Gunn’s on the right track

I’m not a radical environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but I voted for someone who is – – Sue Gunn.  In case you don’t remember, Sue Gunn is the newest member of the Port Commission.

She made news recently for voting against the construction of a new warehouse on port property.   The warehouse would have been used for the storage of fracking sand  – – little ceramic pellets – – which are used primarily to force out trapped oil from oil sands in the Dakotas and Canada.

The port currently has one warehouse which stores the sand for reshipping, but the demand is so great that a second warehouse was needed.

Gunn voted against it’s construction but was out-voted by the other two port commissioners Bill McGregor and George Barner, who went on to approve the use of taxpayer money to build the warehouse.

I knew that Gunn would oppose just such a move.   She has concerns about the impact of fracking on the environment and on global warming.

While I care about the environment I’m convinced that global warming is controlled by the sun and nothing humans do can change it.

So – – why did I vote for Sue Gunn?

Her incumbent opponent was a longshoreman who had a personal and financial stake in port operations.  It was a conflict of interest that shouldn’t have been allowed to exist in the first place.

And, Gunn had promised to wean the port off of taxpayer subsidies.   She said she would close down the marine terminal if it couldn’t pay its own way.

As someone who’s concerned that Thurston County taxpayers shouldn’t be spending millions of our dollars to subsidize  Weyerhaeuser’s logging operations, I support efforts to make the port pay for itself.

That’s what Gunn promised.

Her efforts to stop the shipping of fracking sand may be environmental on its face, but constructing a new warehouse would require taxpayer money.

Gunn has made the first down payment on her promise to make the port pay for itself.   She’s doing what I hired her to do.