With coal, health trumps profit

To the editor:

Coal is our past, not our future, and a short-sighted vision of temporary jobs should never be traded for long-term risks to community health.

With 20,000 acres of proposed coal development along the Matanuska River, not only will people’s health be in jeopardy, but our fishing streams will suffer as well. Coal dust will be blowing through Valley neighborhoods from the extraction, storage and continual transport down our roads. Though Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss over the past year has publicly mocked our concerns, health threats from coal are no joke.

Americans continue to suffer from coal-related health issues, and if the economic argument is your style, we’re talking externalized costs of $74 billion a year in early deaths linked to pollution from coal-mining sites.

“Accounting for these ‘hidden costs’ doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar and other renewable very economically competitive,” said Dr. Paul Epstein, the late associate director of the Harvard Center for Health. “Policymakers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind. Our reliance on fossil fuels is proving costly for society, negatively impacting our wallets and our quality of life.”

Usibelli, Ranger Alaska and Riversdale have no concerns for what happens here until it threatens their company profit. The concern for our families’ health and the quality of the local environment ought to trump a paycheck.

Cathy Teich

Talkeetna

An open letter to the Valley legislators

To the editor:

As I ponder the actions of our state Legislature in its move to amend the Alaska Constitution to allow for the spending of tax dollars to support private and religious schools, I am left with some questions.

1. First and foremost is, where are we headed? I realize the first step in the process is to clear the road for actions ahead. To this end, I am quite certain legislators have already formulated what that end point will look like. It’s the end result that creates the “design up” process. Therefore:

2. What will the end result look like? I asked all of the Valley legislators present at the meeting at the Legislative Information Office on Feb. 23 if they support school vouchers. Sen. Mike Dunleavy’s one word answer was “yes!” The remainder opted to hide behind the veiled answer of, “I support parental choice.” It’s quite apparent what that means. So, what exactly does the ensuing school voucher plan that they have in mind look like?

3. Will it mirror others in the Lower 48? Will it look like Milwaukee’s plan, or the one in Florida or Indiana? Will it be available to all parents, or only to economically disadvantaged families, or present a sliding scale as in some plans? Will the voucher replace the SBA? Will the voucher replace the SBA at the same rate or be a reduced rate? Certainly, legislators have already figured this out. Or, will they just take another page out of the ALEC playbook to redesign education in the state of Alaska?

4. What will be the financial impact on school districts across the state? How will vouchers affect the ability to retain and hire the best teachers in the state? If a school, or a district for that matter, cannot predict who will be enrolled in the district or school the following year, how will the school or district know how many teachers to retain for the following year? How can they prepare a budget to present to the borough and state? Are all teachers to be pink-slipped each year awaiting the first week of school to see who shows up at the door? If so, the unemployment compensation paid out over the summer will quickly eat up any savings possible unless the voucher is so much lower than the current BSA. If that is the case, how will schools operate at far less funding than is currently provided? Granted, this will make the Legislature look like baby Jesus to the voters by lowering their taxes, but even they don’t want to cripple education across the board. At least, I don’t think they do.

5. Why are Valley legislators (and others) putting the cart before the horse? It has been my experience that before setting out on a journey it is best to know where you are going before you depart. That way you know when you have arrived. Why have these legislators decided to change something without disclosing what the end result will look like? Certainly they don’t plan to make up the plan after the constitution has been changed. They must have some notion how this will look in the end, and for voters to change the constitution they must know what the end result will look like before they step into the voting booth. Why can’t our Legislature give us all of the information so we can make a fully informed decision?

Thus, I ask again, where are we headed? What does the end result look like? Are we going to copy programs already in existence? What is the financial impact? And lastly, why are we pushing this before all of the details are laid out before us?

I, for one, would appreciate a direct answer, not some political doublespeak. Just address the issues up front. If you don’t know, find the answers. All of the questions and points made are real concerns that every taxpayer and voter in the state must be made aware of before a vote should even be considered. If these questions cannot be answered in the light of day, the issue of changing the constitution should never reach the ballot. I would appreciate an answer in writing published for public dissemination and comment.

Matt Welk

Chugiak