To the Editor:
At the July 16 Snohomish City Council meeting, concerned citizens expressed nearly unanimous opposition to Port Expansion.
Because a proclamation to support Port was on the agenda, residents got acquainted with the facts about Ports and their broad powers. After hearing the citizens and council members, the motion died for lack of a second.
Snohomish County voters elsewhere could benefit from what these County residents have learned. Their perspective goes below the surface layer of platitudes to explore the risks and harms.
Forcing a resolution to support the Port put the City Council in an awkward position. Were they prepared to: 1) Agree to understated, forever tax marketed in the literature and voters’ pamphlet? 2) Tell constituents what was best for them? 3) Agree to add financial strain on homeowners, rents and the underserved?
Read what three constituents said in a “Community Survey for the Port...”:
1) “Let’s take care of/maintain what we already have ... instead of always looking ... to expand.”
2) “Cities and county are better suited ... to take on ... projects .. I have been ... discouraged by the ... attitude and direction. POE would prefer shipping terminals, high volume roadways and fenced industrial areas.”
3) “The largest public marina on the W. Coast ... in a state of decay. Security ... atrocious and virtually non-existent ... the port seems to prioritize restaurants and bars over ... safety, security and good order ...”
Just say NO to the Port of Everett Boundary Expansion.
Pat Phillips
Snohomish
