The Emerging Threat to Port Industrial Lands and Why You Should Care

By Jordan Royer, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

The challenges to the supply chain over the last two years are well documented – warehouses bursting at the seams, stacks of containers, rail car and chassis equipment shortages, ships at anchor. All of us have been impacted by it. It is out in the open.

But there is another challenge to the supply chain and the entire manufacturing and industrial economy: land use planning. Let me explain.

While the language of land use planning can be dry and obtuse, it can also be wielded by powerful interests skilled at exploiting loopholes and funding political campaigns of those who will make decisions that dictate how a city will grow and what kind of jobs will be created and sustained – and on the flip side, what kind of jobs will go away. In Seattle and Tacoma, the jobs at risk are good paying, family wage jobs in the port industrial areas.

Under Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA), ten manufacturing industrial centers (MICs) were created – two in Seattle, and one in Tacoma. These MIC zones in Seattle and Tacoma focus on port industrial and manufacturing activities while ensuring that incompatible uses are not allowed. While there are always overlays, loopholes, and exceptions, the protections have worked out fairly well.

Now, however, there are new challenges on the horizon. In Seattle, there is a lot of interest in developing housing directly adjacent to Terminal 46, a container terminal that is now stacked with containers due to a congested supply chain. A process that was started with former Mayor Jenny Durkan, now being advanced by current Mayor Bruce Harrell involves a stakeholder group to study how to protect industrial lands. Stakeholders included port and industrial leaders and waterfront labor representatives all with a strong interest in protecting industrial jobs. It also includes developers and property owners who are making the argument that bringing in new housing can help relieve the region’s housing price crunch, and that Seattle doesn’t need as much industrial land as it once did. The example of industrial waterfront activities migrating from San Francisco to Oakland is often cited by those who believe industry would be better focused in Tacoma leaving Seattle to focus more on urban growth and entertainment.

The good news is that the Harrell administration seems genuinely interested in supporting the Port of Seattle, waterfront trade, and jobs. The last two years have shown how important these activities are. The bad news is housing advocates will continue to make the case that Seattle shouldn’t be focused on industrial jobs and that with the new light rail line going through the industrial areas, housing should be given a priority – threatening waterfront operations and jobs. Information about the process can be found here.

Meanwhile, Tacoma is going through a similar planning process where neighbors of the port, the Puyallup Tribe, and environmentalists are trying to limit business growth if connected to fossil fuels. There continues to be controversy over the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility that has been built to supply cleaner fuel to ocean-going vessels. The Subarea Plan, as it is called, has given advocates a tool to make it more difficult for businesses to operate, and although a push to require conditional use permits has been turned back, there will likely be other creative ways to make it harder to operate in the Tideflats MIC. Employees, businesses, and port leaders need to continue to engage in the planning process to make sure their voices are represented in the final product. Information on the Subarea Plan can be found here.

Seattle and Tacoma are growing cities. Planning documents used by elected officials need to be updated. Careful thought needs to be given to the kind of infrastructure that will be required to accommodate growth. But the bedrock industries that have operated at full strength over the last two years of the pandemic, providing needed products to our community, should be considered as well. These businesses cannot operate just anywhere. The State Legislature recognized this when they created the MICs under Growth Management. We need to make sure that local elected officials in Seattle and Tacoma recognize this as well, and we need to be present when land use language is developed to make sure maritime and manufacturing businesses can continue to grow and thrive.