Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Because I believe accurate information is necessary for good decision making, I must push back on a statement made by Chris McGraw on KCAW’s call in-forum for Ballot Initiative 2. From the transcript:

Chris McGraw: “The concept of having what I would call a fiscal note on a citizens initiative … isn’t something that is new. Numerous states require this on state initiatives, and it’s for the purpose of voters understanding what the impact is that they’re voting on.”

Katherine Rose: “So there’s precedent for this in other places?”

Chris McGraw: “There is precedent for this in other places.”

Mr. McGraw is correct that there are 18 states that require a fiscal impact statement, but for statewide initiatives only, – NOT at the municipal level.

But more importantly, completely left out of the narrative, is that in all 18 states the impact statement is prepared by an entity of the government AFTER receiving the initiative petition. The analysis that is provided BY THE GOVERNMENT is then included as part of the initiative petition. NOWHERE is a petitioner required to hire a professional financial analyst and pay for a very extensive impact study at any point in the process! (Google it – Sitka is the only example that comes up). For further information see: https://ballotpedia.org/Fiscal_impact_statement

So, the accurate answer to Ms. Rose’s question on precedent is: “NO. There is no precedent for Proposition 2.” My question for study would be: What is the impact on Democracy when onerous financial costs are levied in order for citizens to be engaged in the shaping of their government? Please vote NO on Prop 2.

Donna Donohoe

Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Hi. My name is Brandie Cheatham. I have considered Sitka home for 14 years. I am not someone who generally submits public commentary, but Ballot Proposition 2 disturbs me enough that I had to speak up. Ballot Proposition 2 requires that initiative sponsors pay for and deliver a very comprehensive Economic Impact Study Report (EISR) with their application for petition. This is even before any idea reaches the signature gathering stage. It is outlined in detail that the report be written by an economist with a master’s degree and over 5 years’ experience in an economic field and SE Alaska. On the surface this doesn’t seem like a bad idea. So why am I voting No on Proposition 2? Several reasons. When the sponsor of this proposition was asked how many professionals meet these qualifications he replied, “I don’t know.” Does it make sense to you that such a rigid outline of qualifications be specified with no idea who might be found with said qualifications?

When asked about the cost of having such an EISR be put together, NO range of pricing was given. It was simply stated that it depends on the initiative. Of course. But still…you wish to require an economic impact report to be provided with any future initiative but cannot provide any indication of what the economic cost to the citizen would be? I therefore find the claim that this proposition wouldn’t price democracy out of the hands of ordinary citizens fairly empty. In fact, a recent estimate of the cost given by an informed citizen was “likely over $10,000.” A very wealthy individual or corporation could pay that. Most Sitkans cannot. The sponsor of this proposition emphasized that folks still have plenty opportunity to be a part of the democratic process by voting on their assembly members. To me that isn’t enough. Democracy is a government for the people by the people. It’s why constitutional convention delegates put so much effort into crafting citizen powers. There have been several letters to the editor published in the Sitka Sentinel recently (three in the September 19th paper alone) that outline more eloquently than I, why these concerned citizens are Voting No on Proposition 2. I echo their sentiments: The city isn’t bombarded with frivolous initiatives. If anything, there should be more community engagement. I do not think those with the most money should have the biggest voice in our government. Not in Our Town. This is Brandie Cheatham and I will be Voting No on Ballot Proposition 2.

Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Good morning, Sitka! My name is Brian McLaughlin and I represent SCORE, or Sitkans for Community Outdoor Recreation Enhancement. I’ve lived in Sitka for over 5 years now, am currently a volunteer at the Sitka Fire Department, a substitute teacher in the Sitka School District, a tour van driver, and was the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Air Station here in Sitka. On October 7th, Sitkans will have an opportunity to vote on Sitka Ballot Proposition 1. Proposition 1 asks voters to consider allowing the funds from the sale of the Sitka Community Hospital and the Tobacco Tax to be used to support recreational facilities throughout Sitka, both existing and new. Unlike many other cities throughout Alaska, such as Juneau and Anchorage, Sitka does not have any funding source for necessary rehabilitation, upgrades, and new builds for recreational infrastructure. Using the funds collected from the Tobacco Tax and Hospital Fund would provide a long-term and lasting means of keeping our city and borough active and healthy.

Proposition 1 helps to meet the purpose and spirit of the tobacco taxes, which were originally intended to mitigate the impacts of tobacco use. It helps signal to state, federal and local governments, private donors and grant agencies that recreational facilities are an important priority for Sitkans, helping to bring in more funding to support the health of our community. This could support facilities like Whale Park, the Swan Lake Dock, the playground, tennis courts and basketball courts at Crescent Harbor, Moller and Kimsham fields, and future development of new initiatives.

Some very legitimate and valuable concerns regarding competing priorities have been raised about this proposition. For example, Sitka has been struggling to support adequate availability of childcare for working families with young kids for quite some time. As the former Commanding Officer of the base and the 125 families there, I saw this all too often. While steady funding is certainly needed, the Hospital Fund and Tobacco Tax will not provide adequate funds in a timeline necessary to support the immediate childcare needs, as the funding may not be available for many years still. Fortunately, this has been identified by the City Assembly who is actively working on a funding solution specifically for childcare that is independent of the Hospital Fund and Tobacco Tax. On the other hand, the recreation infrastructure can stand to suffer a little more of a delay in funding that is likely with this mechanism.

It should also be noted that all beneficiaries of the funds from the Sitka Community Hospital will continue to receive their full retirement benefits. Only funds that are remaining after all obligations have been met will be considered for the recreation fund. Additionally, Proposition 1 will not affect tax rates.

I invite you to learn more at www.scoreforsitka.org. I’m Brian McLaughlin with SCORE, where we’re investing in recreation to foster healthy living and create community connections. Thank you and have a great day!

The opinions expressed in the following commentary are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by KCAW’s board, staff, or volunteers.

My name is Doug Borland, and my wife and I are 30-year residents of Sitka. As long-time Sitka downtown business owners, our Russian American stores employ six full-time Sitkans and up to 12 including our summer temporary staff. Today I would like to express some concerns regarding the upcoming anti-cruise ship referendum vote.

Like most of Sitka’s citizens, we are aware of, and appreciate, the “small-town ambience” and the uniqueness of our town and the surrounding areas that make us special. We too value and want to preserve that special uniqueness. 

We relocated from Anchorage all those years ago precisely because of the advantages of living in such a small coastal town. We are on the waters, hiking the trails, and avid hunter-gatherers in the mountains and forests around town. So, of course we also want to preserve these values.  

For example, in the early 2000’s, we voted against the proposed downtown cruise-ship dock in front of the Sheldon Jackson campus because it would radically change the face of our downtown.

We hear every day from visitors that Sitka is the best cruise ship stop they have made on their Alaskan trips! This is apparent, as we are decidedly different. Therefore, we have mixed feelings about the upcoming referendum and vote to severely limit cruise ship visitors.

We do recognize that the rapid increase in cruise ship tourism that the town has experienced since covid has resulted for sure in some growing pains, and those, such as traffic and pedestrian safety, certainly must be addressed.

 As main street businesses we are engaged with the City and other stakeholders regarding these issues, through an ongoing structured process encouraging input from all.

Considering this, we feel that the referendum may be a too radical approach, which in our opinion could have some serious unintended consequences that the well-meaning proponents of the anti-cruise ship vote may not have considered.

First of all, the economic impact to our city of the loss of sales tax revenues if this referendum passes is unquestionable, although what exactly the ultimate losses amount to might be debatable.

To us, as business owners, and to the town relying on us as a continuing viable economic engine, this issue is more complicated: Mainly, will the cruise ships, redirecting to other Alaskan ports if this passes, push ours and other businesses below the break-even point where we will be forced to close? Can we continue to keep our stores open in the winter, which we have always done, even though operating at a loss, if we cannot make it up from our summer business? 

As the proposed “cap” is a mythical figure, there is in no way to guarantee, if this referendum passes, that the cruise ship numbers will actually approach the upper limits of the cap amount. The unintended consequences may very well be that we will see way less than the maximum visitor cap set by the referendum, which could for sure lead to employee layoffs, (not just the loss of revenues through sales taxes), and could result in the complete shutdown of ours and other businesses, with our employees, and their families having to leave Sitka to earn a living elsewhere, and could lead to permanent closures of even long-time downtown businesses.

Also, it must be noted that if this passes, it is not just the direct major losses of sales tax revenues that our city will feel from the multitude of businesses; it is also the recirculation of these dollars throughout the city economy throughout the year, as we re-spend these dollars collected from our customers throughout the city.

We pay our suppliers, our employees, our utilities, our rents, etc. – all of which again create an additional sales tax that supports our city services. Then again each of the recipients of these dollars will re-spend and recirculate them to create more sales taxes! This “multiplier effect” means the economic impact of our revenues from the tourist dollars is much higher than just the initial collection made by our stores, and could ripple throughout the town.

Finally, it must be noted that we, along with most of the other tourist-related businesses, also are major supporters of Sitka’s many nonprofits. 

These deserving nonprofits include social programs for elders and the less fortunate, our most important educational and school programs, the renowned Sitka Summer Music Festival, the Fine Arts Camp, SitkaTrails, the Legacy Fund, and yes, our valued public radio station! Every year we have helped to sustain these valuable programs.

But they can only gain our support if we have a viable, stable, and growing downtown business community, which is quite concerning.

And, this is especially true now, as other public sources of support, mainly from our state and federal governments, for this nonprofit sector, are seriously threatened.

In conclusion, the radical approach of a referendum suggests some serious possible downsides that could negatively affect most all Sitkans.

We would hope that the growing pains from the increase in tourism could be better addressed through collaboration, cooperation, and shared values of what we all should want for our special unique coastal town. 

In our opinion, this referendum raises many, many uncertainties of possible serious, negative, unintended consequences, and every listener should be considering these before going to vote.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Note: Opinions expressed in commentaries on Raven Radio are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

My name is Tory OʼConnell Curran and this is my opinion. Alaskans may vote early beginning October 21st. Voting for Trump and Vance includes supporting Project 2025, the Presidential Transition Project of the Heritage Foundation. I would like to highlight a few things that would mean for Alaskans that you might not be aware of: 

As alarming as all of this sounds it is only the tip of the iceberg  in terms of how a Trump/Vance administration would make life more difficult for regular Alaskans. The entire document is online to search and read if you would like to do your own research; you don’t have to take my word for it.  My name is Tory OʼConnell Curran and for these and other reasons I am excited to be voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for President and Vice President. Thank you. 

References: 

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Pbs.org

What is Project 2025.net

Medscape.com

Democracyforward.org

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/P2025-AK.pdf

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/project-2025-tax-trump-economy-heritage-foundation-how-it-works/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE5_QJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVPWTRXpSAMkTj8ahIvQGtYEUP9P8yPfftX8X_TCqTwjOm1DQeRWTMAPEg_aem_gND59JpaIjFLvyjbM4JCrA

There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children. – Nelson Mandela

Governor Dunleavy recently announced House Bill 105, which, on the surface, is intended to expand parental rights in education. But what it actually does is strip schools of their ability to educate, affirm, and protect trans and gender non-conforming youth who cannot safely share their identity with their families. It is the Governor’s contribution to a wave of transphobic legislation targeting LGBTQIA+ youth across the nation, and the effect is simple: targeting LGBTQIA+ children in Alaska and the spaces where they feel safe. 

If passed, HB 105 would require school employees to notify parents in writing if a student requests to be called by pronouns or a name that differs from those assigned at birth. In short, educators must choose between forcibly outing students and facing legal action (including the potential loss of employment). Outing someone against their will doesn’t just violate their legally-protected right to privacy; it also puts them at risk of hostility, rejection, and even violence from their parents or guardians. The governor seems to be using his previous experience as an educator to justify this bill, stating that “Research shows that involving families more in a child’s education leads to better relationships and improved educational outcomes for students, and this bill will do just that.” He has conveniently ignored the fact that research also shows that the presence of just one supportive adult figure in an LGBTQIA+ child’s life reduces suicide attempts by 40%. Many LGBTQIA+ youths have reason to fear their parents’ or guardians’ reaction to their gender identity or sexuality, and this bill ensures that they will find no safety at school either. 

Under this bill, parents would also need to provide written permission for their children to participate in any educational programs or classes involving sexual education and reproductive health. Again, the governor is risking the health and safety of Alaskan children in order to further his anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda. Comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education programs play a crucial role in keeping children safe. Studies have shown that these programs reduce rates of sexual activity, risky sexual behaviors, STIs, and unwanted pregnancy among youth, while also equipping younger children with the knowledge necessary to prevent, recognize, and report sexual abuse. And yes, they also teach age-appropriate information on sexual expression, orientation, and gender identity, equipping all children with the tools to understand their own identity, whatever that may be. As with all of the provisions in this bill, children from marginalized communities and those living in unsafe homes will suffer the most. 

Finally, the bill requires that students in Alaskan schools use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to the sex recorded on their birth certificate, rather than to their gender identity. Again the governor wants us to believe that he is motivated by concerns for student safety or privacy, and again it is clear that his true motivation is ignorance, misinformation, and fear. Trans students do not pose a risk to their classmates, inside the bathroom or out of it, and this provision will force them to either reveal private medical information to their peers and teachers or risk breaking the rules and being punished and forcibly outed. This is an impossible choice for children who already face heightened risks of harassment and abuse from both their peers and adults.

All children deserve to feel safe and protected in school. It is our duty as Alaskans to stand up for the most vulnerable among us and to fight this bill at every step. 

References:

The Trevor Project: Accepting Adults Reduce Suicide Attempts among LGBTQ Youth

ACLU: LGBTQ+ Youth and Outing

AGOG: Comprehensive Sexuality Education

ACLU Anti-Trans Bathroom Bills Have Nothing to Do With Privacy and Everything to Do with Fear and Hatred

Note: Opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

By Wendy Alderson

Many small destination communities across the West are dealing with housing shortages. While this is a new problem for many areas, Sitka has struggled with the housing issue for as long or longer than I’ve lived here And that is over 30 years.

While there are many pieces to Sitka’s housing puzzle, there is one piece I feel we could successfully address with some community input and a few reasonable code changes, and that is the Short Term Rental Conditional Use Permit requirements in residential neighborhoods.

Many communities are realizing that a proliferation of short term rentals in residential neighborhoods is making it challenging for local community members to meet their housing needs. Short Term Rentals have the potential to remove long term rentals from the rental market, drive up rents and drive up real estate prices due to LLC’s and investment companies having the financial means to pay more for investment properties than many individuals who are trying to purchase homes.

Currently there is very little criteria to be met in order to obtain a Short Term Rental Conditional Use Permit in a residential area. The property must meet health and safety standards, and must provide adequate parking. If a property meets this criteria, the Planning Commission is obligated to approve a permit. This leaves the Planning Commission with very few tools to weigh each application individually.

Sitka saw its Conditional Use Permits for Short Term Rentals double from 2017 to 2019 and while there was a lull during the Covid years it looks like the lull is over, with 8 permits approved so far this year. In a recent Short Term Rental survey 60% of respondents felt that Short Term Rentals have a negative effect on the housing market and 70% of the respondents were concerned about the number of short term rentals in Sitka.

Recently a resolution for a temporary moratorium on Short Term Rentals in residential neighborhoods was narrowly voted down by the assembly. And while the temporary moratorium didn’t pass, overwhelming discussion by assembly members pointed to a willingness to address some reasonable code changes, such as sunsetting a permit with the sale of a house, requiring a Short Term Rental be part of an applicant’s primary residence and/or setting a cap on the number of Short Term Rentals in residential neighborhoods.

Do you listeners have any ideas on how to address the growing number of short term rentals? Are you curious what other Sitkan’s think and what other communities have done to address the issue? There will be a town hall meeting and discussion on ideas about Short Term Rentals on this coming Monday, April 18th at 7:00 pm at the Centennial Building. Please come and share your thoughts.

Note: Opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

By Lauryn Nanouk Jones

I am a three-year senior at Mt. Edgecumbe High School. I am from Unalakleet, in Northwestern Alaska. The first time I saw Sitka was in the month of August, 2019.  It was hard for me to get used to Sitka at first because growing up my diet consisted mostly of Native foods from fish to meat like caribou and moose, so coming to Sitka was a huge change for me because I didn’t have the Native foods I was used to. However, there were still foods like fish and deer that were caught and donated to Mt. Edgecumbe, and that helped connect me to the community, and to recognize the similar connections between people and place here in Southeast Alaska. I am extremely thankful I am able to still have a part of home here in Sitka.

Industrial-scale logging and clearcutting of old-growth within the Tongass National Forest destroy habitats and ecosystems that make subsistence activities and hunting possible. That is one of the reasons why in 2001 the Clinton Administration put the Alaska Roadless Rule in place: to protect the Tongass National Forest from industrial-scale logging and devastating clearcuts. The rule helps protect productive wildlife habitats and protects intact ecosystems within the national forest. 

So when I first heard of the “full exemption” of the Roadless rule proposed in 2019, I was distraught by the actions of our politicians and lawmakers, and of our then-president. I was further disappointed when I heard the support from these lawmakers and politicians and their choice to ignore the 96% of 250,000 people who commented in support of maintaining the Roadless Rule protections. The active dismissal of our peoples’ voices by our lawmakers and representatives scared me. They ignored tribes, fishermen, tourism operations, scientific consensus, and thousands of people who want to preserve the land for generations to come. Now, hearing that the Biden Administration was in the process of restoring the Roadless Rule, I was overjoyed and I regained some of the lost hope I felt when I first heard about the proposed exemption. While working with the Mt. Edgecumbe Environmental Club, I learned the power of advocacy. I witnessed communities coming together in hope of preserving the Tongass, uniting to protect their home. It was amazing the number of people that showed up at the Forest Service public meeting to give their testimonies. It was amazing to see the number of Mt. Edgecumbe students come to see the documentary, The Salmon Forest, and write statements to preserve the Tongass. Although most of us haven’t grown up in the Southeast, we all understood the importance of the Tongass National Forest to the people here within Southeast Alaska, as many of us face battles in our own hometowns that pit large-scale resource extraction and development against our food security and climate security. If there’s a problem big enough it unites the community, it just takes the right people. And it made me believe that my community can come together to talk about climate change, and advocate for a better future. So even though the Tongass was at risk for being open for logging and road making, it gave me hope when I saw the communities here within the Sitka and surrounding towns unite together, and advocate for keeping Roadless Rule protections in place. This demonstrated to me the power of using your voice to advocate for what you believe in. Together, we can make a difference.

The post In advocating for the Tongass, a Northwestern Alaskan sees the power of unity appeared first on KCAW.