Reasons to support port annexation

I am writing to specifically thank the dozen or so members of the Poulsbo community who came out for the Port of Poulsbo’s Town Hall meeting at City Hall on a wet Friday night to discuss the port’s “enlargement initiative” on the November ballot. I, along with commissioners Rutledge and DeSalvo, fielded questions and explained our perspectives.

I am writing to specifically thank the dozen or so members of the Poulsbo community who came out for the Port of Poulsbo’s Town Hall meeting at City Hall on a wet Friday night to discuss the port’s “enlargement initiative” on the November ballot. I, along with commissioners Rutledge and DeSalvo, fielded questions and explained our perspectives.

As an aside, because public funds may not be used for political purposes, the fee charged to rent City Hall for this meeting was paid by a commissioner, and the views expressed by commissioners reflected our positions as citizen voters residing within the Port District.

In a nutshell, the port expansion would increase the district size to encompass city limits, and several peripheral properties outside Poulsbo. Currently the port district covers only about one-half of Poulsbo. Among the several reasons supporting expansion, the most significant is to share current residents’ tax “burden” (about $30 per $100,000 appraised value) with the many beneficiaries owning Liberty Bay waterfront, water-view, and nearby real estate outside the district.

Comments favoring this ballot initiative focused on sharing this tax burden with neighboring areas outside the district, and preserving property values attributable to the presence of a popular marina and dynamic city waterfront.

Opposition to port enlargement centered on three contentions. First, one speaker voiced his absolute opposition to perceived governmental intrusion by mandated entry into the Port District. He indicated that the city should take over port operations and the marina. A second spokesman registered concern that owners of rental property could be unfairly forced into the district by voting tenant-residents. Another attendee complained that the port’s six-month annexation campaign (the subject of numerous Herald articles and frequent public meetings at the port) has not sufficiently publicized this ballot initiative.

My view? I strongly suspect that most members of our Poulsbo community, whether living within or outside our undersized Port District, would reject Speaker No. 1’s expressed hope that the port would “just go away!”

Steve Swann
Commissioner
Port of Poulsbo

 

Tags: