Last week we talked about the Railroad In The Sky, the FAA, which controls the airspace. Before that we described the airport as a parking lot, or rather two parking lots, because the airport operator does not control the roads, ie. flight paths.This week we talk about the owner of the parking lot - the Port of Seattle - and describe its definition as a special purpose district under RCW 53 and how that mission is fundamentally different from other special purpose districts such as utilities which are meant to be providers of services, not promoters.The Port provides services, but that is not its mission. Its mission is to promote economic development. Full Stop. The services it provides are the vehicle to make that happen. It functions like a for-profit corporation.Like other US ports, over time it has dramatically expanded its mission from the seaport to airport to real estate investments to general economic development, statewide tourism and beyond. If there is an opportunity to encourage jobs and growth they are on board.We briefly touch on the organization's four divisions, the airport which generates the vast majority of the revenue, the seaport, which does not but where the heart of the institution still lies, and the economic development division which is mostly a real estate project and a major owner of commercial property in the region.We then note that there are two international airports in the area. Boeing Field, owned by King County, used to provide almost as many annual operations as Sea-Tac and only on 'one and a half' runways! This puts the lie to the idea that Sea-Tac has reached capacity.KCIA, being owned by the County, has much better incentives to limit growth, and in fact they have shrunk to half their previous size. This also puts the lie to the idea that the owner of the airport has no control over growth.Ports all across American struggle to temper their poorer impulses, because their inherent mission is based on the notion that 'all growth is good'.Today we realize that this idea has created hardship for communities all across America, not just around airports.We close by mentioning the HOK 1997 Study which predicted the area decline based on that deeply flawed growth model.With the upcoming SAMP we need a new HOK study to provide a comprehensive set of mitigations and compensation.HistoryLink article on formation of Port of Seattle 1911The Power Broker (Robert Caro, 1974)1997 Sea-Tac Airport Impact Study (HOK)KCIA Annual Operations2023 King County Aircraft Emissions Task Force2024 Sustainable Airport Master Plan Appendix KKCIA Airport RoundtableRCW Port Districts AuthorizedPort of Seattle Financial Reports (for organizational structure)To learn the rest of the story on each of these programs: stni.info/subscribe

Ver todos los episodios