A hopeful program now feels like virtual signaling
First, a quick apology. 2025 has been the year of the SAMP (Sustainable Airport Master Plan) and the launch of our new documentary Under The Flight Path, so we’ve been more than a little distracted. But we want to bring you up to speed on Port Package Updates — getting thousands of poorly installed and failing sound insulation systems repaired, because this has been and remains essential to our mission since our founding in 2016.
Where things stand
Last year, thanks to your advocacy, we helped pass SB5955 — legislation intended to jumpstart the first real Port Package Update program. The bill was passed, with $1M in state funding, then Senator Patty Murray’s office got $3M more in Federal money. And Port Commissioner Hamdi Mohamed testified on the bill’s and announced that the Port itself would contribute at least $5M to kickstart the program. Additionally, the Port had a working program to model on with five years of success at San Francisco International Airport. Things were looking good.
In January 2024, the Port of Seattle rolled out the Sea-Tac Repair Replacement Pilot Program (SIRRPP).
The program they implemented is nothing like San Francisco and nothing like what residents need. Instead of getting to work, the Port created a confusing, restrictive “survey” process clearly designed to minimize eligibility. The survey was misleading, it was sent to only a third of homes that have received Port Packages and only 30 homes were tested for sound reduction. There was nno acknowledgment of poor installs, materials or bad contracting. Their survey results strongly imply that none of the homes they’ve evaluated meet a standard for repair or replacement. For them, every unit has simply reached a natural end of life.
So, sixteen months after ordering the SIRRPP, no homes have been helped and we have no clear idea where all this money went, except this: none of the $1 million funding secured through SB5955 has been spent. That money now appears to be stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
Meanwhile, Senator Orwall’s attempt to follow up with SB5652 this session, died almost immediately in committee – after strong opposition by the Port and this time, zero support from any Port Commissioners.
Things could improve, but so far, the Port should understand how poor this looks. As of April 2025, the SIRRPP appears to be yet another piece of virtue signaling – program that looks good but delivers nothing nothing of practical value for impacted residents under the flight path.
What’s Next?
Right now we’re focused on two things:
- Where did the money go? By our count, over $10M was pledged to this program. What was spent and where? The apparent cost of the SIRRPP comes does to 3,000 post cards, an equal number of printed surveys, postage, 30 acoustic tests, and a summary report. That sounds more like $100,000 than $10,000,000.
- Three Port Commissioner seats are up for election this fall and all three incumbents, Ryan Calkins, Hamdi Mohamed and Toshiko Hasegawa are running for re-election.
Our message is simple: Every candidate for Port Commissioner should commit to spending at least $5 million per year, every year, from now on, for Port Package Updates. And – every candidate for City Council should also pledge to add that ask to their city’s legislative agenda. We cannot expect Port Commissioners to do more if our own cities don’t also demand it. After all, protecting their precious housing stock – your home – should matter to local electeds!
The Port has complete legal authority to do this — right now, but no one educates electeds to advocate for this, and no one else holds the Port to account. Port of Seattle revenues just crossed $1B (with a ‘b’) for the first time in 2024. And those revenues will continue to break records every year from now on.
The big picture is this: without strong pressure on the Port Commission, both from you, and your city, nothing will change. Port Package Updates – which are the essential middle housing our communities need must be front and center in all local elections this year!
Stay tuned — and thank you, as always, for being in this fight.
Great work you guys. At the nonpublic StART meeting, this was one of things I expressed frustration about, commenting that it was a mess and asking for it to be on a StART agenda with a block of time allocated to discussing it. Will that change anything? I don’t know.
Why was the meeting closed?
I don’t know. I think last year’s “planning session” was also closed. I will say that some people who are usually pretty quiet at StART meetings spoke up and added to the conversation. Was it because it wasn’t a public meeting? Good question.
What is the best way for me to advocate and put pressure on the port commission?
Hello. The real answer is to write your City Council and your State electeds. We understand that seems counter-intuitive. However, attempting to influence the Port Commissioners directly on sound insulation is almost impossible. The Port is generally only accountable to King County voters – and almost none of them live under the flight path. However, Port Commissioners -do- listen to nearby cities and state electeds. The not-so-secret of airport politics is that very few city and state electeds engage on this issue or are supporters of Port policies. As we say “No elected will ever say they favor noise and pollution” but that is the reality. We will be publishing some template letters *very* soon to make it easy for you.
Thank you for asking a *very* important question!