Editor,

I wish The Record had penetrated the concerns about fairground ownership (“Commissioners lean towards port’s fairgrounds plan,” Saturday, March 19) that remain vague to the average reader.

The county, as owner, is like an indulgent grandma who will do anything, within reason, to help a bright grandchild living far away. The port is an economic development engine, by its own definition. An entity not enhancing economic development in its eyes (or ownership) will come under hard-eyed review, perhaps not at first, but… .

The port rebuffed public outcry to sell parkland to build a cellphone tower, cementing its idea of the public interest. It is in a far better position geographically to actually oversee and manage the fair property, and the county commissioners actually have more important business, so they never nail down the loose ends of the fair, which at times seems capable of spiraling out of control. Hence there is some wisdom to grandma passing on her heirloom. But if or when certain sympathetic port commissioners leave the board, final ownership by a development-driven agency does not bode well for the romance and folderol of a rural fair.

Recent proposals have called for development of the fairgrounds into a “conference center” commanding business rates for usage. From a non-rural real estate perspective, it makes no sense for valuable Langley real estate to sit virtually vacant most of the year. I think some special conditions need to be attached to permanent port ownership of the fairgrounds, or port ownership may be less permanent than if the county had kept it.

GEORGE RUSCH

Clinton