Opinions

Readers write: Letters to the editor, Feb. 16, 2016

Are Legislative Council

members deaf, dumb, blind?

The Legislative Council has chosen yet again to delay any action on the LIO lease. It seems these people are deaf, dumb and blind. Can they not hear their constituents telling them that the lease is far, far too expensive, especially in these lean budget times? Are they so dumb that they believe this shady, “back channel” deal with Mark Pfeffer won’t haunt them for the rest of their lives? Can they not see that for themselves?

They need yet more information from another “study” when simple arithmetic suffices for most of us. Now it gets shuffled off to a finance committee where it will languish until they hope we all forget, it won’t get to a floor vote and it will just slide and they won’t have to move. Those millions that will go for that lease could go to other, far, far more valuable things. Silly things like troopers posts at Girdwood and Trapper Creek. Or many other far more worthy things than the Taj MaHawker.

These are some of the people who are tasked with solving our difficult budget problem. Yes, brought on by their spending, but also by our own lack of holding them accountable all this time. We all need to become more involved, and we all are going to have to contribute to the budget solution. Something beyond “don’t take any of my PFD, take something from someone else!” What something and from whom? And where do we want these funds to go? It is not easy if you stop and think about it. It’s easy to be flip but that’s not the type of thinking we need.

Please, think about this, folks. Email your own legislators and email the members of the Legislative Council: Gary Stevens, Peter Micchice, Kevin Meyer, Sam Kito, Mike Hawker, Craig Johnson, Mike Chenault, Lyman Hoffman, Charlie Huggins, Charisse Millett, John Coghill, Mark Neuman, Anna MacKinnon, Bob Herron, Steve Thompson. Call the hotline for budget suggestions: 1-844-414-5949. Make your voices heard, now and at the ballot box!

— Linda Shore

Anchorage

We have no reason to trust the BC mine permitting process

International agreements are not based on trust and a handshake. They’re based on binding commitments, enforceable treaties, and other specific measures to hold each side accountable. Ronald Reagan quoted the Russian saying, “Trust, but verify” to emphasize verification procedures were necessary to ensure both sides complied with arms control treaties.

Today, the state of Alaska is “all trust” but “no verify.” B.C. is mining at the headwaters of the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk watersheds. Any small error could irreparably damage our water fisheries. Even though headlines have recently referred to a “Statement of Cooperation,” there has been no support in Southeast Alaska where we will bear the brunt of B.C.’s mining development risks with no benefit.

While the statement is largely focused on increasing Alaska’s participation in B.C.’s mine review processes, there is no guarantee of protection, as shown by Mount Polley and Tulsequah Chief. Alaska would not have an equal seat at the table with any decision-making power. Nothing in the statement is binding or funded. After the Mount Polley mine disaster and the continuing pollution from the Tulsequah Chief mine, how can Alaskans trust the B.C. permitting process? We need to protect our water and our fish.

— Monica Southworth

Juneau

The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.

ADVERTISEMENT