Comments on: Newport NOAA selection affirmed, despite errors /news/2010/06/29/newport-noaa-selection-affirmed-despite-errors/ Building and Construction News in Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:59:58 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.6 By: Nick Bjork /news/2010/06/29/newport-noaa-selection-affirmed-despite-errors/#comment-30112 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:59:58 +0000 /?p=55668#comment-30112 nptz,

At some point Cantwell needs to say enough is enough and let it go. While a dispersing method may have saved money in terms of lease dollars, I’m not convinced in the slightest that the money wouldn’t be made up just from being in a single location. The time of cordinating between locations, although hard to quantify, is costly.

I just have to wonder how serious she would be about this if it was between locations in Oregon and California, instead of Washington. Considering she is the chair of the subcommittee that overseas NOAA she needs to be able to take off her Washington hat and focus on what’s important for NOAA.

Thanks for reading!

]]>
By: nptdz /news/2010/06/29/newport-noaa-selection-affirmed-despite-errors/#comment-30014 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:22:53 +0000 /?p=55668#comment-30014 Give it a rest, Maria. How much taxpayer money are you going to waste re-evaluating the same decision over and over and over again ? While NOAA should have looked at dispersing over more than one location, the report concludes that NOAA picked the right single location and acted properly in signing a lease without a termination clause. The report also says that the Port of Newport is entitled to damages if NOAA breaks the lease. Given all that, can you still say it would be cheaper to keep the facilities in Wash. ? If so, you ARE nuts…… or a liar.

]]>