Um - it's not like you have presented any data either, compadre.
???? I gave you the actual budget number showing that the port wasn't losing money (despite your assertion to the opposite).
and the rest of the article (for which you didn't provide a link ... certainly not a coincidence): "What's good for the state, though, could be bad for business. The ports worry that channeling tens of millions of dollars to city coffers will force them to curtail much-needed expansion plans and, ultimately, to raise rates, sending shippers hunting for better buys at ports in the Northwest, Canada and Mexico.
"We are committed to California, but there are certain amounts of cargo that are truly discretionary in terms of where we bring them into the country," said Chris Lytle, general manager of North American operations on the West Coast for Sea-Land Service Inc., the nation's largest shipping concern. "We would consider bringing cargo into other areas like Tacoma, which is less expensive. Our customers in New York don't know or care if their goods come in through California or Washington as long as they get them at a fair price."
Though Mr. Lytle says California's rates are already higher than those in some other states, he acknowledges that its links with Sealand's rail and trucking operations make it more convenient.
Indeed, California's strategic position as a gateway for Asian countries is one reason why rate increases would be felt broadly. In recent years, California has become the nation's pre-eminent shipping state, with everything from cars to computers to consumer goods arriving from Asia at its ports.
In 1989, Los Angeles eclipsed New York/New Jersey as the nation's largest port in terms of value of goods handled and tonnage. Today California's five major ports, which also include Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego, handle more than a quarter of the country's waterborne trade.
"The entire country has a stake in what California does," said Ron Gottshall, managing director of the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement, a shipping industry group. "If California raises the cost of doing business there, the shipping companies will pass it on to the customer, and in some cases it may be too much for the market to bear." Credit Ratings At Risk
Squeezing the ports may actually add to California's economic difficulties by stifling capital construction projects already undertaken by the ports to meet growing shipping demand. That puts thousands of construction jobs at risk, economists and port officials said.
Under the state's Tideland Trust Act of 1911, money generated by the ports could be used only for port and tideland activities, like navigation, recreation, commerce and fishing.
That revenue screen helped California's ports earn higher bond ratings than any other port in the country. But since the enactment of the new law, the Standard & Poor's credit agency has issued a negative credit watch for all California ports.
"The Tidelands Act was put into effect to keep cities from raiding the funds of the ports and our ratings were based on that assumption," Peter Bianchini, a director in Standard & Poor's municipal finance department in San Francisco, said. "We are re-evaluating because it appears that capital projects are now less feasible and the ports are less competitive."
Thomas Dowd, professor of port and marine transport management at the University of Washington in Seattle, said a downgrade would increase the ports' cost of financing and force many to scale back expansion plans. "Why is the California Legislature sabotaging its own team?" he asked. "It's like putting leg weights on your winning relay team." 'A Dangerous Precedent'
Many in the shipping industry also fear that California's action may give ideas to other states grappling with their own budget crises.
"The clear concern for the ocean- carrying community is that we don't view it as a one-time deal," said Leo Brien, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, an industry group that represents 46 major carriers. "We see it as a dangerous precedent. The ports and carriers had a sacred agreement. Now this money will be used for purposes other than what were intended."
California budget officials said the Tidelands Act allowed the ports to keep their profits as an initial incentive to develop the land. That done, the time has come to rethink their financial arrangement with the state, they said.
"It's almost scandalous that these ports have such enormous net income and they don't want to share it with the people of California," Allan Lind, a staff member for the State Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said. "To suggest that sharing a portion of profits would paralyze the harbors is simply ridiculous."
State budget officials estimate that more than 60 percent of the operating budget at the Long Beach port and more than 50 percent of the Los Angeles port's operating budget is profit.
Exactly what impact the budget agreement has on the ports depends on how much money each city requests. Under the budget stipulation, for each of the next two years, cities may solicit a minimum of $4 million from their respective ports to offset state budget cuts, and up to 25 percent of the difference between the port's current assets and liabilities.
The Port of Los Angeles stands to lose the most. Last week, Mayor Tom Bradley submitted a revised budget package that proposes taking $44 million this year from the port to help offset the city's $71 million shortfall. The City Council leadership has already expressed its intention to approve use of the funds.
"The transfer of funds from the harbor to the city's general fund is a difficult option for me to recommend because of the inevitable deleterious effect it will have on the port's competitive position," Mayor Bradley wrote to the City Council. But he said the harbor department is in a "strong financial position."
Port officials said the request would be a "devastating blow" to the port's plans to consolidate rail traffic and to create a new 350-acre pier by deepening part of the harbor to meet growing demand. The port's revenues climbed to $160.4 million last year, up from $24.9 million in 1975 and $91.7 million in 1985.
"We expect to keep growing for the next 20 years but we have to make preparations for it now," said James Preusch, the port's chief financial officer. "This is a very short-sighted way to resolve a budget crisis."
Mr. Preusch is concerned that the Los Angeles port would take a much bigger hit than its neighbor across San Pedro harbor, the Port of Long Beach, which estimates that its municipality can request only about $5 million this year, given the port's assets and liabilities. Mr. Preusch believes that Long Beach, with the same customer base as Los Angeles, would thus gain an unfair competitive advantage.
Paul E. Brown, assistant executive director at the Long Beach port, agrees that the budget agreement is unfair because it does not treat all cities and ports equally. He also fears that the state will give cities additional authority over port funds in future years. "We have effectively lost control over how we can run our business," Mr. Brown said. Ports Vow Lawsuit
Officials of the ports said that they plan to challenge the constitutionality of the budget agreement, contending that the Legislature violated the intent of the Tidelands Act.
"Using no tax money, the California ports have built themselves into the country's most important gateway for world trade," said Robert Middleton, a spokesman for the Port of Oakland, which stands to lose $4 million this year. "That success is being wiped away in one fell swoop. The shipping does not have to go through California. The Pacific Northwest and Canada are waiting."
William Friedman, a spokesman for the marine division of the Port of Seattle, said that it was too early to tell if ports in the Pacific Northwest would benefit from the California action. "But port officials up here are not happy to see it happen because they understand the increasing demands that all ports face in putting infrastructure in place to meet the global shipping market," he said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/13/business/california-draws-on-ports-profits.html?pagewanted=all
LOL You are a snake oil salesman indeed
because as is explained in the article that you didn't give us, California ports have natural advantages over other Pacific ports, and can charge a little more, AND at any rate, they were the most important gateway for trade and generated healthy profits for the state to tap into without any privatization! You just shot yourself down by showing that publicly managed port are successful.
What a cheater you are! Don't you have any pride?
