The Alaska Coastal Management Program is a necessary if not vital compliment to state and federal regulation management along Alaska’s vast coastline. We have been hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees with this sentiment be it politician, resource developer, business owner or citizen.
Why then our criticism of this citizen’s initiative?
Our concerns lie on many fronts but central to our alarm is that voters could be establishing an Alaskan law based upon innuendo, half-truths and incomplete information, from both camps.
On April 15, 2011 the House passed HB106 with 40 votes in favor and zero opposed. The members of the House had been able to successfully navigate through committee substitutes and multiple readings to unanimously vote in agreement and to send an Alaska Coastal Management Program to the Senate. From there the bill was punted around until ultimately the clock ran out with the two bodies unable to agree. Governor Parnell, to his credit, placed the issue back in front of lawmakers in the subsequent special session where the political wrangling again failed to turn out an agreement.
The Legislature failed to turn out a coastal management program because the proposed changes to the existing program were significant enough to end in a stalemate. The majority of our lawmakers would have passed legislation to renew a modestly altered program however a minority but powerful group was able to insert substitute language into the bill that was unpalatable by most and it ultimately caused a decades old program to end.
The point here is that while the end result did not provide for the renewal of a coastal management program, the public testimony, hearings, committee discussions and on-the-record voting is an important part of the process. It’s all on the record and all of the participants can be held accountable for the parts they played in that process… unlike Ballot Measure 2.
A political action group whose philosophies align more with the minority of lawmakers who wanted significant alterations to the program are the ones behind Ballot Measure 2. By writing language that is strikingly different to the old program and by putting it in front of voters, they have circumvented a process that provides for testimony, debate and compromise. An equivalent of Ballot Measure 2 could not get passed through conventional lawmaking processes yet here it is in front of you to decide. That alone should raise alarm.
Make no mistake… Ballot Measure 2 is not restoring the old program under which Gov. Knowles and others claim coastal development flourished. The old program and Measure 2 have some significant foundational chasms. To lead voters to believe otherwise is disingenuous.
One thing is certain, our legislators had far better an opportunity to learn, understand and address the intricacies of coastal management than what the public is being force-fed through questionable political rhetoric.
Voters are being asked to establish a state law without conducting any of the appropriate forms of due-diligence. This law will pass or fail largely based upon what voters have seen, read or heard in campaign messages that are wildly distorted and largely misleading. This is wrong and is why we don’t support passage.
Proponents are quite fond of saying let’s pass the measure and let the lawmakers work out the details after the fact. It is true that state law allows for citizen’s initiatives to undergo some alteration just as long it doesn’t undermine the people’s intent. That means the meat of the measure can’t or won’t be considered and what’s at the heart of this issue goes well beyond window-dressing. No lawmaker who wants to be reelected will want to be on record voting to alter the will of the people as there’s little doubt an opponent in the next election wouldn’t relish the opportunity to use that nugget in their campaign message. This has a chilling effect on any meaningful edits and pretty well solidifies that if he measure passes, it will largely stand as written.
Ballot Measure 2 robs everyone of the opportunity for input. For those who buy into the premise that if the Legislature couldn’t get it done, its up to the citizens: That may be true, but doing something… anything, even if it’s wrong has always been a lame argument. This “shoot now and ask questions later” kind of wild-west attempt at legislation is no way to establish laws in our state.
For citizens to create law, we should be listening to the best competing forms of an argument and draw our own conclusions. Sadly that’s not happening.
Coastal Management is important… too important to decide in this fashion. Vote no on Measure 2 and send it back to the Legislature to restore. We’re confident the Legislature can turn out a program that is thoughtful and will have appropriately considered all sides.
We urge a NO vote on Ballot Measure 2.
Comments (27)
Add commentHadn't heard the empire was
Hadn't heard the empire was sold to shell and coeur, or is it just renting the editoral column again?
Wow
What a fantastic responsible well thought out editorial.
Nice to see someone cut through the rhetoric and name calling and discuss the policy and problems of the intiative itself.
Love how barnardj1 proves the Empire's points by immediately resorting to elementary school name calling. What a great way to visualize the difference of opinion. Read the Empire editorial as a NO and Barnardj1 as a yes and see who has the reasoned argument.
Ballot Measure 2
The Empires thinking on this issue is WRONG! They are falling into the trap that ALL the no voters are thinking. It is amazing how people allow themselves to let corporate industry bend and manipulate their thinking even if it is WRONG! Alaska needs a Costal Management Plan. If this ballot measure is not passed, Parnell and the legislature will again drag their feet, and NOTHING will be done. Vote yes
Why no specifics, Empire?
I don't understand why you took the time to headline your editorial against the ballot measure, but failed to add anything of substance to the argument. "Our concerns lie on many fronts but central to our alarm is that voters could be establishing an Alaskan law based upon innuendo, half-truths and incomplete information, from both camps." This would have been the perfect time to add some truth or complete information, but instead you wasted another 11 paragraphs saying nothing specific.
The only clear conclusion from your editorial is that you do not support the ballot measure process under any circumstances because somehow allowing everyone to vote their preference "robs everyone of the opportunity for input."
Excellent, JE !
Right on !
No on 2.
speaking of
"innuendo, half-truths and incomplete information"
this article was exactly that. No where does it provide a reason for saying these things. No where does the article explain how it "robs everyone of the opportunity for input."
Or how the "public is being force-fed through questionable political rhetoric."
Yes, this is true. This article is a shining example.
"Voters are being asked to establish a state law without conducting any of the appropriate forms of due-diligence. This law will pass or fail largely based upon what voters have seen, read or heard in campaign messages that are wildly distorted and largely misleading. This is wrong and is why we don’t support passage."
The opponents of any issue always use this for an argument. Doesn't mean it's valid. And it's not here, for the record.
Take back fed control of our lands
Read the prop, understand it, and don't oppose just because of the word 'management'. Prop 2 gives the control of our lands and development to us, and takes it back from the feds. It gives control to us Alaskans rather than those in DC who have never been here and want what we have.
This Editorial is Weak
"The old program and Measure 2 have some significant foundational chasms."
I'm waiting....?
As someone who honestly does not yet know - and YES I have read the measure several times and talked to numerous people about it, both Yes and No - how I will vote Tuesday, I am still unclear as to what is different other than adding more people to the Board and allowing local knowledge to be represented.
The Empire just did what they say others are doing --- spread fear without facts. Can't they list a few of these "foundational changes"?
billb
The Dems also voted NO. Get your facts (or opinions) straight.
Want to vote YES but will vote NO
Although I am in favor of Coastal management, I cannot vote for something that uses "traditional culture" as a scientific argument. Although the legislators cannot speak out against it because it would be "politically incorrect." Also, the amount of money needed to run this will have to come from somewhere...How about we raise the taxes of everyone! Yay!
This initiative will fail, and then hopefully we'll get a chance to reenact the old one.
Who cares what the employees
Who cares what the employees at the empire think
The Juneau Empire is owned by Morris Publishing Group this company is based in Augusta, Ga and runs the Fox News For Entertainment Channel. The people that watch Fox for news are known to be even less informed than people who don’t watch any TV
sefisher: care to put that to the test?
***
sefisher, my first guess...
Sefisher, my first guess is that you care what the employees at the Empire think, or you wouldn't have posted on the blog.
:-)
What bothers me about this
What bothers me about this editorial is the implicit assertion that the people are unable to make intelligent, informed decisions at the ballot box, and that we have to have a paid Legislature do it for us. We can blame whatever political party we want; the Legislature has failed twice now to authorize a coastal management plan. Let's not forget from whose will the government derives their authority.
More of the story
The legislative history presented by the editorial is not complete. The House passed a bill which would continue ignoring input from people affected by development in their communities. The senate passed a bill that would restore the original coastal program which assured such input. A compromise bill which came out of a resolution committee was passed by a bipartisan majority in the senate and approved by a bipartisan half of the voting members of the house.
If the Empire supports restoring the original coastal zone program, then it should support the initiative which does just that. The house passed bill 106 wanted a continuation of the altered coastal zone program as distorted by former governor Frank Murkowski.
More of the story
The legislative history presented by the editorial is not complete. The House passed a bill which would continue ignoring input from people affected by development in their communities. The senate passed a bill that would restore the original coastal program which assured such input. A compromise bill which came out of a resolution committee was passed by a bipartisan majority in the senate and approved by a bipartisan half of the voting members of the house.
If the Empire supports restoring the original coastal zone program, then it should support the initiative which does just that. The house passed bill 106 wanted a continuation of the altered coastal zone program as distorted by former governor Frank Murkowski.
Devil's Advocate.........
*In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with.
Too many, but not all, "got to have a finger in every pie" boys on the list in support.
Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks Morris Publishing Group for reminding me that I am smart enough to vote for legislators, but not smart enough to vote directly on the issues.
Wait a minute! If we had functional legislators, why would we even be having a ballot issue?
That's exactly what I was
That's exactly what I was thinking Conrad. If the people we voted for were doing the jobs we gave them we wouldn't be in this situation full of lies (don't kid yourselves, both sides are guilty). Yes and no groups have PLENTY of valid reasons for they're stance. Sadly there's also a bunch of crap being spewed from both groups it's impossible to form an opinion that isn't at least partially based on misconceptions.
Should we have a say with what happens to our lands? Is CM the way to have that voice? Big business or big government?
I go back and forth on this one but I always come back to my same point. Why in the hell are we at this point? We are now doing the job we pay elected officials to be doing. If the people we elected cant do what they promise on the campaign trail it's time for new blood. I'm not saying change your party, but enough of our leaders are failing us that it's becoming more and more embarrassing. I've seen 3 year olds figure out differences with more class and respect then most politicians. Maybe if we stop career politicians they will actually try and do something good with the time they have instead of just grasping at power.
No on 2
No on 2
the challenge for the No on 2 campaign
is to try to spin the issue without getting specific, possibly because one of their main thrusts is that the initiative is unnecessarily complex.
They're betting that the 15 pages of legalese is going to throw off most of their base---That people voting on this important issue won't bother to really read it, but will instead just take their word that it's a bad idea.
The fact is, it's not much more than 700 words, not that hard to understand, and a pretty straightforward and balanced effort to set up a new coastal zone management program.
The Empire's editorial staff is lining up with the Chamber of Commerce on this, and making some claims about Prop 2 without giving any concrete examples---I suggest you read it for yourself.
yes, no challenge...
The message of this campaign seems to be that there is nothing money can't buy, even reading comprehension...
Political polarization has reached well past our better judgement
Jamision, You seem as
Jamision,
You seem as unmovable on your position and as intolerant of any contrasting opinion as the very people who you condemn.
Here is the ballot measure synopsis from http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ei_primary_bm.php
Full text at http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/bmp/2012/2012_prim_bmp_english.pdf
This bill would create the Alaska Coastal Management Program in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (“the Department”). The program would develop new state and local standards to review projects in coastal areas of the State. These standards and new permitting procedures would be in addition to existing state and federal permitting requirements. Projects requiring state or federal permits would be reviewed under the program. The program would not become entirely effective until approval of these new state and local standards by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
The bill creates a Coastal Policy Board. The board would have 13 members appointed by the governor. Nine would be members of the public from coastal areas. 4 would be state commissioners. The board would coordinate agencies for coastal and ocean planning. The board would work with agencies to develop and implement the program. The board would also review, approve, and evaluate coastal district management plans (“district plans”). The board would direct the Department to apply for funding. The board would review and approve regulations. Board members could receive per diem and travel expenses.
The bill sets out 9 coastal districts. Each district would adopt a district plan. District plans would need board approval. To be approved, the district plan must comply with the bill’s provisions and regulations approved by the board. Each district plan would set boundaries for the coastal area subject to the district plan. District plans would define the land and water uses subject to the district plan’s requirements. District plans would also set special management areas and enforceable policies. The bill sets standards for district enforceable policies. The bill defines when an enforceable policy is pre-empted by existing state or federal law.
The bill would restore coastal districts, boundaries, and district plans that were in effect on June 30, 2011 under the prior coastal management program. Coastal districts would have to review their prior district plans and submit any needed changes for board approval. Coastal districts with zoning or land use authority would use those powers to apply their district plans. Otherwise, state agencies would put the district plan into effect. Local and state agencies would regulate uses to conform to the district plans. The superior court could enforce board or department orders.
The bill would also create the Division of Ocean and Coastal Management in the Department. This division would issue state consistency determinations and respond to federal consistency determinations and certifications. It would adopt board-approved regulations. It would also give planning and management information to coastal districts. The division would create a financial aid program to help coastal districts create and effect their district plans.
The bill sets goals for the program. These goals include (1) management goals for coastal uses and resources; (2) the coordination of coastal planning among government and citizens; (3) public and government participation in the program; and (4) require state agencies to comply with the program.
The bill requires that regulations be adopted. The regulations would be approved by the board and then issued by the division. They would set state coastal standards, district plan requirements, and consistency review procedures.
The bill would allow regional education attendance areas (“REAAs”) in the unorganized borough to be used as Coastal Resource Service Areas (“CRSAs”). CRSAs would act through a board and function like coastal districts. The Department could combine or divide REAAs into CRSAs under set conditions. A coastal city could also be included in a CRSA under set conditions. CRSAs could also be created by voters or by a voter-approved city or village council decision. Service areas would elect boards with seven members. The State would run and fund CRSA board elections. Under some circumstances, board members could be appointed. Board members could be recalled. They could receive per diem and travel expenses. If voters fail to create a needed service area, the Department could create a district plan for the area to submit to the legislature. Under set conditions, the Department could complete a district plan for a CRSA. The bill creates a development,
Jamison: 700 words?
That is about the size of a My Turn column. I think a recount is in order.
Closer to 5,000, in 'legalese', and this is the short version.