West Hayden Island Hearing "Practically a Caricature of Self-serving Moneyed Interests Pitted Against Community Members Fighting Only for Values and Their Homes"


Ironically (or not, I'm not sure of the correct usage of that word thanks to Ms. Morrissette) the criticism here seems pretty in line with Bojack's broader perspective (which I've gathered from being a follower of both Blogtown and Bojack isn't generally liked around here) of how things seem to run in Portland:

"gorgeous and rare natural refuge"

It is totally rare except for the rest of the Columbia River Gorge that stretches for hundreds of miles.
I saw Brian Libby's opinion attached and I immediately glossed over. Isn't there a decrepit building falling down somewhere in need of $40 million dollars of the public's money to keep it just barely ok for the next 10 years he can devote his attention to?
Blabby, location matters a whole lot. If you have wide industrialized swathes with no respite for nature, it does not matter if there's more somewhere else. The resiliency depends on distributed patches.
scenic in the way that you're looking directly at the Vancouver industrial waterfront, very scenic
..I was there at the mtg.. and have been on the Island..it's importance comes from location..confluence of rivers..pacific flyway and the FACT that mitigation guarantees an initial further loss to critters on the edge and would be hard to do for a WHOLE parcel this big..fragmented habitats, 50 acres here another 50 there etc. don't work..the whole is greater than the sum of the parts..stating that the whole gorge is the same..shows you need an edjucation..think your neighbors house is the same as yours..try walking in at 3 AM..
Those that think there was 40 or 30 years of gridlock are completely wrong. PGE worked out a deal for development, mitigation and a method for further development. The Port bought part of the Island walked away from PGE'S plan and just began to fill the Island with dredged spoils without a permit. Then in 1997 the Port started to develop a plan, the same non inclusive process, with a committee of Hayden Island neighbors. When the plan was coming together, the Port didn't like the plan and ended the 5 year process in January of 2000 the Port walked away that plan. This process was begun with a hand picked and Port approved committee. The discussion was limited to that committee. Thursday was the first time people oytside that group could contribute. Mikey Jones
Build It.
My days working on freight mobility policy and economics in this part of the world are over a dozen years in my past, but the core freight mobility issue then remains the core issue now - rail capacity/efficiency.

The freight bottlenecks in the NW aren't marine facilities, it is lack of rail capacity and the dramatic pinch points in the regional freight rail system.

With regard to marine facilities, existing Port of Portland terminals, with planned improvements, can handle more than double today’s cargo volume and still not be at capacity (Source: Port of Portland 2020 Marine Terminal Master Plan). And if we build a “deep water port” at Hayden Island, a large portion of boat traffic still will not be able use it because the Columbia simply isn’t deep enough. This is why most of the container ship market will remain out of Portland's reach. (Source: Columbia River Channel Coalition).

It really boggles my mind that WHI may be handed to the Port to create a "solution" for a problem (marine capacity) that simply doesn't exist.

The press has been all over this issue as a "jobs vs. environment" passion play. However, the simple truth about the "jobs versus environment" at West Hayden Island is that the "jobs" case for developing a marine port has been surprisingly weak from day one. And it hasn't gained any strength during the supposed decades of process.