How much will protests cost Tacoma and Pierce County?
August 2nd, 2008 by Republican By DefaultA recent article in the News Tribune described the events leading up to the non-event protests in the Port of Tacoma as Stryker Brigade vehicles are off-loaded from ships. The army refused to pay for added security at the ports where military vehicles and supplies are being loaded and off-loaded. That left the city of Tacoma with a bill of about $661,000 for the March 2007 protests. Let me put it another way. That left us, the taxpayers, holding a bill for the added police presence needed for the army and the port to conduct business.
The army can’t be blamed for the protest. They’re a necessary part of the security and sovereignty of our nation. The police can’t be blamed, they’re doing their best to keep the peace. The protestors are certainly to blame, since they’re the ones causing the problems. But I think that there’s some blame that needs to be handed to the city, particularly the City Council and the Municipal Court Judges. The City Council for not pressuring the city attorney’s office to press charges and build better cases against protestors who violate the law. And the judges for their miscarriage of justice in handing out rulings that are less than a slap on the wrist and in most cases a complete dismissal of charges.
The war continued and now it’s becoming so clear that we’re winning that even the AP and liberal politicians are admitting that the surge is working. Of course, the surge is just one small part of a war strategy that brought about the victory, but it’s an obviously important part. But regardless of where the war stands, the protests have done little to no good in stopping it. We have a commander in chief who doesn’t bow to crowds of old and young hippies who have nothing better to do than to relive and try to revive their feeble glory days. So the war goes on and we’re winning it, no thanks to the hippies and their ilk.
But the protests have cost the city a lot of money. That last round was mentioned above. That didn’t include the events at the Tacoma Mall or downtown. The figure for this round of added security hasn’t been released (or probably even tallied) at this point, but it will likely be six figures again. But that may be only part of the cost.
The article in the TNT points out some interesting facts. Like the fact that the Army has paid the Port $324,000 in wharfage fees and $204,000 in longshore worker labor fees for the March 2007 load-out. This round will probably be similar. To put it another way, the Army is paying the taxpayer run Port as well as wages for local workers. Sure, it’s all taxpayer money anyway, but that money comes back to us directly.
Something else the article points out is that the army has begun shipping equipment and vehicles by rail to other ports before loading them on ships on their way to the Middle East.
[Spokeswoman Heidi] Secrest said it would be up to officials at the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., to say whether, in light of the growing security costs involved at Northwest ports, the military considered alternatives for this latest shipment.
For instance, some outbound Fort Lewis equipment has been sent by rail to Port Hueneme, Calif., or Beaumont, Texas, to be loaded on ships for the Middle East.
That means that the Port of Tacoma lost wharfage fees and longshore labor fees for at least part of a load-out. So that’s money that would have gone into our local economy, but didn’t, because of those protestors and the city government that lets them get away with interfering with the military’s duties to this nation.
I have no doubt that part of the reason that the Army continues to use the Port of Tacoma is that the local police have gone to great lengths to combat the problem of violent and disruptive protests. They have invested in training and equipment that allows them to handle these situations better than most police departments in the Northwest. I’ve seen them in action. I was impressed.
Honestly, I’m not all that worried about the six or seven figures that these protestors have been allowed to cost us. What I’m really worried about is what the Army will do if this continues. Base closures are a real possibility. There have been several rounds of them in recent years in which we’ve been lucky enough to have been passed over. That probably didn’t come without some political leverage by our representative in DC, but even they don’t have enough clout to completely prevent it. There are far too many factors that the army considers when making those decisions for our delegation to control.
Even though the Department of Defense doesn’t let us know what went into those decisions, it’s clear that receptivity by the local community is always going to be a factor. If we allow protests to disrupt their efforts it will reflect badly on us in the next round of closures.
I’m told that another factor is the roads around bases. A local politician told me that any base in the U.S. that has been hemmed in on all sides by public roads has been closed. We just broke ground on the cross-base highway.
Are we driving the military out of our community? How much more will it take before they leave? And I know that there are a few liberal pinheads that, as they’re reading this, are hoping that the bases are closed. But as usual, liberals never think anything through. The cost to the local economy if even one of those bases were closed would be devastating. Tacoma would certainly be impacted tremendously by a base closure, but the communities closest to the bases would be impacted the most. How much? Think Flint, MI. And even a liar and a gasbag like Michael Moore couldn’t turn that around, although it did turn him into a Manhattan limousine liberal.
