Not only is Prop. 1 unfair, it's written in a confusing way
Besides its inherent unfairness and immorality, there is another major reason to vote no on Proposition 1; it is drafted in a confusing way.
Look at it in the City's Ballot Review. It starts by saying that "This proposition enacts a law that, among other things, would enact …" (Italics added.) It then lists in six paragraphs what the law would do. It finishes with the question "shall this proposition become law?"
So the questions are:
Where do we find this law which we are enacting? Is it in a city ordinance or an initiative petition? If so, what is the number of the ordinance or where do we find the petition? And finally, what else is the in the law since the proposition says that there are "other things" in it besides the six paragraphs?
— Eric Wohlforth
Anchorage
Let's insist on compromise to resolve our pressing issues
In light of another recent mass shooting, there are many additional shots being fired by people from both sides of our political spectrum. It's concerning that most people, regardless of political leaning, party affiliations or social class, are so caught up in trying to push their particular agenda to "solve" this issue. On the right we have people proclaiming guns aren't the issue, stuff like mental health, or societal influences like violent video games, and lack of godly morals are what is creating these tragedies. The left is pushing heavier gun regulation in multiple ways, and that is scary to many people, especially those ardent about the Second Amendment to our constitution. Like most issues that divide the parties, such as gay marriage, immigration laws, and abortion, the real answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. There are valid points from both sides on all of these issues, and instead of headway being made, we simply argue and fight just to get our point validated and "win."
I truly believe that if we insisted that our political leaders come to compromise to get real solutions accomplished, we would see true resolution and improvement in all of our tough issues. In any relationship it takes compromise, and resolve to get change, and harmony. People get so overwhelmed trying to get things done their way that we end up getting nothing accomplished. Think of our state budget issues, or the national healthcare situation. We need to learn to respect each other's opinions, to listen, not to find a hole in someone's argument, but to learn their viewpoint and see if there is validity and solutions in their views. When we approach these issues in that way we end up learning, caring and getting some real solutions implemented. As for the mass shooting solution, the answer is complicated, and I don't claim to have it.
In my opinion, guns obviously play a role in these incidents. I have heard guns are a tool, not the cause. That's valid, because if a gun is just sitting there it doesn't kill anyone; it takes someone pulling that trigger. In saying that, if we make the process to get guns more difficult, or more regulated, we inherently make mass shootings less likely.
Mental health also plays a major role. We need to change the stigma on mental health and how we care for and approach people in those situations. Societal norms also contribute to this horrible trend. The media, electronics, and frankly our numbness to violence make the choice to commit a mass shooting easier. Now, because of how many shooting have occurred, when someone has been bullied, or isn't accepted, or is just plain crazy, they feel like going out and climbing the proverbial watchtower is acceptable. Education about violence, guns, the media, etc., needs to be a part of the conversations we all have with our children.
I'll leave you with this: Without compromise, listening, political accountability and multi-faceted approaches, we will still be talking about these same issues for many years to come. I encourage everyone to have conversations with people that think differently than yourself and see if you can find some common ground. I bet the answer is yes.
— Hunter Joy
Anchorage
LeDoux keeping smoking bill from going to floor for vote
This week I watched a local news station on which a story was aired about Senate Bill 63. This bill aims to regulate smoking in public places statewide. In essence, this bill would disallow smoking in public places statewide, similar to how smoking is regulated in Anchorage. Simply put, this bill is a public health bill, ensuring that workers in public places will not be subject to secondhand smoke as they earn a living.
I don't know about you, but I don't believe that a worker should be subject to secondhand smoke and risk getting cancer later in life simply because someone who smokes won't be inconvenienced by having to step outdoors. This bill ensures that these workers will not have to be subjected to the effects of secondhand smoke and its later effects on their health.
I was appalled to hear that Rep. LeDoux, from Anchorage, where such a ban is in place, has prevented this bill from reaching the House floor for a vote, where according to many the bill would pass easily. She is using her authority as the chair of the House Rules Committee to block this bill from reaching the House floor for a vote.
While this is action in itself is appalling enough, Rep. LeDoux would not make herself available to the press to answer questions as to her reasons for blocking the bills movement. We know that this is not because she is shy for press time, as she routinely makes herself available for numerous House Majority press conferences on the budget where she opines for a state tax to pay for such things as increased public spending for public health programs.
As such I find it perplexing why Rep. LeDoux and her ruling majority coalition party would not support a bill to improve public health. Rumors are that the bill is being held to be used as leverage in future bargaining with the Senate. If this is true, shame on them. It is unthinkable how anyone can justify putting public health at risk simply to have a bargaining chip at their disposal.
I ask these people to introspectively ask themselves how they would feel if a loved one got diagnosed with cancer caused by second hand smoke or how they could live with knowing that they could have prevented someone, a fellow Alaskan, from getting cancer because they failed in acting.
If you believe regulating secondhand smoke is the right thing to do, I urge you to contact Rep. LeDoux and Speaker Edgmon to allow a floor vote on this issue. If we can't agree on an issue as simple as protecting public health, we stand no chance in tackling the even-tougher issues facing our state.
— Doug Vincent-Lang
Anchorage
No facts to support Prop. 1
Homophobic Prop. 1 backers are doing their best to confuse Anchorage voters and make us afraid that preserving equal rights for our transgender friends and neighbors will somehow make women and girls vulnerable to increased attacks in public bathrooms.
But if bathroom equality really leads to increased violence, there would be facts to support that claim, since Anchorage's equal rights ordinance has been in place since 2015. In fact, no such evidence exists. If it did, don't you think the Prop. 1 backers would have provided us with all the gory details by now? The Anchorage Police Department is opposed to Prop. 1, which is also puts the lie to this scare tactic.
I've traveled quite a bit in Europe, where unisex public bathrooms are the norm. No one hesitates to use them or shows the slightest fear of being attacked. Human beings in Europe are quite capable of sharing bathroom facilities without assaulting each other or worrying about what kind of genitalia are in the stall next to the one they're in.
Are Alaskans with male genitalia somehow different, more predatory or aggressive, than Europeans? I think Alaskan men would be offended by such a suggestion, and so should Alaskan women.
Feeling uncomfortable sharing a bathroom someone who's a bit different doesn't mean you're actually unsafe.
Please vote no on Prop. 1 on April 4. Keep Anchorage fair and safe for all of us.
— Patti Saunders
Anchorage
Follow the rules in ML&P sale
Mayor Berkowitz wants the voters to approve the sale of ML&P to Chugach Electric and, oh by the way, amend the City Charter so that the whole process is really legal in the first place. Yup, nothing to see here, we offered the city-owned utility for sale, supposedly had a sealed-bid process, selected a winner, and now just have to deal with that pesky City Charter to make the process legal.
Once upon a time, the city had a phone company. To sell the utility required that the member owners, aka the city residents, approve the city soliciting bids. We did and the Anchorage Telephone Utility was offered for sale via sealed bid and sold. That's right, the City Charter requires that to sell off a city-owned utility that the voters approve it prior to offering it for sale. I am not an advocate of cities owning utilities in the first place, nor am I an advocate of doing an end run around the rules and having the voter approve it so it's all legal in the end. I'll be voting no on the sale of ML&P. Mr. Mayor, if you want to sell it then do it via the rules, don't try an end run and then ask the voters to make the action legal after the fact.
— Benjamin E. Sherburne
Chugiak
Once about safety, NRA now lobbies for weapons sales
Thanks, NRA! You have bought and paid for our right to own our own personal WMDs and put them in the hands of people who shouldn't be allowed to own a pocket knife. I support the Second Amendment, but not the right to own weapons capable of firing an insane amount of rounds per minute. There is no logical reason for these types of weapons to be in the hands of private citizens. I believe that public safety outweighs the "need" or "right" to own semiautomatic weapons. I realize that even if illegal, these weapons would still be bought and sold on the black market, but keep in mind that the vast majority of mass shootings have occurred with weapons that were purchased legally by individuals who should not have been allowed to do so.
The NRA used to be about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. It has mutated into an immoral lobby for the unrestricted selling of weapons, with our members of Congress as complicit lap dogs. As citizens, we have the right to vote, but once elected, our "representatives" owe their allegiance to their political donors, whose agendas have little to do with public safety, consumer protection or the preservation of our planet's ecology.
Unless we can elect representatives who have the courage of their convictions, and can as citizens speak out in a loud enough voice to be heard over the rustling of donors' dollars, we will passively bear witness to the devolution of our society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not the pursuit of money at the expense of others) should be our moral compass, and not just a hollow phrase.
— Richard Hedman
Anchorage
Legislation must be passed to protect PFD for the future
I hope that the PFD bill gets passed by both houses and is signed by the governor. As I understand it, the PFD created by Jay Hammond and many others was not imagined only as an emergency reserve to rescue legislators unwilling to develop a realistic revenue source for our needs as a state. All other states pay for their costs by income or sales taxes or both; Alaska is the only exception.
We are special, but not that special. The Permanent Fund Dividend is in a class by its own: it is justified because it distributes for us and posterity the proceeds of the resources intrinsic to the state. In addition, the PFD has the effect of equalizing incomes in the state, rather than creating more disparity.
This is not ordinary tax revenue — it is our inheritance and should be preserved for following generations. Neither the Earnings Reserve Account or the Corpus should be spent to justify the failure of some legislators to allow us to pay as we go (a laudable conservative mantra).
— Steve Gibson
Homer
The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter under 200 words for consideration, email letters@adn.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@adn.com.