Shooting range dispute a classic case of NIMBY

I attended the borough assembly meeting Tuesday where an ordinance to sell borough property to the Alaska Scholastic Clay Target Program for a shooting range was discussed.

The short version is the assembly ultimately voted to postpone taking action until June. This appears to me to be a classic case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).

The assembly chambers were filled to the point where the mayor had staff open up the side rooms to allow everyone seating and the ability to listen. Public testimony ran for the better part of two hours with the overwhelming majority in favor of the ordinance. Everybody who testified, for or against, stated they thought the SCTP program was a good thing and that the kids should have a shooting range on which to practice and compete. The sticking point became where that shooting range should be located.

Between now and June, the borough community development folks were tasked with developing a short list of “more suitable” borough properties for the location of a shooting range. The borough director of community development stated, when asked, that he had been through this “shooting range location” process several times before this situation.

He said that finding a suitable location that was near the core area and readily accessible, while still “remote” enough to avoid creating potential noise, safety or traffic concerns (all of which can be addressed in the construction and operations plan for the facility, by the way) would yield a very short list of places. He also said that any other proposed suitable location would come with its own set of problems and detractors.

In short, there is no “perfect” location.

The two assembly members most in support of the ordinance were Ron Arvin and Steve Colligan. The assembly member most opposed was Dan Mayfield.

Mayfield said he supported the concept of developing a shooting range for the SCTP program, but he had concerns about property location and “proper process” in the transaction. He proposed the amendment to postpone assembly action until June to give the staff time to locate a “more suitable” location.

Assuming this is all finally resolved by June, the SCTP program will have lost a year in developing the facility. This, in turn, will cost the organization tens of thousands of dollars in operating costs and possibly the chance for some Valley youth to win a college scholarship or advance into the Junior Olympics program.

Yep, a classic NIMBY for sure: “I really support your project, just not in my backyard!”