LA Weekly: Bayham beats Goliath in container port battle

By Christopher Tidmore
Contributing Writer

On Wednesday, April 23, State Rep. Michael Bayham (joined by the entire council of Saint Bernard Parish, the parish president, DA and sheriff’s representatives) dealt the Port of New Orleans a sensation which the archons of the Dock Board rarely experience before a legislative committee – the taste of defeat.

House Bill 616 would have granted the Port of New Orleans unilateral expropriation power to build a highway-level road from a new container-port which they proposed to build. It would have run across the parish. The bill would have empowered PortNOLA to seize private property without the approval of the parish government, levy tolls (as well as exempt their own trucks and vehicles from those tolls), and contract with a private company to own the road, allowing the private firm to administer the seized property.

All of this to build a container-port which encounters majority opposition in St. Bernard Parish, to construct it on top of an historic African-American cemetery, and build in the shadow of a Black community in Violet, which likely would never be able to look upon the Mississippi River again. Moreover, this container-port stands years overdue with its original budgetary cost of $1.8 billion soaring to $3.9 billion. Some even argue that taxpayers will likely be on the hook if it’s allowed to proceed – despite promises that private dollars will underwrite the container-port infrastructure. (Unlike in Plaquemines, PortNOLA representatives have shied away from explaining who exactly will fund the full cost of the new container-port.)

The victory of the St. Bernard Parish citizens in the La. House Transportation Committee in deferring the legislation was immediately labeled “a blockade to economic progress” in the Pelican State. PortNOLA officials have ignored, however, that the Plaquemines Port container terminal project (under construction directly across the river) achieves almost all of these economic goals, would be built on undeveloped land, enjoys wide public support, and would actually fund infrastructure bridges to connect lower Plaquemines to Jefferson by rail and road, improving evacuation routes and underwriting the removal of a dangerous train right-of-way which bisects downtown Gretna next to a public park where children play. Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes support their project as ardently at St. Bernard opposes PortNola’s “LIT” Project (as it is formally named).

Despite friendly articles in the daily paper, the lobbyist for Plaquemines terminal facility noted that while the Plaquemines project would require major infrastructure investment, “The LIT project in St. Bernard would actually require more infrastructure investment. Plus, the Plaquemines infrastructure projects are absolutely needed, irrespective of the container terminal being built – in fact, they’re 15 years overdue based on congestion and safety issues. In contrast, the LIT-related infrastructure would only be built because of the proposed terminal there.”

He continues, “The LIT project would cost $1.8 billion. I know for a fact that its cost has now soared to $3.9 billion. This soaring cost would make it the most expensive U.S. container terminal ever built by far, all in order to produce very modest projected growth. Because private dollars could never be justified through a reasonable return on investment of this amount, a great portion of this would have to be public money. In contrast, the entire Plaquemines terminal facility (as opposed to transportation infrastructure) would be built with private investment. Industry giant Maersk/APM Terminals is committed to supply this.”

“Finally, the Plaquemines project is supported by a very strong expert market study, which shows it aggressively attacking the Dallas market, which LIT would not do, and that would be a game changer for Louisiana. As a result, the Plaquemines container port would produce five times the container business growth over 10 years than LIT would produce in the same time period.”

The arguments proved enough to convince the state House Transportation Committee to vote to table the legislation, yet the fight is hardly over. PortNOLA lobbyists pledged to bring it back up for consideration later in the legislative session, despite local opposition.

This article originally published in the April 28, 2025 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.