Prison ‘risks' raise concerns

Assembly member favors Palmer, Sutton sites

December 29, 2006

By Michael Rovito/Frontiersman

PALMER - The controversial Palmer South site is still on the list of possible locations for a new mega-prison, Mat-Su Borough Assembly member Bill Allen said.

At least that's his thinking. Allen said the committee that made the decision to drop the site had no legal authority to do so and was only established by a memorandum of understanding.

Allen also spoke publicly for the first time Wednesday evening about his discontent over the possibility of the prison being built at Point MacKenzie. After more than a month of public testimony, site re-evaluations and Planning Commission-backed recommendations, all signs point toward Point MacKenzie as the future home of a 2,251-bed medium-security prison, when it goes to vote at the assembly.

That's a mistake, Allen said, expressing fears that the economy expected to flourish around the development would quickly jump Knik Arm to Anchorage. Why, he asked, would prison officials take inmates to Wasilla or Palmer - roughly 40 minutes from Point MacKenzie - for services when they can make the short trip across the water to Anchorage?

&#8220We might as well build it in Anchorage,” Allen said. &#8220If there is a link to Anchorage … the economy will go to Anchorage as well.”

Still, Allen made clear that if a compelling argument for the Point MacKenzie site is posed, one that convinces him risks can be resolved, the site may get his vote.

&#8220My mind is still open to all three sites,” Allen said.

Even so, the Palmer resident is the first assembly member

to share his feelings about

the prison's location, taking what my be seen as a controversial stance by the prison's

opponents.

Right now, Allen said, he is for the prison being in Sutton or Palmer South, but added that he still respects the opinions of residents in those areas.

&#8220Everyone has a right to speak and voice their opinion,” he said.

And even as borough planners have touted the planned ferry and bridge at Port MacKenzie as the means to lowering operating costs at the prison - Point MacKenzie is the most expensive site when compared with Sutton or Palmer South - Allen said the borough still carries a huge risk because any costs over a state set limit must be picked up by the borough.

&#8220As far as I'm concerned, they've made a poor decision,” Allen said. &#8220I feel strongly that Point MacKenzie just gives us too much risk exposure.”

Borough Manager John Duffy disagreed.

&#8220I think the prison at Point MacKenzie continues to provide very large economic benefits to the borough,” Duffy said, countering Allen's claim of borough responsibility if the price goes over the state cap.

Duffy also said there probably will be &#8220leakage” to Anchorage, but called the city and the Valley a regional economy.

&#8220If Anchorage benefits in some way,” Duffy said. &#8220It's just going to help us out.”

As to the legality of the collaborative group that nixed the Palmer site - consisting of the borough, the Alaska Department of Corrections and the Alaska Housing and Finance Corporation - Duffy said from the beginning there has been an understanding that the group's recommendation is nonbinding.

&#8220It wasn't a secret. We told everybody how this was going to work,” Duffy said.

By going public with his disapproval of the Point MacKenzie site and the notion that Palmer South should still exist as a possibility for a prison, Allen risks angering a group of constituents in Palmer who showed massive opposition to a prison in their area.

In the lead-up to Palmer being dropped from the list, the group No Palmer Prison became a force - both in the Valley and on the Internet - in organized agitation against the development.

The man who now stands to retake the helm of that opposition, Frank Wall, the No Palmer Prison group's president, said he already knew Allen thought this way.

&#8220We pretty much figured that's what he wanted to do all along,” Wall said.

The South Palmer resident claims to have a source inside borough government who is giving sensitive information to the group, but refused to reveal who.

Wall did say, however, that the thousands of signatures Palmer residents penned on various petitions should be evidence enough for Allen that the prison does not belong in Palmer.

One of Allen's fellow assembly members, Cindy Bettine, who represents the Point MacKenzie area as part of her district, said his timing couldn't be worse.

&#8220I don't really know where he is coming from,” Bettine said. &#8220It surprises me that it's coming now.”

Bettine said the borough manger was authorized by the assembly to go into an agreement with the DOC and AHFC on the preferred prison site.

She declined to answer if she thought Allen's public expression of discontent was a bad idea before the assembly makes its final prison decision, saying only: &#8220I have been very guarded not to make up my mind.”

Other assembly members have also been silent on the subject of the prison's home. The assembly is charged with making that decision Jan. 16 during a regularly scheduled meeting.

For Allen, his opinion is coming now, he said, because it has taken him awhile to do some research and talk to various people.

Still, Allen said he thinks it would be best for the borough if the prison were in an area more central to what has already developed. And, to him, Point MacKenzie just doesn't fulfill the needs he is looking for right now.

&#8220As far as I'm concerned,” Allen said. &#8220Palmer's not kicked off (the list).”

Contact Michael Rovito at 352-2252 or michael.rovito@ frontiersman.com.