Greed Acres

Eric Watson’s recent Comment & Analysis on the pages of July’s MARINE DIGEST & CARGO BUSINESS NEWS gives us another opportunity to tout one of our system’s unique advantages.

As we’ve been stating, unlike conventionally-structured terminals which are continually groping for additional acreage, our patented system creates space, and Eric’s article helps us prove our point.

“Port productivity needs space …” he begins, “… but people vary in their willingness to allow available land to be used in the expansion process.

“Industrial real estate is fast becoming a by-word among groups intent on improving port productivity in and around the United States,” he writes. “As more cargo sweeps into the nation from overseas, more room will be needed to facilitate its reception, storage and transport.” [Beautiful!]. He continues, “That means business for some folks, but irritation for others …”

“‘We appreciate the creative energy and enthusiasm demonstrated by our neighbors with their outpouring of ideas,’ John Macsherry, a broker for Duke Realty, said in a news release. ‘In the end, the name we selected … was, appropriately enough, inspired not by one, but by a number of local residents,’” is what Eric offers as an example of ‘business for some folks’.

“As for irritation,” Eric continues, “across the country, in Tacoma, WA, efforts by the port to acquire real estate for development have met with an altogether different reception … Recently honored by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers … Dan Voelpel, a columnist for Tacoma’s News Tribune newspaper … clearly opposes efforts by the Port of Tacoma to expand.

“‘Everything the Port of Tacoma does to expand its capacity as a competitive, world-class container-handling operation trumps any other business that gets steamrollered along the way, if you believe the port’s hype.

“‘Want proof?”, Voelpel asks. “When the Port Commission voted last month to buy 140 acres on the Tideflats for a marine terminal, the commissioners didn’t know what businesses or even how many businesses its action would displace, nor exactly how many jobs its action would displace.

“‘Nor does the Port of Tacoma have any written policy about how to help relocate businesses that stand in its growth path or which businesses get paid by the port to relocate and which ones don’t.

“‘It should,’ Voelpel wrote a week or two ago.”

[Just think how peaceful it will be in the port’s surrounding communities when our patented storage, retrieval and delivery (reception, storage and transport ?) systems are finally retrofitted in Tacoma’s container-handling terminals. The port’s commissioners, in a magnanimous gesture, will then be able to return 90% of the acreage previously pilfered, and peace …and prosperity … will reign.]