A new organization has formed to challenge the Coastal Management ballot measure, and make sure the Alaska Sea Party efforts get challenged before voters decide the issue in August.
“Up until now this has been kind of a one-sided discussion,” said Willis Lyford, spokesman for the “Vote No on 2” committee, which organized last week.
Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, said the Alaska Sea Party welcomed the conversation.
The Vote No on 2 group outlined its likely campaign strategy in its announcement last week, saying the measure is “confusing, poorly written and easily could hamstring development activities statewide.”
Lyford said members of Vote No on 2 generally supported having a Coastal Management program, just not the overly expansive one proposed by the initiative campaign that began last year.
“Our group is not opposed to all coastal zone management, we think there is a place for responsible and effective management of our coastal resources,” he said, calling the initiative “a real step backwards.”
Kerttula said the initiative to restore the Coastal Management program allows Alaskans to safely and efficiently develop their coastal areas, which happened for years before the Legislature failed to renew Coastal Management last year. At the same time, it gives Alaskans a say in federal activities in the state.
“That’s the beauty of coastal management, it cuts through red tape,” she said. “Without it you are going to have federal agencies making decisions for Alaskans.”
It is not clear what the initiative-sponsored program will do, Lyford said. That’s because the regulations to implement it won’t be written until after it is created, if voters in fact adopt it.
Under the initiative, the program is “undefined” and “open ended,” making it difficult to warn voters about what powers it could take on.
“You never know what you don’t know,” Lyford said.
Kerttula said if the Vote No on 2 group found it confusing, she’d be happy to help them understand it. The initiative recreates the program Alaska once had, which worked well, she said.
“I’d be happy to sit down and explain it to them,” she said.
She may get a chance to do that soon. Both the Alaska Sea Party and the Vote No on 2 committees have been invited to address the Juneau Chamber of Commerce’s Thursday luncheon.
Kerttula said she’s likely to be representing the Sea Party there, facing off against one of the Vote No on 2 co-chairpeople, Kurt Fredriksson of Juneau.
The two will likely need little information from each other on Coastal Management. Kerttula once represented Coastal Management as an assistant attorney general with the Alaska Department of Law, while Fredriksson is a former commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation who spent most of his career in coastal zone management.
Other leaders in Vote No on 2 are fellow co-chairwoman Judy Brady of Anchorage, a former Department of Natural Resources commissioner, Lorna Shaw, director of external affairs for Pogo Sumitomo Gold Mine, and Treasurer Cheryl Frasca, director of the Office of Management and Budget for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Lyford did not say how much the group planned to spend, but said they’d be soliciting contributions from the oil and gas, mining, hotel and tourism and service industries, all groups that could be affected by Coastal Management.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.
Comments (18)
Add commentSpin
"It is not clear what the initiative-sponsored program will do, Lyford said. That’s because the regulations to implement it won’t be written until after it is created, if voters in fact adopt it."
We had a Coastal Management program from 1977 until Parnell killed it in 2011. 34 years. Maybe Lyford should go back and look at how it worked then for a clue.
The fact is, corporate industries don't want Alaskans to have a voice. They like having Parnell call all the shots on their behalf.
Better look into it a little more Lat...
I'm looking forward to the debate that further explores the issue, especially on the question of "local knowledge" trumping scientific data -- a feature that didn't exist in either the pre or post-Murkowski versions of ACMP.
Alaska is the ONLY state
Alaska is the ONLY state where communities do not have a voice about what happens to their Coast Line. Alaskans have a right to have a chair at the table!
Vote Yes on 2 Aug. 28
Why? Because its our Coast = our right to have our voice at the table!
You have to agree that it is so very interesting that here our "anti-Gov. bloggers", "anti-over- reach by Gov. bloggers" are all against Alaskans having a voice at the table.
The Anti-Government crowd in Alaska NOW only wants the Federal Government telling Alaskans what they can or can not do with our coast line!
Alaskans want to have a say about their resources, its our right, its our state, our coast! Vote Yes on 2.
"Rough Cut" is such a nasty
"Rough Cut" is such a nasty and mean spirted individual and
Rough Cut does not want the public to have a say about what happens on their coast line???? I think that says it all, don't you?
Vote YES on 2 for our coast line
You just have to laugh because "mediawatchdog" now believes in science!
"Willis Lyford" the spoke
"Willis Lyford" the spoke person for the - "No Voice for Alaskans" group
is an Anchorage-based GOP media consultant who works for industries to keep any and all regulations pro. industry over public will.
mediawatchdog
I don't think it is really "local knowledge" "trumping science."
Actually,local knowledge is a form of "science." No, local people don't go out with hypotheses to test, or work in laboratories. They live in a place for a long time, watch things happen over the yearly cycle for many years and may observe and record (at least share their information with others around them) and see things that professional scientists don't observe on "Field trips."
For example, Senator Olson from Nome (no relative of mine) told how a team of scientists came into his area to see if there were walrus that would be disturbed by "development." They reported that there were no walrus around. He explained that walrus are not normally in that area at the season the researchers were there. And, that local people knew full well the walruses came there at certain times and it was an important "haul out" for them.
It is not a matter of either local knowledge or science, both sources of information need to be included.
Understood Wally, but not quite the same...
True Wally, but your example makes the case for using local knowledge in the absence of scientific data (which makes sense), not trumping scientific data that clearly does exist.
Let's look at a worst-case scenario from our nation's history. In communities throughout the country, Native Americans were segregated and treated differently from others because the "local knowlege" of the white community said they were genetically inferior and incapable of self determination -- despite plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Local communities should have a voice in shaping their destinies, but not the ability to create enforceable policies with requirements or rules that exceed those found in State and Federal regulatory guidance and protections.
media
In your given example, wouldn't the natives have been the local knowledge....they were the locals after all. The white man came waving guns, whiskey, and science.
Guess I'm just confused?
Not really ima...
Sadly, I wish local knowledge was limited to traditional Native observations, but it's not.
Local knowledge can simply be the aggregate opinion of a small municipal government; and within the initiative there is nothing that precludes establishment of an enforceable policy more stringent that State or Federal regulation at their behest.
To give an extreme but illustrative example, let's say you want to build a cabin on the coastline near Haines. Regulations set a permissable air quality level for the area, but if the "local knowledge" of the city government insists that additional smoke will affect eagle viewing in the area where you want to build, nothing prevents the district board from setting an enforceable policy that your cabin cannot utilize a wood stove.
Plain and simple, if you're not wanted, the ACMP as proposed in the initiative can keep you out, or at a minimum send you to court when fighting rules and regulations that are more stringent than those of the State of Feds. The potential for modern-day discrimination exists without better checks and balances to ensure that the Constituional rights of all Alaskans are protected -- even when it's one Alaskan against the will of a larger number.
lets
look at a worst case scenario from our nations (recent) history. " We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" gee wonder why I don't trust politicians.
media
read the first four words of my post, and get back to me. But if you just need to be right, don't bother.
If you have to give such an extreme example (your 4:11 post) to validate your argument, you don't really have one.
Local knowledge is local knowledge, no matter the ethnicity of the local population. It should carry more weight than most developers want it to.
I'd like to hear more history
I'd like to hear more history about what came from our 34 years with the CM. what did it do, what did it stop? That type of stuff. We have 34 years of information, we don't need hypothetical situations.
Local knowledge is taken into consideration by good scientific groups that go into the field already fyi. They contact people in the areas where they are doing whatever research. That's part of a field expedition on any level. Even in science it's almost all an educated guess. I listen to my good friend talk about his yearly month long cruise in the Bering sea collecting samples from the whole place to get better ideas about the happenings up there and the effect it has elsewhere. His information is gotten and they conclude tons of information, but he'll admit, it's the very best educated guess they can do. No one can be 100% right. You could ask the local knowledge here about the best place to catch a king and that would be stupid since most people don't catch anything with an average rod time well over 150 per fish. Point being the more information you get the better your guess is. Anyone tryin to stop more information being gathered doesn't want that information or opinion out there for a reason.
Alaska stu
I think you understand the reality that it is extremely difficult for "science" to come up with the logical statement of "all are" or "none are." Those are universal statements that allow of no exception. The best science can do is to arrive at "most are" or "some are not" or "best guesses." They often use statistics which is probably as close as folks can get to universals.
Your point is well taken, at least by me, that the more information you get, the better your guess will be.
The clash comes when some special interests hire their "scientists" to help them support what they want to do and toss out any other scientific information they don't want presented.
No way to be completely
No way to be completely unbiased but when your a scientist working I'll bet it would be easier if you had no contact with who's paying you. I mean, what it there was an organization out there that companies or whomever went through to hire scientists. Given instructions and job descriptions but the employer had no contact with the scientist, hopefully eliminating pressure to come to certain conclusions. Just an idea.
poor example
Well, 'Not really ima', if thats the best example you can come up with it could be easily resolved with a catalytic wood stove that produces no smoke or visible particulate matter.
I suspect the truth is that big money wants to exploit Alaska in a big way. They see dollar signs all over the map. They are terrified at locals having a voice in the management of their coastal areas. That would mean that with every project they would need to buy off the population by spreading around corporate dollars to the locals hoping that human greed will prevail. And even with that there is no guarantee. Whereas if strictly left to government it is much easier to simply buy off a few politicians.