Some reasons to vote ‘yes’ on 2

The Alaska Coastal Management Initiative Proposition 2 is something Alaska needs. It is a state rights and local deterministic initiative, pure and simple. It should be supported by small business and wholeheartedly by conservatives. I suspect it would, if they knew the truth and could avoid false propaganda.

And there are a lot of lies and falsehoods being fostered primarily by the oil industry.

This bill doesn’t even really affect them much except for two things. First, the oil industry would be compelled to follow Alaska laws in coastal waters and lands that are more stringent than federal law, especially on oil spills. The other issue is this bill would give small businesses and communities a say in how development occurs in their localities. Those are really the only things that even oil companies might consider negatives; Alaska law and Alaska business — two things they have seemed opposed to all along.

Is it a perfect law? No, I don’t think so. It will need a lot of tweaking. Personally, I’m upset over the representation issue where an inordinate amount of power goes to Southeast advocates at the expense of Anchorage and the Mat-Su. The board selection, to me, puts too much power in the hands of the governor, which could make the board a pawn of the oil industry. But those issues could be addressed later; a lot can be addressed later. The initiative isn’t stone and can be molded by the Legislature (despite the lie being spread), and the only thing set is that it can’t be voted out by the Legislature for two years.

Perhaps that is the reason the bill did not pass in the Legislature. Our current cadre of radical anarchists, and that is the correct term, seems set to destroy government at all levels — Congress or the city council. All law is bad law in their eyes. One excuse we see used to stop passage of legislation is that such and such a bill is not perfect or requires some philosophical compromise, even if the law is good for the people and business (like this one or Ronald Reagan’s health care mandate). No law is ever perfect and most every law changes as time and circumstances require, even the Constitution.

Of course, too, are concerns that without a coastal management plan federal agencies may extend their control over traditional state waters. For instance, could the National Park Service begin regulating boat traffic, speeds and wake off the Cape Krusenstern National Monument or BLM curtail fishing in certain waters offshore? Without this law, Alaskans have no say in these matters. Alaska communities are left at the whim of federal agencies.

So, flawed or not, this is legislation we need. It is anti-colonial in nature and should be embraced by all Alaskans. That it may not benefit the multi-national corporations should be the least of our concerns, though this is not a bill creating a regulatory agency or has much affect on them. It is a bill re-creating our planning and policy agency.

Coastal management is nothing new to Alaskans. We’d had it for 34 years, and until Gov. Frank Murkowski it was an effective tool. It is a tool we need today.

Gregory Gusse is a Palmer businessman.