| updated weekly |
home - contribute - donate - message board - events - links - contact us - archive |
| March 15, 2007 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig, insurgent49 The other day, I was tuning in to KUDO's new afternoon show, Cutting Edge, when I heard a very strange thing. The host was interviewing Anchorage pollster David Dittman about his recent poll on the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (conveniently released a day before an Anchorage Assembly vote on the subject), when he made the comment that "liberals are just opposed to development, business and commerce". I had on of those "radio moments" when you want to reach into your radio and strangle the person inside. Liberals are opposed to development, huh? That's a new one to me. I'm a liberal, Mr. Dittman, and I'm not opposed to development. I love, as a matter of fact seeing cranes perched over the city of Anchorage, busily building us a future. I am, I must admit though, opposed to the current Knik Arm Bridge Plan, as proposed by the fat cats over at KABATA (the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority) who so far seem to excel only at giving themselves raises. The Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission (a ragtag group of anti-development liberals?) is against it, too. They called the plan a "recipe for financial disaster". The small army of Anchorage citizens who showed up for two nights of public testimony on the subject are against the bridge plan, as well, although it didn't seem to do them any good, as the Assembly voted 8-2 to recommend inclusion of the bridge in the city's Long Range Transportation Plan (surprise, surprise). The way I see it, this isn't about being for or against develoment. It's not even about being for or against the Knik Arm Bridge. It's about something else that liberals usually do rally around and that is responsible development. The current plan for a Knik Arm Bridge, as dreamed up by KABATA, does not fit inot the category of responsible development. Here's why: - It's a two-lane bridge with no rail connection. With a price tag of $600 million (can anyone say cost overruns?), that just doesn't seem like good planning for the future. - It completely ignores the fact that , starting next summer, Anchorage and Point MacKenzie will be served by a ferry system. Would it not be prudent to wait a few years and see how the ferry service performs before jumping to the conclusion that a bridge is necessary? - No one has yet studied the effect the KAB will have on the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales, which is already in serious trouble. - KABATA's route for the bridge, which Mayor Begich and even Lisa Murkowski vigorously opposed, runs straight through the heart of one of Anchorage's historic neighborhoods, Government Hill. The effect on the community there will be catastrophic (just ask the Government Hill Community Council - they oppose the bridge plan, too). - Once the KAB is finished plowing through Government Hill, it will dump its traffic onto the A St.-C St. couplet in the middle of downtown Anchorage, an area that already suffers from traffic congestion. - It sucks money away from more pertinent road projects in Anchorage and the Valley. - Who exactly is going to use it? The bridge route proposed by KABATA is at least a mile longer from the heart of the Valley than the Glenn Hwy. and there will be a toll to pay. If I were a daily Valley comuter, I'm sticking with the Glenn. The whole plan stinks to high heaven of cronyism. Not only is the Knik Arm Bridge being pushed by a group of high-paid Republican Party insiders but, based on the available evidence, it appears that it will only benefit a handful of wealthy Alaskans who have already snapped up land on the Pt. MacKenzie side. Liberal or conservative, this is not good public policy. Aaron Selbig is an activist and media junkie who resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage. He is the winner of a 2006 Alaska Press Club award for Best Editorial Writing, host of KUDO 1080 AM's 'The Aaron Selbig Show' and a co-founder of Insurgent49. Aaron may be contacted at editor@insurgent49.com 'Editor's Desk' appears on insurgent49.com every Thursday. |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
March 8, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 22, 2007 February 15, 2007 February 8, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 25, 2007 January 18, 2007 January 11, 2007 January 4, 2007 December 28, 2006 December 21, 2006 December 14, 2006 December 7, 2006 November 30, 2006 November 23, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 3, 2006 October 27, 2006 October 13, 2006 October 6, 2006 September 29, 2006 September 22, 2006 September 15, 2006 September 8, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
||||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||||
