Eye - Pete Nichol's letter

Related post:
What's the objection?
Related stories:
Harbor District fills new Port of Humboldt promotion position
Arcata Eye - New Harbor hire draws fire
Arcata Eye - Nichol's letter
***
June 28, 2007
Roy Curless, President
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District
Startare Drive
Eureka, CA 95501

Commissioner Curless,

I regret not being able to attend this evening’s meeting. I ask you to please accept these comments as public comment regarding Agenda Item 10(c) Consideration of approval of Employment Agreement with Wilson Lacy for the position of Director of Maritime Commerce.

On behalf of Humboldt Baykeeper, I would like to ask the Humboldt Bay Harbor District Commissioners deny the request of the Harbor District staff to hire Mr. Lacy as Director of Maritime Commerce. While Mr. Lacy may be well-qualified to hold such a position, this decision utilizes taxpayer dollars to fund a position that currently has no associated program.

Humboldt Bay is currently not an active port, has no modern port facilities, or funding for increasing shipping to a point where it becomes feasible to hire a paid, well-paid I might add, staff person to oversee these operations. I find the District’s direction on this issue very worrisome, poorly thought out, and seriously lacking in strategy.

I assume Mr. Lacy’s role will be to attract the shipping industry to Humboldt Bay. If that is the case, a central question to ask would be “what do they do when they get here?”

It is fairly obvious that without reinstating rail service between Eureka and points south, the concept of Humboldt Bay becoming a competitive port are slim to none. In fact, Mr. Lacy himself said in a Harbor District meeting on July 12, 2006 that “the railroad is essential to the port because there is no other way to efficiently move goods across the continent.”

So why would the District spend $100,000 of taxpayer money each year on a position to court prospective shipping business when a central element in the equation is missing and, in reality, nowhere on the horizon? This seems like a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Even if, and I emphasize if, rail service returns to the area, it does not guarantee that port development will ultimately succeed.

The Northwest-Pacific Railroad Financial Feasibility study states that “The movement of freight in waterborne trade requires that the landside rail and/or roadway transportation systems connect with navigable deep water at a location that minimizes total transportation cost. In this sense, a port is simply a location where deep water efficiently meets the railways and/or roadways. Without this efficient inland connection, a harbor may have excellent navigation access but limited functionality as a port.”

Additionally, the Port of Humboldt Bay Revitalization Plan of 2003 states: “… rail access may be restored with the reactivation of the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) line, but the time-consuming and circuitous southbound routing—which must backtrack though other competing port areas—will remain a limitation on Humboldt Bay’s attractiveness for most rail-oriented marine cargoes to/from points beyond the Bay Area where superior rail connections are needed to compete.”

If your Commission approves this position and given the recent addition of two Bar Pilots, with annual salaries of $140,000 each, that would put the annual salary expenditure for Maritime Commerce at $380,000, and currently we are getting two ships in the Bay per month.

I find it very strange that the District has that much of a surplus annually, but cannot plan effectively to budget for the disposal of dredge spoils at the HOODS site, which has been mandated by the Coastal Commission for the next round of maintenance dredging in 6-7 years.

Given that the decision to hire Mr. Lacy is not a time-sensitive decision, I encourage the Harbor District Commissioners to table this item until a more detailed, and strategic, needs assessment for the Maritime Commerce Program is completed. This is a significant expenditure of taxpayer dollars that needs to be thoughtfully considered.

Sincerely,
Pete Nichols, Director
Humboldt Baykeeper
***

But it's ok for "Humboldt Baykeeper" to receive funding from the go-away money paid to the so-called "Ecological Rights Foundation/ERF" - to buy a new Boston Whaler, to set up an office in Old Town, Eureka setting the stage for their own threatened lawsuits to garner even more go-away money...