Two: The results of the State Auditor's report clearly show this not to be the case. From the PDN: "The Port of Port Angeles continues to violate state law and be noncompliant with port policies on lease contracts...Violations included contracts that were under fair market value and lacked adequate security bonds..." (See below for examples.)
Three: Isn't this the same Port that just lost their air carrier? The third air carrier in a row to leave Port Angeles?
Four: Some have suggested that the best, most sure way for the Port to have gotten Kenmore to stay would have been to subsidize them. Is one of the reasons the Port didn't even consider that is because it was too busy giving away property at below market value, and thus didn't have the cash on hand?
Five: Of course, these would-be worldly, pro-Capitalism types might well have bristled at subsidizing a private business to bribe it to stay...
Six: Except that's exactly what they were doing by giving out cheap land, isn't it?
Seven: What does it say about the Port and about Port Angeles in general that even when the powers that be are literally giving it away, the town still can't make a go of it, or attract new businesses to come there?
Examples of your Port at work:
Magna Force was being charged $179 a month for 3.78 acres.
The Civil Air Patrol was allowed to occupy a building - for free.
Shepherd & Thunderbird got a 2,647 square-foot building for $181 rent.
High Tide Seafoods got a 6,000 square-foot warehouse, on a 7,000 square-foot lot, for the low, low price of $1,910 a month - and still they were (are?) delinquent on the rent.