“Citizen ownership of the resources is essential,” Governor Hickel explained, “to ensure that the citizens — and not Multinational Corporations or an elite few — will benefit from the development of those resources.” This is the essence of Governor Hickel’s philosophy that Alaska should conduct itself as an ‘Owner State.’
As many Alaskans familiar with our statehood history know, there is a fundamental difference between Governor Hickel’s vision of Alaska as an ‘Owner State’ and that of ever being owned by outside interests. We didn’t like indigenous lands owned by the federal government so we pushed for Alaska Native Claims. We didn’t like all our offshore waters being heavily fished by uncontrolled foreign interests so Senator Stevens delivered the Magnuson-Stevens Act extending fishing rights to 200 miles. As Alaskans we have a history of disliking our lands and resources being under the control of outside interests, whether through government policy or market conditions. Yet, the powers to be (Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Resource Development Council, Alaska Tea Party etc.) are acting contrary to our historical interest as an owner state and instead are opening wide the doors of foreign influence. This is what the well financed campaign against the coastal management initiative portends. Allow me to explain.
According to the most recent reports (July 30) required by the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Outside interests have so far contributed almost 70 percent of the opposition’s massive war chest of $767,000. This compares with the initiative supporters raising $64,000 from 99.7 percent Alaskans. Clearly this is a David v. Goliath set-up. But what is more unsettling is where the money comes from. More than $500,000 comes from companies headquartered outside Alaska or even outside the U.S. The bottom-line of this scenario is that foreign companies are about to barrage your local TV and radio stations to scare you into voting against the coastal management initiative. Yet, you will not hear the truth about coastal management on radio or TV because the Alaska Sea Party, made of individual Alaskans, does not have the funds to wage a media campaign. But there is plenty of information about the initiative easily accessible at www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org. It is worth seeing why over 40 mayors and legislators enthusiastically support the initiative.
Their main reasons are simple and resonate with our statehood values. The coastal management initiative is
• Pro-Alaska in that the federal Coastal Management Act is the ONLY federal law requiring the federal government to be consistent with state approved coastal plans.
• Pro-Community because coastal communities would have a say in how natural resources are responsibly developed.
• Pro-Development by making permitting easier and resolving issues so development can proceed with fewer hurdles.
So why are the international companies trying to buy Alaska’s coastal management ballot initiative this primary election? Is it because they don’t want coastal communities to have a say in what constitutes responsible development? From my experience in dealing with international corporations, they prefer to simplify their governmental transactions; to deal with just one governmental entity and not multiple government interests, like local municipalities. To their way of thinking, limiting the voice of Alaska’s coastal communities in how their coastal resources are developed and protected, simplifies the permit process.
No coastal management program — no local venue to influence state and federal permits. No coastal management program — no state venue to influence federal permits. This is where we begin to slide from being an owner state to an owned state if the ‘Vote No on 2’ group of multinational companies prevail at the ballot box this August 28th.
In deciding whether to risk this slide it is important to note that for the 34 years Alaska has had a coastal management program, the entire North Slope and Cook Inlet oil and gas fields were developed, major mines like Red Dog and Greens Creek were opened and here in Juneau the cruise industry flourished with new docks and infrastructure. Here in Alaska, coastal management did not stop development; it shaped it to balance competing needs. It allowed Alaskans to have input all the way to the federal government.
Let’s not risk losing our voice and our right to shape development just because large multinational companies want to deal with less government. If the initiative has some technical issues, let’s have the legislature fine tune it when they convene next. Let’s not make technical concerns the reason not to do something good for Alaska. Let’s not risk becoming an owned state. Instead, let’s be true to our statehood values and the vision of Alaska as an owner state by voting ‘Yes’ to restore Alaska’s coastal management program. It worked for us before and it can work for Alaska again.
• Troll is a long-time Alaskan with more than 22 years of experience in fisheries, coastal policy and energy policy. She resides in Douglas.
Comments (27)
Add commentToo late!
"Let’s not risk losing our voice and our right to shape development just because large multinational companies want to deal with less government."
Sean Parnell already muzzled us when he killed the program a couple years ago. We just want our voice back.
And if Short Cut's against it, that should tell you all you need to know about the caliber of the opponents.
Let's not risk losing our voice?
In a representative republic, the phrase "our voice" has a pretty specific meaning that is unfortunately difficult to find in this ballot initiative. I encourage everyone to read the initiative:
http://www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org/ACMP%20Initiative.pdf
As written in this initiative, an unelected coastal zone board has the ability to enforce limitations as dictated solely by its perception of "aesthetic values" -- outside of the public process utilized to establish local and state statutes, or define those values as a community (page 12, line 25.)
Further, the ballot measure contains no reference as to how the members of this "local" costal zone board are subject to community review and control (appointment process described page 1 lines 11-13; and verification that removal of a public member can only be recommended by the board itself and not the public within the community it serves, page 2 line18.)
Good concept, but we don't need another maverick government entity telling us what to do. Rather than have the legislature "fix the technical difficulties" in this initiative -- an admission that has come from the intiative sponsors themselves -- let's have our state government do it's job and write a coastal zone management plan that makes sense and preserves the power of the people to both articulate and retain control of its voice.
Wow.
"calibre of the opponents"?
No need for dialogue. My concerns have already been dismissed.
Indeed, Ken
You are dismissed. Go back to listening to Limbaugh. That alone disqualifies you from being defined as a sentient being.
mediadog, we had this "maverick government entity" around when the North Slope was developed, numerous mines were created, and the cruise line industry established in Alaska, as Kate states. It's the "owned" legislature and governor who killed the program, at the bidding of their Outside masters - what makes you think they'll ever reinstate it on their own?
Better a poor Coastal Program than none. We can fix the flaws.
Lat: I'll just be sitting in the back of the bus.
***
Signs
Ive seen Vote for the Coast signs in my neighborhood, but no "No on 2" signs.
Why?
Vote no for Juneau's future
Vote No to save Juneau's future.
Sorry Lat, but no cigar this time...
Lat58, deflection is never a substitute for informing with the facts.
The old coastal zone management program, in place for decades, did NOT have the provisions referenced in my post. Those are indeed new additions to the concept. Thus, this is not the "same" ACMP in existence before.
And although Rough's assertions contain more than a bit of NGO conspiracy theory, the fact of the matter is that in the last session the House passed a coastal zone management program that did significantly resemble the previsous version, by a vote of 40 to 0. That's a pretty stong voice of unity between Democrates and Republicans. Rather than respect that consensus, the Senate failed to act on that bill in the special session and offered an alternate version which proved unpalatable to both parties in the House.
The facts can be inconvenient, can't they?
...'not perfect, but, a good start'...
We've heard that before. The old CMP may not have been perfect either, but, it seemed fairly balanced. It's expiration merely opened the door for extremists and control freaks to write their own lopsided bill to turn their proactive obstructionism into development stifling bureaucracy. Why not start with what was working before trying to 'fix' it? Pass a bill reinstating the old program and then haggle over ideas to improve it.
Not much new here.Parnell
Not much new here.
Parnell and allies are dedicated to advancing outside interests over Alaskans. That includes you too, Cathy Munoz and your support for Parnell and his oil tax giveaway.
I think
the premier reason the US emerged and succeeded is because we were poised for an experiment in governance.
I think Alaska stands out among these states because we are uniquely poised and blessed with massive resources and an independent-minded citizenry.
I think all this bickering and fingerpointing dismisses the opportunities we have. "The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings."[J. Caesar]
Lat58: Good morning; you made point in other op-piece about State-run oil enterprise. You have also advocated for independent 3rd party. We need fresh ideas to make any of this happen. Get rid of our "stars" and get over underling sentiments.
Yes on 2
Kick sand in Capt Zero's face
Yes on 2
Vote No on 2. The elected
Vote No on 2.
The elected state legislature already has plenty of authority to manage Alaska’s coastal areas.
What we should NOT do is give a few carefully placed obstructionists the power to apply their extremist environmentalist views to every project that comes down the pike. That is what a yes vote on 2 really does.
No doubt this writer has no
No doubt this writer has no problems with the influence of the EPA, Sierra Club, Weather Underground, Greenpeace, and other environmental morons having influence in the state. If Prop 2 recreated the past coastal management system then I'd be all for it. But as written and intended there would be far too much influence from environmental groups who's only purpose is to deny Alaskan's the use of their resources. Alaskan workers are not outside influences.
@akjim: it's almost as if
@akjim: it's almost as if those organizations you named (except the Weather Underground--wtf, did you never graduate from the 1960's?) are working towards a goal other than profit! I wonder what their motivations could be? Probably not altruistic, right? After all, when has environmentalism ever been about protecting the planet for ourselves and for future generations so we can all live in a healthy, sustainable way?
Never! It's always been about some nefarious and as-yet-unknown scheme to prevent development and ruin the economy, right?
PP
PP, I was being a bit snarky. The author wants to throw in the Tea Party and such in an attempt to instill irrational fear of outside influences, but conveniently ignores those groups that are far more likely to have significantly more influence upon any unelected board that is suppose to "protect" our coasts. These groups may indeed believe that they are being altruistic, but the end result is rabid environmentalism bent on destruction of any resource development. It is nefarious, but hardly unknown. These groups make it pretty plain what they wish to accomplish.
@akjim: do you have evidence
@akjim: do you have evidence to support these claims? The "rabid environmentalism" one is the one I'm concerned about.
I'd also like to know your thoughts on corporate responsibility. If a mining operation (or logging, or quarrying, or any kind of resource extraction) ruins a salmon stream, or makes a water source unpotable, or destroys habitat, or pollutes the air, do you believe the entity responsible should have to pay for or clean up the damage it's caused?
Rabid enviromentalism
Rabid environmentalism is obviously an opinion, I doubt they'd consider themselves that. But the constant harping, lawsuits, etc. for every little development prospect certainly seems to meet the standard for unnecessary excess of environmental process.
Obviously those industries that are responsible for environmental damages are also responsible, both criminally and civilly, for the damages.
@akjim: you'd think that
@akjim: you'd think that would be the case, but it's not. This is why there is "constant harping, lawsuits, etc." whenever a company decides to begin a project. Often, it's less costly for these companies to simply incur fines from the EPA or go to court for years on end than to actually deal with the messes they've made. The solution to this is not less government and less regulation, but more. Higher fines, stricter regulations, and more requirements for getting these operations off the ground.
We don't want to end up like China.
akjim
You understand why environmental groups exist, right? They did not just manifest out of thin air for arbitrary, nefarious reasons. They emerged in response to what corporate profit-driven industry did to the Lower 48, Central America, the North Atlantic, etc. Environmentalism is often an appropriate response to industrial irresponsibility. If industrial development is extreme, like the Berkeley Pit Mine in Montana which subsequently killed the Clark Fork River fisheries, rendered its water toxic, and required millions in tax payer dollars for cleanup, then the next proposed mine in Montana should be met with social and environmental opposition. Why should the residents of Montana sit back and watch ex oficio-owned profit-driven interest kill their watersheds when they could stand up and say, "no thanks, we'd like our water to remain potable and our fish to remain abundant."? In my eyes, that's perfectly reasonable. In your eyes, that's rabid environmentalism.
Environmentalism is viewed as nefarious or extreme or an unnecessary road block by many people, because they either ignore or forget what has already happened time and again and again and again and again despite continual industrial promises for responsibility and clean operation. Take a look at the Clark Fork River and how much tax payer money was spent to clean up after Anaconda went under. Take a look at how many fishermen from California, Oregon, and Washington come to Alaska every year to fish because their salmon fisheries were killed in the 20th century. Take a look at why homes in Colorado are built with lumber shipped in from Washington or BC because all marketable trees in Colorado were liquidated decades ago. Does this all ad up? Should there be some response to this continued short sightedness? Or should we plow forward and make the same mistakes we've already made countless times?
We can bury our heads in the sand and buy the line that multinational corporations will magically change their behavior and operate responsibly. Or we can open our eyes and understand that we don't have to replicate mistakes made in California, Oregon, and Washington over and over and over. I don't view that as extremism. I view that as pragmatism.
I remember being one of the first drivers on the Egan Express
when completed. Can you imagine blocking ten miles of pristine coastline with asphalt in today's "pragmatic" setting?
Our own little 'road to nowhere'.
Southeast, You are correct,
Southeast,
You are correct, from a certain perspective. Will you agree that another perspective may see that some groups have become hyper sensitive to environmental issues and are now incapable of considering a balanced approach to economic development and sustainability?
Extremism in any form is not productive; whether it is pro development or pro environmentalism. I think we can all agree on that.
VOTE Yes
THis comment appeared in The Anchorage Daily News, and says it all.
"I am so confused. Here I thought the conservative Republicans and the Tea Party folks were really for state and local involvement and/or control with state and community issues. Seems with Prop 2, something to give our citizens a voice on what happens with our coastline, they want the Big Bad Federal Government to make the choices. Doesn't this seem to be off their favorite mantra.......oh I forgot. If Parnell says vote NO and if the big oil and mining companies say vote NO, then they forget that favorite mantra. Sort of like Big government controlling women's health. I know one thing. I am voting YES, because when I see that much money from non-Alaskans I see a BIG RED FLAG!"
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/08/13/2587254/knowles-supports-initiative-for.ht...
akjim,
"No doubt this writer has no problems with the influence of the EPA, Sierra Club, Weather Underground, Greenpeace, and other environmental morons having influence in the state."
Really? EPA? I suggest you take a trip to China, then shut the hell up. If you like living in Alaska, then shut the hell up. If you like China, and their lax regulations, then get the hell out of here. Some of us happen to appreciate the environment and all its resources. If you don't then leave. Alaska is one of the few places around with vast resources still available. And dingbats like you would love to change it. Seriously, leave.