Forty-two individuals, from Douglas and downtown all the way out to Tee Harbor, have filed an appeal against a Planning Commission decision to allow unrestricted rock crushers in D3 zoning. The Planning Commission made their determination based on the former director’s report that there was a legal opinion in support of this action. Since then, we have discovered that there was no written opinion by the attorney, only an informal, undocumented discussion.
Before the appeal was submitted, the mayor and the city attorney told the Assembly that it does not need to proactively involve itself in this matter; that we do not need to ask what staff is doing or why; we should not question whether government is serving the collective good or if it has slipped off its rails and needs to be set straight. They say we need to wait. If the city does wrong, someone will appeal. They say we have a process and we must trust it and let it work.
Let’s not lose sight of who “we” are here. The city manager and the city attorney are at-will employees hired by the Assembly. The Assembly is nine neighbors the people elected to keep an eye on government and make sure it was operating in accordance with our laws and our State and U.S. Constitutions. The laws are the contract that binds us all together. It’s the rules we agree to live by. Staff needs to follow those rules just the same as any of us do. It’s up to the city manager and the city attorney to hold their staff accountable, it is up to the Assembly to hold the city manager and the city attorney accountable, and it is up to the people of Juneau to hold all of them accountable.
Do we have a process that will hold staff accountable when mistakes are made, or will the same staff involved in creating the problem orchestrate the process and advise the Assembly that they must ignore certain facts and narrowly limit their questions and considerations?
Are the people of Juneau contented to let city government do whatever it likes? The process does work. As it stands, it works to protect the establishment to do as it likes without explanation or conscience. If we, the people of Juneau, want fairness in government, we have to demand it, relentlessly. If you care, speak up! Email the city manager, the city attorney, the mayor, and the assembly all at borough_assembly@ci.juneau.ak.us to tell them what you think.
• City and Borough of Juneau Assembly member Danner is proud to stand on principle and pleased be among the 42.
Comments (33)
Add commentFinally
Thank you Ms Danner! I so agree with you. I remember going to the assembly and asking them to simply look into an issue and was told it was not there place. I was told it was then Mansger Swopes responsibility and they "trusted" him. I told them is wasn't about trust. It was about checks and balances, and that they were elected by the people, not Swope and his departments heads. They did nothing. Sanford was one of those who chose to turn the other cheek. I wonder if he will change his tune if he gets elected Mayor. Fight the good fight Ms Danner, it's why we voted for you!
Short Cut
I don't necessarily agree with all of Ms Danner's allegations, but your implied threat to her is entirely out of line.
If I recall correctly the Assembly was advised
to wait for the proper appeal process, not that "we should not question whether government is serving the collective good or if it has slipped off its rails and needs to be set straight."
I did not charge the Assembly to keep an "eye" on government. I consider the Assembly to being the government, elected or not. But there seems to be some internal strife within the fiefdom.
Again I am reading allegations and libelous remarks without any substantive revelations. There are surely a number of individuals with an axe to grind with city hall willing to hop on the bandwagon of revolt to support some bloodless coup against the "establishment" doing what "it likes without explanation or conscience".
I know exactly who "we" are. I'm just not sure who you are Ms. Danner. Give me something besides simple campaign rhetoric.
I agree our laws are not
I agree our laws are not supposed to change on the "whim" of the day.
Rough Cut
Watch your comments, Rough Cut. Feel free to disagree, but don't threaten.
Rough Cut is an example of
Rough Cut is an example of "[filtered word] retardensis," a species of hominid very similar to our own, but with several notable exceptions. For one, its appearance resembles that of an overweight neanderthal, superficially, but with more pronounced jowls and a smaller bone structure, despite many such claims from members of this species that they are, indeed, "big-boned."
To compare H. retardensis with H. neanderthalis isn't quite accurate, however, as Neanderthals had a cranial capacity slightly exceeding that of our own species, indicating they were as intelligent, if not moreso, than us. Contrast with H. retardensis, which does have a cranial capacity similar to our own, but which is not occupied by brain matter; 54%, on average, of H. retardensis' cranium is filled with hot air. This is a unique adaptation; H. retardensis has a very diminished frontal lobe and cerebral cortex, which is where higher functions such as logic, reasoning, sociality, and other pronounced human traits are centered. To compensate for this lack of cognitive function, H. retardensis actually expels the hot air contained within its head and makes noises that very much resembles the sound of human speech. But make no mistake: this is a defense mechanism, and if one tries to understand it, it becomes apparent that they are meaningless vocalizations.
Interestingly, H. retardensis has a very erratic fight or flight response; when threatened immediately, it will almost always choose flight, unless threatened by something less than 13% its body size. But when confronted with abstract threats (environmental degradation, terrorists, politicians with differing views, etc.), it will not only choose to advocate fighting, but it will do so with the gusto and zeal only members of H. sapiens sapiens with moderate to severe mental illness display.
As of yet, no ecological role has been discovered for H. retardensis. As an apex predator, it doesn't contribute energy to a higher trophic level, and actually uses a disproportionate amount of energy from lower trophic levels, as it not only consumes more than it needs to survive, but does so in a particularly wasteful manner. Furthermore, while indigenous to Northern Africa, H. retardensis does not contribute to the ecological health of the ecosystem, nor any other ecosystem it has invaded (which is most of the globe).
In short, H. retardensis may, in fact, be the first example of a wholly detrimental species that would not only have no negative impact were it to become extinct, but would in fact result in a net gain for all habitats in which it currently exists.
Crabbing comment
Rough Cut gonna have JPD knocking on your door!
Ruth Danner
Ruth Danner is putting much more time into learning the issues than any of us are doing, and I think her concerns have merit. When listening to the Assembly meetings on KTOO it's clear that Ruth Danner reads the meeting packets, and she is always willing to ask questions that need to be asked. Sometimes I am shocked that no one can answer her questions. It's entertaining but often disappointing that so few are engaged in the issues. We need a watchdog like Ruth Danner; otherwise most of the Assembly seems to be a rubber stamp for the city manager.
pp - you too.....
To much caffine today? Ease up a bit, pp......
luv ya, but it seems we're all in need of a little dial back lately.
I also think the City /
I also think the City / Assembly has run amok with power; many things have changed under the radar in Juneau without proper process or public input.
Thank you Ruth Danner for your courage.
I don't understand
Why this is such a big deal?
Just tell us why the approval is appropriate which is all we are asking. A straight answer won't cost the people of Juneau a penny.
That is...unless there's an embarassing answer which is the only reason I can think of for threats and paying for third party opinions.
If there's no reason to hide facts or further muddy the waters just let us know what happend.
This is so frustrating. And by the way...we are all listening.
What is legal, what is right...
The 10th Amendment is a wonderful thing...
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Regarding this, maybe we should not forget, "or to the people." We should not let the state and city government overshadow the will of the people.
I have no opinion on this personally, but I do believe your voices should be heard regarding any issue. I believe it is your constitutional right to be heard, First Amendment, when working with a responsible government and officials we've elected.
The big deal here is that the
The big deal here is that the City has been caught ignoring process to serve special interests over whats best for the public. I think we all need to start taking a stand.
Crabbing anyone?
I see PP has been watching National Geographic again.
Ignore PP Rough Cut, he was bullied as a child, teen and probably still is.
What’s so offensive about inviting someone to go crabbing? Now if he had said “Let’s go crabbing and see if you can fit in this pot” might be a different matter. Shoot I can think of someone in the WH I would like to take crabbing. Don’t take everything so serious.
Government...
Government is an interesting thing. People elect officials, officials budget for employees. These employees work for officials, and despite government regs, their job is not to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States nor is it to protect and defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska. Their job is at the whim of the elected officials, sometimes they were only elected because of their ties to big business.
Then to make things even worse, we tend to elect lawyers. I simply do not understand this. If the mother of three who hasn't worked in 10 years ran for office, I would elect her over any lawyer in a heartbeat. This is because lawyers may learn the law (Constitution), but they also learn how to alter its meaning to suit their desire. That is not why the Constitution was written.
What is a constitutional government and what effect would it have on the people?
1. Gay marriage? Well, marriage used to be between a couple, their church and their families. This was changed when Virginia started licensing marriages in order to keep blacks and whites from marrying. In Loving vs. Virginia the Supreme Court declared they could not keep blacks and whites from marrying. A better verdict could have been that states have no right licensing marriage to begin with. The fact that people have different rights depending on marital status is in itself a form of discrimination.
2. Department of Education? Should be a small office for statistics at the federal level, nothing more. However, states should have larger departments and provide these services without federal interference. Maybe one of these states will find a better system of educating their children without having to adhere to the failed federal system and other states could model it.
3. Immigration? The Constitution provides that a state can protect itself from invasion or domestic violence. I'd classify drug cartels kidnapping and murdering as domestic violence.
4. Drugs? Nothing in the Constitution says anything about drugs. This leaves it to the states in the 10th Amendment. This does not mean that it will be legal, it means that the states will run themselves. This can be supported in the 18th Amendment prohibition and the 21st Amendment that repealed it. If alcohol could only be made illegal by the feds through a constitutional amendment, the same should be applied to drugs. Again, I don't believe we should legalize all drugs, but it is a state sovereignty issue.
The Constitution provides for the powers of the fed. It also provides that anything else is the power of the states. You pressing your belief here in Alaska on those in Maine I see as some form of expansionism, just as the churches spread around the world to push their beliefs.
Federal government should be smaller, state government should be bigger and closer to home. If you agree, FYI, this is the Libertarian Constitutionalist view which could be viewed as a Jeffersonian Republican.
Milspec. is a member of
Milspec. is a member of [filtered word] retardensis, but also belongs to a subspecies: H. retardensis ssp. impotensus. This subspecies displays the same characteristics as any H. retardensis, but also has a tendency to acquire large guns, vehicles, and other objects perceived as masculine in an effort to hide their insecurities.
Too funny:
Having a bad day PP? Thanks for the laughs.
wren - interesting
While I don't out and out disagree with you - I also think we have to balance state's rights with the fact that we are all much more mobile and interconnected than we used to be.
To that end, it makes sense to have some standards everyone uses - speed limits, voting age, drinking age, marriage status, etc. What if each state had wildly different laws regarding who can and cannot be married? People move. They go on vacation. What if your spouse was seriously injured in a state that doesn't recognize you as the person responsible for making decisions for your loved one?
What if Marijuana is legal in 5 states, but not in the 6th in the middle, and you are driving through that state, or mailing it in a package that is handled in that state? What if pollution laws in Arkansas are abolished all together, but the result of that is they flush all their pollution through a big pipe into the missisippi right at the Louisiana border. Released in Arkansas, but Louisiana pays the price. Airplanes are built in one state, fly to many, are maintained in many. Same with cars. Road signs. Flight rules. Airport lights.
I'm sure there are a thousand scenarios I can't think of - it seems to me we need some national guidelines on a lot of different things.
@wren...decaf dude
rock crusher
Swimmergirl
Then I would propose you amend the Constitution so that it means something. I still disagree with you. In Nevada gambling and prostitution are legal. This is their choice. They don't export prostitutes over state lines, nor gambling. Especially now that the fed made online gambling illegal, which it was constitutional for them to do as they regulate commerce among states. Same goes for anything not established in the Constitution.
What you are speaking of is regulated by the commerce clause. To regulate commerce among states, not within them. Our government was designed to have the states make their own rules and nothing in the Constitution allows them to decide what things are legal within those states. Regarding marijuana and states surrounding one another, it's not your business to tell the citizens of another state how to live, what to believe, etc. The Constitution actually protect that states rights. Sorry about the surrounding states. They will have to refrain from carrying their marijuana over that states lines as that would be then a federal offense due to the commerce clause.
Regarding marriage laws, there should be no laws regarding marriage in my opinion. First, marriage is between your God, your church and your family. Secondly, we have a freedom of religion. Third, government wasn't designed to infiltrate your home and regulate your relationship. And fourth, marriage itself discriminates. Being married should not mean people get paid more or less, have different benefits, etc. Everyone is equal and should be treated equally. Marriage licensing itself was created in this country to discriminate and set a bad precedence. Regulating inside the home, regulating ones religion, regulating one's personal belief undermines personal rights, personal freedoms, the First Amendment and establishes that the "Persuit of Happiness" only should exist under someone elses terms. This is wrong on all fronts.
Regarding your pollution scenario, this could be addressed in a couple ways. If you wanted to use the commerce clause, regulate commerce among states, the federal government could force Arkansas to clean up its act. But the way I envision it should work is Arkansas be held liable for the damage it causes other states.
Regarding flight laws and cars, Article 1, Section 8 "To establish post offices and post roads." Also, to regulate commerce among states. Doing business over state lines is "among" states and require federal oversight.
A lot of what if, but the Constitution addresses them all if you take the time to read and understand it. The federal government is to act within the guidelines of the Constitution and if they are not, they are functioning illegally. That is what leads to tyranny and socialism, neither one the kind of government I would like to see my children grow up in.
Shorter wren: "libertarianism
Shorter wren: "libertarianism is the idea that states' rights take precedence over individuals' rights."
Good god. Illegal government leads to tyranny and socialism? News flash! Socialism is not prohibited by the constitution! Nor is it in any way related to tyranny! How did you pass American Government 101?
I see where you're coming from, but it's very naive, akin to how Lenin and the Bolsheviks thought communism would turn out. The Constitution is an imperfect document governing an imperfect country through the imperfect interpretations of imperfect judges. As imperfect as everything may be, you are not a constitutional scholar or a member of the judiciary (the governmental body tasked, by the Constitution, with determining what is constitutional and what is not).
Libertarianism, like many other fringe political ideologies, entails a belief that the ideology itself is infallible, and if it doesn't turn out so well when applied, it's the fault of the world.
I find it ironic, Ms Danner
That your letter is entitled "How 'the process works,'" when in meeting after meeting it has seemed to me that you were the one in the dark, at least about "process."
Yea...
Pers, how did I pass American Government 101? Your ideology is SERIOUSLY flawed! No, states rights don't take precidence over individual freedoms. In fact, government should be largest closer to home, not one government dictating what states can and cannot do. And FYI, socialism IS prohibited by the Constitution at the federal level. Sure, if Alaska wanted to be a socialist state nothing in the Constitution would prohibit it. However, EVERYTHING in the Constitution does prohibit it. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives limited powers to Congress. Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 enables Congress to pass socialist laws. If Alaska, Nebraska and New Jersey all decided to have a social program, that would be just fine because it is the right of the state to enact these programs. Not the power of the fed. I know, I know, but what about the poor people? Well, someone has to pay for everything and when states like California use tax dollars to send illegal immigrants to college, that is fine. That is as long as the people of California want that program AND they don't use tax dollars given to them by the fed which come from states that operate in the black like Alaska.
Bigger government closer to home means that my tax dollars are being spent closer to me on programs closer to the beliefs that exist in our community. I could really give a .... less whether our local beliefs offend people in Maine, Arizona or Georgia. We are a sovereign state allowed to enact our own laws.
I really don't know why I even argue with you. It's certainly never a debate. If you lived during the Revolutionary War with your views, you would have been shot. I'm sure lots of patriots and active duty personnel, putting their lives on the line, taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and "DOMESTIC", would see you as the enemy of the Constitution today. And therefore, the enemy.
You live in a blessed country and want to live the socialist dream in a free society. I hope you move to France sometime soon. They just elected a socialist just like you. And FYI, the track record of socialism around the world is "failure". Soviet Union, Cuba, France. You name it. Canada has a socialist health care system. Sure, it's great on paper until you are the one that has to wait 3 months for a cat scan.
And since you will never be willing to fight for your country as I am, you don't deserve the rights you have been given by people like me and other active duty personnel and veterans. I ask, no I beg, move to a place where you are happier.
Oh and Pers...
I think Rough Cuts comment was pulled before I had a chance to read it. However, I did see something rather interesting in your response to him. I personally find your post very offensive. You being a socialist liberal, you know, the people who say we need to have an open mind, and you rant about "retardensis". This offered nothing to the article pertaining to government.
In fact, this comment I saw as very interesting. I quote, "Interestingly, H. retardensis has a very erratic fight or flight response; when threatened immediately, it will almost always choose flight, unless threatened by something less than 13% its body size. But when confronted with abstract threats (environmental degradation, terrorists, politicians with differing views, etc.), it will not only choose to advocate fighting, but it will do so with the gusto and zeal only members of H. sapiens sapiens with moderate to severe mental illness display."
What I find interesting about it is that I actually see you as someone who puts yourself on an intellectual pedestal, but the reality is that you are a gutless wonder. I believe you would be the first to run when confronted directly. Hiding behind your "superior" intellect praising failed nations with a feel good ideology. I wonder how you passed history when you support an ideology that has destroyed all nations that supported your system of government throughout all of history. Even cavemen knew everyone had to pull their own weight.
wren
bingo, once again you hit the nail on the head.
@wren: you didn't answer
@wren: you didn't answer me--how DID you pass American Government 101? For starters, you apparently don't understand the difference between communism and socialism (all the countries you listed are/were communist, or an approximation of it, and you also left out China, which calls itself communist and is NOT failing; none were socialist). The thing is, I think we've been over this once or twice before, so it's obvious you're not interested in holding a correct worldview so much as you are a comforting one.
Furthermore, once again, nothing in the constitution prohibits socialism. Absolutely nothing. Socialism is a system in which some or all (there are different extents to which it can be taken, it's not either/or--imagine that!) of the economy is managed for the greater social good. Unfortunately, wren ol' boy, the U.S. has practiced socialism ever since it began maintaining a standing army. To say nothing of all the regulations that prevent your food from containing feces, your kids from working in factories, your employer from firing you for losing an arm in the machinery, and so forth.
It's fun that you think I'm the enemy, though. You know who else thought that everyone who disagreed with them was the enemy? The Bolsheviks. Congrats on that.
Wren just became my favorite person.
Awesome.
Wren
My great-great-great-great-great grandfather would agree with you completely! Google, Herman Husband, The Forgotten Founder - I think you'll like him. I think he was awesome!
@wren and off topic
I think you made some very good points in your posts about federalism, liberty, the Constitution, et al.
However, I take exception to your statement that PP doesn't "deserve the rights [he] has been given by people like you." I'm sure you'll agree that you didn't give PP anything. The Declaration of Independence states that the rights we enjoy are inalienable and endowed upon us by our [c]reator, therefore, these rights may not be denied upon the whim of you or anyone else. While I understand your frustration, I do not understand your willingness to chuck the very idea of liberty out the window simply because you don't like someone. The reason I choose to remark upon it is that the tendency to do so seems so prevalant in our national conversation these days.
As to your point, I would argue (albeit from a place of ignorance) that if we had followed your ideology, this country wouldn't currently exist as we know it. The southern slave states would have been allowed to secede and/or would have been allowed to continue to own slaves had the federal government not stepped in. Do you think they should have been allowed to continue to own slaves because the majority of the citizens of one state or another felt it was okay? It's not like the slaves could pack up and move to a free state.
And that's a nice segue into the idea of property which is what women were and why government was involved in marriage at all - to protect private property. I agree that the very idea of marriage is outdated at this point. It is a legal arrangement that should be available to everyone. As far as churches are concerned - have a ceremony if you wish or don't and deny it to whomever you like. I'd rather know my enemies by their direct actions, which will be obvious under those circumstances, rather than give them the protection currently provided by government. And no tax breaks while we're at it. File as a non-profit and adhere to the regulations governing those or pay up.
I find I agree with many of your sentiments in spirit but just don't see it working in reality.
Wren
Keep fighting the good fight, even when it gets exhausting and seems futile. We are listening!