Another report, another series of critiques of how government functions…what a week!

It’s far too easy to pile on with criticism of the Port of Seattle than anyone admits. One of the reasons is that it’s difficult to see the material benefits of ‘international trade’ despite how central it is to our state and our future–and why property taxes are so directly linked. And, in fairness, there’s a tremendous amount of legitimate progress underway with commissioners and management taking a new approach in recent years. Yet the structural questions remain…what is the role of the Port relative to mission? How much taxing authority should it have? What is the balance between jobs, trade and economic activity at the local, state, national and international levels? Tough issues, tough questions.

I look to my friends Gael Tarleton, John Creighton, Bill Bryant and Lloyd Hara for real answers and I know they have a deep sense of their fiduciary obligation to taxpayers. I have a great deal of faith in them as individuals but that doesn’t stop me from asking serious questions about the role of the Port in the 21st Century. In fact, because of my respect for them as individuals that I feel more than comfortable asking these questions.

Why is the property tax subsidy so high for the Port of Seattle? Is it at the right level or should an effort be underway to strategically move away from such a large subsidy? Has the public subsidy loosened the pressure for the organization to run efficiently?

I haven’t studied the issue and don’t pretend to know what the right level or approach is relative to taxes. But I do know that the organization is too large not to clearly articulate the value proposition in a way that taxpayers can get behind. We need a better sense of what the right tax subsidy level should be…essentially ‘zero based budgeting’…make the case so we can understand how it all fits together.

Much of the Port of Seattle resides in the 36th Legislative District, and hundreds of wonderful employees work there. It plays a vital role and I’m on board with ensuring our international trade and relationships are strong, vigorous and dynamic. Yet I’d like to better understand why it seems that virtually every audit, analysis, study, assessment or commission comes up with genuinely troublesome conclusions about efficiency.

Each year a number of legislators play around with legislation to merge the Tacoma and Seattle ports. That still seems like a symptom more than a core systems issue, and I’m not attracted to the idea. Still, let’s hope the port relationships across the state are strong enough that we’re working together–setting a strategy together–coordinating together–and finding ways to maximize the economic activity for a 21st Century global community.

I better call my buddies down at the port and get a gut check on what’s up with this latest….