August 07, 2007
Tuesday

I lived in Ketchikan for three years. And I am against using the money for the Gravina Island bridge.

However, while I am against the bridge, I think Alaska and Ketchikan should be getting federal money.

Here are my arguements against the bridge.

A couple of years ago, I researched into the growth of Ketchikan. More people per year were leaving Ketchikan then coming in. The population was decreasing. Now people will say that is because there is no room to expand. My reply to that is, make it easier for people to move there. Who moves to Ketchikan. Mainly it is people who are in the Coast Guard, then you have those inported by marriage or other family reasons, and then lastly you have those who just move there for what ever reason. People normally just dont move to Ketchikan. It is not a thriving job market (although a few people do move there for jobs), in fact it is just a self seficiant little town.

But for those who do move to Ketchikan...how easy is that? Moving in general is a total pain, but when you can pack up your truck and your life and drive roads to where ever you plan to go it is easier then having to drive to Bellingham or Haines and then taking a ferry with all your belonings to Ketchikan. Building a bridge to Gravina is not going to bring people to ketchikan. Building a road and bridge to the mainland may encourage growth.

Which headline as an American Tax Payer living in the lower 48 would convince you your money is being used properly?

1. Island City of Ketchikan access only by plane or boat with population 8000 looking to build a bridge to an island of 50 residents and the city airport for 350 million dollars.

-or-

2. Island City of Ketchikan access only by plane or boat with population 8000 looking to expand growth by asking the federal government for money to build a road to the mainland?

How growth possible is Gravina? I mean is it easy to build out there?

AS for the rest of your points, I have to say they dont bother me nearly as much as the bridge. I dont see why Ketchikan should not make money from tourists. Fact of the matter is if people dont want to spend money in Ketchikan, well dont go. You are not forcing people or cruise lines there. And it is true that a lot of KTN is tourist based. Just look at downtown in the winter. But hey if the money can be made, make it!

In the end, I think that Ketchikan, and the state politicians would have a lot better chance not getting negative feed back from the "lower" 48 if they were using the money for more reasonable things. Should money be given to the entire state of Alaska or just to Frank, Ted and Don and their business partners? Alaskans need to understand reasons that those in the lower are against this spending. It is not that they hate you or dont want you to survive, it is because 350 million dollars is a lot of money for 8000 people to get to the airport.

Get the money by all means but use it properly. Especially when many people in Ketchikan don't want the bridge.

Rob Glenn
NY, NY


Received August 05, 2007 - Published August 07, 2007

Related Viewpoint:

Buttinskies, tax dollars, bridges, and more... By Tyrell Rettke - Ketchikan, AK

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2007
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska