Fishburn is better for port

Readers have to thank The Olympian for their reasoned review of the Port candidates. We agree with the endorsement for Zita. But endorsing Bill McGregor is a mistake.

The Olympian says McGregor has been “working to diversify shipping cargoes.” The problem is, the Port’s position is not very competitive, so attracting cargo is a matter of handing out concessions – special pricing that does not pay the Port’s costs. Bill Fishburn is right to insist that the Port make its finances more transparent, so operations can be realistically evaluated.

The effort to diversify cargoes has been ongoing since the 1950’s (when I-5 went in) with little success, and it’s time to stop pretending it’s an exciting new idea.

McGregor also cannot take credit for the fact that the Port’s real estate operations bring in money. Credit for that success belongs to the enterprises that are currently renting.

Bill Fishburn has a new eye for evaluating the Port’s operations; unlike McGregor, he is not invested in business-as-usual. That new eye what we need right now. We should elect him.

This story was originally published October 27, 2017 at 4:09 PM with the headline "Fishburn is better for port."