Judson Linnabary has said Platypus can add 75 new full-time positions with an average annual salary of $48,500 — IF the company has the certainty that comes with owning the land rather than leasing it. He told Port commissioners:
“I’d just like to know when we can vote on a sale of the property, yea or nay, a schedule of when we can make things happen.”
posted by Tom Harper at 10:39 AM
33 Comments:
You can't trust the Port or their commissioners or their executive director. Good for Judson. Stand your ground. These governmental type mindsets know nothing about what private business have to go through to survive and grow. The port should know businesses can't promise jobs, businesses can't stick around if they fail to perform or profit....unlike the governmental type folks who have it made and are shielded from failure to perform.
Oh? Selling off publicly owned lands to private interests?
Are the parks next?
lies, lies, lies,
No way their average salary is $48.5K
No way the will every double in size
Don't sell
At the most, the Port should build and let them lease buildings.
They clearly do not want to build their own buildings on the Port's land, can you blame them?
The boat company wants no part of the planned stormwater run-off system being talked about.
The one the port of olympia just built was well over 10 million bucks. The one that everybody heard about when to 50% hydrogen peroxide solution valve was opened.
Hmmm, sell the parks? Have you noticed the parks? Crappy roads, crappy trails, dirty and poorly maintained parking. Mostly closed. All under government control. How was your last park experience? But, they got lots of vehicles, guns and authority.
How about the port property management and control? Highly polluted and the public will pay to clean it. Wouldn't the private owner be responsible if they polluted the land? Doesn't the county get money from property tax when the land is owned privately?
Businesses aren't in business to provide jobs. They're not in business to promise to communities that they will make the community whole.
Businesses aren't in business to pay taxes.
Businesses aren't in business to support progressive socialist agendas.
Businesses provide products and services for profit.
When Nippon and Walmart and the mom and pop store no longer profit then they will no longer exist.
Government however will always exist
A guess: a lease is income, to spend as they see fit. And log handling income is on the way down ... so they're gonna be getting clingy. But likely a sale of public property has to go in a capital fund, and be spent on assets.
Short-sighted. Our economy is aching for family-wage jobs.
I always thought it strange that the Port jumped at selling 3 acres or so to Westport, and there wasn't much public discussion about it, let alone public bidding.
Platypus could understandably see that as a precedent and want to have their offer considered in a similar fashion.
I usually object to the idea of privatizing public land, especially waterfront land. However, the Port is such a lousy steward that a sale to Platypus may better serve the public interest.
Geez, didn't the port sell 100 or so acres of the west side of the airport to Danny Morrison for a boat race course? Doesn't Morrison now pay county taxes on that property?
How does the existence of the port "serve the public interest"?
How do you and I benefit in any way from having a port authority?
Other than paying a few people a lot of money for managing port assets, what jobs can you say they actually have created?
When was the last time you or I actually got a dime from anything the port does?
Worse is, the port has zero oversight from anyone.
Seems that the port entity is really a big piggy bank for just a few.
does anyone know what price? i heard playtupus was offering a "low ball" number.
dont sell
Anon 11:40 says : "I usually object to the idea of privatizing public land, especially waterfront land. However, the Port is such a lousy steward that a sale to Platypus may better serve the public interest."
What some people seem to be forgetting is that lands held by the government are doing so for future generation's benefit. "The public trust". So that they are not ruined by short-sighted actions influenced by special interests.
Using the rationale that publicly owned lands should be sold because the current managers are incompetent is a bit like saying we should abandon democracy because the current government has been so corrupted by moneyed interests.
Of COURSE Platypus wants to by the waterfront property. Just like the oil companies want to continue to drill for oil on public lands. It is in their personal, business and financial interests.
Do we sell our everything, our anything, for the promise (but no guarantee) of "jobs, jobs, job"?
Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess?
Wow. How far reaching of an analogy can we dream up. The folks running the port aren't just now messed up, they've been messed up and will continue to be messed up. Sell the land and get a first right to buy back.
If you don't think these people in power aren't using their positions for personal, business and financial interest and benefits you are in la la land.
That is what has gotten us into this mess!
anon 8:48am, amen
i hope the commissioners are reading this
@9:24 AM
You say: "The folks running the port aren't just now messed up, they've been messed up and will continue to be messed up."
Now THAT is supposed to be an intelligent comment, supporting an intelligent position?
Not to make your comment sound more stupid than it already sounds, but please do explain how you know who is going to be elected to the Port of Port Angeles in the coming years, what their qualifications will be, and what policies you know they will be enacting.
The "Public Trust" is far more important than any of us. Leaving things for future generations is an important principle.
If Platypus wants lands to own, then it should go find those, where they exist.
It is a bit like leasing a cabin in the National Park, and then having a hissy fit when the Park says it cannot sell it to you.
Platypus knew when it signed the lease that it was moving onto publicly held lands.
'Nuff said.
Port or no Port...glorified landlords with high salaries or high minded civic servants dedicated to the betterment of the county? Could the city of PA do just as well managing the properties that the port does? Should the Port sell to the Jamestowns the John Wayne Marina. Think of the tax savings!
What difference does it make?
Oh your so right, I must be stupid. Sorry. I should have said...and they will probably, based on past history, past results, current results and current culture and dysfunction, continue being messed up. Just my humble opinion. Focusing on my stupidity won't change the facts.
As far as what our leaders are leaving for our future generations, let's see...no sustaining jobs or growth, crazy high debt, high tax obligations, polluted harbor, polluted lands. Is that the Public Trust you feel is so much more important then we are? Leaving these negative "things" for future generations(to deal with and pay for) is "really" such an important principle? Geez, I feel really stupid now to not get that. You and I don't share the same values.
I wonder if Westport knew they were on public property and couldn't ever own their land when they invested and built their buildings....whoops, I guess they do now own that land. Huh,is this like you or the port picking and choosing what business you or the port favors over say another business?
Maybe not enough said!
If the city took back control at least there could be some accountability, some oversight. Letting Colleen McAleers hairbrain ideas flourish is disgusting. All at the expense of others. Yep, garbage in garbage out. Our garbage and our composite garbage will be our greatest exports. What a nice future that will bring.
Think of the toxic waste mess that will make.
When someone invents the fix the stupid pill they will make a killing here.
The only thing the "public" can "trust" is that the port director will "take" his $12-13k a month for a few years and then will get the hell out of here. Ha! That's what back room deals get you...duh!
How many of you would like $12k a month? How many of you would like $6k a month? How many of you would like $3k a month? How many of you would like a job? Oh, did I mention full benefits and retirement package? What a bunch of suckers.
@ Anon 5:35 PM
Perhaps you might spend a few moments to educate yourself on the Public Trust Doctrine.
The points you state to support your views still sound stupid. Put another way, you would be also be saying that because criminals get away with crimes, we should give up trying to catch criminals. Or, because so many kids flunk out of school, we should give up on schools.
Drivers know the speed limits. Are you saying that when they get pulled over, they should be able to argue with the cops about whether speed limits should exist?
Because lawmakers have screwed up in the past (and yes, that happens a lot here in Port Angeles), are you saying we therefore should descend into anarchy? As you say, they abused the public trust, caused high debt, and other legacies for our children before, so clearly government is incapable on managing public resources.
We just spent $85 billion a month for 7 years bailing out the private sector after the 2008 financial collapse. Are you going to argue that "business knows best", too?
In the beginning of our country the people didn't like the British rule, the high taxes, their authority and control. By your analogies and logic we should still be under British rule hoping the next regime will do better. Because of that historical "change" you are now "free" to call me stupid. I'm sure the British thought that free people wanting to control their own destiny was anarchy too.
Geez, with your analogies and logic I'm wondering if I'm seeing the results of the new pot laws?
Anon 2:10 PM says: "In the beginning of our country the people didn't like the British rule, the high taxes, their authority and control. By your analogies and logic we should still be under British rule hoping the next regime will do better"
Umm, Who is smoking the ganga, here?
First, please do look up the Public Trust Doctrine. If you can read cogently, you will see that the idea of preserving physical assets like land, water and air for future generations goes all the way back to Roman law. Way back then, they realized something were more important that private property rights, and "jobs, jobs, jobs".
Assuming you can get past you impaired state, and can read, you will find out these ideas were affirmed in the Magna Carta, hundreds of years ago.
And, despite being obviously stupid, you might be aware of this thing called the US Supreme Court, which has not only affirmed that the Public Trust Doctrine is the law of the land, but has expanded it's scope.
Now, I know the brain trust in Port Angeles that you represent thinks Port Angeles should not have to comply with ANY laws, and that Port Angeles should be able to do what ever it wants. But, that isn't the way society works.
Really.
Or, are you implying that Platypus' desire to buy public lands is the start of the overthrow of US government and society as we know it? That like our forefathers, they are revolting against the obviously unfair concept of wanting to change the rules of the game AFTER they read the lease, and signed on the dotted line?
You have any concept of legally binding contracts? Are you suggesting these are some kind of "hairbrain" idea?
Bad idea to sell public land to private interests. This is prime land and right on the waterfront. They have a long term lease, why should the port rush into any decision on selling. They cannot find a better spot at a better price and they hope to give commissioners a bums rush to sell. Let's not be rushed. By the time the current lease is up then consider a lease renewal but do not rush in to any sale of public lands to private interests.
Hey Anon.7:02.
I've had such a great time debating with you. Sucking you into exposing your elitist know it all mind set. Your so far off into the weeds and predictable in your responses. God, I can't stop roaring with laughter.
If your the shining example of intelligence I want to stay stupid.
My money says you are part of the elitist leaches sucking the very life out of the public you purport to stand up for. Scared of losing control over others.
Think about it. You went from a simple selling of public property to jumping to lawlessness and anarchy and the total collapse of society. Drama, drama, drama.
Now you reference and praise the Romans. People who fear the truth and fear personally losing something resort to childish name calling because their arguments don't stand up to the smell test. So predictable.
Isn't all land public, aren't you simply renting it from the government until you stop paying your taxes on it or sell it to someone else who agrees to pay the taxes. If smarty pants isn't a renter and actually owns a home and truly contributes to the tax rolls then he/she can test this by not paying your taxes and then see how long you will live there.
Also, quantative easing was created, controlled and implemented by........let's see......hmmm. ....oh I know the government. The fake money printed and doled out was done by......let's see....hmmm. ....oh I know the government.
If you hate businesses so much, stop driving, stop eating, stop using your computer, just stop everything that business provides. Then you will end up like the......let's see....hmmm. ...I know the Romans.
Sell the damn property, help Platypus grow and thrive. If they fail they won't be able to pay the taxes and then the greedy government gets it back.
The Port is up to no good, selling is a bad idea, but it won't matter in a few years when all anyone will be talking about is the millions of dollars of taxpayers money wasted on recycling composite waste.
This is a boondoggle cooked up by a few trying to protect/save their jobs. They have no idea how to do what the claim will create hundreds of jobs.
@Anon 10:41
So, you think a string of insults constitutes a debate? Misrepresenting the issues is debate?
Anybody who has reviewed the thread can easily see that you were unable to adequately address the points raised, or defend your position with anything other than attempts at insults. Childish, yes. Convincing? Only for those who don't require facts or logic.
In what might appear as a diversion from the topic at hand, which is whether a public entity whose sole authority is the management of publicly held resources has the ability to sell public lands, we can talk about legally binding contracts.
Yes, based on what you've chosen to say, you will happily insult the Port Directors past, present and future. But is that a responsible basis for public policy?
Yes, lynch mobs can hand out the kind of "justice" you obviously support. Laws exist to protect people from the random and subjective justifications of people like you seem to support.
You don't know who the people who will be o he Port in the future are, but that doesn't matter to you. You happily "lynched" them without a pause.
You say "Now you reference and praise the Romans." Hello? You DO know in an actual debate, referencing actual FACTS such as the foundations of policies established and affirmed by society is what "debate" is really about?
And, please do show where I "praised the Romans".
In debate, groundless accusations don't gain you any credibility.
Interestingly, and revealing, you start your comments with "Sucking you into exposing your elitist know it all mind set." This reveals the sad reality: you view requiring important decisions be based on facts, contracts, laws and accepted societal standards as "elitist". Do you want to debate that concept and it's implications?
As has been said by many, many times before, those without defensible reasoned argument resort to insults to prop up their egos.
Platypus knew they were leasing public lands when they signed the lease. Public Trust Doctrine has been challenged and affirmed by society for almost two thousand years now. One of the few principles that has stood the test of time.
Geez, did anybody really believe that big daddy Mike McAleer would vote no on the opportunity fund request to give $1 million of the hard working peoples money to his hairbrained daughters Colleen McAleers idea of a new composites recycling industry. Grease those skids Mikey. If this isn't conflict of interest I don't know what is? I bet smarty pants above believes this is all a part of the public trust agenda.
Its yet another example of the elitist know it alls playing with the publics money to create their own legacy using their public trust. No accountability if it fails.
Do you believe ms. McAlleer would actually do the crappy work she so proudly touts? If the governments are so flush with money why don't they cut our taxes instead of creating these phoney legacy corporations?
The platypus story is a diversion to distract everyone's attention away from the composite recycling scam.
It's working, dozens of business leaders are wasting their energy on this land issue and ignoring the real Port crime
For Anon 2:29 AM (and who obviously posted again at 2:46 AM)
If you read your own posts, you will see they defend the very reason why the Public Trust Doctrine was created, and why it has been affirmed so many times by so many for almost two thousand years. And why it must be defended.
As you point out, public lands have been the subject of the whims and deal making of various public representatives who, you allege, are making these deals to financially benefit themselves and associates.
This is EXACTLY why the Public Trust Doctrine exists. It recognizes that there will always be people who will attempt to abuse their positions of responsibility to the long term greater good, and will use their positions to do things using public lands for their personal benefit.
So, the laws say that certain assets must be held in the Public Trust, and not be subject to sale by one person or another for their personal benefit. It is a protection against the very kinds of abuses you are ranting on about.
Post a Comment
<< Home