I followed this and from my understanding the changes while enacted quickly are still only temporary (rollback in 120 days). If that's the case, I'd like "them" to think about how this situation could have been avoided all together. I can't help but thinking about how all the Asian markets were having similar log jams due to economies reopening and the Suez issue months ago. Surely it was known (or, could have been known) that that log jam was tsunami wave heading to LA?
I'm not sure if stacking 5-6 high is a long term solution. It works now, because it's only at 2 high and the buffer is available. But if they were at 5-6 high under normal circumstances when this tsunami wave hit we'd be talking about letting them go 8-9 high? Maybe limit them to 2 high but allow them to file a temporary permit to go to X high with justification... something along those lines, so it is a rather accessible flex up and down and it doesn't require extreme levels of non-local politics to accomplish.
The problem is "them" in this case is the mayor of Long Beach. The people he worries about are the voters in Long Beach, who probably (given what we know about California...) complain very loudly about having to see container stacks. He has no incentive to care about things that the cities voters don't care about directly like... the global economy. I have to wonder if he got a very angry call from the White House telling him he'd better issue a suspension or he'd suddenly lose various federal funds.
The hyperlocalization of things like this in the US are the source of a lot of our problems IMO. We get stuck in local maxima that actually add up to terrible inefficiencies on the whole.
IDK if I'd blame one office or especially the one person currently sitting in that office. This is a (hopefully) extremely rare condition that wasn't seen coming. As we get back to business as usual, I think LB should keep it 2 high if that's what worked and what their residents want. But there needs to be a variable component, temporary permits are common and existing concept. I don't know anything about LB local govt but where I'm from the city council as a whole could vote this in. A state/federal level could force them to if that's what it takes. So I'd say "them" is >1.
Something similar in concept, when evacuating a hurricane inbound lanes can be turned into outbound lanes and double the buffer. Of course the citizens of coastal cities don't want outbound lanes only at all times. This is for extreme situations (skimming but I think this is valid ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraflow_lane_reversal)
This was the first of five or six steps recommended by the Flexport CEO. I don't know if they would all 'work' in concert but clearly if the changes stop here the plan wasn't even followed to begin with.
What exactly is the problem with 8-9 high, or 20 high, or whatever the technical limit is? The land belongs to the port owners, why should anyone else be able to restrict how they stack containers?
1. LB residents don't want that, and limit of 2 has worked until now. Height restrictions are nearly universal in the US and this is not a California/Long Beach specific problem. Sure you can argue there the balance is too lopsided and limit of 2 is too restrictive for industry. I tend to believe a port town is an industrial town. If you live there, you should expect to see the industrial side. I grew up in Houston and would never live near the port/oil refinery areas because of that eyesore (completely subjective personal opinion). Unless maybe my profession was tied to it, at which point it probably doesn't bother me.
2. What if it was stacked up to LIMIT and a wave of containers come again? The point is to reserve a buffer. I'm rather agnostic on the numbers use variables if you like; Normal limit X, buffer size Y, X+Y is what you can get a temporary permit for, Z is technical limit and this math is a test X+Y <= Z
Again, why should one LB resident get to decide what another LB business does? Just because this sort of restriction is common doesn't mean it's right.
Ok but that that's a complete fork for the conversation. You're talking in terms of a philosophical land usage/property right debate; I see your point. I might not completely agree with it, but I see it. However, I'm not trying to have a philosophical debate. I'm talking about real terms of the world we live in today where it's highly unlikely anyone is going to be able to scrap all the existing rules, laws, norms, etc and come up with some new construct.
I am unaware of any place where neighboring property owners are not considered when contemplating what a property owner is allowed to do. You're saying the property owner shouldn't be regulated at all, which is fine except you're not the decision maker and other people will disagree with you. The net effect is what we have now. It's not perfect, some people will always disagree but the idea is it works for most people most of the time.
I take it you would be fine with a hog feedlot moving in next to you?
(I grew up in the vicinity of cattle feedlots---they're nasty. Industrial chicken coops are worse. But hogs are a whole different order of magnitude of stank.)
A) the article is wrong, the limit was at truck yards, not the port
B) Zoning is a thing, and as long as it is, residents (read voters) will want it used to keep their homes pretty and valuable whenever possible.
I'm not sure if stacking 5-6 high is a long term solution. It works now, because it's only at 2 high and the buffer is available. But if they were at 5-6 high under normal circumstances when this tsunami wave hit we'd be talking about letting them go 8-9 high? Maybe limit them to 2 high but allow them to file a temporary permit to go to X high with justification... something along those lines, so it is a rather accessible flex up and down and it doesn't require extreme levels of non-local politics to accomplish.