Thursday, October 1, 2026
The recent opinion piece, “A Better Vision for the Port of Olympia,” offers attractive renderings of the Port Peninsula. But there is a difference between advocacy and governance. Advocacy can draw anything. Governance must deliver something real, fundable, buildable, and reflective of the whole community, not just the loudest voices.
The proposed sketch overlooks the realities public agencies must manage: environmental requirements, noise impacts on neighboring residents, grant obligations, infrastructure constraints, diverse community opinions, and the need for sustainable revenue.
Eliminating our working waterfront would erase the very funding that supports parks, trails, and habitat restoration. “A Better Vision for the Port of Olympia” recommends new taxes to fund the proposed community amenities.
Few challenges are hitting our region harder than the rising cost of living. Expecting taxpayers to bankroll unfunded visions of a small group of advocates while families struggle to afford gas, groceries, and housing is disconnected from reality and simply not good policy.
We do not need to guess what the broader community wants, because a clear public vision already exists. The Port of Olympia’s Vision 2050 and the Experience Olympia & Beyond Destination Master Plan express what our community has repeatedly asked for, as communicated through a massive public process incorporating diverse voices.
The community is asking for:
This is a regional vision shaped by broad engagement, not a small group calling for the removal of all commercial activity. A peninsula without jobs or sustainable revenue is not a vision, it is a dead end.
The future we are building is one where our residents can enjoy community events and trails, the marine terminal connects Thurston County to the rest of the world, visitors can rent a kayak and touch the water, and environmental cleanup is not just a vision, but a funded project. This is the model that successful ports, such as Bellingham and Vancouver, have embraced and it is exactly what our community has endorsed.
We are fortunate to live in a place full of community organizers and advocates, each passionate about Olympia’s future. We must also be clear-eyed about the difference between advocacy and governance: advocacy advances the wishes of one group, while good governance delivers a plan to serve the entire community.
At The Port of Olympia that broader, collective work to execute on our whole community’s vision is already underway. Stay tuned!
Amy Harding represents District No. 3 on the Port of Olympia Commission.
The opinions expressed above are those of the writers and not necessarily those of The JOLT's staff or board of directors. Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us and we’ll most likely publish it. Click here to email to us.
19 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
Thank you for your ideas, Amy. I agree that whatever happens on the peninsula should be realistic, fundable, and durable — and that’s exactly why buildings on the peninsula are challenging. One issue any long-term plan has to consider is the geotechnical reality of the site. The peninsula is entirely man-made fill, and in a major earthquake it is mapped as highly susceptible to liquefaction.
For conventional commercial buildings, that means you can’t simply “build on it.” You would have to drive piles very deep—down to stable layers beneath the fill—to prevent the structure from settling or collapsing during an earthquake. That kind of foundation work is technically possible, but it is also extremely expensive, and usually only justified for high-value buildings in locations that aren’t also facing future tidal flooding.
Because of the problems with liquefaction and projected sea-level rise, any structures that require heavy foundations, enclosed buildings, or long-term commercial leasing become very costly to build and costly to insure. In contrast, open space, trails, small pavilions, habitat, and recreation facilities are exactly the types of uses that planners routinely recommend for areas like this. They’re safer, more adaptable, and far more financially practical on unstable fill than multi-story commercial development.
Your AI rendering also shows small-boat access, which many of us would love to see. The Port has discussed it for years but hasn’t been able to follow through. With new leadership joining the commission, we finally have the chance to rethink the peninsula in a way that matches both community goals and the real physical conditions of the land.
My goal isn’t to discount your ideas—just to highlight that a resilient, people-centered open space waterfront is the approach most in line with what the peninsula can safely and affordably support over the long term.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
griffithga
Thank you Amy for your opinion piece on the future of the Port peninsula. KGY and our heritage should be a part of the vision.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
chrispc2u
I hope whatever is decided brings downtown out of the gutter where many shops remain closed, small restaurants change owners too often and there are almost more tattoo parlors than decent restaurants. Olympia has to be appealing enough to draw investors. The homeless population (many of whom are mentally unwell) should be relocated out of the downtown core. Enough of enabling professional bums and the mentally unstable to roam our downtown city streets.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
KarenM
I appreciate seeing opinion pieces here in The Jolt that get us thinking and imagining the future of Olympia's waterfront.
Those who advocate should not be demeaned by suggesting that they only represent a 'small' or 'loud' group of people. Advocacy can take many forms. We want people to speak up. People who show up for the discussion are valid participants and should not be dismissed. It is discouraging when policy makers dismiss those who speak up when their ideas don't fit the current plan.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
jimlazar
The Port of Olympia loses money on the Marine Terminal every year. They try to conceal this by not including things like interest on bonds, the stormwater facility built to control runoff, depreciation expense, and administrative expense. When it is all considered, the Port loses $2 million to $4 million per year on the Marine Terminal.
They make that loss by imposing over $8 million in property taxes every year. In recent years, the property tax (what the rest of us pay) has been about 40% of the "operating revenues" of the Port (what tenants like Weyerhaeuser, the marina tenants, and airport users pay).
To suggest that "the working waterfront" enables the port to do other things is simply poppycock. The Marine Terminal is a financial anchor on the community, causes heavy truck traffic and associated noise and pollution, and brings polluting ships into our downtown.
A proper vision for the port peninsula would involved public access to ALL of the waterfront, completion of the long-planned "Big W" walking path, and removal of polluting activity.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
curtzt
Looking at Jim Lazar's opening comment on the Port's finances, I can't help but think that the responsible "governing" that Port Commissioner Harding evokes ought to include using the Port's powers and resources in a way that doesn't result in local taxpayers covering $2 million to $4 in losses from operating the Marine Terminal year after year after year.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
I have been watching Port of Olympia finances for over 35 years. In all that time there has not been a year when the Marine Terminal showed a profit. Thus, Ms. Harding's assertion that the marine terminal produces funding for parks, trails, etc., is mistaken. Quite the opposite -- our property taxes cover the annual losses. And this doesn't even include hidden costs like multi-million dollar dredging projects paid for by the federal government and log truck damage to our city streets paid for by us.
The Port has tried several devious accounting tricks to hide the truth of these losses, but wary port watchers in our community have exposed them over and over again.
It is high time for our Port District to start telling the truth.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Report this
HarryBranch
I suggest that we let go of the concept of the cleanup dredge. Just leave contamination mostly alone. We can't cleanup nature. Only nature can do that. Our efforts would be better invested in source control.
Where we can make big improvements is dissolved oxygen. The best way to do that is improvements in structure and the best improvement to structure we can make is to daylight sections of Moxlie Creek and restore its estuary.
The greatest threat to estuaries is, by far, their large-scale conversion by draining, filling or dredging. Many estuaries in North America have been filled to create shipping ports and expand urban areas. In areas of the United States, estuarine habitat loss is as high as 60%. Somehow regarding the Port Peninsula this subject never comes up. Restore the upper beach.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
AmyEvansHarding
The City of Olympia who has land use authority has confirmed our response to sea level rise will not be retreat. Pilings have built much of downtown Olympia successfully and there are solid mitigation plans to address sea level rise.
Time to take a look at the marine terminal finances again. Times change. So does data. Our marine terminal director is innovative. The Port has paid off considerable previous bond debt in the last couple of years (and continues to do so), has taken on new cargos at the terminal and is stronger than ever.
The narrative just doesn’t look at the current facts. It’s okay to simply not like logging or new buildings, but I think we can ground ourselves in intellectually honest facts and debate that.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
AmyEvansHarding
And Rhonda, I am excited also about this commission making the vision a reality. It’s time. They will need our support. Thank you!
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@AmyEvansHarding: Thank you, Amy — I appreciate the chance to keep the conversation grounded in shared facts. I think where we may actually agree is on the importance of creating uses on the peninsula that are financially viable over the long term. From an economic development standpoint, the biggest returns — especially for downtown property owners, small businesses, and hospitality — tend to come from amenities that bring people downtown year-round. That includes parks, performance spaces, trails, water access, and cultural attractions.
For better or for worse, the peninsula’s combination of fill soils, liquefaction susceptibility, and future tidal flooding makes large commercial buildings very expensive to construct and insure. Even if technically possible, the cost-to-revenue ratio can make traditional development harder to sustain there. Parks and recreation spaces, on the other hand, are exactly the types of uses that perform well on vulnerable waterfront land and tend to bring the most activity into surrounding districts.
That’s why so many cities — from Memphis to Spokane to Oklahoma City — have seen significant gains in hotel revenue, restaurant sales, and real estate value after converting underused industrial waterfronts into high-quality open space public destinations.
My interest isn’t in stopping economic development; it’s the opposite. I want the peninsula to be the engine that increases foot traffic, visitor spending, and downtown vitality, which in turn benefits the entire local economy — including the businesses and brokers who support it.
I completely respect that we may have different starting points, but I think our goals overlap more than it might seem. We all want a thriving, resilient, and lively Olympia. A peninsula that draws people in — rather than fencing them out — is one of the strongest tools we have to get there.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
AmyEvansHarding
-Ronda. Im hopeful we can find a path to vibrant solutions if we work together! Yay! The future is bright.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
Porter
Shutdown the cargo terminal. Move it to Aberdeen. Build a park.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
Snevets
"our property taxes cover the annual losses. And this doesn't even include hidden costs like multi-million dollar dredging projects paid for by the federal government and log truck damage to our city streets paid for by us."
Close the logging terminal.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
Person of Interest
The Marine Terminal supports jobs and economic growth in Olympia and the region. These are just basic facts. Any calls for closing the marine terminal without understanding how that can be accomplished and what the financial consequences are to Olympia indicates a fundamental lack basic business, legal and economic realities.
Right now we have an excellent Port staff that is building on the past for a new future. Business with the Suzano and business with The Pacific Titan underscores that we have a future. Nothing is easy but staff at the Port understands this business better than the negative commenters. The Maritime shipping business is complex and needs real professionals to understand it.
Also every Port in Washington depends on taxes. Every city in Washington depends on tax revenues. The small percentage of taxes we pay for the economic engine which is the Port is incredibly small compared to the benefit. Taxes are what create roads, highways, light rail, Amtrak, the US military and Ports. In other words the back bone of our society was and is constructed based on tax revenues.
Any of the Parks built like Scissor Tail Park in OKC were built from tax revenue. In the case of Scissor Tail
Park in OKC revenue was raised through a 1% sales tax.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
GordonW
In addition to the absurd subsidies, the traffic, and the loss of use of our land, no one is so far talking about the public health nightmare that the port delivers to our community. The Port of Seattle is now requiring ships to use shore power by 2027 because of the health destroying pollution released by ships sitting port, and continuing to burn bunker oil. With our very slow port operations, the ships sit in port for a very long time, spewing pollution. I live downwind from the port and my health is being adversely affected, but everyone near downtown suffers the same health consequences. The Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), the NOx, the SO2 and the CO2 are greatly increased by our port activity, and these are completely avoidable harms.
The obvious solution for our uneconomic port is to close it and put the land to better use, but otherwise Olympia should require the port and shippers to pay for and use shore power exclusively. As a physician in our community for many years, I am concerned about the health effects of this pollution on our citizens in Olympia. Inhaled DPM is a toxic air contaminant associated with cancer, heart & lung disease, causing ER visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths. We must stand up for our right to not have our health harmed by this port in the middle of our city!
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
jimlazar
@qphillips: Yes, government depends on taxes for GOVERNMENTAL functions, like police, fire protection, emergency medical response, and parks. But government DOES NOT depend on taxes for business-type functions.
Olympia's water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste utilities receive no tax money. They are entirely supported by payments by the users of those services.
It's fine for the Port of Olympia to use tax funds to support Port Plaza, a public benefit. But totally inappropriate to use tax funds to support a marine terminal for billionaire corporations, or a marina for millionaire yacht owners. Those functions should support themselves.
The Port of Olympia is far more dependent on taxes than other Port districts. Read the article on financial mismanagement at the Port of Olympia in the JOLT: https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/financial-mismanagement-at-the-port-of-olympia,26719?
The Port of Olympia's budget calls for tax subsidies equal to 46% of operating revenues. By contrast, the Port of Seattle is only 8%, and the Port of Grays Harbor is only 7% tax subsidies.
Let Weyerhaeuser ship its logs out of the Port of Grays Harbor. Their Port is nearly self-supporting; the same longshore workers union will load the ships. And the pollution from the ships and the truck traffic will be eliminated from downtown Olympia.
The Port of Kalama, a major grain terminal, does not depend on tax subsidies at all.
The problem is that the Port of Olympia is trying to preserve an archaic seaport at the far south end of Puget Sound -- one that takes ships an extra day -- and tens of thousands of gallons of extra fuel -- to reach. Once I-5 and the railroads were built, it made no sense to have a marine terminal in Olympia; it only stays open because of taxpayer subsidies. It time to end the subsidies, and stop exporting raw logs (and the jobs that could go into processing those logs).
Thursday, December 11, 2025 Report this
CarlaWul
I appreciate the different points of view presented by Ronda Larson Kramer and Amy Harding and those offered by the public. This is a fine example of the democratic process at work.
Port Commissioners recently launched the Port Peninsula Master Planning process to determine the future of the Peninsula. However, rather than relying on public input of today, Commissioners say they will rely primarily on a report, Vision 2050, published 7 years ago, to guide them in their planning process. That document represents selected excerpts from the public, none of which seriously considered an alternative future for the entire west side of the Peninsula, a 65 acre area occupied by the Marine Terminal and Weyerhaeuser log yard.
A robust public engagement process with a series of town halls involving the community of today will determine the best future for the Port Peninsula. That process will align community goals with science regarding the geography of the peninsula, the inevitability of sea level rise, and other limitations that have yet to be considered.
Carla Wulfsberg
Friday, December 12, 2025 Report this
Jamama
I'd add some data on the realities of the poor cargo choices our Port of Olympia makes just to try to keep in the game, tho we are really an inadequate location for major shipping.
Sweetheart deals for Weyerhaeuser shipping raw logs to Asia has proved to be a major financial loss, as well as a polluting and unsightly vision of our waterfront potential. Now the Port wants to spend $6M more of our taxes to build a "temporary" warehouse for a multi-global eucalyptus shipper, Suzano, which they have NO SIGNED CONTRACT with.
Besides the fact the Port can't operate in the black or support full-time Longshore jobs, some facts on eucalyptus cargo:
Eucalyptus is a non-native "crop" replacing complex and carbon-mitigating Amazonian rainforest.
Eucalyptus plantations are a significant factor in deforestation in Brazil, often replacing native forests (like the Cerrado, near the Amazon) for pulp, paper, and charcoal, displacing communities and harming biodiversity, though some projects also use them in reforestation efforts in already cleared areas. While large-scale conversion for agriculture (soy, cattle) is a primary driver, eucalyptus expansion contributes to forest loss, impacting water, land, and local people, according to sources like DW media, Amazon Conservation, the National Farmers Union, and others.
*Profit-driven major corporations drive eucalyptus expansion for industrial needs, creating large monocultures.
*Impact on Native Forests: Eucalyptus farms have converted significant areas of native Cerrado forest, bordering the Amazon.
Eucalyptus has been noted as an alternative for charcoal in the steel industry (replacing fossil fuels), but its cultivation often comes at the expense of native ecosystems.
*Displacement & Water Issues: Plantations disrupt local communities (like Quilombos) and deplete water sources.
While eucalyptus itself isn't the sole cause of Amazon deforestation, its expansion is a major deforestation driver in Brazil, often in adjacent biomes like the Cerrado, and poses serious environmental and social concerns.
We have a better vision for this world and for our Port of Olympia.
Why wouldn't our commissioners WANT to provide a vibrant, multiplicitous, healthy and accessible waterfront with jobs and profits for our region, and stop negatively impacting native communities and crucial rainforest lands elsewhere?
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this