1. I don't know about this particular land, but in general, the whole point of zoning laws is to interfere with market demand.

Posted by: Bruce on August 30, 2007 07:04 AM

2. "Shouldn't market demand, not politicians' ungrounded fantasies, be the driving factor in the zoning decision?"

Sometimes, but the whole idea with zoning is long term planning. Developers generally have a narrow single minded focus on making the most money possible off of the land they own. This not bad by any means.

The city on the other hand must have a wider and long term view of the growth of the City. Often this means tempering the ambitions of developers. Sometimes it means forgoing a current use for a better future use.

Posted by: Giffy on August 30, 2007 07:58 AM

3. Seattle has become white collar. It has lost its salt of the earth residents. They can't afford to live in Seattle.

I have a problem with Ports, Cities and School Districts buying property, developing it themselves and then reaping the rental benefits on tax free property.

The Port should be in the transporation of people and goods. It should not be the next great real estate maven. If the property gets rezoned, the Port should sell the property, not lease it.

My gut instinct is that the Port should keep all its industrial land. Industrial land is getting scarce and if we, as a country, eliminate roads, that industrial property needs to be in the City.

Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 08:10 AM

4. Just know what you are giving up by making this move. It is very likely that the Commercial Fishing fleet that docks and refits on Pier 90 and 91 will go away with a move like this. Millions of dollars in lost revenue for the city and county, too bad.

Posted by: Smokie on August 30, 2007 08:11 AM

5. I guess City of Seattle wants to charge higher taxes to make up for shortfall in revenue at the Port of Seattle. Another example of Politicians lack of thinking past one idea. Seattle has priced them out of a lot of jobs. The State and KC increase the costs of blue color jobs.
When a house painter has to pay $3/hr to the state to paint a house. Who has to cover that expense. A house painter has to pay the same rate as if he was painting a bridge.
The same goes with jobs in the state. the low paying jobs are going away overseas. I see this happening in many places. Cheaper to higher a person in India to do the work that use to be done by a US Citizen. Why, the cost of Government regulations cost per employee is just one expense plus the cost of living due to again Government Regulations means to keep an employee they have to pay a much higher salary. SO a business keeps the high paying jobs local but moves the low paying less skill work overseas to cut expenses due to Government Regulations.
So how do you expect to open a blue collar job in Seattle when big companies move the blue collar jobs to India, China or anyother off shore country that does not regulate and demand large payments for the right to have employees.
Government is not efficient. And who says they are smart. This is a case of stupidity in my mind.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on August 30, 2007 09:05 AM

6. stefan I think the market would support me building a 50 room Inn next to your $880,000 home you paid too much far in Greenlake.

I plan to break ground this weekend. Can you and Irene grab a shovel and join me?

Posted by: bill on August 30, 2007 09:30 AM

7. stefan I think the market would support me building a 50 room Inn next to your $880,000 home you paid too much far in Greenlake.

I plan to break ground this weekend. Can you and Irene grab a shovel and join me?

Posted by: bill on August 30, 2007 09:31 AM

8. stefan I think the market would support me building a 50 room Inn next to your $880,000 home you paid too much far in Greenlake.

I plan to break ground this weekend. Can you and Irene grab a shovel and join me?

Posted by: bill on August 30, 2007 09:31 AM

9. You would think that economic realities would rule, but you are forgetting that this is actually a religious issue.

Posted by: John Galt on August 30, 2007 10:15 AM

10. re 5: "This is a case of stupidity in my mind." A very apt statement, Mr. Anfinrud. If one were to search for stupidity, your mind would be a good place to start.

How can a person in Seattle hire a housepainter in India to paint their house?
Sheesh!!!

Posted by: headlesslucy on August 30, 2007 10:30 AM

11. How hard did you ask the Port and Steinbrueck, you jackass?

It took me 2 minutes to find this. Could you not find it, or are you making shit up again?

Perhaps the most instructive research would be for someone to talk to Korry Electronics about this...

From the P-I, 8/15/07
City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck said the port should triple the proposal's set-aside of 350,000 square feet of land for industrial use. What's more, Steinbrueck wrote in the letter, the port should stop stalling on signing up an industrial land tenant that has been waiting for more than a year to lease 10 of the Interbay site's 57 vacant acres. Korry Electronics Co., a Boeing Co. supplier on Dexter Avenue North, is looking to expand in Seattle.

The port had falsely linked the signing of Korry to the council's acceptance of the overlay proposal, Steinbrueck said, and should instead make the deal with Korry and invest to allow Korry to move to the site and keep its nearly 600 family-wage jobs -- with another 400 possible post-expansion -- within Seattle.

"Nothing is stopping the port from proceeding today with signing Korry," Steinbrueck said. "If Korry walks, or leaves town, the port will be held responsible for it, not the city."

Posted by: Mr. Yuck on August 30, 2007 10:36 AM

12. "Mr. Yuck" (appropriate nickname): Korry is not the issue. Korry would get their site under the Port's plan. It's the remaining part of the site that the Port wanted to zone for office space.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 30, 2007 10:43 AM

13. If there if no issue on the land for Korry, what is the Port waiting for? They seem to be trying to hold the whole thing hostage to their agenda instead of doing what they can to make at least part of the land productive.

If there is no dispute on the land for Korry, then how come you state that "there are no prospective industrial tenants in sight."

Are you incompetent or just deliberately untruthful?

Posted by: Mr. Yuck. on August 30, 2007 10:51 AM

14. The real reason the Port wants to re-zone the property from industrial is that it will much more unlikely that the State would place sexual predator re-hab/halfway home on their territory like they did in the industrial zoned area in SODO area. Port wants nothing to do with the PR and legal issues it would/could bring.

Posted by: sokala on August 30, 2007 10:59 AM

15. That's a good point, Stefan. Ports and other jurisdictions are holding up their owned property to either develop themselves or holding out for their own price. If government were doing what they do best- infrastructure, education, etc.- instead of land development, we would be better off.

Other ports in this state are scamming their way to the same deal the Seattle Port wants to do.

Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 11:09 AM

16. Are you incompetent or just deliberately untruthful?

Concerning Stefan, I would say he's being deliberately untruthful.

The title of Incompetent should be reserved for the lot of posters on SP who just parrot whatever Stefan tells them.

Posted by: Cato on August 30, 2007 11:36 AM

17. Cato, you need to take the weekend off and refocus. Your one-liners have been a little flat. Maybe understandable with the several spats you got going.

The comment above was lame and you do give good one-liners that I like.

Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 11:56 AM

18. Before the socialist thinkers (Nickelbag and the unions) get their panties in a real twist, they should actually stop and for once look at the big picture. A company just doesn't exist in its own little world (we're talking about private ownership here). There has to be the infrastructure to support the enterprise. One needs to consider employees, suppliers, transportation, parking, loading/unloading, insidious taxes, greenie weenies, housing, schools, etc. The environmental impact statements and regulatons alone would make any smart employer think twice before putting a real manufacturing plant near the water. Not to mention having to deal with those who do buy residences close to such areas and then complain because there is industry in the adjacent industrial area.

Before Nickels and friends zone the area into a permanent haven for vagrants, druggies, and vacant buildings, they should first see what the demand is for people who really, really want to come into the area and find out what their expectations are. Starbucks has obviously decided to make a commitment to the area and Korry is hoping reason will prevail, but the city and port need to take a hard look at what it will take to attract the kind of development they envision. After the dust up over the Fred Meyer in Ballard I don't think the government clowns will make it feasible to attract many tenants.

Posted by: Burdabee on August 30, 2007 01:31 PM

19. Houston does just fine without any zoning. And no bill, people don't build hotels next to million dollar homes there. Good luck with yours.

Posted by: Beemac on August 30, 2007 01:31 PM

20. Houston does just fine without any zoning.

Houston is mighty ugly too, I'd much rather live here where we actually try to preserve the natural beauty of the region rather paving over everything and hoping for the best.

I'll quote this lovely article:
"As a frequent addition to the list of America's most polluted cities, Houston is no stranger to having more than just oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. But a University of Houston study found a few surprising results in the air Houstonians breathe day in, day out: mercury and formaldehyde."

Yeah, this is not something I would like to have happen here. Thank you.

Posted by: Cato on August 30, 2007 01:54 PM

21. I was grown on the plains in the Dakotas. I find little beauty there or in Texas.

Over the years, I have heard that mantra, also. Houston works. The government stays out of the way.

But, you just have to wonder.

I still think the real issue is whether or not Seattle wants to have an industrial base. Industrial property is getting gobbled up in the Sound and there isn't a lot left. The industrial people like the suburbs- i.e. their employees can't afford to live in Seattle.

The stuff that is left is owned by the railroad or port who aren't motivated to make the properties productive. And I just despise the property tax-free stuff.

Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 02:24 PM

22. Hi all,

I'd like to see the free market decide how to use the land.

Under normal conditions, that would maximize my return as an "owner" of the land.

However, no matter how the land is used, we'll be paying the Port to be a landlord rather than the Port paying us. When North Bay is folded into the rest of the Port's operations, the Port will still be losing money. This should raise a question in everyone's mind: Why own a business that loses you money?

If we carefully and transparently sold all the Port's assets we'd have enough money to turn North Bay into a natural area/wetlands park with plenty left over, and we wouldn't have to pay property taxes for the honor of "owning" the Port ever again.

This is an idea that may not fly well on this site. I would argue in part that's because conservatives have transferred
their anger and contempt for environmentalist's politics to the environment itself, and therefore wouldn't see the appeal of this win-win trade to get more nature and less taxes in one fell swoop.

Thanks Stefan for the blog--a good point that isn't made often enough.

& Thanks everyone for your time-- new left conservative #1

Posted by: new left conservative #1 on August 30, 2007 09:45 PM

23. Wow......it's magical.......

Just like the buzzards returning to Hinckley, OH: the government school employees have returned from their summer sabbatical, and headlesslucy is posting to SP during working hours again.

Posted by: ewaggin on August 30, 2007 10:38 PM

24. But, my word, how can a port that owns the regional SeaTac airport and charge a ton of port fees be losing money? Something is wrong with this picture.

And it just rips me apart when ports tax the people within its limited boundaries for their land development activities or sweetheart deals to their industrial customers that sell to a whole region.

Posted by: swatter on August 31, 2007 06:51 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?