Item 9a: Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a Joint Marketing Agreement with State of Washington Tourism (SWT), a State Government Agency, to Promote International Tourism to Seattle and Washington State in Selected International Markets for Three Years at the Rate of $500,000 per Year, for a Total Not-to-Exceed $1,500,000 and that a Commission Determination that a Competitive Process is Not Appropriate or Cost Effective and Exempting this Contract from a Competitive Process Consistent with RCW 53.19.020. (memo and presentation enclosed) (The main motion is before the Commission, with the item being postponed from the December 10, 2024, meeting.
In a complicated set of parliamentary maneuvers, Commissioner Mohamed’s proposed the following Directive to add language to the agreement to not promote additional cruise tourism. At first, this seemed to pass 3-1. However, when the item came to a final vote later in the meeting, it ultimately failed 12-2. Aye: Mohamed, Felleman. Nay: Cho, Calkins. Go figure.
I’d like to make a motion at this time to direct the executive director to include language in the joint marketing agreement with SWT that ensures SWT will not promote cruising with marketing funds and also include language that ensures SWT will promote responsible tourism in accordance with the Port’s responsible tourism efforts.
This promotion of responsible tourism shall include educating potential travelers about responsible tourism in Washington state in advance of their travel to Washington. The agreement shall also include language promoting less resource destination marketing organizations. Similarly, Port staff shall highlight less visited and resourced attractions in their interactions with SWT and make every effort to ensure this marketing aligns with the port’s responsible tourism strategy and policies.
Our take
The Port has the largest tourism budget in the State of Washington. Their dream is to have tourists fly into Sea-Tac, take a cruise, then fly out. The two businesses leverage one another.
However, those two businesses are also the dirtiest in all of Washington. Pound for pound, aviation and marine fuels are much more damaging to the environment than any other form of transportation. But both are exempted from State and Federal climate and pollution regulations. This gives the Port both unique opportunities and a unique responsibility for the regional environment.
Port Commissioners will disingenuously say that such promotional agreements do not gin up more flights or cruises, and thus additional language is unnecessary. This objectively untrue. As more than one Commissioner has stated, “We didn’t help build the Convention Center to not encourage more flights and cruises.”
This is the classic tension between economic benefits and community harms. Thus far, in every instance, the Port has come down on the side of incentivizing for more tourism.
Politics
Too often, it is difficult to tell which Commissioners believe what. Of course, no Commissioner will say they support pollution — instead pivoting to various Port efforts at community grants and electrification — all extremely small compared to the much greater community harms. So small in fact, they must be seen as distractions.
The final result was disappointing. But we applaud Commissioner Mohamed’s effort. If the Port of Seattle is genuinely concerned about environmental stewardship, it must demonstrate, as a Commission, at least some willingness to push back on the tired narrative of ‘all growth is good’. And on an individual level, voters need to be able to tell who is who. Today gave us at least one clue.
1Under Port Commission rules, a tie vote fails.