The Port of Seattle is a major driver of economic impacts in the area. However it is undoubtedly the main driver of environmental impacts in the Highline Communities. This gives them both the resources and the responsibility to do more to help the communities that endure those negative impacts. What they lack is community knowledge and specific direction.
The community, on the other hand, always has a few people who ‘know the territory’, but what they lack are tangible resources. Increasingly these people struggle to organise effective groups to implement their own projects.
This disconnect has created a dysfunctional status quo. The Port tries to provide grant opportunities. However the grant process comes with so many challenges as to be self-limiting. For example:
- They require a 2-1 match.
- They are essentially passive, requiring public awareness of grant programs, a non-profit to be created and maintained with sufficient expertise to administer and execute each project.
- They create co-dependencies. Because of the Port’s almost monopoly-status in the environmental grant space, the few organisations who apply are often extremely reluctant to complain as they face challenges (paperwork, slow reimbursement, etc.) “It may not be great, but it could be worse.” What’s more, those inefficiencies (too much work for too little positive outcome) can lead non-profits to choose not to expand–even if more money is available.
- Projects must be conducted on public land, which precludes improvements not only that of residents and businesses, but ironically also Port-owned land which comprises a very significant portion of the remaining tree cover in cities like Des Moines.
All these factors place a low ceiling on the ability of typical groups to apply for, let alone spend, even the dollars that are currently available.
Beyond that, these grants are funded with property tax dollars, rather than paid for by the driver of those negative impacts (aviation revenue.) Given that both the Port and taxpayers are so price-sensitive, that creates a further dis-incentive to allocate funding to balance the negative impacts.
A two-pronged approach
The path forward requires a two-pronged approach: a better grant program, and a better funding model.
A better grant program
Instead of being, essentially ‘contractors’, non-profits should become policy advisors, local experts who identify project opportunities so that the specialists at the Port can design and then implement their vision using professional best practices, into a regional plan with measurable goals.
- The non-profit would work with the Port and Cities to establish regional goals.
- The non-profit would do the preliminary work of identifying specific local opportunities.
- They would then work with experts at the Port Environment Team to prepare each proposal–essentially co-writing each grant, and evaluating its benefit towards the system-wide plan.
- A separate office at the Port would review and approve each grant as they do now, but the process would be made more efficient by the higher quality grant writing process.
- The Port Environment Team would then provide the technical acumen and manpower to implement the project and see it to completion–in close cooperation with the non-profit community member(s).
- The community group would periodically meet with the Port Environment Team to assess progress towards the established regional goals.
A better funding model
Non-profits can advocate for both the State and the Federal government to identify ways to use *AAA revenues for these projects. This would take the burden and perverse incentives of funding from taxpayers and place the costs where they belong, on the balance sheet of the driver of the impacts. It would also open up more funding opportunities to the community. It is also a progressive system: as the airport expands, funding opportunities expand, a virtuous circle.
This is not as heavy a lift as many people seem to think. Although there are options which would require legislation (and those should be aggressively pursued) the Port already has various unconstrained revenue streams to fund these programs. It is simply a matter of will that they find those opportunities and do so. In other words, they should not have to be compelled just to find these finds, and they should not be able to hide behind, a wall of “We wish we could do more, but the FAA won’t let us…”
However, at the Federal level, the FAA should also provide a regular revenue stream, either via PFCs, AIP grants, or simply by establishing a covenant on lands purchased using Federal dollars (eg. the Des Moines Creek Business Park) that a fraction of derived revenues be available for grants.
Similarly, at the State and County levels, RCW 53 (Port Districts) could be require the Port to set aside a fractional portion of either Sales Tax or Property Tax Levies for the specific purpose of environmental grants.
Summary
The current environmental grant system falls so short of the mark as to be insincere. The Port of Seattle has already surveyed the Highline Communities and prepared an inventory of needed improvements. But unless we develop a model that is up to the task of achieving those goals, they are meaningless.
The Port of Seattle is currently achieving both record growth, record revenues and record negative impacts. Therefore it is incumbent on them to take action.
They have the resources. So we should push for:
- A grant system whereby community experts provide the plan and the Port provide the muscle to make them happen
- A progressive funding model, using every opportunity at the Port’s disposal, which ensures that as the Port expands, funding and implementation of environmental mitigation does at an even greater pace.