Assembly should prove Title 27 repeal is necessary

To the editor:

Mat-Su Borough Assembly members who support Ordinance 11-072, which replaces the borough subdivision code Title 27 with the old Title 16, need to prove to the public that this is necessary. For instance, what is the number of approved plats in the borough that has got them so upset? Why do they want to reduce public comment and appeal comment periods from 15 days to 10 days?

This elimination/rewrite is being fast-tracked during the busiest time of the year. This is a perfect move to push through a major change in borough code right when the public cannot concentrate on it.

I do not agree with the premise that the repeal of Title 27 will provide healthy economic activity. That statement is backward. To go back to the development-at-any-cost economy does not insure healthy planning and growth. This is common sense. Plus, worldwide — even reaching into the Mat-Su Borough — the economy went into a severe recession right after the approval of Title 27 in 2006. Isn’t that a clue into why there are fewer plats approved?

I contend that the economy of the borough and the state depends on the existence of healthy, undeveloped wilderness lands with trails and open spaces for the purposes of fish and wildlife habitat, which is the backbone of our hunting and fishing economies, recreation, and public uses of public lands. To protect these lands and trails upon which our economy depends we need good, responsible subdivision regulations.

Becky Long

Talkeetna