Announcer;
“Why do you support Bradwood Landing?
Bed and Breakfast owner, Joan Harvey-Chester”
Joan Harvey-Chester;
“I’m the owner of “The Villa at Little Cape Horn”, an upscale B&B.
I know there’s a lot of people in the area that just come to stay at my place because they miss the river traffic.
The river traffic is a very big draw.
That’s why I’m excited about Bradwood Landing bringing more ships our way.
I support Bradwood Landing because the money it brings, supports the local economy and that supports tourism.”
Announcer;
“Bradwood Landing is good for the economy and good for the Columbia.”
9 comments:
I have no complaints with the sentiments of these people, but they are outrageously misinformed. What part about LNG bringing a net loss of tax dollars do they not get? And specifically WHAT JOBS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? I'll grant that there might be more ships to watch - delayed at anchor so the LNG tankers can do their business!
If a ship docks in Clatsop County it means MONEY.
Has Mr. Huhtala actually seen the problem he describes at one or more of the other LNG sites, or is he just joining in on the "no to everything" group's speculation?
I think Mr. Huhtala, like most of us, sees the "Hype" of $6,000,000.00 plus or minus a year for a proposed property tax revenue weighed against an $8-10,000,000.00 cost of security to get those LNG Tankers upriver to Bradwood and back down to "The Columbia Bar as a net loss.
How do you see it?
I see three groups of people against this project. First are the people who are against the proliferation of LNG. The facts they distribute are speculations (like the cost to the taxpayers for security, which, as presented above, make no business sense for anyone). They are also scary, probably intentionally so. This group has learned to argue their side with "facts" that exclude any contrary information and it presumably hopes that someone else will argue the other side just as well so the truth can eventually fall out. This is, of course, the lawyers approach to finding truth. Second is the group that wants no change at all in anything. No LNG, no tall buildings, no new lights, no new stores, etc. Unfortunately, this group is not interested in any particular project, they are just interested in being against things. Since change is inevitable, that attitude does not lead to positive change. Third, is the group that complains about no growth or change, but is unwilling to take any chance for growth or change. They whine when nothing happens or when anything happens and blame others for problems.
The people for the project form two groups. First, the one that will make money off the project. That's understandably very 21st century American. Its clear today that every American businessman wants to fill his pockets with cash, damn the risk to others. Second are the people who see a need for community growth and change and are willing to accept the usual risks involved. This group is the majority group in most places and their approach usually determines the future, but they get shouted down a lot in the process. The bottom line here is that recent ballot measures show that if this matter is put to a vote, the people against will win, but when things go wrong they will not raise their hands and take responsibility. However, since the federal government barely knows where this is and will do what it thinks is right for the country, if the decision is made in Washington, the project will succeed, but these people will not take responsibility for the adverse impacts either, although they usually infuse cash to alleviate them.
That's what I think. Thanks.
Then there are those people who think there is no established market for FOREIGN LNG and that "Bradwood" is nothing more than a shell company of speculators making grand promises they will unlikely ever be around to fufill.
Do we trade our river for 60 possible jobs?
Of course not. But the issue is for what will we trade the River? We have already traded it for foreign ships covered with polutants, vessels transporting nuclear waste, ammonia ships every week, cruise ships "losing" stuff accidentially and, most damaging of all, those many, many people in Portland, Vancouver Eugene and beyond that dump their trash in the River we hold so dear without one thought as to our feelings. That's just to name a few. Who is going to clean up all that stuff, who is going to pay for it and what's next? Is it better to "give" our River to something we can control or something we can't? We have certainly given it to things we cannot control for years.
Another "Anonym" said; "Now, why dont you qualify that? No? Why? I'll tell you why, you pulled that figure right out of your ass, you lying piece of shit."
Public Costs of LNG Marine Security
Some policymakers are concerned about the public cost and sustainability of
securing LNG shipments. Overall cost data for LNG security are unavailable, but
estimates have been made for Everett shipments. The Coast Guard Program Office
estimates that it currently costs the Coast Guard approximately $40,000 to $50,000
to “shepherd” an LNG tanker through a delivery to the Everett terminal, depending
on the duration of the delivery, the nature of the security escort, and other factors.93
State and local authorities also incur costs for overtime police, fire and security
personnel overseeing LNG tanker deliveries. The state of Massachusetts and the
cities of Boston and Chelsea estimated they spent a combined $37,500 to safeguard
the first LNG shipment to Everett after September 11, 2001.94 Based on these
figures, the public cost of security for an LNG tanker shipment to Everett is on the
order of $80,000, excluding costs incurred by the terminal owner.
Even using an average of $51,875.00 x 2.4 trips per week as projected by Bradwood Landing, for the moment, we get an annual average total of $6,474,000.00 for Public costs of getting LNG upriver to NSNG's site.
Now, Bradwood Landing is boasting, at least, $6,000,000.00 a year in property tax revenue to Clatsop County by way of Knappa.
Ooooooop!!!
Somebody's got a $474,000.00 deficit to pay for.
Pure B.S., McGee, More lies from from the anti LNGers who are known for lying all along. the only truth in the paragraph above is:
Overall cost data for LNG security are unavailable
Post a Comment