We expected it: The parade of individuals and organizations stepping up at a public hearing a few weeks ago to offer enthusiastic support for the Port of Seattle’s massive expansion plan for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. There were business executives and trade associations, chambers of commerce and labor organizations, plus elected officials whose communities reap tremendous economic benefits from operations at the airport. All would welcome more passengers and cargo.
What you almost certainly haven’t heard is that all four cities that border the airport — Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila — have filed objections to the proposal, which is currently under a review mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act. Among thousands of comments from the public, the Port of Seattle has also received formal criticism from the Highline School District and the Washington Department of Ecology.
Not one of the pro-expansion voices at that hearing acknowledged the significant negative impacts the airport has on its fence line neighbors. We can’t quarrel with their position. While our cities lose more than we gain from having the airport as our neighbor, a lot of people make a lot of money off the airport. It’s not their job to worry about the economic, environmental and public health beating our cities and our residents endure without any form of meaningful relief.
It is, however, the duty of the Port Commission and its staff to acknowledge — and mitigate — the damage. Instead, the Port’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement concludes the expansion, including a new 19-gate terminal and a nearly 30% increase in daily aircraft operations, will have “no significant impact” on the surrounding community. We would argue that ramping up to nearly 1,500 takeoffs and landings — more than one every minute during peak hours — will substantially intensify what consultants call “negative externalities” such as noise, degraded air quality and economic harm unique to the fence line cities.
Ours are predominantly blue-collar, “majority minority” communities with heavy concentrations of residents from racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and other groups the state classifies as overburdened or vulnerable. Our governments operate on a shoestring and yet must shoulder higher costs; for example, for law enforcement services and public works infrastructure stressed by stormwater runoff from the airport plateau that result from having the airport next door.
In SeaTac, the Port bought an office building that had brought the city about $830,000 in annual tax revenues. Because the Port is tax-exempt, that revenue stream is now dry. SeaTac has also sustained about $600,000 in parking tax losses since the Port leased three commercial lots for airport employee parking.
In Burien, there is a corridor beneath the flight path to the so-called Third Runway where the quality of life has declined markedly since the runway opened in 2008. The prospect of another dramatic increase in aircraft traffic has forced city planners to consider curtailing residential zoning in the area. Beyond disrupting an established community, the change would make it more difficult for Burien to meet the terms of a new state law that requires cities to increase their affordable housing stock.
In Des Moines, a large manufacturing company with several hundred employees and more than $50 million in annual revenues considered a site near the airport for its headquarters. The property was in a runway corridor. The noise levels prompted the firm to look elsewhere.
We are left beneath the flight paths with a cycle of blight. Eroded land values may make these zones more “affordable,” but they also mean lower tax revenues. We are seeing a higher percentage of rentals, as well as owners less able to afford the cost of maintaining their properties.
We lack the space here to discuss noise and air quality problems that will only grow worse as SEA gets busier — aggravating public health issues that are already demonstrably worse around the airport than they are elsewhere in King County. Clearly, however, the airport’s benefits are regional. The harms are local.
Please understand that we favor projects that will help stoke Washington’s economic engine. But if you’re going to build that growth on our backs, we would appreciate some assistance in coping with the negative effects. The Port has failed, across the board, to provide such assistance.
It is past time to correct that failure with a comprehensive strategy that includes greater financial commitments from the Port and, as a beneficiary of the airport’s widespread economic contributions, the state. The reality is that, while it’s making so many others rich, the airport is strangling our cities.
