When people ask me what I think about Ballot Measure 2, the Alaska Coastal Management Program initiative which appears on the August 28 primary election ballot, I tell them that I will be voting no because it goes too far.
I want to see a coastal management system that accomplishes the goals that proponents of Ballot Measure 2 are advocating, but the initiative calls for a new permitting authority with much more regulatory power than what we have seen in the past.
Last year, the Alaska State House passed a bill by a vote of 40 to 0 that would have met these goals. House Bill 106 was supported by both conservationists and resource development groups, and it would have created a fair and reasonable program.
The Alaska Coastal Management Program was established in the 1970s as a way to give coastal states more input in permitting. This came about at a time when citizens were increasingly alarmed with environmental pollution. Federal protections provided by the clean air and water acts were in their infancy. Many current local land-use ordinances and state and federal permitting requirements were not yet in place.
The permitting landscape is much different today than it was in the 1970s.
Proponents of Ballot Measure 2 say that passage of the initiative will preserve Alaska’s voice. It will do much more than that. It will establish an independent board with new, vested authorities over legitimate developments, both large and small, and it will make doing business in Alaska considerably more difficult.
In a recent KCAW News report, former Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Kurt Fredriksson, who served under both Republican and Democratic governors, voiced objection to a new layer of regulatory powers vested in an appointed board that is not accountable to voters.
A newly created coastal policy board would review and approve enforceable policies crafted by coastal districts. These would be policies established by the coastal districts in addition to local, state, and federal permitting requirements already in place. In other words, even if a project were successful in obtaining normal air and water quality permits through federal agencies or the state departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, or Natural Resources, a project deemed “not consistent” with a local district policy could be denied.
There’s a reason that language like that in Ballot Measure 2 did not pass the legislature: it goes too far. I wouldn’t have supported it then, and I don’t support it now. If Ballot Measure 2 fails on election day, there will be those who will argue that voters rejected the entire concept of coastal zone management. This would be unfortunate. That is why the debate needs to focus on the details of the measure that make it unworkable and how to create a program that is fair and reasonable.
• Rep. Cathy Muñoz, R - Juneau, represents State District 4. She has served in the Alaska House of Representatives since 2009.
Comments (37)
Add comment"I tell them that I will be
"I tell them that I will be voting no because it goes too far" Be honest. Your voting no because your corporate masters are paying you to vote no.
To say that all who oppose Prop.2...
...are against a coastal management program is like saying people who don't buy Chevys don't want cars. I agree with the benefits of coastal zone management. We shouldn't have let the plan expire. But, it would be equally as bad to rush into an onerous replacement crafted with the potential to choke Alaska's economy by obstructing advantageous projects and killing jobs. I would vote for the expired plan if it were on the ballot. But, I won't vote for a plan that gives free reign to unaccountable appointees to write policy at whim. Vote "NO" on Prop.2!
Pap
same old rehashing of the party line
Wow. Honest leadership.
Whether you agree with Munoz or not on the issue it sure is admirable for her to step out take a position and own it.
Great job!
Toeing...
the Party (and by default, corporate) line.
If Munoz were serious she would have proposed a bill in the last session to reestablish the program. Instead she was busy defending Parnell's $2 billion (per year) giveaway.
A lot of animus on the left
A lot of animus on the left side of the issue this morning. Apparently one can't have an independent thought unless the liberals have approved it first. Corporate masters...what hogwash, an argument for a small mind.
Proposition 2
I like and respect Cathy, but to vote no on a bill that will help keep the coastline of Alaska safe, I totally disagree with her!
If she was concerned about the costal management why didn't she help with the writing of the present proposal is stead of talking against it?
Answers...
Lat, she did show her support for coastal zone management by voting along with 39 other Democrats and Republicans in the House -- a unanimous vote that was held hostage by Senate leadership in an attempt to leverage an oil tax bill in opposition to the governor's proposal.
Billb, the very simple answer to your question is that she probably wasn't asked -- but you'll have to verify that with the mayor.
As I have said before...
Prop 2 is not the answer. My political representatives should take this back to committee. My peers, we should demand this of them.
Thank you Cathy, but you missed the point.
"In other words, even if a project were successful in obtaining normal air and water quality permits through federal agencies or the state departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, or Natural Resources, a project deemed “not consistent” with a local district policy could be denied."
Yes, Cathy... that's the point. That's where the local communities have that voicy thingy. Yes on 2, because opponents make a better case for it than the proponents.
Oooh, did I touch a nerve?
Oooh, did I touch a nerve? Yes I said corporate masters. She has sided with industry every time she could. She gets "donations" from industry just like our Gov. She is lock stock and barrel a "company man". Bought and paid for.
Boring kpaw!
And Beth isn't? She gets donations from every environmental and green person and organization in the state. If anyone is beholden to a party line, it's Kertulla.
She is at least not flaunting
She is at least not flaunting it in our faces like Cathy, The Gov, The Don...
Comment
Latitude, Rep. Munoz couldn't very well introduce a bill when one had already passed the House 40 to zip. Legislators have rules and procedures, and without them nothing would ever be accomplished. This ballot measure makes coastal zone management less likely and a bill in the 28th Leg. more problematic. Why did the drafters word it so poorly, and why did they ask for so much when they had the wording that had passed the House unanimously?
kpawsuh, your remark probably deserves no answer. However, no one I know believes that any legislator has ever looked out for constituents as reliably and consistently as Rep. Munoz does. It's obvious she doesn't protect whatever corporations you seem to fear, and it's also obvious she needs no corporate support for any reason.
cheesyproof, I voted against BM 2 for the very reason you cite for supporting it (if I understand your remark). I don't want an appointed board of lifers holding a project of statewide importance hostage until the developers cough up bribe money for local interest groups. Local government relies upon state money to pay for most community services and therefore we cannot have locals stopping a project while they mug the developers.
I feel compelled to disclose that I am not nearly as ethical as is Rep. Munoz. I see that the girls in Homer have taken off their clothes to support this measure (see the Anch. Daily News), and if the Juneau girls do that I will investigate if I can rescind my vote.
Cathy Munoz also supports
Cathy Munoz also supports Sean Parnells 2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry.
Opposition funding comes from the oil, gas and mining industry
I think that says it all.
Glacierdogs "bribe money"
Your comment reminded me of a case in point that environmental regulations lead to just the type of bribe money you mention in your post: many people probably don't know that the cbj gave over $5 million CASH to the SE Alaska Land Trust about five years ago as payola to settle the "damage" the wetlands suffered as a result of the runway safety areas going in at each end of the Juneau runways.
Remember, it was another federal agency regulation (FAA) that required the runway extensions in the first place. And the payola money was required as a result of the NEPA permitting process, yet another federal statutory process.
That five million dollars came out of our pockets, the cbj taxpayers. And prop 2 is going to add another layer of regulation on top of that? And you will croak to know what SEAL Trust did wi path a good chuck of that cash. They paid it to landholders around sunny point to buy their 'accreted' wetlands!
Burhamer
It says nothing at all. HB110 was a free vote for Rep. Munoz and her constituents because there was no way that bill could pass the senate in that form. So voting for it brought everything (e.g. $) the house and the governor could possibly do for Juneau (and the rest of the Juneau delegation voted against it of course - quite unhelpful) without the risk of ACES being changed in that way without more process and better information. That's how politics works in every state capitol building and in Washington, DC. We should be happy that Rep. Munoz is working for Juneau! Pay attention - it's not that complicated.
Remember that the industries that oppose BM2 are composed of hard-working families that Alaska very much needs. This ballot measure targets basic resource industries exactly as the anti-mining ballot measure did in the primary election of 2008, and I think it will have the same fate. Government doesn't produce wealth, it spends it. If we make the mines, oil fields, farms and forests less economic then government will soon spend its reserves. If we see $70 oil in 3 to 5 years as many believe we will then it will be great that this measure failed, and I will be grateful to everyone who opposed it.
Perhaps
If comments were not "anonymous" and the actual person making the comment were identified, it would help others understand where they are coming from, such as the comments from "Glacier Dogs" "Kpawshu" "Rough Cut" "Latitude 58" and others. These individuals have every right to remain anonymous. Who knows?? Some commentators may even be family members or folks who work for Rep. Munoz?
I am glad to see that folks Ken Dunker and others identify themselves, so that even though we may agree or disagree we have an idea of who they are and where they are coming from.
Just an opinion
Responses
Fmast, as aggregate government - local, state and federal - increases its take from societal productivity, and to some degree as government hands money back and forth within itself, it becomes less and less accountable. It also becomes more vengeful and more brazen, so watch out!
Wallyolly, in this large city we usually don't know "who they are and where they are coming from" just because we have a name. We have to know so much more than a name; where was their father born, have they ever backed down from a challenge, have they made commitments and not kept them, have they been productive, do they support their families, do they shoot straight and speak the truth. And we live in an age when people frequently change their names. On top of that, this is an age when actions that until recently brought disgrace no longer have any consequences whatsoever. So whether you have the current legal name or the pen name of a blogger you really have not very much.
It's lack of accountability rather than anonymity that plagues us; that, and old liberals who hang on too long. If it bugs you that much I will take pity on you and tell you that I am not a family member and not an employee of Rep. Munoz nor have I ever been. However, I am entirely pleased to vote for her every 2 years.
Really, Prof.?
Knowing someone's full name would tell you who he was and where he was coming from and validate his opinion in your mind? How about his genealogy? Does an opinion not stand on it's own merits without all the particulars about an individual? Isn't that like profiling? "Oh, him! Go figure! He's a (enter name) from a (enter race) family with several (enter sexual preference), (enter political affiliation) relatives!" Honestly, Wally, if you viewed every name on each post, including mine, you still wouldn't know who I was or where I or most any of the rest of us are coming from other than on the basis of our opinions. Besides, who's to say that any of the names you read on posts are really that person? How do I know you are who you post as a user name? Sorry, wmolson. That point is irrelevant to the postings of opinions in this forum. That goes for all the haughty attitudes of those who make the same statement. You don't know me, so what's the difference? And those that do know me don't have to think hard to figure it out. And they can't even hear my accent on this forum. Regards,
Willie Nelson
Thanks Skirtz and Glacier Dogs
My point was and is, that I can search around to find out who someone, say "Ken Dunker" is. If I see "Bfleutch" it is pretty clear who that person is. It is not a matter of whether I agree with them or not. But if someone strongly promotes some point of view, or strongly advocates for some project or candidate for office I feel much more comfortable with knowing something about the commentator and with information available on the internet it I can make at least a little better evaluation of the comment.
For example, if I see a comment that "Agency X" is doing a "superb job and is a great benefit to the community and so we must have government give them greater funding" - and then find out the commentator is an employee of that agency, it raises some questions in my mind.
Or if a person makes a comment that "My whole family will be out campaigning for candidate X in the coming election" that sound impressive. It sounds like there is a great community support. But if the person making the comment is a member of the candidate's family, it takes on another whole meaning for me.
Finally, if someone disagrees with another commentator, descends into name calling, accusations and other attacks, then remains anonymous, I personally discount what they say.
Your Internet search...
...wouldn't turn up me if you entered Skirtz when my name was skirkz! And besides, how many can there be? And if I was related, but, with a different sir name, would you search my family tree? I should be so interesting! And would my opinion hold any weight if I was a country boy from New Mexico? A hardrock miner from Arizona? A Bible school teacher in the Philippines? A single father in Juneau? Would any of that matter on my opinion about Prop.2 and the power that it gives any old appointee to write out his own version of law as he goes? The sad truth is that so many already have their minds made up about individuals and it matters not what name they go by. Preconceived notions keep prejudice and bigotry alive for longer than you might think. And not just about the subjects of your own op/eds.
Yours truly,
All The Above
glacierdogs,
you voted against the coastal management initiative? When? I'm confused... August 28th, of this year?
And my reasons for planning to vote for it are numerous. For one, we must have a CZMP in place. Two, it's not much different than the old one, which according to the majority of commentors, and public opinion, it never should have been let go in the first place. Thanks to an incompetent legislature, we lost it. Now, thanks to an incompetent voting block, we won't get one.
This is what the opposition wants. Just like Frank Murkowski gutted the old program in 2003, that was repsonsible for Alaska's 30 year run of vast resource expansion. The opposition does not want a coastal zone management program in Alaska. We're the only state without one. You are buying into the [filtered word] that this new initiative is some how going to impede development... HOW!?!?! You can't give any explanation, other than that you believe the propaganda:
""Vote No on 2" calls the proposal a "defective, deceptive measure that would create confusion and legal uncertainty, establish a new government bureaucracy and hamstring the state's economy and job creation."" -- ADN
Really?? Like HOW!?!?!
Quit buying into the [filtered word], glacierdogs. Cathy, in her op-ed, supplied one tidbit as to how it could impede development... by allowing local districts to produce environmental policies that would be reviewed by the board and possibly approved. Wow... the old program had this, in fact. So, you have absolutely no reason to oppose this while supporting the old program. Yet here you people are doing just that. You need to look into this, because it would help you understand this very important issue.
http://www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org/
Please, do it for yourself.
Cheesy...
... Read it again and show me a solid structure and clear guidelines for format. Even proponents agree that it may need "tuned up in a couple of years". "It's not perfect, but, it's a start." "just hold your nose and vote for it." "Lawmakers can fill in the gaps later." Would you marry with the idea that you can change your spouse to suit you? The proposal is 15 pages of fill in the blanks. And who is filling in those blanks? Not someone you voted for to represent your interests. It might be me. It might be glacierdogs or Rough Cut. Don't fall for just anything thinking that anything is better than nothing. You can do better. Have a little self esteem.
cheesy
Yes, I already voted. I think voting began on 8/13. I voted this week however.
I don't have time to revisit all the arguments about the proposition. I read the 15 pages carefully. There is an unelected board that cannot be removed except for cause. The board writes regulations but is not confirmed by the legislature! The measure gives the board almost no guidelines for the regulations they are to write. As an example of the total lack of clarity, the measure has the board considering the aesthetics of a proposed development; to me that means the development has to be pretty to the board! To me that spells shake-down. The old law didn't have aesthetics, and if that old program worked so well (as the Sea Party says) then don't I have a right to be suspicious when I see aesthetics as an undefined criterion in the new measure? That is just the kind of law that gives law and lawmakers a bad name. These are some of the reasons I voted against it and why you should do the same.
Now would you please tell me why HB106, which was approved by all House Democrats and Republicans, was not adopted by the Sea Party as this measure but instead the measure is a poorly worded, convoluted, unclear piece of law? If all D's and all R's in the House liked HB106 then what motive underlies all the entirely new law in BM2?
@NewLife
You are showing your lack intelligence and manners by making brutal attacks on people that speak on this forum. We all have different be thoughts and values. Too put one down with the type if things you said about Mr. Olsen is TOTALLY uncalled for!
I did an 'internet' search on myself, recently.
I was amazed at how many of 'me' were walking around.
@NewLife
I may have put you down for you opinions, but I NEVER put you down for your education or lack of it as you have done with Professor Olsen. It appears a though you are jealous of the education that you lack, Professor Olsen has
I agree with the professor,
and I don't place a lot of credence in the "opinions" expressed by anonymous posters. More than half the time I don't even find them entertaining.
There are exceptions, but I have to wonder what someone thinks of their own views if they don't have the guts to put their name behind them, as most here don't. Several of these posers feel perfectly comfortable hurling whatever school-yard insults they can get away with, as a very poor substitute for reasoned debate.
Respect is one thing, but the lack of it shown on this forum is embarrassing, reflects poorly on us as a community, and makes we wonder if many of the more obnoxious posters really live here.
In the end it doesn't matter, any more than their anonymous opinions, or insults for that matter---In a free society, words uttered from behind a mask are entertainment at best, and at the worst a form of grotesque self-mutilation.
Have fun.
Jamison Paul
@jamison
You couldn't have said it better!