Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wuli

It’s not B.S. at all. California had done some very interesting economic studies over the years, and they determined that the jobs and economic activity at those ports simply weren’t worth the adverse impacts of all the congestion, diesel emissions, etc. In a large city, a major port facility is simply not the highest and best use of waterfront real estate at all.


67 posted on 09/18/2017 8:35:47 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

“It’s not B.S. at all. California had done some very interesting economic studies over the years, and they determined that the jobs and economic activity at those ports simply weren’t worth the adverse impacts of all the congestion, diesel emissions, etc. In a large city, a major port facility is simply not the highest and best use of waterfront real estate at all.”

So the federal government had no business saving those ports for a state that didn’t want them anyway. Like I said, the post business would have gone to other west coast ports and Texas. Taxpayers all across the country had no stake in doing it FOR California. The imports would have come in, but to California’s benefit.


70 posted on 09/18/2017 8:42:02 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson