West Seattle, Washington

18 Thursday

57℉

TERMINAL 5: Another permit for potential expansion/redevelopment

January 25, 2018 7:09 pm
|      35 COMMENTS
 |   Port of Seattle | West Seattle news

(2015 photo of Terminal 5, by Long Bach Nguyen)

Still no new tenant for West Seattle’s Terminal 5, but another permit has been granted for its potential expansion/redevelopment. The Port of Seattle sent word today that it’s received the “shoreline substantial development permit” for the project – you can see the permit document here.

As for what’s happening currently at T-5 – which continues to see some activity, three and a half years after its official closure as a cargo terminal – the port confirms that Foss Maritime continues to lease space. You’ve probably noticed the heavy-lift ship Ocean Jazz there in recent weeks; port spokesperson Peter McGraw tells us it’s been there awaiting its next assignment, and is expected to head back to sea soon. It’s part of the Military Sealift Command, as are other vessels that have berthed there.

Share This

35 Replies to "TERMINAL 5: Another permit for potential expansion/redevelopment"

  • Graciano January 25, 2018 (8:39 pm)

    Turn it into a Motorsports park..

    • Swede. January 26, 2018 (12:07 am)

      That will never happen even though it’s a cool idea. They can barely keep the one in Kent due to people moving in close by complaining about noise…

  • katie January 25, 2018 (9:19 pm)

    Make a waterfront park and turn the rest into housing

  • TJ January 25, 2018 (9:41 pm)

    Only took 2 comments to get to the “make it a park”, or “housing”, or “a park and ride”. And it got 2 of the 3 out of the way. Thankfully this will be redeveloped to continue the maritime work that has been done there for decades that supports good paying blue collar jobs. 

    • Swede. January 26, 2018 (12:09 am)

      Well said! 

      Real work need to be more appreciated again, especially in a city where most is aimed at electronic tech. 

    • Sw January 26, 2018 (11:33 am)

      Unfortunately, redevelopment of T5 will not provide as many jobs as people think. A modern port container facility will utilize automated technology to handle containers, similar to other ports around the world. 

  • artsea January 26, 2018 (6:36 am)

    I can’t help but resent that a portion of my property tax goes to the Port every year.  Why must we subsidize the Port?  If it can’t be self-sufficient, isn’t that an indication it’s failing?  Or is it that those who have been running it for many, many years are doing a crappy job?  Yes, let the developers have at it…..fill it with expensive condos.  Better for the city and the taxpayers.  

    • LK January 26, 2018 (8:19 am)

       Do you ever purchase imported goods?  The port benefits all of us, from jobs to helping transport 90% of everything .  I don’t have children, yet have no issue supporting public schools.

      • Ron Swanson January 26, 2018 (10:07 am)

        But other major West Coast container ports manage to do those things without huge property tax subsidies.  

        • Jeremy January 27, 2018 (8:46 pm)

          Actually almost every major port in the world works like that. The tax payers fund the building and major improvements. Then rental/lease income pays back the tax payers back and then some in actual money or jobs and or services provided. There are ports that from time to time lose money. But not often and not for long. Also the jobs created in air and sea ports from initial construction to long term operation are all good family wage jobs. 

          • Jim January 28, 2018 (1:01 pm)

            Jeremy – Can you tell us of another West Coast port authority that draws on the taxpayer in perpetuity and never gives back any profits?

  • Jim January 26, 2018 (8:22 am)

    And you should resent it!  More people should.

  • Qc January 26, 2018 (10:08 am)

    Building housing there would make a dent in the housing affordability problem this city is suffering from. It’d benefit a lot more people that way, and save all of us from the increased diesel pollution that we’ll have to breathe if this site becomes active again with cargo ships and short-haul diesel trucks. 

  • wscommuter January 26, 2018 (10:12 am)

    Well said LK.  The Port brings untold jobs and commerce to our region – good jobs that provide a living wage.  

    The function of government isn’t to run like a for-profit business.  Tax payer subsidies are part of most things government provides.  Picking out the Port is intellectually dishonest unless you are going to likewise say that other government functions should be fully self-funded.  Like the police or fire department – should they only perform their work if you pay them personally (in advance)?  

    I have no problem with the complaints about how the Port manages stuff – I’m not well educated enough to know if the commissioners do a good job or bad job.  But I have no problem with my taxes funding a vital part of our commercial infrastructure.  

  • artsea January 26, 2018 (12:26 pm)

    I’m wondering if WSCOMMUTER also thinks that any business that employs residents but can’t seem to make a profit should be subsidized to keep them in business.  To me that’s like rewarding wannabee business people for doing a  bad job.

    • newnative January 26, 2018 (1:30 pm)

      But the Port isn’t any business, it’s a jurisdiction, it’s a regulated district. 

    • MP January 27, 2018 (5:52 am)

      The “port” you keep talking about includes the Airport….guess you don’t like flying on planes either. 

  • zark00 January 26, 2018 (12:32 pm)

    The port of Seattle employs 1,750 people.

    Centurylink Field was subsidized to the tune of $300M – against the wishes of the voters of Seattle btw – and it doesn’t provide 1,750 solid blue collar jobs – not even close.  Most of the jobs there are around $12-$15 an hour. 

    Port subsidy for 2018 is $72M – up to $101M maximum.  That’s 13 cents on $1,000 of assessed home value or like $150 a year for a $1M home – or about what you pay for Netflix.

    The real problem with port subsidies is they are largely a means to slash prices for carriers to compete with other ports.  The more we subsidized and drop our price, the more Vancouver, San Fran, et all (may) do the same.  Seattle an d Vancouver are already playing that undercut-each-other game with tax revenue.  You can’t, I assume, collude with all west coast ports to fix prices, and you NEED the business from the carriers, so what to do?  Either play the game we’re playing now with tax subsidies, or give them the land for free so they can do the same thing with a different name.  If our port were to fail and shut down completely it could be very very bad.  We’re like the 4th largest container port in America – that’s not a little thing – every truck, train and ship you see pulling containers around is money for Seattle.

    I think most fiscally responsible people would agree that subsidizing the port of Seattle makes a lot more sense than subsidizing the local football stadium.

  • Jim January 26, 2018 (2:33 pm)

    >>>I think most fiscally responsible people would agree that subsidizing the port of Seattle makes a lot more sense than subsidizing the local football stadium. <<<

    You can’t justify a bad practice by bringing up one that is even worse.

  • zark00 January 26, 2018 (3:14 pm)

    @ Jim – yeah, yer right, that’s a fair point. 

    But, if you HAD to pick one of the two tax subsidies – the port is a better call than the football stadium – I love the stadium, I just think they can pay for it themselves. 

    But you’re right – both are not the way it “should” be.  Ports should not be allowed to use tax subsidies or land grants to offset carrier prices.  But, if we were to just yank the tax subsidy to the port, it would fail, and that would be way worse than paying the tax subsidy – oh I didn’t like typing that sentence, I think it’s true, but that just doesn’t feel right at all.  

     

    • Jim January 26, 2018 (9:38 pm)

      Zarkoo, trust that feeling.

      BTW, I don’t agree that the Port would fail without forcing homeowners to give them money.  

  • Arch January 26, 2018 (4:00 pm)

    Would make a great place to move the Fauntleroy Ferry Dock to.    A dedicated space for queuing and parking would be gained which is not available in the Fauntleroy neighborhood.   Terminal 5 dock is big enough to hold a ferry’s worth of cars after going through the toll booth meaning the ferry won’t leave half empty.    Terminal 5 is close to I-5 and downtown.   Fauntleroy will be torn down and replaced by 2027.   Ferries forecast a 41% rise in Kitsap Westbound travel by 2040.     This tiny neighborhood and one lane each way Fauntleroy Way can’t accommodate that level of growth.  

  • 1994 January 26, 2018 (7:49 pm)

    ARCH has a good idea! Plenty of space for a ferry dock, buses can be accessed nearby, and offloading of ferry  traffic would be closer to major roads and highways.  This should be explored further by Port of Seattle and WA-DOT Ferry system. 

  • Short timer January 27, 2018 (7:30 am)

    Why don’t we build low income housing in Lincoln Park?

    Why can’t we turn the Fauntleroy terminal into a marina?

    Can’t we make Youngstown into a safe injection site?

    Why do we pay taxes for schools on our property? it’s not like I have children.

    Why should I be taxed for transit? I’ve never used it.

    Why should we have a city government at all? Just look at all the (taxation, bloated department head salaries, corrupt HR dept, take your pick.)

    See how that works?

    Your house is worth over 700k because of the economic activity that the Port attracts, and has done so over the years. If Seattle were not a Port city, our economy would look like Spokane, or even Sacramento. If you move to one of those places, you won’t have to put up with the shipping industry that your Amazon Prime purchases rely so much upon. You can probably even purchase your new home in cash.

    But what it comes down to is this: people moved next to a container terminal, and can’t admit the folly of moving next to one, and then complaining about it after the fact. So, it’s anything else: dog parks, tent encampments, rebuild Luna Park, *anything* except what will be and has been for a long time. But single family homeowner greed knows no bounds.

    • Jim January 27, 2018 (8:52 am)

      ST – You’re conflating two issues.  One is the existence of any Port terminals. The other is whether homeowners who don’t want to move to Spokane should have to pay taxes to a semi-government business.  (how many government agencies have a full time staff of paid lobbyists?)

      Does the Port really need to extract 75 million dollars from us every year to exist?  

  • MrB January 27, 2018 (8:43 am)

    Sorry, there’s no truth to your statement.  Home values are up due to the tech industry.  The Port is a bloated mismanaged bureaucracy which only survives with the infusion of tax dollars.   The entire Port property needs to be reimagined as a new neighborhood for tech industries that contribute to the tax base instead of taking.  The Ports value has long since ceased and major change is needed.  

  • Delridgeperson January 27, 2018 (9:19 am)

    The levy goes to environmental remediation and capital investment, not operations. But maybe we should eliminate it, since the people of comment land would rather the people of King County be slumlords and drive business elsewhere and forget about pesky things like wastewater runoff and community mitigation. 

    • Jim January 27, 2018 (9:44 am)

      Money is fungible.  The Port should be paying those costs like any other business.

  • Brad W Herman January 27, 2018 (9:19 am)

    The chain of economics that stem from working piers spans not only that said community, but beyond state and regional borders. I understand people that want pretty views and profits from building projects, but they pale when transposed against the tens of thousands of homes that derive part or all of their income from a thriving port. 

    Pier 5 has a rail system that is by far superior to any other working pier in the northwest. It’s been a producer of family wage jobs for decades. And it’s necessary to our port and our city. The jobs it created are steady ongoing jobs, statewide jobs, that increase over time, not decrease as it would be if it were turned into any other venue. 

    In summary, I hear the developers and the investors, but the revenue streams from this as a working pier will always be far beyond any other proposals for this site. A working pier serves our city and our state. Thank you 

  • bolo January 27, 2018 (5:22 pm)

    I used to like the Port, until I started hearing that they were ganging up on the Sonics when they were wanting to come back to Seattle.

  • Don Brubeck January 28, 2018 (10:05 pm)

    Seattle exists because of the deep water harbor. Our jobs and our economy depend upon this seaport.  Housing and other land uses can be anyplace there is land.  A seaport can only be where the land meets the sea.  Look at the this area from above. It is at the intersection of harbor, rail yards, and highways. It can’t move somewhere else in the metro area.

    The Port of Seattle, created by the citizens of Seattle to have a say over their port, only employs a few people. The industries, farmers from eastern Washington, importers and exporters, freight companies and shippers employ many thousands.

Sorry, comment time is over.