Kathryn and the Port of Seattle! (Part 2)

  • Type: Primary Campaign Flyer   (with added emphasis)
  • Date of Document:  Around July 12, 2017
  • Subject: Councilmember Campbell’s behavior.
  • Origin: Obtained through the USPS.

* Note you can double click on any image to enlarge.

Front of Flyer

Back of Flyer

 

Previously we saw that Councilmember Campbell declined an appointment to the SeaTac Airport Advisory Committee. Now a year after that action, during the primary she sends out a flyer saying,

“This is what dedication to your community looks like….”

And under that,

“Support of improved city/airport vital relationship (ILA)”

One must wonder how Kathryn feels she is supporting her community in an effort to better the relationship with the airport when she refused to participate in the committee charged with advancing that very goal. She talks about the Interlocal agreement, but fails to explain what exactly she has done to advance the residents or the city’s interests in this area!

In fact, on the same mailer she lists her endorsement by 3 Port commissioners!  It is well known that the city has taken the airport to court at least 2 times recently, once over the 3,600 trees the Port is seeking to cut and once over a conflict over storm water management. The question is whose side is Councilmember Campbell really on?

Let’s go back to December 2015 when the outgoing lame duck council suddenly rushed to enter into an extension of the ILA which each newly elected councilmember requested them not enter into. In fact, the councilmembers-elect also went to the Ports meeting and asked THEM not to move this matter forward, but to leave it to the council that would be in office within days!  The expiration of the agreement was in 45 days, so there really was no rush.

Of course, Councilmember Campbell voted to enter into the agreement in spite of the fact that the 2 year extension cost the city and its taxpayers millions  of dollars!

This writer leaves it to you, the public to look at the facts and decide if the best interests of the residents were served, or if it was a political accommodation!

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *