Arnold backs port container fee

LONG BEACH - Days after port authorities approved a $35 environmental fee on containers shipped through Southern California's harbors, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that he would support a similar fee at the state level.

Schwarzenegger, who previously said container fees would hurt the economy, now considers them an option to help fund trade-related infrastructure and environmental programs.

"I think fees are good; we just have to work it out with the various stakeholders," Schwarzenegger said during a visit with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr.

"It's extremely important that we find a way to create economic development and increase trade, but at the same time take care of our environment."

The governor's policy shift comes as California grapples with an ailing goods-movement infrastructure and growing health problems linked to diesel pollution.

The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which together handle more than 40 percent of the nation's international trade, are listed by air quality regulators as the largest fixed source of air pollution in California.

After vetoing a proposed $30 container fee in 2006, the governor in September withheld his signature from a similar bill, saying he would work during the legislative off-season to develop a program that allows private industry to help fund infrastructure repairs.

Since then, Schwarzenegger has worked with state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, to drum up support for the bill, which would assess a $30 fee on every container handled at the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland.

The estimated $500 million generated annually would be spent on infrastructure projects such as rail improvements and programs that reduce the health impact of air pollution caused by the transportation industry.

Health studies link diesel pollution from trains, trucks and freight ships to increased asthma, cancer and heart disease rates.

Flashback:

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4014/

09/22/2006 GAAS:657:06 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Reaffirming his belief that Californians are best served by holding the line on taxes and fees in order to stimulate economic growth, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that would have cost the people of California $700 million in fees and a universal health care measure that would have made health care less affordable and cost billions in government mandates.

“I vetoed a series of bills that would have imposed more than $700 million in new fees and taxes on Californians,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger in his weekly radio address. “The people in our state are best served by actions that stimulate economic growth. That means putting more money back into the people’s pockets and improving our state’s business climate so we can create more jobs and make the right investments in our infrastructure.”’

(snip)

Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the following seven bills with fees totaling more than $700 million:

SB 927 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) imposes a fee on containers that are discharged at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. ($414 million) Click here for veto message.

(snip)

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/sb_927_veto.pdf

Although the policy objectives of Senate Bill 927, to develop more secure ports, congestion relief and environmental mitigation, are laudable, this measure is flawed in its construction, application, lack of accountability and failure to coordinate with other public and private financing sources ignoring opportunities to leverage additional funding.

Senate Bill 927 provides no mechanism for the usage of the fees collected to favorably leverage the billions of dollars in available funding to develop public private partnerships. Although SB 927 does generate funds, if done in a more coordinated fashion with the public and private sector, funding for additional congestion relief and mitigation could be increased geometrically. Additionally, this measure is drafted to include only two ports and applies only to goods shipped in containers, ignoring all other forms of shipping and ports of entry.

Public safety is and has been my top priority which includes increasing the security at all California ports. My Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Services has aggressively worked with the U.S. Office of Homeland Security and all our local counties and cities to support them as they develop their local plans for port security and identify their needs. Over 127 million dollars has been awarded and allocated on a competitive basis to California ports for security. These grants are being used for port security training, communications equipment, cameras, lighting underwater surveillance and protective equipment for port first responders. We have an additional 100 million dollars included in the strategic growth plan specifically for port security. Additionally, we are working with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on their just announced award investing over 1 billion dollars on radiological and nuclear detection capabilities.

As Governor, I have traveled to both China and Japan working to improve our trading relationships with these nations – trade that includes both imports and exports. It is very important that any measure that increases fees that impact exporters not have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting the sale and delivery of goods grown and manufactured in California. SB 927, unfortunately could negatively impact these exports as well.

Finally, my goods movement task force is developing a comprehensive report that will provide more thorough and strategic direction and insight on what the best options are to address goods movement and port related challenges. This report will be available by the end of this year.

How Government Thinks:

A piece of land is sitting fallow. The government sees better use for it and zones it commercial.

A devloper comes along and builds a container port. This includes all roads and infrastructure Many are employed in that process and their wages create wealth in them and wherever they use it.

The government responds initially by charging the developer land use fees because the land they declared "commercial" now needs roads, schools, utilities .

The port is a success creating 4 jobs for every one it employs. Tax revenue is generated many times higher than the fallow land yielded.

This port however is deemed a problem by the government so they charge the a fee on the activity there.

Ultimately the port becomes too expensive to operate because of taxes and closes.

The government now pays unemployment and starts the process to pay for that all over again with the next private project.

“Environmental” fee probably means “Pay us for having to put up with the damned things” fee. In every port city in the country there are tens of thousands of empty shipping containers piling up. It makes no sense from a cost-effectiveness standpoint to return empty containers, and the U.S. doesn’t export enough to fill up more than a fraction of them.

Yes, they are stacked up like mountains in industrial Jersey, I hear.

Honestly folks, $35 per container ain't much from the shipper's perspective and it would probably cost 'way more than $35 to re-route the to Mexico and have to pay the extra fuel/transport/handling costs.

Considering the nuisance the empty containers create, the fee would be better designated as a handling or disposal fee.

I remember reading something about plans to recycle them as housing material

I've got a better idea. There are thousands of them, right?
And they stack up like legos, right?

Well, why not haul them ALL down to the borderand stack 'em up? Put a smooth finish on the Mexican side so they can't climb over, and voila! Instant border barrier, two or three containers high!

- John

A couple years ago I questioned your characterization of the State developing a five-year plan. Being from private industry, I was used to long-term planning and saw it as a positive. You interpreted it more in the Stalinist fashion.

In retrospect, reading Arnold’s words from a year ago (above), I think you were right.

Well... from someone who gets it right more often than not, I appreciate that. I vaguely remember the exchange now, but I had forgotten about it. Once in a while I get lucky.

Isn't it interesting the women who marry their fathers, even though their fathers were abusive of their spouse and the children? What we have here is an analog of that, Schwarzenegger marrying his motherland despite it's abuses. He seems determined to turn this state into the type of place he was fortunate enough to have escaped from. Beats me how that makes sense to him.

One that I wasn't so lucky on, was voting for Schwarzenegger in the first place. To me it seemed a choice between a racist separatist and a liberal of unknown potency. Schwarzenegger has panned out to be the man his detractors (McClintock supporters) thought he would be.

In their favor, they explained that they would rather see Bustamante do despicable things in the state, so the left could be blamed. That was probably a sound stance. I had hoped he would turn out to be a rather neutral governor, doing some things we'd like and some we wouldn't. Well, I was half right. Unfortunately, the half I thought he would do that was good, didn't materialize for the most part.

Frankly, I am sick of the damned if you do damned if you don't choices put before us. I have voted for my last RINO. What a great situation we are faced with. Arnold disembles in California while Bush takes it national.

There have been a few bright spots over the last seven years, but it's basicly been a baren wasteland for those who actually give a damn about sovereignty, sound fiscal policy and the future of our founding principles to be assured.

If this nation concinues on this track for just about any length of time, I do not think our founding principles will survive. Much of them are already nulified with PC initiative after PC initiative.

Well... from someone who gets it right more often than not, I appreciate that. I vaguely remember the exchange now, but I had forgotten about it. Once in a while I get lucky.

LOL. Sometimes my memory is a good thing; often not. ;-)

Isn't it interesting the women who marry their fathers, even though their fathers were abusive of their spouse and the children? What we have here is an analog of that, Schwarzenegger marrying his motherland despite it's abuses. He seems determined to turn this state into the type of place he was fortunate enough to have escaped from.

Interesting analogy. I don't think he ever really thought it was abusive. His stories didn't pan out (remember the "tanks in the streets" story that was debunked as total fiction?). Any man who can put busts of Lenin and Stalin in his home and office could not have despised their governance as he tried to project. (IMHO)

Schwarzenegger has panned out to be the man his detractors (McClintock supporters) thought he would be.

Actually, worse.

I was half right. Unfortunately, the half I thought he would do that was good, didn't materialize for the most part.

LOL.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.