Notes
Due to the length and density of most bills, a staff analysis is provided for each bill as it moves through the process, including a summary of public comment ‘pro’ and ‘con’. Unfortunately (from the public’s, point of view) lobbyists for the Port are able to get language into these documents after public comment. The rules give the affected Local Government that ‘last word’. This prevents decision makers from receiving any rebuttal to the Port’s language, which is highly inflammatory and misleading. There are no ‘unfunded mandates’. There is no legal issue of ‘public gifts’. And so on.
In sum, they are opposing any program that does not come from Federal funding–even though San Francisco (SFO) has been using their own money for exactly this purpose for almost five years now. Their counter-offer is to only commit to some form of ‘inspection’ (which they have already said they would do, although details and timeline TBD.)
PRO: “A port package is no luxury. It is as important to human health and safety as is the state building code. When homes are unhealthy to live in and port packages fail, families, but particularly BIPOC and economically disadvantaged families, are barred from housing justice.”
CON: “…this bill runs contrary to FAA regulations, could violate constitutional prohibitions against gift of public funds, and requires the port to provide various actions. The bill sets up several new programs and requirements without funding to make those programs successful, because the funding could not come from federal resources and must come from state and local funds… The bill devotes a portion of the King County port district levy towards this program… this is contrary to years of precedent. We would support directing resources towards the inspection of failed port packages.”