Letters: Are we overlooking a better location for the port's international terminal?

Your editorial, 'As LIT moves forward, it's time for obstacles to clear,' suggests that the issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit should effectively end the debate over the Louisiana International Terminal. It should not. A permit is an important milestone, but it does not resolve questions involving financing, litigation, transportation infrastructure, a public school within the project area or whether Violet is the best location for a generational investment of this magnitude. More importantly, the debate should not be framed as LIT vs. no economic development. Louisiana should think bigger. We possess one of the greatest economic assets in the world: the Mississippi River, connecting America's heartland with international markets and the Gulf. If Louisiana intends to become a truly competitive international container gateway, we should fully examine whether a location farther downriver — closer to the Gulf and farther from established communities — offers greater potential. The Port of New Orleans has proposed a site it claims to be within its jurisdiction. But the boundaries of one port authority should not define the boundaries of Louisiana's ambition. Why shouldn't we ask whether going farther downriver could better serve the long-term interests of our state and nation? A permit should not prevent Louisiana from asking whether we can do better. SIDNEY D. TORRES III Chalmette Want to see your opinion published in The Advocate | Times-Picayune? Submit a letter to the editor.