Anchorage Daily News

Let's go back in time, to the 1940s. Let's say Alaska had a Permanent Fund then and a worldwide investment portfolio. Would Alaskans have supported investing in any of the companies involved in the European production and marketing of Zyklon B, the cyanide-based crystals used in the Nazis' extermination camps?

No.

Nor should Alaskans invest in firms that are supporting the Sudanese government in the genocide in Darfur.

Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. chief executive Mike Burns disagrees. He says the state should not delve into social investing. "It doesn't come free, and it's not good investment policy."

The state's investment managers aim for the best return. They don't make judgments on the social, moral, political consequences of those investments. That's not their responsibility.

All right, but we're not talking about cigarettes, booze and Twinkies here, or some brewery's zealous politics, or even an unpopular juggernaut like Exxon.

This is about genocide and whether we want to invest in companies that enable it. This question goes deeper than the usual questions of "social investing."

This is about good and evil, and which side we're on. The line is clear.

House Bill 287, backed by Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, would divest the Permanent Fund of $22 million in the stocks of six foreign companies doing business in Sudan. Divestment also would apply to state retirement funds.

Rep. Beth Kerttula has it right when she says the issue of genocide transcends strictly bottom-line investing standards or any quibbles about costs and management headaches.

Alaskans shouldn't have any illusions about the effect of divestment. Our divestments won't stop genocide, won't bring peace to Darfur.

Then why go through the exercise?

Two reasons.

First, it's right. For those who believe in a day of judgment, it's to hard imagine explaining how we refused to take a stand on genocide for the sake of a diversified investment portfolio.

Second, while Alaskans by themselves can't change the course of events in Darfur, our voice can be one more in a national and worldwide chorus calling for mass murder to stop. When the chorus gets loud enough -- when money talks -- maybe the companies involved and the Sudanese leadership will have to listen.

Mr. Burns and others cool to the bill are usually right to say that their investment decisions shouldn't be subject to political or social fashion.

But this is genocide, documented and undeniable. Alaska shouldn't be a party to it, period.

BOTTOM LINE: Clear stand against genocide trumps bottom-line investment policies.

Better deal

New Town Square idea calls for a smaller plaza and more green

A city committee listened to criticism of plans for a big paved plaza that would have merged portions of Town Square Park with E Street. Then the group reached a compromise that improves the plan and will actually make the square more inviting.

The city's original proposal would have turned part of Town Square into a paved plaza that would join E Street. The street could be closed off as needed and the combined Town Square-E Street plaza used for big festivals. With that plan, a small, grassy hill and trees that shelter the square from traffic would have to be ripped out. The park would have lost some of its natural beauty and peace.

At a public meeting last month, and in comments following, many took issue with this proposal. They didn't want the trees to go. They didn't want Town Square to undergo such drastic change.

Last week, a Town Square citizens advisory committee unanimously backed a new design: a smaller plaza within Town Square, keeping the hill and trees in place to separate the square from the street. The committee said the pathway into Town Square from Sixth Avenue at E Street should be widened, too, to make that entrance to Town Square more welcoming.

Why put a paved plaza in Town Square at all?

"The reason I like having a plaza put in is that part of the park has been the least inviting, with snow buildup and use of the area for porta-potties," said John Blaine, the advisory committee chairman.

A plaza will allow for more seating areas. If there's enough money, it can be heated and made more usable in winter. And the berm along E Street will still keep Town Square as a park, not an extension of a street.

Dwayne Adams of Land Design North, a city consultant, said carrying out the committee's design would remove some flower beds and grass but keep the trees and a berm.

And the smaller plaza would still fit with city plans to make E Street nicer for pedestrians, with heated sidewalks and more landscaping, Adams said.

The Town Square design still needs to be accepted by City Hall and one or two city commissions.

But the committee's compromise stands as an outstanding piece of work.

BOTTOM LINE: A small plaza would let Town Square keep its parklike character and still invite more people in.

ADVERTISEMENT