JUNEAU — Gov. Sean Parnell said Wednesday that he doesn’t plan to introduce legislation establishing a coastal management program during the upcoming session.
Three coastal community leaders are seeking to revive the program and take the issue to the people, in the form of a ballot initiative, if the Legislature doesn’t act. An initiative application has been filed, and if it’s certified, proponents must gather 25,875 signatures.
One of the leaders, Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, has said the goal is to have 27,000 signatures collected before the start of the legislative session, Jan. 17.
Parnell said it’s premature to say whether the state needs a new program. “But I can tell you, the state has a robust permitting system that communities have input into multiple times for every project, and we’re making the current system work for communities and individuals,” he said. “So that’s why I’ve chosen not to file legislation and to let the initiative (process) and the voice of the people either way take its course.”
Parnell declined to speak to the specifics of the initiative, noting that he can’t use his office to advocate for or against an initiative.
An opt-in coastal management program, allowing states to put conditions on certain activities on federal lands and waters, ended June 30 after several failed attempts by lawmakers to save it. The end came as coastal communities sought a greater say in development decisions that could impact their way of life, particularly with the future potential of offshore oil and gas development.
The proposed initiative calls for a coastal policy board that provides local input in evaluating the effectiveness of district coastal management plans.
It also says the board must approve district plans if, among other things, they address a coastal use or resource of concern as demonstrated by local knowledge or supported by scientific evidence. Questions about what role local knowledge and scientific evidence should play were major sticking points during the legislative debate.
The Alaska Federation of Natives last week endorsed the proposal.
Botelho told reporters earlier this month that if a coastal management program “substantially similar” to that outlined by the proposed initiative isn’t adopted, the goal would be to get the issue on the November ballot and to let the voters decide.
It’s not clear whether there will be a push among lawmakers to revive the issue after how heated things got during the regular legislative session and two special sessions — and where things ended.
Staff to Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, said he’s considering all options, including seeing how the initiative effort works. He is expected to make a decision on whether to file legislation as the session nears.
Comments (31)
Add commentThe question isn't input- it's output
Parnell says that the state has "a robust permitting system that communities have input into multiple times for every project."
What he doesn't say is then he and his minions ignore the "input" and do what they had already decided to do- before getting "input." This was recently demonstrated with the state's rejection of "input" from local residents regarding the Chuitna Coal strip mine, which Parnell's own Department of Fish and Game said would adversely impact "significant" salmon habitat.
After the company said they would "restore" the salmon stream after 25 years of mining, involving removal of 11 miles of salmon spawning habitat, Parnell ignore the "input" from the communities- which was overwhelmingly against the project. DNR Commissioner Sullivan decided that reclamation is "technologically feasible.”
It may not be garbage in, but it's definitely garbage out.
ps Guess what the Parnell decision is for Pebble. Salmon or support for a foreign mining company? Hmmmm- I wonder.
Of course he doesnt intend to
Of course he doesnt intend to introduce a bill to restart coastal zone management! He's the one who blocked renewing it in the first place! Duh! Doing so would be actually listening to the people he swore an oath to serve. Cant have that!
If the Initiative can get the support, let 'er rip!
That's the point of an initiative; anybody can propose it and it requires a certain number of people to sign up for it to be placed on the ballot. Gov. Parnell doesn't need to do anything unless it succeeds.
Smart call on his part because we get more than our share of flawed initiatives.
Letting the voters decide
The only problem is that the initiative process usually makes for bad law. The legislative process yields better results. Between the federal and state processes for waterfront usage there is already enough scrutiny not to mention local permitting within city and borough boundaries. Adding another layer of bureaucracy seems rediculous and inhibits development in a state that has more coastline than the rest of the union.
Of course Parnell has a
Of course Parnell has a history of ignoring the will of the voters, except of course anytime he needs to be voted into office.
This issue is
This issue is
Alaska Coastal management Plan
The concept of developing a new Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) via initiative is of concern. The initial ACMA developed in the mid 1970’s included input from many local communities, state officials and legislative discussions. This interaction resulted in an ACMP where the local governments made determinations as to compliance with their own coastal management ordinance with the state having to show significant adverse statewide cause to over-ride the local decision. Unfortunately, over time the state agencies managed to reverse that emphasis on local governments such that by 1991 local governments had to prove their case instead of the state.
The point is that an ACMP should be an iterative development involving all stake holders. That cannot be done through the initiative process. In addition to development of the Act the implementing regulations must be developed. As Co-Chair of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, 1977-79, we spent two years of interaction among seven state appointees and nine local elected officials developing the regulations via the AAC. Again, the interaction among state officials and local elected officials encompassing the 33,000 miles of Alaska coastline was imperative to gain acceptable working regulations.
In summary, if the legislature will not address the issue then the initiative should be so composed that some sort of interaction among all stake holders is involved in the final legislation and regulations.
Roger Allington, PE
1455 180th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98008
If the "will of the voters" is more bureaucracy...
Cheap shots don't cut it; IF Gov. Parnell had a "history of ignoring the will of the voters..." he wouldn't be governor.
It always amazes me that the minority positions from Juneau are so often proposed as majority positions when in fact they are usually just fringe. This is a "more government" initiative and we will see if that is really what the Alaskan voters want. How long did the legislature wrestle with this issue before finally throwing in the towel?
Where do I sign the petition?
I'll sign it. Where is it?
What're the odds his attorney general will find any initiative unconstitutional and tie it up in the courts until he is out of office?
Thank you Mayor Botelho for taking the lead with this. Democrats get things done!
Yeah, right: Democrats Get things DONE!
Unfortunately, what they "get done" is usually a mess.
I am particularly appreciative of the Democrat Party support for "Occupy Wallstreet" mobs, for instance, because I predict they will do for Barack Obama what the Chicago Democratic Convention mobs did for George McGovern.
In Alaska, Democrats did fine until suddenly were faced with the opportunity to build a state govenment Tower of Babel from oil revenues. Then, under Republican Governor Jay Hammond we established the Permanent Fund but Dems are always coming up with entitlements we must pay for.
Who is surprised they want to rejuvenate a dead idea under the leadership of Juneau Democrat hacks?
CORRECTION: What the Chicago mobs did for Hubert Humphry
The 1968 Chicago Convention mobs killed Hubert Humphries' run for president and the "movement" went on in 1972 to make sure Richard Nixon remained as president. Good job Dems!
What Parnell doesn't want you to know
When you want put the best face on a cover up you give it to Becky Boher.
Parnell screwed up when he dumped coastal zone management. Parnell dumped Coastal management because Parnell though he was doing the oil companies a favor. But, Parnell forgot to ask his boss, Conoco, before dumping Coastal management..
Second, Parnell needed cover because the members he appointed to US coastal management were kicked of the management board because they had to be honest with any science and speak their minds freely. But Parnell would not allow that. Parnell orders are that the science is whatever Parnell says it is, regardless of how stupid it is.
Not obeying Parnell orders on what science is grounds for firing.
Parnell really doesn’t not want Alaskans to know that he Parnell abrogated all of the value the State’s scientist by replacing theirs with his bigoted opinions.
Are Republicans using the
Are Republicans using the state of the economy as a means to give our Federal land to the powerful logging, mining, oil and gas industries under the guise of Job creation? Seems like it to me and it really is a bit like a corporate welfare program, doling out prime lands and resources to powerful interests and yielding dubious benefits to the public
"Across the West, the Forest Service is trading away irreplaceable native forest to timber companies",
Is it right to use public lands and the remaining fragments of our native ecosystems as currency?
Are they a permanent legacy to protect and expand upon or an asset to be liquidated, bartered, disposed of ?
These are questions that belong at the very center of our political dialogue.
http://www.endgame.org/commcomm.html
Your Masonjar is full of baloney!
When Alaska got statehood, Alaskans thought they would be like most other states and get to decide how most of the land would be used. Instead, the federal govenment controls some 80 percent of the land and most decisions about Alaska land use are controlled in Washington D.C.
Liberals want federal lands to be sacred. They want human activity of any kind liminted to what bureaucrats allow through regulations dreamed up in cubicles. Vast areas like the Yukon-Charlie preserve can no longer support rugged individuals who once lived subsistence lifestyles and survived by their wits there.
Public education has brainwashed a whole generation into thinking corporations who make money are bad, but unions who require governments to harvest dues from employees as a condition of their employment, to give to the union bosses are good. Energy that comes from the earth and supplies gasoline or oil for machines is bad, but energy that comes from solar cells or windmills is good.
Calling Gov. Parnell bad because he wants our state to be business-friendly is naive at best, and stupid at worst, but it is what a lot of Alaskans have come to expect from residents in the most liberal precincts of Juneau. Maybe Gov. Parnell needs to think about the way his predicessor, Gov. Palin, dealt with the Juneau mentality as he looks to the future of our state.
AKDonn the AK NeoLiberal
Donn you are the biggest Neoliberal in Alaska next to Parnell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
@akdonn: if the feds didn't
@akdonn: if the feds didn't get so much of Alaska's land, Alaska wouldn't be getting all the federal money that we currently do get, without which most of us wouldn't be living here. And we still have a large amount of control over those lands. Sounds good to me.
You seem to have a real hate-on for public education, but some of the things you say make me wonder if you might need some of it yourself. Like the Yukon-Charlie preserve--you can still subsist up there. Oil drilling is banned, but I don't see many "rugged individuals" needing oil derricks to live off the land.
I think your philosophy is less "business-friendly" than "people-unfriendly."
We need federal money because?
In his book, "A Land Gone Lonesome: An Inland Voyage Along the Yukon," Dan O'Neil documents a journey over an area he has already been through before, and studied extensively. He references many characters who once lived and subsisted along the way, with details about what is left of their former way of life now that the bureaucrats manage it for their own purposes.
The reality is, that way of life has been regulated out of existence in places like Yukon-Charlie; O'Neil laments the use of historic cabins for bureaucrats to hold their annual retreats at instead of as active homes for pioneers. He isn't adament about this because he has the same kind of scorn for authenticity exhibited by many elitist environmentalists, but the story tells itself through his pro-government control lense.
You are correct that I am profoundly disappointed in what public education has become, and incredulous that so many who think they are so smart have no original thoughts or meaningful contribution to dialogue about issues of our day. Instead of trying to second-guess my "philosophy," and take your cheap pot-shots, Ms. Persnickety, why don't you try posting here like a rational adult?
akdonn
If we did not receive federal money, your food, housing, energy, and other expenses would be through the roof. Not to mention there'd be precious little infrastructure. You would not live here unless you were a proper "pioneer," and I doubt that very much.
Perhaps you should read more than one book before forming an opinion. In fact, maybe you should read the book you purport to get your opinion from. O'Neil asserts that the Parks Service is mismanaging much of the land up north, but he does not assert it should be unmanaged.
PP or not PP...
Once again, you attempt to insult me by suggesting I have read no more than one book on this subject. This is obviously the best you can do in view of your pethetic arguments.
As an Alaskan since the age of 11, I have seen plenty of people who came here and stayed as long as they had a federal job, then left. They got COLA and they were here to have their Alaskan Adventure before going home. If Alaska were to be deloused from the federal paracites who sanctamonously try to limit this state, we might find our own capabilities are considerable.
The federal lands of Alaska WERE managed when many rugged individualists lived on them; building cabins running traplines and raising families. O'Neil makes that point clearly and goes on to describe what has happened since they were run off the land, their structures destroyed by federal goons, and their historical legacy diminished.
As someone who has started a business from scratch, made payrolls, produced products and performed services of value, and sold it at a profit after six years, I don't worry about whether government will cost the economy to inflate. You see, I am not a dependent.
I think we will rename you
I think we will rename you Don to DD. Delusional Don
Those personal attacks really make your point, NOT!
I put my name out there, I put my picture on my postings, and a bunch of you who hide behind pictures of plants and animals with hokey monikers take your shots without any meaningful dialog. What does that say about you?
Sorry but if you claim you
Sorry but if you claim you are not dependent on the federal govt, you are standing up and screaming "Hi! I'm delusional!"
More of the same from government town, Juneau.
You really can't imagine an Alaska with independent people doing business and developing our vast resources without a government hand out, can you bear picture?
Well ,lets see. The roads
Well ,lets see. The roads you drive on were subsidized by the feds, the airlines, the fuel, the school you teach at, probably your education, half the food you eat has some sort of subsidy, the mail service, the internet connection you are using, your phone, ... Heck Don, probably every aspect of your life has a federal handout attached in one way or another.
Dependency by any other name is still dependency.
That is correct, we have developed a federal dependency that we may have to get over. I say let's start by getting rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, EPA and Commerce. Then we can look at Interior. When we start getting rid of a bunch of federal programs we don't need, Alaskans can further develop our own potential as a state.
There are things the federal government has done FOR Alaska and there are things the federal government does TO Alaska. Because we have allowed ourselves to become dependent doesn't mean we must expect future generations of Alaskans to be subservient drones. Development of our natural resources is our future, not government hand-outs from the feds.
Donn, if you say kpawsuh is
Donn, if you say kpawsuh is correct, then you realize that Alaska has neither the resources nor the will to support itself. No one would stay here if federal subsidies were all removed, except for a few dozen grizzled mountain men. And that does not make a society. We don't have the resources to maintain our infrastructure on our own, we don't have the resources to build much new infrastructure on our own, and we certainly don't want to pay five times what people down south pay for basic amenities.
Addictions can be beaten!
It's unfortunate that some people believe what others have told them without critical analysis. When I came to Alaska we were a newly mented state with a strong military presence. A lot of Americans had not thought we would be able to hold our own as a state, but we still managed to convince them we could.
Then, in 1964 we had an earthquake that really made a lot of people think we were in long-term economic trouble. I was there, I recall Anchorage being locked down by military martial law. Fortunately, there were Alaskans who believed we could rebuild and develop our natural resources and we quickly rebuilt.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was the last hurdle we had to clear before the Alaska Pipeline was built in 1977. As a result of that pipeline--that the environmental extremists fought tooth-and-nail--Alaska is now richer than a lot of third-world countries. The federal government has contributed greatly to our current success (thank you, Uncle Ted) and many Alaskans still believe we can be whatever we want to be with resource development.
On the other hand, we have always had those who are self-proclaimed "protectors of the environment" and dependent upon the government to limit development. That has been fine as long as our national economy has been able to accommodate that backward thinking. When the day comes, however, when the United States of America decides we are no longer going to put up with tin-horn dictators in places that hate us for our oil, Alaska will be a place they will look to. And, just like when the Alaska Earthquake happened, all it will take is a military presence and they will do pretty much whatever needs to happen.
@akdonn: to be clear, Alaska
@akdonn: to be clear, Alaska has received massive federal subsidies since its inception. Before, actually. We don't hold our own, and wouldn't. This is basic capitalism, which you purport to believe in.
Also, you must be really naive to think Alaska has enough oil to even make a dent in our country's demand. It doesn't. Nor do we get most of our oil from the Middle East.
For someone who constantly berates others for not thinking independently or knowing the facts, you don't often think independently or know the facts.
Because you say it doesn't make it true...
We don't really know how much oil we have, but we do know there is lots more natural gas available, and many other minerals to be mined in addition to the considerable amounts of oil we likely have in Alaska. We also have timber and massive hydro potential.
The environmental extremists have outdone themselves in creating disincentives to mineral development with spurious legal challenges and massive regulations against everything. I predict, however, that a time is coming when we will see many of those mistakes corrected.
The more you try to tell me how much you know, PP, and how wrong I am about everything you know so much about, the more you look like a fool. I have to blame public education for your lack of vision because that is usually the root of a lot of idealistic ignorance. Keep posting because it is a real laugh.
Finally, YOU calling ME naive is rich!
Right. Again with the
Right. Again with the environmental extremists and their nefarious plot to destroy Alaska. Or something. And I'm the one who's ignorant.