Port candidates state their case on the terminal

By most accounts, the proposed energy terminal at the Port of Vancouver has defined the race for the next commissioner at the Port of Vancouver.

Given the project’s potential impact on the local economy, we asked both candidates – Eric LaBrant and Lisa Ross – to state their case for or against the project, from a business perspective.

Below are responses from both candidates.

Click here to jump directly to Lisa Ross’ response

Eric LaBrant

ericThe last Monday of October, several dozen people packed a Washington State University Vancouver classroom to witness a debate between two candidates for Port of Vancouver Commissioner – an unusual dose of high-intensity controversy for the Port Commission. While other issues are on the table for discussion, one overwhelmingly dominates the conversation: The oil terminal.

Traditionally, such debates pit environmental protection and preservation against jobs, prosperity and American energy independence; red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. But while the oil terminal has created clear camps of pro and con, it doesn’t follow the usual party lines.

Labor unions usually favor democratic platforms and candidates, but the building trades support the project for the promised jobs. Meanwhile, Vancouver businesses are far from unanimous on the project, and several conservative community members oppose the project, citing safety or livability concerns. From the far right, we hear concerns about tax increases to cover the costs of emergency preparedness and cleanup, and the export of American oil overseas if the Jones Act is repealed. Reaching out to environmentalists, Tesoro has suggested that Bakken crude has a lower net carbon footprint than other crude oils.

Our American traditions encourage a two-sided debate, but in this case that might be missing the point. The only “side” that matters is Vancouver’s side. However the dust settles, those who live here will live with the ramifications of local and state-level decisions.

Fruit Valley has long welcomed heavy industrial projects while insisting neighbors’ property rights be respected. We’ve demonstrated that better projects benefit neighbors and businesses alike in the long-run.

Political campaigns are usually marked by a discussion of vision, but the oil terminal challenges our underlying beliefs about Vancouver’s present.

Some see Vancouver as a city to be apologized for, always playing second fiddle to Portland.

Oil terminal supporters reinforce that viewpoint. A mailer addressed to city council advised them that they don’t [have] the authority to say no. We’re reminded that some oil trains are inevitable. Some claim we can’t pick and choose what kinds of businesses operate in Vancouver; that Vancouver can’t afford to say no to any economic activity, no matter how it may damage the community. If we believe those messages, we resign ourselves to whatever offers are tossed our way. That’s not vibrancy or growth – it’s desperation.

The Vancouver I live in is strong and has a lot to be proud of. Our public schools are among the best in the nation. C-level execs want to live here, and their employees can generally afford to live here, making it attractive for mid-size business. PDX airport is close by and attractive for business travelers. We have a 43′ shipping channel, the I-5 and I-84 corridors, and major rail corridors as well. We made the list of Top 100 most livable cities in the nation, and rightly so. In the South, Washington is known as “God’s Country” for the beautiful wilderness areas on our doorstep. In that context, the nation’s largest crude-by-rail terminal simply doesn’t fit.

Vancouver has a great future in store if we aren’t distracted by a short-sighted project. We’ll succeed the same way we always have: hard work, local investment and partnerships.

Lisa Ross

lisaAs I thought about how to approach this question, I really thought about what it was asking. Was it asking for a recitation of the facts and projections presented in the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS)? Was it asking us to break down the superb analysis done by the Analysis Group, one of the nation’s largest and most respected economics consulting firms? Their report was submitted to the state, and is available to the public to read as part of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee (EFSEC) application process. I assure you they did not pull these numbers out of the air, or figure them on the back of an envelope based strictly on anecdotal information from a small group of like-minded individuals banded together for a common cause.

Facts and projections are part of the question, however, so I will summarize here. [The proposed energy terminal] is $2 billion in total local economic impact over the life of the lease based on what will come from direct, indirect and induced jobs and taxes. This includes almost $8 million in tax revenues per year to help fund local needs.

Direct jobs are those that are created in the local shipping economy. Indirect jobs are those created from the business spending that will benefit local businesses – some of them new. The induced jobs are those created by the spending of those who are employed by the direct and indirect jobs. The report says more than 175 direct jobs, 320 full-time construction jobs, and 440 direct jobs will be generated once the terminal is operational.

These jobs also need to be considered in the context of the average wages here in Clark County. The direct jobs created in all categories by this facility have an average wage of $112,880, which is 262 percent higher than the average wage of $43,100 in Clark County. Each of these jobs is worth almost three average waged jobs. That is meaningful to our families and our communities.

The impact of new business in an area can be felt beyond just numbers on a page or in a list. I searched the Internet for “the impact of a new industrial business coming to a city or town.” The number one result was a story about Lake Charles, Louisiana, which invested heavily in its industrial areas including laying lots of rail. It also dredged a channel to the Gulf of Mexico to allow big freighters to come to their port. These are exactly the same activities our port commissioners have committed to over the years. Tesoro has facilities there, and handles the most hazardous chemicals at that location because of the state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure.

According to this article, the new jobs in Lake Charles from August 2014 to August 2015 almost doubled to over 10,000. They expect 5,000 new construction jobs in the next year. Restaurants, casinos, hotels, golf courses and all other manner of economic development are on the rise there. They are at full employment, and they are bringing in more employees from other states.

They are not building homeless shelters or finding plans to increase school funds for those under the poverty level. They are increasing the numbers of their first responders. They are opening small businesses and building homes. They are building new roads and schools. They are paying teachers well and repaving worn roads.

This is the true possibility that the expansion of industrial facilities including the oil terminal could bring to Vancouver. It won’t make us an oil town, but it could be the beginning of prosperity and growth for our region.

Aerial background image via Port of Vancouver USA

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.