Spreading burden for port cleanups

Re “Pay the freight,” editorial, June 25

The editorial suggests that it is only fair that retailers and shippers should share the cost of cleaning up the state’s major ports. Who is kidding whom? If retailers and shippers are forced to pay anything, they will just turn around and charge more for their products or services, and the extra cost will go right down the line to consumers. What else is new?

ALBERT JAKOBSEN

Arcadia

*

Proposed port container fees have hit many hot buttons but are the most effective way for California’s three major ports to deal with congestion and environmental challenges. These fees won’t be job killers but in fact will help create many more high-quality jobs in construction and logistics.

California’s ports serve business and consumers all across the nation, so these fees will ensure that all parties share the cost of helping us deal with our congestion and environmental challenges.

JACK KYSER

Chief Economist

L.A. County Economic

Development Corp.

Los Angeles

*

The bill sponsored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) is a reasonable demand on the private sector to match current and future government spending to improve the ports. This investment will benefit the public at large through improved environmental conditions while assisting port industries by allowing for increased trade growth.

The container fee program would also have a positive effect on the public outside of the immediate port area. One project eligible for funds from the container fee is the critical Alameda Corridor-East, which runs throughout the San Gabriel Valley. By eliminating potentially deadly conflicts between vehicle traffic and trains, the corridor reduces pollution and local congestion while increasing safety. The realization of these benefits is crucial to the future success of the area’s residents and businesses.

RON WOOD

President, Chief Executive

San Gabriel Valley

Economic Partnership

Irwindale