Boat show, gun show, and potential property setback repeal

The weekend of Feb 17th – 19th will be a busy one if you enjoy going to boat and gun shows. The Anchorage Boat Show will be happening at the Dena’ina Center in Anchorage, beginning Friday at noon. General admission is $10. Kids 12 and under are free.

I haven’t been to a boat show in a few years, mainly because I couldn’t walk well enough. Now that that situation has been corrected, the possibility exists I might go. I enjoy seeing what’s new in the boating world, especially what new accessories are available to make a boater’s life easier.

A couple of years ago, I added an electric winch to my boat trailer to make loading the boat easier on my artificial shoulder. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the opportunity to use the winch much because of my walking situation. I’m hoping this year will be different now that joints have been replaced and are functioning reasonably well!

The gun show I mentioned is happening the same weekend (Feb 18th – 19th) at Raven Hall on the Palmer State Fairgrounds. This show is sponsored by the Matanuska Valley Sportsmen’s group. I’m not sure of the admission price, but if I were to guess, I’d think around $7 for adults.

This is one of the gun shows where the Mt. McKinley Mountain Men muzzleloading club normally has a display and sale table. I try to help at these shows where the blackpowder club has a table because I enjoy the camaraderie with the guys and chatting with folks as they pass the tables. Depending on the theme for the club display, I can oftentimes display a rifle, pistol, handgun, or knife and be available to answer questions about it. I also appreciate the chance to sell some stuff I no longer need or use off the club sale table.

Going a different direction, the Matanuska Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission (MSBFWC) is taking a long, hard look at a proposed borough ordinance which would eliminate the current 75-foot building setback from a waterbody.

At an earlier meeting we were told that there are over 700 illegal structures in violation of the 75-foot setback currently in the borough. If this ordinance were to pass, all these illegal structures would suddenly become legal provided mitigating conditions in the ordinance were met.

Part of the reason things have gotten so out of line is lack of enforcement by the borough regarding the setback ordinance. Folks just seem to ignore the rules without first checking out any new development on the property. Another problem with this situation is that folks who bought property/buildings which were illegal will have a difficult time trying to sell at some future date.

The original setback distance was first passed back in the early 1970’s. After a few years, the setback was repealed for about a year and then was brought back by public demand and reinstated in the early 1980’s. The setback has been in place ever since and is incorporated in multiple borough ordinances and regulations. Simply eliminating the setback now would create a real mess in trying to clean up wording in these other regulations.

I asked one of the proposed ordinance authors at this same meeting, why now? The setback has been in place in the borough for fifty years. Why the sudden need to change things? The answer was unclear to me but amounts to a complicated set of circumstances.

As mentioned, current owners of illegal building setbacks would have a difficult and possibly costly situation with mitigation issues when trying to sell the property. Enforcement of the ordinance is another major question. What type of mitigation would be acceptable to allow future development of these properties? What waterbodies would a setback ordinance apply to: lakes, rivers, or both?

If the setback was eliminated, does that mean a property owner who intentionally ignored the setback in developing their property skates free? Lots of questions with few answers right now.

There is a large amount of literature about the biological implications of no or minimal setback from a waterbody. All the literature indicates a degradation of water quality and fish habitat needs as a result. There have been tens of millions of dollars spent in this borough to protect and reclaim valuable fish habitats to directly improve our fisheries resources and impact quality of life for our Valley residents. Is it worth losing the habitat improvements already made to make life easier for an illegal property owner?