From:            Sharla Dodd
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Port of Seattle Port Meeting public comment
Date:              Sunday, November 15, 2020 3:08:18 PM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
Hello,
I recently emailed a comment in regards to the 2021 Port budget and tax levy increase and was
very surprised to hear of the upcoming meeting to presumably move forward with said budget.
I think it is unconscionable that you plan to shift the onus of the cost from large corporations
to the individual taxpayer, many of whom do not have the means to travel by plane and yet
would be forced to subsidize airlines during a pandemic-caused economic downturn. If the
Port truly intends to serve the public then the equitable way forward is NOT to increase the
taxpayer's burden each year ($78+ million in 2021 followed by additional increases in 2022
and 2023) while reducing fees for airlines, including passing on savings from cuts to
operational costs and utilizing federal stimulus money. The stimulus money could, for
example, be used to aid low-wage airport workers who might have lost their jobs or do not
have access to health insurance. Any cost savings and federal stimulus money should NOT
benefit corporations (especially given that airlines mismanaged their absurd profits with
shareholder payouts, for example, instead of setting aside money for emergency situations like
Covid-19, expecting federal and taxpayer bailouts to come to the rescue) and should instead be
used to reduce the burden on taxpayers and assist low-wage workers, without whom the Port
would not be able to function.
Secondly, during this time of dueling emergencies (climate change will soon make Covid-19
look like a minor blip), the Port budget does not even attempt any meaningful reduction in its
operational emissions, the vastmajority of which come from fuel burned at Sea-Tac. The only
emissions reduction method mentioned is the use of "sustainable aviation fuels" (biofuels, by a
less euphemistic name), a specious plan at best. CO2 emissions will not be reduced by
switching to biofuels and it remains unclear whether biofuels would reduce other particulate
emissions or radiative forcing. Furthermore the proposed growth at the Port would more than
erase any minor biofuel emissions reductions achieved. The only way to reduce emissions is to
reduce flights, antithetical to your entire budget proposal that prioritizes increasing flights,
airport capacity, and thus corporate profits. Any budget that lacks proper climate-safeguarding
built-in emissions reductions should NOT be approved. Our governments and leaders,
including the Port, need to lead the way in rectifying the disastrous climate spiral we find
ourselves in rather than doubling down on the same growth-first, business-as-usual approach.
The budget also largely fails to address (let alone even acknowledge) the massive inequities
caused by Sea-Tac's daily operations. The noise and air pollution due to continually growing
airport operations disproportionately affect nearby marginalized communities and
communities of color. This pollution leads to many dismal health outcomes (increased preterm
births, lower learning outcomes in children, decreased mental health, increased levels of
dementia) and decreased property values and tax bases. The Port must reverse course and
begin to take responsibility for the negative externalities (air and noise pollution) inherent in
past and current airport operations and invest money (paid for by users of Sea-Tac) into
programs that address, mitigate and redress the hardships that have fallen on these impacted
communities.

Some possible steps the Port could take to create a budget that is in line with its stated Century
Agenda, helps achieve equity and sustainability, and truly serves the public are as follows:
1. Stop spending on Sea-Tac projects unless necessary for safety.
2. Redirect money for Sea-Tac expansion projects (e.g., IAF and NASF) to mitigation
projects to immediately reduce harms to airport impacted communities (sound insulation
and air purifiers for homes, day cares, and schools).
3. Halt the "Sustainable Airport Master Plan" and redirect funds for the SAMP to research
and development of modes of passenger and cargo transportation in our region that are
actually sustainable (not airplanes burning biofuels), such as rail.
4. Invest in research to determine how best to reduce air and noise pollution on airportimpacted
communities.
5. Fund programs to ensure accurate accounting, reporting, and education regarding all
types of emissions from Sea-Tac.
In regards to the proposal to spend $22 million on Sea-Tac parking garage upgrades, I urge the
Port to abandon this idea and instead focus on the only effective plan that will reduce CO2
emissions - degrowth. The specious justifications for this parking garage update and
expenditure claimthat it will result in a CO2 emissions reductionby 17-20 metric tons per
year (almost nothing in comparison with the almost 6,000,000 metric tons of CO2 emitted
from pumped fuel in 2017). Another greenwashing justification for the updated garage is that
the number of EV charging stations will double to 96 (still less than 1% of spots in the
garage). The Port of Seattle should stop pouring money into Sea-Tac infrastructure and should
instead focus whole-heartedly on taking action to avoid climate catastrophe. We have little
time to make these necessary changes and thus must start to severely reduce CO2 emissions
through an immediate plan of degrowth. Any available funds ($22 million for the parking
garage) should be used to mitigate the current harm that noise and air pollution from Sea-Tac
operations have on impacted communities.
Please confirm that my comment has been received.
Thank you for your time,
Sharla Dodd