Letters to the editor for Dec. 11
Put brakes on bottling plant deal
Port of Olympia Commissioners may soon be asked to sign a 75-year lease with Swire Coca-Cola for a bottling facility on 95 acres near the main runway of the Olympia Airport.
There are simply way too many unknowns to make a decision about the lease at this time.
We do not know how much water would be drawn from local water sources over the extensive life of the lease; what types and volumes of pollutants would be emitted by the facility; the amount of automobile, truck and air traffic that would be generated, and how this could impact communities near roads or under flight paths; how many endangered species would lose habitat in the project area or be sacrificed during construction; what effect facility-related emissions would have on the recently adopted Thurston County Climate Mitigation Plan, and so much more.
Environmental laws were enacted in the 1970s to help ensure that those entrusted with decision-making powers consider environmental impacts, not just economic impacts, when making decisions about proposals such as this lease. And that information must be available to the public. However, Commissioners and the public have been provided with virtually NO information about adverse impacts that the proposed facility could have.
Port Commissioners should not vote on this matter until adequate information upon which to base reasoned decisions has been provided to all.
Jan Witt, Olympia
Port set to give away millions in public funds
On Dec. 12, the Commissioners for the Port of Olympia are setting up to approve a 75-year lease of Port land to Swire Coca- Cola. From a cursory review, the proposal might make some sense. But details matter.
Under the proposed lease, the Port will pay up to $9.5 million for environmental mitigation at the site under a yet-to-be completed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). These would be our tax dollars. The company that develops the building site and incurs the environmental damage needs to pay for any required mitigation. Not the Port and not with public funds. If there is uncertainty over what environmental mitigation will be required and what Swire would have to pay, maybe the Port should hold off on leasing the land until the HCP is complete.
The proposed lease provides for periodic rent increases from Swire, but they are absurdly low — only 10% every 5 years. Property values have increased much more than that. Over 75 years the limited rent increases will compound and will result in the Port receiving much less revenue than the property is worth.
I’m tired of the Port squandering our public tax dollars on ill-conceived projects. Please contact your Port Commissioners and encourage them to have an independent third i8uparty review the proposed lease to make sure the public’s interests are protected and that we are getting the most value for our public resources.
Bob Metzger, Olympia
Why we don’t want this company here
The Port of Olympia Commissioners appear to be rushing ahead to approve a lease on Olympia Regional Airport property to a Coca-Cola bottling franchisee, Swire Coca-Cola. The commitment is for 75 years. The Commission should allow the community time to express our concerns and take time to investigate them.
These concerns can be categorized into three groups:
First, there are environmental issues. This facility would use tremendous quantities of water from the aquifer, endangering the area’s supply. Also, the building site is habitat for endangered species. Additionally, Coca-Cola is ranked as the worst plastics polluter in the world!
Second, the lease’s terms state that the proceeds can only be used at the airport and would likely go toward reconfiguring the airport to enable more air traffic, a contentious issue in the community. Also, Swire could later sublet to any different industrial tenant they choose.
Third, jobs at this facility are a concern. Coca-Cola has a history of anti-union activity. Do we want an employer that is hostile to unions in our community? Also, their promise of many jobs isn’t supported by a look at the numbers at other facilities.
While the Port mission to support economic opportunities is a worthy goal, it should be revised for the 21st century to ensure that all economic growth will be sustainable. Hosting a Coca-Cola bottling facility at the airport appears not to be sustainable.
Jon Ceazan, Olympia