(no subject) Date: October 14th, 2007

[Chief]

http://www.westerndredging.org/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/archive/Local/20071014112924/

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! What’s with the Columbian? On the heels of Bad Mouthing the Voter for having the audacity to place I-960 on the ballot, the Columbian in today’s editorial, has endorsed Arch Miller, incumbent Port Commissioner for re-election. Surely, you remember Arch Miller, he is the commissioner, who according to the Columbian, just made a mistake when he attempted, without a vote of the people, to increase by 132% our property taxes. Some Mistake. He is also the commissioner who said that he would had preferred to have the voter’s vote on the IDD Levy but the law would not allow the Port to do that. He then refused to sign the voter’s petition. So much for his interest in the Voters.

It is interesting that the Columbian is giving Commissioner Arch Miller a lot of credit for some of the Port Successes, but neglected to point out that he made a grave mistake when he signed the 150 page environmental agreement between Mr. Paul King and the Port that makes the development of the Alcoa/Evergreen parcels virtually impossible.

The Columbian touts “Arch Miller’s vast business savvy and familiarity with Port Operations” but I found that Savvy lacking during the “Meet the Commissioner’s Discussions” on the IDD Levy. Arch Miller along with the other Commissioners was unable to answer the questions asked by the people and the meetings had to be turned over to the Port Director Larry Paulson, who by answering all the questions asked, rescued the Commissioners.

I don’t know why the Columbian is endorsing Miller and other tax and spend incumbents or won’t hold them accountable for their errors, omissions and ever increasing tax and spend polices? Maybe they have something to gain.

Personally I have nothing to gain but lower taxes for the people. Having worked for the Port of Portland for 21 years, managing under contract to the Corps of Engineers, the Port’s Navigation Division and the Maintenance Dredging of the Columbia River Navigation Channel, I know a little about how and why Ports do things.

Arch Miller’s Attempt to more than double the property taxes the port collects from the people was not a MISTAKE that was hastily cobbled together. It was a well thought out plan to do two things.

1. Eliminate Voter Participation and,
2. Keep Private Investors who had already made Alcoa an offer from acquiring the property.

What Our Port needs is Commissioners who, especially after 18 years as a Port Commissioner, can answer, without help, just about any question asked by the public and thoroughly read, before signing, any and all documents, especially those that adversely impact the voter.

It is time for a Change and I urge you to join me in Voting for Jerry Oliver, who as the Columbian Says: “Is Campaigning Impressively”


L. M. Patella
CDR USN (ret)

[Chief]

I have e-mailed Commissioner Miller, and asked him if he cares to comment on any aspect of thiis message, and if he shares anything with me, I will share it with you.

Developing...

[Chief]

Like I said, I solicited comments on this from Commissioner Arch Miller on this one, and he was gracious enough to reply.

----- Original Message -----
From: Arch Miller
To: 'Bob Koski'
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:10 AM
Subject: RE: Any reply to Patella??

First, the agreement between the Port and Mr. King deals with Columbia Gateway, specifically parcels 3, 4 and 5.

When the deepening of the Columbia River was about to begin, Paul King filed suit against the deepening of the Channel in an attempt to stop the project. The suit was filed against the Columbia River Channel Coalition, including the Port of Vancouver. At the same time, the Port had been told by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that they would not allow the Port to develop parcels 4 or 5 (land downriver from the flushing channel).

The Port of Vancouver entered into an agreement with Paul King to create a Sandhill Crane habitat on parcels 4 and 5 in exchange for King dropping his lawsuit against the deepening of the Channel. As part of that agreement, the Port agreed not to develop parcel 3 until the Sandhill Crane habitat was created on parcels 4 and 5.

The Port continues to make progress with Mr. King on creating the Sandhill Crane habitat on parcels 4 and 5, although we would have to agree that the speed in which progress is being made is slower than we would like. Mr. King is deliberate in his work toward identifying how the Sandhill Crane habitat is to be developed.

In the meantime, the Port is stockpiling fill material on parcel 3. Parcel 3 must be filed to the 30 foot (MSL) level before development can begin. The Port is not required to turn over parcel 3 to WWL (auto import customer) until mid 2010 so we still hope to meet that deadline.

Let me know if you need further information.

Arch Miller

PS: Regarding other inaccurate issues on his website…

He states that Paul King makes development of the Alcoa/Evergreen property virtually impossible

Answer: Paul King has nothing to do with the Alcoa and Evergreen property. I think he means parcel 3 of Columbia Gateway.

He also states that the Commissioners could not answer questions about the IDD Levy and Larry Paulson has to “bail them out”.

Answer: I have no idea what he is talking about.

He also states that the IDD Levy was a well thought out plan to do two things…1. eliminate voter participation, and 2 Keep private investors who had already made Alcoa an offer from acquiring the property.

Answer: He is aware that Ports cannot put items on the ballot for people to vote. Secondly, Alcoa will tell you that they did not have any other offers for their property. Patella is just lying.

Thanks.

Arch

[Chief]

Nancy Baker has many years of experience on the Port Staff, as well as in her cirrent position as Commissioner, and gave me her insight on this issue as well. this certainly reingorces what Commissioner Miller is saying too, and really ought to prove how bogus Patella's irrational claims really are.

----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy Baker
To: 'Bob Koski'
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: Any reply to Patella's Sunday article??

Hi Bob,

I’ll do my best to explain what happened. First Paul King has absolutely nothing to do with the Alcoa/Evergreen properties. As I said once before, King gambled on electricity prices and when they went higher than he wanted he simply bankrupted the company he owned and operated on the Evergreen site, putting about 800 people out of work.

The Port purchased a large number of acres from Alcoa in 1989 and Paul King immediately started action to stop any development. He said he liked to jog in the lowlands and wanted to protect the birds, primarily Sandhill cranes. I remember sitting in the room when both Larry Paulson and Byron Hanke (former Executive Director) asked Mr. King what they could do to make him happy and his comment was “nothing and that he would do every thing he could to stop development. Paul King filed one suit and the judge allowed to port to develop a portion of the land immediately adjacent to the existing Port (Terminal 4 area) but said any further development would have to be contiguous (not hop scotch) meaning the Port couldn’t jump from one site to the next without a SEPA and NEPA process.

The Columbia River Channel Deepening project started way back in 1986 or so and was a constant battle every step of the way. Several environmental groups filed law suits which had to be heard in various courts. Paul King was involved in many of the different efforts to stop the channel project, because he knew that the fill material resulting from the dredging would help to prepare Columbia Gateway for development. There were so many studies and re-consultations bringing scientists from all over the country to study the deepening affect on the river that it took years and years not to mention the need for funding. Both Oregon and Washington participated along with the Federal Government and each of the port involved. Portland, Vancouver, Longview, Kalama, Woodland and St. Helens also spent millions of dollars on this project. (That’s another story and I’ll tell you why at another time).

Each time the federal and state agencies would sign off on the project one of the groups would bring up something else. In late 2003 there was a challenge to one of the Biological Opinions, and one of the agencies were threatening to stop the project which put some of the financing in jeopardy, This all happened after I had left the staff and was running for Commissioner. Because I was a candidate and not an employee anymore I was not allowed in the Executive Sessions and don’t know exactly what happened. It is my understanding that Paul King ‘s attorney contacted the Port’s attorney and said he would drop his protest to the deepening if the Port of Vancouver and CRANE ( his organization) could reach some agreement on the Columbia Gateway development. The Port of Vancouver had always intended to use a large portion of the property for mitigation anyway. The Port of Portland paid the Port of Vancouver $750,000 as compensation for some of the lost land.

The agreement calls for the Port and CRANE (Paul King) to work together to develop mitigation for birds and wildlife on Parcels 4 and 5 while proceeding with development plans for Parcel 3. I believe the Port Commissioners, staff and legal counsel believed they were acting in good faith with Mr. King while at the same time allowing the Channel Deepening to proceed for the benefit of all the ports, the States of Oregon and Washington and all the many many grain growers as far away as the Dakotas, Montana, etc. I believe the agreement calls for development of all parcels of the land at the same time. Mr. King has refused to cooperate and participate in the planning of the project and that is his way of holding up the development of Columbia Gateway.

If you are interested in seeing the document I can arrange that.

Mr. Patella is totally incorrect in saying that the agreement has any affect on the Alcoa /Evergreen projects at all. The need for those properties was to allow rail to Columbia Gateway as well as allowing additional development and job creation on those sites as well.

Nancy Baker

[Chief]

If I were the Western Dredging Association's webmaster, I think I mght be asking myself if i want to continue putting myself and the Association at risk of being named as an accessory in a libel lawsuit, for aiding and abetting Larry Patella to peddle his outright lies against duly elected public officials.

I might be expecting a telephone call or two, possibly from the Washington PDC, and a few outraged private individuals as well...

How much longer till the "Local Maling List" makes one final swirl, and disappears down the old internet memory hole??

Developing...