Dear Palins,
Usually we The Concerned aren't that concerned about you. We figure things will work out for you no matter what, and goodness knows there are plenty of other things for us to worry about. But we grew unusually concerned over recent reports about a house you purchased in Arizona.
At first it was all very hush-hush. We're certain you know it, but you didn't say anything about whether or not you had bought the $1.69-million house and its walled grounds. But later, anonymous sources confirmed your purchase to The Wall Street Journal, and a local television crew recorded footage of someone leaving the property in a car with Alaska license plates subsequently determined to be yours. After all that, Sarah confirmed to Fox News that indeed she was "part of" the shell company listed as the home's buyer.
Although we were concerned you'd hire someone who'd leave the property in such a careless manner, driving your car away in full view of a camera crew, we didn't understand what all the fuss was about, either the secrecy or the criticism it attracted. Even though we've heard rumors you may have paid more than the house is worth in this down market, it's still a beautiful estate. And even though it's not located in Maui's high country and is subject to one of those intrusive, liberty-destroying, U.S. Constitution-punching homeowners' covenant associations, as far as we The Concerned are concerned, you scored.
When Sarah confirmed the new home's purchase, she also put our fears to rest that you might be moving out of Alaska to make your home in the new place, by implying it's only going to serve as a vacation-type home. It didn't make much sense to us for the Palins to move down there, anyway; not much salmon fishing or snowmachine racing in those parts. But, as is often the case for us, the solution to one fear gave rise to another.
Now we're very concerned about the house going unused for some untold number of months during the year. It seems like such a shame to let it sit idle. Maybe there are fewer squatters or bored, intoxicated teens bent on destruction in that part of Arizona than there are in Alaska, but we're worried that if no one's living there, newspapers could pile up at the front gate and the place could become a target for mischief.
Who knows, wildlife could pose a threat, too. Javelinas might get past the walls and damage the pool or the new playground equipment. Or pack rats could set up shop in an outbuilding, and once those things get settled, they can be a nightmare.
So we The Concerned have a solution. As Sarah rightly noted when she admitted the house is now yours, many Alaskans love to leave the state and "thaw out" now and then, and many of them own property to help them do just that. Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of them can't afford a home away from home. Many of them can barely even afford long trips Outside unless they stay with family and friends. So we're wondering … If it's not too much of an imposition, can Alaskans who find themselves in Arizona crash?
We want to ask nicely here and offer a win-win solution. But we should warn you that some Alaskans (even some of The Concerned) consider the revenue generated by Sarah since she stepped down as governor to be a shared state resource, sort of like fish or oil, and think playing hard ball might be necessary to maximize its value and benefit for residents. Those people argue that the Alaska Constitution entitles each Alaskan to one night in your Arizona place each year, a kind of Permanent Vacation Fund, a "couch lease," as some are calling it. Bunches of them seem like they're just in it to cash in their shares and go somewhere that isn't a desert, but they all seem rather serious.
Unlike them, the rest of us know the adage about honey and vinegar. Would it help if we all promised to leave behind some salmon or nice moose ribs in the freezer?