The Thurston County voters pamphlet does not fact-check candidates’ statements. Therefore, I am submitting the following correction of Sue Gunn’s statement that the port’s most recent general bond obligation is paying in part to “expand the marine terminal, the biggest money loser.” In fact, $9 million of the bond will provide funds to dredge the marine terminal of sediments that are polluted with dioxin and other stormwater runoff pollutants. According to the Washington Environment Council, polluted stormwater runoff is the No. 1 contributor to pollution in Puget Sound.
The port’s investment in removing such pollution, not caused by marine terminal operations, is an appropriate taxpayer expenditure, but according to the port’s FAQ’s dated Aug. 8, item 7, the cost will be paid by port customers.
By the way, another $9 million of the bond will pay for stormwater treatment, another valid public purpose, which has an estimated 4.48 percent return on investment (FAQs, item 15).
If Gunn thinks the port should not be subsidized, then it should be privatized.