Can we stop NOAA from departing Seattle?
Soon we will know why NOAA picked Newport, which one would have thought ranked dead last in the criteria. Then may come a long-shot effort at reversing the strange decision.
NOAA
Tuesday’s announcement that NOAA intends to move its marine operations from Lake Union to Newport, Oregon, jolted the city like an 8.0 earthquake. The news stunned Seattle, a city that has valued the scientific agency’s presence for more than 50 years. Although blindsided and saddened, Seattle forces are now looking at possible next steps. They’re asking why Newport and if this is the right move for NOAA.
The first step, it goes without saying, is to acknowledge and even to congratulate Newport on putting together a successful bid for the nation’s premiere oceanographic and atmospheric research arm. The small coastal city (population 9,943 as of last year) convinced NOAA’s procurement staff that it is ready, willing, and able to sink some $44 millions of Oregon taxpayers’ money into a facility to berth NOAA’s Pacific fleet. There can be no doubt this is an incredible commitment, coming at a time when states and cities are facing the toughest economic conditions in generations.
The second step is to find out what led to the decision. It’s a puzzling outcome, one that seems to fly in the face of strategic, financial, and logistic benefits of having NOAA vessels berthed in Puget Sound waters. It’s here in Seattle that NOAA has land-based scientific facilities. It’s here that NOAA has relied on ship repair services. It’s here that NOAA has maintained scientific links to the University of Washington. It’s here that NOAA was able to berth ships in fresh water, a tremendous advantage for sea-going vessels.
Despite these close links to Seattle, the homeport siting process attracted bids from three other Northwest cities: Bellingham, Port Angeles, and Newport. What isn’t known is how each of the competitors scored and what weight was given to various criteria. Looking at the criteria objectively, one could be excused for running down the list and thinking that Newport would have ranked dead last. That is unless the $44 million was just about all that really mattered.
What led to this possibly flawed choice won’t be known until after NOAA signs a contract with Newport — something that hasn’t happened yet. Word is that the signing might take place later this week. Each of the bidders for the homeport then will have an opportunity for a debriefing. At that time, it may be clear: Why Newport?
After the signing, there’s another step: the unsuccessful bidders will have an opportunity to lodge a protest in one of three places — with NOAA, the General Accounting Office, or the Court of Federal Claims. However, the City of Seattle will not be eligible to appeal since the bid from this city came from a private company — a group of families that owns the piers that NOAA has been leasing on Lake Union.
Is there a chance that an eleventh hour appeal might succeed? That’s difficult to say. What will matter most — and it is the major consideration — is whether the decision is the right one for NOAA and for NOAA’s important scientific mission. Aside from possible appeals, the state’s congressional delegation will want to look critically at how the choice was made. Already Sen. Maria Cantwell, who chairs the Senate subcommittee on NOAA, has vowed to fight the move to Oregon. Yesterday she said, “I seriously question whether relocating NOAA’s ships outside of the Puget Sound is really the right move for NOAA.’’
Those words provide some reason for optimism. At this point it probably would take a minor miracle for NOAA’s marine operation to remain in Seattle, or even in the Puget Sound region. But miracles sometimes happen.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 6:37 p.m. Inappropriate
What exactly does NOAA contribute to the taxpayers of Seattle beyond some ship repair services?
I'm not sure why I should be upset about this.
As such, at this point, I'm not.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 4:53 a.m. Inappropriate
"Can we stop NOAA from departing Seattle?" No Jean, we cannot our congressional delegation is far to weak.
I am very suprised that a Seattle City Council person is soo far behind the curve on this issue...are you having trouble keeping up?
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 7:02 a.m. Inappropriate
"Looking at the criteria objectively, one could be excused for running down the list and thinking that Newport would have ranked dead last."
I'm not local to either area, and I can't pretend to have been following this from start to finish, but, after reading the news coverage from all cities and reading many comments from Seattle, I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
The list in NOAA's release was:
"NOAA’s infrastructure needs, proximity to maritime industry resources and NOAA labs, quality of life for civilian employees, officers and crew, the ability to meet the desired occupancy date of July 2011 in addition to lease cost."
Infrastructure needs: What I understand from Seattle residents is that Seattle has bogged down the repairs to NOAAs existing Lake Union facility in miles of red tape. Two years after the fire that damaged it there is no reason and city, serious about keeping the organization shouldn't have had these repairs done. Instead NOAAs fleet is fractured, leading to logistical and organizational headache.
Proximity to maritime industry resources: While I'm not real familiar with Newport, I do know they have an active commercial fishing fleet, it seems reasonable to believe that those ships have the industry support to keep them going, or they wouldn't be there.
Proximity to NOAA labs: The Pacific Marine Environmental Lab is in Newport at the Hartfield Marine Science Center
Quality of life: Here's a big one, from Seattle residents I understand that Lake Union is being developed as a playground for the wealthy whereas I understand Newport is becoming a playground for marine science. As these are a fleet of research boats and not private yachts, I do believe Newport gets the point. It's cheaper and it has its priorities right.
Ability to meet desired occupancy date: Newport already began renovation and construction work on the facilities in anticipation. They took a huge gamble to show that they were serious.
Lease cost: While the politicians in Washington are complaining about the $19million from the state of Oregon, they conveniently ignore the fact that Newport, little Newport, put up $24million? If Washington prohibits using state money for projects like this, oh well. Are you telling me Seattle couldn't have come up with that much money on its own?
Lets face it there are other issues to be seen here too. The first time I looked up these places on a map I thought I had gotten lost looking for Lake Union, in the back of my mind I kept telling myself, "surely, they wouldn't have a port way back here". It takes what, about 12 hours to get from LU to the ocean. It would take maybe one hour on a bad day to get out of Newport.
I'm sorry it just makes too much sense to me. I can't believe the elected officials immediately started crying about fair play and questioning the integrity of the people involved in a lengthy and open process. They all had their opportunity to speak up and they were all apparently asleep at the wheel. I do have to praise the officials at Bellingham and PA, they at least seem to be reasonable about the whole thing.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 9 a.m. Inappropriate
We'll find out how much power our Senators Cantwell and Murray have vs Oregon's.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate
"But we have Mount Rainier! We have Puget Sound!" There. That kept Boeing from moving, didn't it? ....Oh, wait.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 12:23 p.m. Inappropriate
why do you have a picture of a ship that has not been part of the NOAA fleet since 1995.
Posted Sat, Aug 8, 10:20 a.m. Inappropriate
I think we should do what we can to keep this research center and jobs here in Seattle. It's just better to keep as much activity, especially NOAA, as part of our city.
Posted Sat, Aug 8, 10:37 a.m. Inappropriate
Newport, population under 10,000, puts up $24 million in subsidies?
Something fishy about that.
Posted Sat, Aug 15, 11:12 a.m. Inappropriate
How in the world can you expect some Government agency which would want to bring in GS-10 scientists earning $55,000 a year to a place surrounded by 2 million dollar houseboats and Vulcan-inflated condoes that take two lawyer's salaries to afford? People have no sense of reality.
None of the classic industries -- Boeing, Government, nay, even today's Microsoft with its flatlined stock -- can pay workers salaries that can afford the "Puget Sound" lifestyle.
I'm predicting the next hip place to go for living a realistic middle class and hipster life with be Tri-Cities...Pasco, Richland...it's already happening.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.