Dear Friends and Neighbors:

So far Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell and ConocoPhillips have spent over a half million dollars with deceptive ads telling you how their companies want you to vote Tuesday.  That's the new election world we live in.  In this world of unlimited election spending, facts should matter more than spin, and when corporations fund ads you should take a close look to see if they are trying to spin you into voting against the public's interest.  I believe they are here.  What's good for outside corporations isn't always what's good for you.

Ballot Measure 2:  Local Voice, Or Let Federal Bureaucrats Dictate Development Issues on Federal Lands in Alaska:  I'm Voting Yes On 2

Have you heard politicians shriek about how the "feds" have taken over our state and we want it back?  Well opponents of Ballot Measure 2, mostly oil companies, the Governor, and some of his legislative allies want to give the feds the power to make decisions on development on federal lands with no Alaska voice, and let those decisions violate Alaska laws.  Wow.  How's that for standing up for our state?  How's that for ceding state sovereignty to the feds, by folks who say the feds have too much power in Alaska?

Ballot Measure 2 would re-establish a Coastal Zone Management Program - a yawner of a name, but it's important.  It would give Alaskans a real voice on development projects on federal lands that will otherwise be decided by federal bureaucrats, under federal law, and by people who don't live here.
We've had a Coastal Zone plan since Jay Hammond started one in 1977, until the oil companies, the Governor, and certain members of the legislature demanded it either end, or we adopt one with very weak provisions for public and local community input.  Now Alaska, with more coastline than any other state, is the only coastal state with no Coastal Zone program.  Even Texas has one!  These plans simply don't block development.  They make it better, and more responsive to local laws.  The initiative lets the Governor appoint a Coastal Zone Policy Council which would demand development be done under Alaska standards. 

What would that do?  Well, for example, our stronger oil spill plans could be implemented in federal waters.  Or, if a development is proposed on an important fishing stream outside federal bureaucrats know nothing about, we can ask that it be moved a bit to protect our salmon, trout and char.  And if the feds ever allow fish farming, which would endanger Alaska's wild fish runs, we could stop that in federal waters because it violates Alaska law.  Without a plan, federal law applies to the exclusion of our laws.

Why are multinational oil corporations spending big to oppose it?  Well, they frankly want to use weaker oil spill contingency plans; avoid our rules protecting fish, and do whatever they want whenever they want. 

A Coastal Zone Plan would in almost all cases allow the same developments to go through, but be done in ways that protect our fish, and our resources.  For example, under our Coastal Zone Plan in the past we developed oil on the North Slope, built and re-built parts of the oil pipeline; and have never had any major development project blocked.  Local voices are good.  Our voices are just sometimes pesky to corporations who cater to their shareholders, and don't like hearing from us.

Stealthy Ballot Measure 1: Lowers Property Taxes for Most

This one's received little attention.  It would allow cities to raise the property tax exemption to allow you to pay no taxes on the first $50,000 of value on your house, instead of the first $20,000.  That would shift the tax burden slightly from average and low priced homes to high priced homes, and, mostly, to big commercial buildings.  lt would save many of you money.

The former Fairbanks Mayor supports it.  Mayor Sullivan opposes it - for a reason that's a red herring.  He wants to protect high wealth and commercial taxpayers, and says that renters would also have these costs passed on to them. 

The latter argument is based on flawed economics.  He says that commercial apartment owners will pay more taxes (they will, slightly) and that they will pass all those costs to tenants.  That's not how the market works.  Landlords have to be competitive.  They can only pass along costs renters will pay, and the very minor change in their overall taxes will likely not be passed along by many owners - which will pressure competitors also not to pass those costs along, or at least not the full costs.  It is likely that some portion of those costs might be passed along - a rule of microeconomics - but that the full cost wont. 

Well, under ethics rules, I can only talk about initiative issues right before an election.  So I can't talk about .....  never mind.

Hope you're well.  Wishing you a sunny August and September.

Best Regards,