Ports-A-Stern, Again?
The “leadership” of former S.C. State Ports Authority (SPA) Chairman Bill Stern has been one of the most well-documented disasters in South Carolina history - a state that’s obviously not without its shortage of disasters.
Look no further than the inconceivably antiquated fact that our state government remains in the business of managing the day-to-day operations of a port facility – one of only two major governments in America (and only five in the world) that hasn’t handed operational control over to private partners
Soviet Russia circa 1950 called, folks … it wants its business model back.
Anyway, with Stern and his socialist ideology guiding the decision-making process, the Port of Charleston’s competitive position has plummeted, its biggest client has left and billions of dollars in private investment were told to flat out “scram!” because South Carolina was intent on preserving its “total state control” model of port management.
Yeah … how “pro-business” of us, right?
The sad thing is that our state’s leaders – particularly House Speaker Bobby Harrell, Senate President Glenn McConnell and Gov. Mark Sanford – were clearly warned (by the biggest shipping association in the world, no less) that this model would lead to a dramatic dropoff in business, but they didn’t listen.
And so the Port of Charleston – which was once the nation’s second-busiest container port – is no longer even in the Top Ten, which has prompted a whole lot of legislative noise but precious little in the way of common sense policy aimed at taking advantage of this rare competitive asset (oh, and the deep water port site down in job-starved Jasper County, S.C.).
Rather than adopt the same free market reforms that have propelled other ports to greatness, South Carolina has chosen instead to preserve its failed state monopoly and even … gasp! … put lawmakers in more direct control over port operations.
We know … what could possibly go wrong!
Of course it’s not entirely the fault of lawmakers, as Sanford deserves plenty of the blame for his role in this ongoing “goat show.” Against the advise of some of his most trusted advisors, the governor has continued to put campaign contributors (like Stern) on the ports board despite the fact that they disagree vehemently with his stated pro-free market ideology.
Also, the governor went back on his word to remove several of the offending Stalinists “after (the 2006) election.”
Sadly, it appears that campaign cash was more important to the governor than his principles, and our state’s economy has suffered as a result.
And it may be about to suffer even more, as sources tell FITS that Stern – after a brief hiatus – is in line to become Chairman of the SPA again in 2010.
Amazing, huh?
Only in South Carolina can you run something completely into the ground … and then be invited back to do it again.
Comments
By Cheese Toast Messiah on September 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
This is some ol’ bullshit. I hope for all of our sakes that your sources are wrong on this one FITS. In any case, thanks for continuing to shed light on the diplorable situation the Ports Authority is in…keep it up.
By southernmapart on September 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
This story is not written to provide information, but to declare that the Ports Authority is out-of-step. OK, but please be a little more specific about the problems other than “state control.”
Container volume is off around the world. What exactly is the reason that Charleston has slipped in its place of percentage of volume? Where is Maersk-Sealand going when it completely pulls out of Charleston? Is it just the union thing? These container companies are having their own problems with the sudden drop off in shipping.
By flipnut on September 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
If you listen to Sic you’d very mis informed. Yes the terminals should be privately run, but that isn’t the reason container volume is falling or Maersk is pulling some vessels out. After all the Soviet business model did allow Charleston to become the number two port on the east coast at one point.
1.Vessel traffic is driven by big volume shippers, the shippers like Wal-mart, Target, Sonoco, Westvaco and Springs drive container traffic based on their annual contracts, DC, and plant placement, carriers like Maersk can just respond to customers demands. After Target,Home Depot, and other retailers built huge DC’s outside Savannah a lot of the carriers made Savannah the southeastern gateway port to the far east leaving Charleston to serve the Mid-East and India subcontentint markets which are strong lanes into the Carolinas with textiles.
2. Maersk wants the North Charleston Terminal, right now Maersk is stuck out at Wando and must truck containers from Wando to the North Charleston the rail for inland moves. Mearsk will never move to Wilmington, it’s to far up river, to small, and to far from any major shippers. Savannah is already over crowded with ships delayed in the channel and Norfolk is just to far away from most businesses.
3. Charleston is not the first port of call for a north or south bound vessel, most containers bound for the Midwest get off the vessel at the first US port of call, which is normally New York/Newark or Savannah.
4. When Charleston was flyinig high, it was cheaper to put freight on all water service from the Far East into Charleston, but a few years ago the carriers started raising all water rates making it almost equal in cost to moving containers by rail via Long Beach but it takes an extra 5-7 days. Plus a lot of shippers were only using Charleston as a backup to Long Beach in case there was a repeat of the 2002 strike that shut down west coast ports, that fear and the almost equal cost of moving a container to Charlotte or Atlanta via Long Beach vs. Charleston has taken away a lot of volume.
5.Charleston is and will always be a regional port subject to the boom and bust cycle of exported commodities and limited by how far you can truck a container before the cost exceeds using rail to the west coast or Miami.
By fitsnews on September 29th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Flip-nut,
Interesting (and informed) comment. Our question remains this: If you’ve got private companies willing to put over a billion into the state’s economy and hire thousands of workers, why not let them?
-FITS
By K Trane on September 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Either way how can you let your biggest customer leave?
By Skidmarks on September 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
SC got what its majority wanted. No company owned by Arabs, who worship Allah, running the Holy City’s shipping.
By southernmapart on September 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Flipnut, thanks for an informed expression of the ports issue.
-FITS, we’d like to see numbers on the private billion in investment and the thousands of to-be-hired workers. Include an answer to how much in taxes the privateers will be paying. This article lacked substance.
Here in the upstate, we’ve seen the privateers want come into an operation to shut it down and cut out competition. Now, that’s no good.
By Hmmmmm on September 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
You gotta figure that he didnt screw it up bad enough the first time!!!