Either one would be perfect. Both are masters of administering massive corporate welfare projects, which seems to be the only thing the Port of Seattle does anyway.
I have no idea how to fix the Port, which is the worst-run governmental body in the western United States (FEMA and DHS are of course much worse, but surprisingly similar), but it would be nice if we could get some confirmation from either of these guys that they at least recognize that it's broken. Dinsmore's an award-winning "business leader", but the Port is a basketcase money loser.
Neither of them should be in the running for it- I think what the port needs is a batch of fresh blood. They could start by letting Pat Davis go on one of her trips (and Pat by the way, I'm tired of your false grandmotherly voice greeting me at the airport) to Prague, Pensacola or Peking and leaving her there. I'll even pay.
Josh- I'll give $100 to start the "Let's send Pat on her way fund" After all, she's been milking taxpayers for years with her unbelievably necessary trips to Eastern Europe, etc. Let's start a fund where we can raise real money to help her go where she needs to go...
Oh great. Appoint a political operative the head of a governmental agency. That worked so well with the monorail, after all.
two candidate fixes:
1. merge the POS into King County that has a strong tension between the Executive and Legislative branches and is well-managed; both governments run airports and work in transportation;
2. merge the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton into a new regional transport agency that would also absorb the PSRC, tolling, and commuter rail; they could form a Puget Sound port cartel for negotiations with the railroads and for price competition with Vancouver and LA-Long Beach.
both would require action by the Legislature.
I like EddieW's second idea. Except that I'd try to add in some way to insulate the new agency's decisionmaking from referenda, initiatives, and other such stupid "popular" votes. What we really need here is a Robert Moses.
"...insulate the new agency's decisionmaking from referenda, initiatives, and other such stupid "popular" votes. What we really need here is a Robert Moses."
Uh, I assume (hope) you are joking or simply playing provacateur du jour.
David: Don't tell us you like popular votes on transportation measures! Look at monorail - numerous yes votes when there weren't real cost numbers attached, then a no vote when the costs came out. $225,000,000 in Seattle-only taxes completely wasted. Nickels signed the "Statement For" that fiasco in the 2002 Voters Guide. I'd argue popular votes on transportation measures are a huge mistake.
So David - we've got a vote on a transportation measure coming up. Do you agree accurate cost information should be presented to the voters?
Given that the funding for the tunnel under the present scheme is dependant on passage of RTID and ST2, do you agree with me that the following information should be presented to the voters in order for them to know what the cost to them of "tunnel vs. rebuild" likely would be: cost of tunnel construction (plus financing costs and accurate description of taxes/tolls); cost of viaduct construction (plus financing costs and accurate description of taxes/tolls); cost of RTID projects with and without tunnel (plus financing costs and description of taxes/tolls); cost of any Seattle-only taxes for tunnel; and cost of ST2 projects (plus financing costs and description of taxes/tolls)?
Just curious what info. you think the voters should be given --
What about Ron Sims? What about mike McGavick? I've heard those two are in the running as well.
ceis is known as "the shark", part of the attempt of the city to corral the port as a base for finances and patronage reasons
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).