The Pacific Northwest
The 1890 populations of Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland and Seattle ranged between 43,000 and 50,000 (San Francisco about 300,000). But over the next decade Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles each more than doubled again. San Francisco’s growth over the 20 years was a more muted 39 percent. A new Pacific Coast urban hierarchy emerged.
Portland developed first. Founded of sorts in the early 1840s–1850s, Portland possessed river access (Columbia and Willamette) to its hinterland and man-made access (port facilities) to the Pacific. The Willamette Valley produced abundant agricultural exports, and lumber from the inland forests provided opportunities for Portland’s business community to flourish. Railroad access, when it arrived in the 1870s and 1880s, allowed Portland merchants to reach deep into western Idaho/ Montana and eastern Washington—a market of nearly a half million by 1910. Trade attracted local furniture production and canning and flour mills to process raw products into finished exports. Portland enjoyed a real estate boom between 1904 and 1909.
Seattle got off to slower start. Possessing an excellent natural harbor but lying on the nation’s border, it was the terminus of the nation’s transportation system. That put a strain on Seattle’s early growth. Fewer than 4000 lived there in 1880, which makes Seattle’s meteoric growth between 1890 and 1910 all the more remarkable. Again, rail access to the interior was the reason. Lumber (Weyerhaeuser), a rich agricultural hinterland and coastal/foreign trade fostered home-brewed ship-building and salmonfishing sectors.
Both Seattle and Portland grew by tapping into hinterlands—trade which had formerly made its way to San Francisco. By 1910, with San Francisco politically divided and recovering from the earthquake, it faced competition from rapidly growing northwestern rivals. Looming in the background was Panama Canal construction which promised to open up the Pacific to East Coast trade. In this context, ports (port authorities) seemed the vehicle to generate city growth through regional competition. Washington and Oregon wasted little time setting up state-wide systems of municipal port authorities. Similar to San Francisco, Portland’s more contentious politics, however, provided an opening for Seattle, with its excellent natural harbor, to seize leadership in foreign trade.
THE “PROGRESSIVE” PORT AUTHORITY
In 1909 the Oregon legislature approved a series of Progressive reforms intended to break the hold of railroad interests, not only on Portland but also on the entire state. The reforms—Chapter 777 (state) and Chapter 778 (Portland)—set up a process by which Oregon municipalities could create their own “London-style” port authority (with locally elected governance). Oregon’s coastal communities approved a series of local port authorities: Coos Bay (1909), Siuslaw Oregon (1909) and Astoria Oregon (1910). Others followed, and authorization was later extended to communities along
Oregon’s major river waterways. (As of 2015, the Oregon Public Ports Association claimed 23 public port authorities operated in Oregon, making port authorities a major element of the current state ED system.) The old-style Port of Portland had been created in 1891, and it quickly became mired in a constant series of scandals (which persisted through the first 50 years of its existence). By the turn of the century, however, voters and the business community believed the marine business that dominated the port were crippling the competitive position of the city. So in 1910 voters approved $500,000 to acquire the land for piers and docks for a second port authority. The machine mayor vetoed the council legislation to sell the bonds, and irate voters then used the Progressive initiative to approve $2.5 million for an independent Commission of Public Docks—breaking the business monopoly in the original port. The two port authorities coexisted, uneasily, until consolidated in 1970.
In the state of Washington, the story was much the same. The struggle between Progressives and private interests focused on public ownership of port-related facilities: “In Seattle, Tacoma and elsewhere railroad companies had long controlled much of the urban waterfront as a result of concessions granted as cities competed to become railroad destinations.”8 As early as 1907 the governor vetoed port authority legislation, and attempts in 1909 were rebuffed as well. Every dog has his day, however, and in 1911 a series of Progressive reforms were approved by the state legislature; included among them was the Port District Act.
The Port District Act, signed by Governor Hay, empowered municipalities to create port authorities and directly elect their commissioners: “Progressives argued that public control (of harbor access and facilities) would permit coordinated development, financed by government-backed credit, and would ensure standardized rates and equal access to port facilities.”9 Specifically, port districts were authorized to acquire, construct, lease and operate waterways; docks, wharves and other harbor improvements; rail and water transfer and terminal facilities; and ferry systems. They were empowered to tax (with voter approval), issue bonds and exercise eminent domain. Three commissioners of each port authority were elected; the port authority would be independent of other governmental jurisdictions.
Similar to Oregon, “only more so,” the Washington State Port Authority evolved to be the single most significant element of the state’s current economic development effort. In 2015 there were 95 operating port authorities in Washington—more than any other state.10 Washington’s two largest ports, Seattle and Tacoma, are held to be the largest ports in the world with directly elected port authority commissioners. Post-1940 state legislation further empowered Washington State port authorities to create industrial development districts, develop industrial sites with access to rail and attract private industries. Subsequent legislation authorized airports and airport-related activities.
Ron W. Coan 