Anchorage needs . . . .
bookburn
1. A small but world-class zoo, centrally located
or near the airport, featuring one animal from each of
the Pacific Rim countries: China--giant panda,
Korea--?, Japan--salt water monkeys, Siberia--tiger,
Canada--wolf, U.S.--polar bear. This zoo should be
international, with representatives from participating
countries in charge of their animals and communicating
with the public. I see it in about forty acres, without
bars, in open design. There would be television cameras
and a subscription channel for viewing, especially for
schools. Funding should be federal, state, and
municipality, with annual passes for Anchortownies at
about $500, accompanied children below 12 free. The
present zoo on the hillside could be used for
medical/breeding, other animals.
A possible spin-off would be an international, duty-free
market place/mall.
(By the way, I don't believe the story that the two
polar bears who died were secretly buried because of
disease or public hysteria. Those two polar bear skins,
worth upward of $5,000 each, were probably saved for
"someone.")
2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two bridges
spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet
bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new
Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail and
car, probably another airport. Spin-offs would involve
further extension of the monorail to ?, a rapid-transit
connection from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle River.
The Turnagain bridge would go to Hope with connecting
roads to Soldotna, etc., perhaps railroad to Homer.
Spin-offs would possibly include dykeing off the
mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
project.
Capital projects like this could be targeted for
Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
planning/development.
Jim Williams
bookburn wrote:
>
> 2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two bridges
> spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet
> bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new
> Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail and
> car, probably another airport. Spin-offs would involve
> further extension of the monorail to ?, a rapid-transit
> connection from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle River.
> The Turnagain bridge would go to Hope with connecting
> roads to Soldotna, etc., perhaps railroad to Homer.
> Spin-offs would possibly include dykeing off the
> mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
> project.
>
> Capital projects like this could be targeted for
> Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
> planning/development.
I think this is a excellent idea, The extreme tides may make it
impractical for a floating bridge but a high speed monorail or train
above water seems possible, what about Hydrofoil Ferry system?
I always wanted a 24 hour day fishing pier, Anchorage is too
muddy, but... This would be a great tourism draw for Seward or
Portage.. Seattle has Fishing piers, A one hour drive to Portage (when
the new road opens) would be a great getaway.
--
.--.-.
( ( )__ Jim Williams mailto:ak...@alaska.net
(_, \ ) ,_) |
'-'--`--' ~~| , \ _ /
,|`-._/| -== (_) ==-
^^ .' | /||\ / \
^^ .' | ./ ||`\ |
/ `-. |/._ || \
/ `|| `|;-._\
| || || \
~^~_~^~_-~^~=~^~~^= / || ||__ \~^=~^~-~^~_~^~=~^~-~^~
~^~ ~=~^~ _~^~ =~ `--------|`---|| `"-`___~~^~ =_~^=~~^~=`~^
AKJIM ~^~=~^_~^~ =~ \~~~~~~~'~~~~'~~~~/~~`` ~=~^~ ~^=_~^~ ~~^
~^~ ~^=~^~_~-=~^~ ^ `--------------'~^~=~^~_~^=~^~=~ ~^~-~^=
~^~=~ ~^=~^~ ~^~^=~^~-~^~ ~^~=~^~^~ =~^~^=~^~^=~^~^ =~~`~^
~^~= ~^~= ~~^~~`=~``^~^^~= ~^=~^~^~^ =`^~^`^~^=~^~-~~^
Alaska Jims Homepage http://www.alaska.net/~akjim/JIMS.HTM
Michael F. Pickett
> > mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
> > project
The creation of the railbed is what caused the Potter Flats "pond." There
was a time, during the construction of the railroad, that they used to
play baseball on those flats, about where the old Seward highway hits the
"new" Seward Highway...
> I think this is a excellent idea, The extreme tides may make it
> impractical for a floating bridge but a high speed monorail or train
> above water seems possible, what about Hydrofoil Ferry system?
When J. Ray McDermott came up from New Orleans to put in the gas pipeline,
across the arm, they found out, the hard way, that there is NO way to put
a bridge out there, because the bed-rock from the north side tapers out to
the middle of the Arm, to a depth of about 400 feet (if my memory serves
coreectly).... much like the glaciers cut it, then drops precipitously, as
if there were a cliff there from a faultline...so, there hain't no
purchase available for piers of ANY kind...and...the mud moves in
quantities that are just staggering...I don't know HOW many times they put
that pipeline under the mud, to come back the next day to discover it 20
feet above the mud...or, how many times they put it down, and came back to
find it extracted, and the barge and pipeline up, or down the arm, much
like a giant pendulum, with a barge for a "bob.."
Then ol' McDermott himself came up to see why they were losing so
money...the flew him out to the barge...knowing there was a bore
coming...as he looked up the inlet into a pretty stiff wind around Windy
Corner, asking what the problem was...there was aroar behind them...he is
quoted by the project manager "what the HELL is that noise"...and the
barge started up the inlet, and pipe-line started coming back up out of
the mud... I think they had to re-bury it about 60 feet deeper (memory?)
than they planned, and lost about 30 Mil more than they quoted
(memory?)...
Anyway..hain't no bridges goin' over that Arm with the state of the art of
the present...I've seen winds of 115 MPH come over Potter Mountain...which
means it was really howling on the Arm...can you imagine a floating
bridge???
Gotta tell you...there USED to be ferries on the arm...in fact...Cap
Lathrop made his money ferrying from Old Knik to Sunrise and Hope...but,
the changing mud makes it a real chore, and the arm is only ferryable
during a limited window of the day...storms, winds, you name it...
'Bout the best bet would be to Hope...I don't think Chickaloon drainage is
available because of the mud, and because you may not get permission to
cross the Moose Range??? I don't recall ever reading of any ferries
landing in the flats??? A natural might be out near Gull rock...but...a
road to where???
-------------------------
Headed for Alaska? Cruising? Driving the Alaska Highway? Wanna know where
Alaskans eat?...Visit Gruff's "Alaskan Feedbags" on Dennis Harris' Great
Web Site http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris/feedfaq.htm
Floyd Davidson
>
>2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two bridges
>spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet
>bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new
>Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail and
>car, probably another airport. Spin-offs would involve
>further extension of the monorail to ?, a rapid-transit
>connection from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle River.
>The Turnagain bridge would go to Hope with connecting
>roads to Soldotna, etc., perhaps railroad to Homer.
>mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
Are those bridges going to help evacuate Anchorage?
>Capital projects like this could be targeted for
>Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
>planning/development.
Golly, gee... I thought I was the only one purposely
posting really stupid rediculous ideas for Anchorage.
But that tops anything I've said.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
bookburn
Jim Williams <ak...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:37FA1D05...@alaska.net...
>
>
> bookburn wrote:
>
> >
> > 2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two
bridges
> > spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook
Inlet
> > bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new
> > Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail
and
> > car, probably another airport. Spin-offs would
involve
> > further extension of the monorail to ?, a
rapid-transit
> > connection from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle
River.
> > The Turnagain bridge would go to Hope with
connecting
> > roads to Soldotna, etc., perhaps railroad to Homer.
> > Spin-offs would possibly include dykeing off the
> > mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
> > project.
> >
> > Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
> > planning/development.
>
may make it
> impractical for a floating bridge but a high speed
monorail or train
> above water seems possible, what about Hydrofoil
Ferry system?
>
Your graphic, above, is impressive, but what that is in
the center?
I could wish for a decent fishing location near
Anchorage, but am spoiled by what used to be pristene
natural, self-replenishing native fish stocks. You have
to have special conditions for it and the State
Department of Fish and Game have their own different
hatchery and regulations mentality. A fly-fishing only
natural lake with catch-and-release would be great, but
those hatchery fish are wimps except for summer
tourists. Despite that, right now you could rent a boat
at Lake Matanuska and troll a fly with some dynamite
possibilities, and the view of the mountains is
spectacular.
bookburn
>
>
bookburn
Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:7td9ka$p...@enews5.newsguy.com...
> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two
bridges
> >spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook
Inlet
> >bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new
> >Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail
and
> >car, probably another airport. Spin-offs would
involve
> >further extension of the monorail to ?, a
rapid-transit
> >connection from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle River.
> >The Turnagain bridge would go to Hope with connecting
> >roads to Soldotna, etc., perhaps railroad to Homer.
> >Spin-offs would possibly include dykeing off the
> >mudflats into a freshwater lake or land reclamation
> >project.
>
Especially on weekends because right now we have only
one highway in and one highway out of town.
>
> >Capital projects like this could be targeted for
> >Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
> >planning/development.
>
> Golly, gee... I thought I was the only one purposely
> posting really stupid rediculous ideas for Anchorage.
> But that tops anything I've said.
I'm not trying to compete with your level of stupidity,
Floyd, but we can reserve a place for you to fish from a
bridge if you are feeling left out--or under a bridge if
you are feeling like a troll. (Trolls hang out under
bridges, did you know that? The famous troll Tom Trip
Trot use to jump out and say "Who's that trip trotting
over my bridge?) I get the bait concession.
bookburn
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >2. My second notion is that Anchorage needs two bridges
>> >spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet
>> >bridge going to the Peninsula would lead to the new Capitol
>> >and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail and car,
>> >probably another airport. Spin-offs would involve further
>> >extension of the monorail to ?, a rapid-transit connection
>> >from Anchorage to Wasilla and Eagle River. The Turnagain
>> >bridge would go to Hope with connecting roads to Soldotna,
>> >etc., perhaps railroad to Homer. Spin-offs would possibly
>> >include dykeing off the mudflats into a freshwater lake or
>> >land reclamation project.
>>
>> Are those bridges going to help evacuate Anchorage?
>
>Especially on weekends because right now we have only one
>highway in and one highway out of town.
Which of the two do you think is the highway in and which is the
highway out??? Last time I checked there was traffic going both
ways on each of them.
>> >Capital projects like this could be targeted for
>> >Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
>> >planning/development.
>>
>> Golly, gee... I thought I was the only one purposely
>> posting really stupid rediculous ideas for Anchorage.
>> But that tops anything I've said.
>
>I'm not trying to compete with your level of stupidity,
Ah, I see... I had to make an effort at it, but are you
claiming to be just naturally that stupid?
And make no mistake about it, the idea that the PF could or
should ever be used on projects for Anchorage, much less of the
kind you suggest, is ridiculously stupid. Please remember that
Alaskans are the people who own the other half of that PF. I
don't even think that would go over well in Anchorage, but if it
evenly split a vote there, the other half of Alaskan voters
would be unanimous, which makes for a 75% lopsided NO! vote.
>Floyd, but we can reserve a place for you to fish from a
>bridge if you are feeling left out--or under a bridge if
>you are feeling like a troll. (Trolls hang out under
>bridges, did you know that? The famous troll Tom Trip
>Trot use to jump out and say "Who's that trip trotting
>over my bridge?) I get the bait concession.
>
>bookburn
Perhaps you missed the point about your projects for the PF,
Item number one:
"Anchorage needs two bridges spanning the Turnagain and Cook
Inlet."
Item number two:
"lead to the new Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by
monorail and car"
Now, tell us about who is a troll. Putting forth such
suggestions to Alaskans (as opposed to talking about it with
other Anchoragites), _is_ trolling in the finest style. Unless
of course you either believe that the rest of us would agree to
spend money on such things, or that there would be any real
benefit to Alaska from either item. In which case, replace
"intentional" with "immense" as the modifier of "stupidity".
"another airport"
"extension of the monorail to ?"
"rapid-transit connection ... to Wasilla and Eagle River"
"bridge ... to Hope ... roads to Soldotna"
"railroad to Homer"
"dykeing ... mudflats into ... lake or land reclamation"
Ah, the troll continues from the large absurdity down to little
one liner jokes suitable for a late night TV comedian's
monologue.
If you think Alaskans should, or are going to, ever agree to
spend our PF on making Anchorage into Disney Land, your reality
is a little different than the rest of us.
bookburn
Depends on where you're coming from? Course, if you
want to have it both ways you could say there are four
highways, right?
>
> >> >Capital projects like this could be targeted for
> >> >Permanent Fund expenditure with long-term
> >> >planning/development.
> >>
> >> Golly, gee... I thought I was the only one
purposely
> >> posting really stupid rediculous ideas for
Anchorage.
> >> But that tops anything I've said.
> >
> >I'm not trying to compete with your level of
stupidity,
>
> Ah, I see... I had to make an effort at it, but are
you
> claiming to be just naturally that stupid?
I'm not sure how stupid "that" is. Maybe you could
reveal what your benchmark is.
>
> And make no mistake about it, the idea that the PF
could or
> should ever be used on projects for Anchorage, much
less of the
> kind you suggest, is ridiculously stupid. Please
remember that
> Alaskans are the people who own the other half of that
PF. I
> don't even think that would go over well in Anchorage,
but if it
> evenly split a vote there, the other half of Alaskan
voters
> would be unanimous, which makes for a 75% lopsided NO!
vote.
The interesting thing about pyramid building is that it
not only employs people in building and enhancing
culture, but actually pays for itself by spinning off
crafts and arts. Something about a flow of energy
through a system tending to organize the system. It's
called investing in Alaska and facilitates the direction
of development Alaska takes in the future. The
increased diversification of our locked-up economy and
expansion of infra-structures would be exponential.
Course, I understand that some in Alaska identify with
the lock-up and consider change a threat. Old fuddy
duddies (I wonder what that means?).
Floyd, you don't have the money in the PF. It just sits
there piling up and the legislature is going to use it,
whatever you say; so my idea is to at least give them
the right heading with economic expansion and building
the infrastructure. It sounds like you have decided to
believe what Hammond doled out to be popular, like
discontinuing and refunding state income tax,
discontinuing homesteading and starting land disposals
by lottery, giving money away to people with the PFD.
Children are kept satisfied this way, but the weaning
time is made worse.
>
> "another airport"["Alaskans use airplanes like
others use cars," Sen. Stevens]
> "extension of the monorail to ?"[Bethel? Other new
towns on the Peninsula?]
> "rapid-transit connection ... to Wasilla and Eagle
River"[This idea is already being floated because of the
traffic of communters]
> "bridge ... to Hope ... roads to Soldotna"[You can't
just have a bridge withou connecting roads, you know]
> "railroad to Homer"[If Seward gets a railroad, why
not Homer?]
> "dykeing ... mudflats into ... lake or land
reclamation"[They did it in Holland, didn't they?]
>
> Ah, the troll continues from the large absurdity down
to little
> one liner jokes suitable for a late night TV comedy
My comments about what I think Anchorage needs are not
meant to be that absurd, Floyd, though you can heckle
all you want. I reserve the right to treat as a joke any
rediculing comments that obviously need enlightenment.
>
> If you think Alaskans should, or are going to, ever
agree to
> spend our PF on making Anchorage into Disney Land,
your reality
> is a little different than the rest of us.
It sound like you really want to get into the rural
subsistence preference versus equal rights for cities,
or the whole Native Alaskan versus non-native ideas of
civilization, with "Anchorage needs . . . " the present
focus. But at least my idea of an international zoo and
bridges puts the money constructively back into Alaska
and enhances a natural lifestyle. This, of course, is
much better than letting the two political parties
broker deals for outsiders, depending on Alaska Natives
to go along.
bookburn
Dave Thompson
bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:37fc...@news.gci.net...
>
(Snipped only for thread trimming.)
>
> The interesting thing about pyramid building is that it
> not only employs people in building and enhancing
> culture, but actually pays for itself by spinning off
> crafts and arts. Something about a flow of energy
> through a system tending to organize the system. It's
> called investing in Alaska and facilitates the direction
> of development Alaska takes in the future. The
> increased diversification of our locked-up economy and
> expansion of infra-structures would be exponential.
> Course, I understand that some in Alaska identify with
> the lock-up and consider change a threat. Old fuddy
> duddies (I wonder what that means?).
> >
>
> Floyd, you don't have the money in the PF. It just sits
> there piling up and the legislature is going to use it,
> whatever you say; so my idea is to at least give them
> the right heading with economic expansion and building
> the infrastructure. It sounds like you have decided to
> believe what Hammond doled out to be popular, like
> discontinuing and refunding state income tax,
> discontinuing homesteading and starting land disposals
> by lottery, giving money away to people with the PFD.
> Children are kept satisfied this way, but the weaning
> time is made worse.
>
(Thread trim only)
> My comments about what I think Anchorage needs are not
> meant to be that absurd, Floyd, though you can heckle
> all you want. I reserve the right to treat as a joke any
> rediculing comments that obviously need enlightenment.
(Thread trim only)
>
> It sound like you really want to get into the rural
> subsistence preference versus equal rights for cities,
> or the whole Native Alaskan versus non-native ideas of
> civilization, with "Anchorage needs . . . " the present
> focus. But at least my idea of an international zoo and
> bridges puts the money constructively back into Alaska
> and enhances a natural lifestyle. This, of course, is
> much better than letting the two political parties
> broker deals for outsiders, depending on Alaska Natives
> to go along.
>
> bookburn
Please refer back to Project 80's for pyramid building. Even in Anchorage
the Sullivan Arena, PAC, Lousac Library and the Egan Center are all
continuing drains on resources. This is not to say that the facilities
should not have been built. If, however, they had been built with local
resources the voters would have had their eyes open going in.
It should be a rural vs. cities argument. If we are going to dissipate the
Permanent Fund, priority SHOULD go to the Bush until they are awash in
luxuries such as clean water, sanitary sewer disposal, good education and
basic health care. Once we've done that, we can then look at building
pyramids in Anchorage.
Dave
Anchorage Resident by job, not by choice.
Dennis P. Harris
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>> >> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
i guess bookburn's been taking lessons in "thinking big" from
wally hickel's "little man". what's next, a water pipeline to
california?
first, zoos are going out of business everywhere, under attack
from both animal rights groups and scientists. attendance is
dropping off at zoos worldwide now that everyone can see wildlife
in the wild on their tv set every week, and folks prefer that
wildlife be left in their habitat rather than rounded up and put
in zoos.
second, the permanent fund trustees are required to make the most
prudent investments, which means that they often do not invest in
alaska because either the risk is too high or the rate of return
is too low. they invest the fund to make money, not to provide
pork barrel projects for politicians. the earnings record for
the fund indicates that they have done the right thing.
the types of projects suggested are either silly or horrifically
expensive from an engineering standpoint. if it was easy to
bridge either turnagain or knik arms, it would have been done by
now. there is nothing to build on out there but silt and clays
that turn to jelly every time there's an earthquake, and pilings
sufficient to support a roadway would have to be sunk hundreds of
feet. the tide rips and the ice would destroy a floating bridge.
and quite frankly, i'm glad that access to the far shores of the
inlet are limited. it prevents the entire shoreline on the north
end of cook inlet from looking like muldoon or spenard.
you folks in los anchorage should just continue shitting in the
anchorage bowl and leave the rest of south central free of your
crap. it's bad enough that the cancer has already spread into
the southern matsu and northern kenai. there's enough
californication there already.
========================================================
Dennis Harris NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
Mary T
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>>> >Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>>> >> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>wally hickel's "little man". what's next, a water pipeline to
>california?
---I rarely agree with bookburn's posts, but this time the gentleman has
made some sense. Ideas represent good urban planning, which would result is
ecological benefits. Moreover, the projects would not only help Alaska's
economy, but also structure growth in the right direction., not to mention
structure the growing tourism industry in a way that would provide less harm
to our enviornment.
>
>first, zoos are going out of business everywhere, under attack
>from both animal rights groups and scientists. attendance is
>dropping off at zoos worldwide now that everyone can see wildlife
>in the wild on their tv set every week, and folks prefer that
>wildlife be left in their habitat rather than rounded up and put
>in zoos.
--I'm sorry to dispute your assumptions. Zoos play a primary role in
wildlife preservation. In fact, many of the aniumals currently in zoos are
the only remaining members of their species. Without the excellent breeding
management undertaken by zoos, those species would now be extinct.
Natural habitat is nice. You forgot one importanr issue --- man has
enroached so far into the remaining natural habitat that a large portion of
our existing wildlife, not in zoos, will be extinct in the next 10 to 15
years.
The public and activists are against the old-fashioned zoo. Those zoos
which have modernized see very good attendence.
>
>second, the permanent fund trustees are required to make the most
>prudent investments, which means that they often do not invest in
>alaska because either the risk is too high or the rate of return
>is too low. they invest the fund to make money, not to provide
>pork barrel projects for politicians. the earnings record for
>the fund indicates that they have done the right thing.
---No, they are listening to the public's short-sighted greed.
>
>the types of projects suggested are either silly or horrifically
>expensive from an engineering standpoint. if it was easy to
>bridge either turnagain or knik arms, it would have been done by
>now. there is nothing to build on out there but silt and clays
>that turn to jelly every time there's an earthquake, and pilings
>sufficient to support a roadway would have to be sunk hundreds of
>feet. the tide rips and the ice would destroy a floating bridge.
>
>and quite frankly, i'm glad that access to the far shores of the
>inlet are limited. it prevents the entire shoreline on the north
>end of cook inlet from looking like muldoon or spenard.
---In 15 to 20 years, what you dispise will take place anyway. Would it not
be better to engineer the development in a manner that would prevent, or
sigificantly delay, the urban blight you dispise?
>
>you folks in los anchorage should just continue shitting in the
>anchorage bowl and leave the rest of south central free of your
>crap. it's bad enough that the cancer has already spread into
>the southern matsu and northern kenai. there's enough
>californication there already.
---Actually, one particular statement stuck in my mind --- NEW CAPITOL.
That is one, so-called pork project, that would benefit the majority of
Alaskans. Tradition is nice, but access to governement is much nicer.
We all hate to see urban blight spread; however, growth will take place
whether or not we like the idea.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>>bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>>>> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Especially on weekends because right now we have only one
>>>highway in and one highway out of town.
>>
>>Which of the two do you think is the highway in and which is
>>the highway out??? Last time I checked there was traffic
>>going both ways on each of them.
>
>Depends on where you're coming from? Course, if you want to
>have it both ways you could say there are four highways, right?
That makes as much sense as the rest of your article.
There are two highways that go both ways, not one in and one
out. (And not four.)
>>And make no mistake about it, the idea that the PF could or
>>should ever be used on projects for Anchorage, much less of the
>>kind you suggest, is ridiculously stupid. Please remember that
>>Alaskans are the people who own the other half of that PF. I
>>don't even think that would go over well in Anchorage, but if
>>it evenly split a vote there, the other half of Alaskan voters
>>would be unanimous, which makes for a 75% lopsided NO! vote.
>
>The interesting thing about pyramid building is that it not
>only employs people in building and enhancing culture, but
>actually pays for itself by spinning off crafts and arts.
We don't have proper sewage treatment for almost half the people
of Alaska and you want to build high cost high maintenance
roads, bridges and monorails to provide weekend retreat access
for residents of Anchorage? And then say that is a pyramid that
will spin off benefits and pay for itself.
I've got a bridge too, and I'll sell it to you. Then you can
live in Brooklyn, where your ideas might be more successful than
in Alaska.
>Something about a flow of energy through a system tending to
>organize the system. It's called investing in Alaska and
>facilitates the direction of development Alaska takes in the
>future. The increased diversification of our locked-up economy
>and expansion of infra-structures would be exponential.
>Course, I understand that some in Alaska identify with the
>lock-up and consider change a threat. Old fuddy duddies (I
>wonder what that means?).
Oh lord, are you really serious? You really think that spending
money like we did during the pipeline days, and spending it all
right there in Anchorage is actually going to benefit Anchorage
in the long run, much less anywhere else in this state? We've
already wasted way too much money on Anchorage, and look what we
got for it! Los Anchorage... which would be just fine if it
were in south central California instead of south central
Alaska.
Some people don't see what you describe as a "lock-up" as any
such thing. Some people see it as protecting a way of life that
was the very reason we came to Alaska. Why the Hell would we
want to leave the lower-48's way of doing things for the
enjoyment of the Alaskan lifestyle, and then immediately proceed
to destroy what we found and reincarnate it in the very image of
what we wanted to get away from!
I don't want to live in Los Angeles, Seattle, or any other place
in the lower-48. I don't want you or anyone else to make Alaska
a place that is just like those places either. I _like_ the
difference! (You might notice that I'm not alone in that
particular stance either. Most Alaskans feel the same...)
>>Perhaps you missed the point about your projects for the PF,
>>
>>Item number one:
>>
>>"Anchorage needs two bridges spanning the Turnagain and Cook Inlet."
>>
>>Item number two:
>>
>>"lead to the new Capitol and Olympic Village, accessible by monorail and car"
>>
>>Now, tell us about who is a troll. Putting forth such
>>suggestions to Alaskans (as opposed to talking about it with
>>other Anchoragites), _is_ trolling in the finest style. Unless
>>of course you either believe that the rest of us would agree to
>>spend money on such things, or that there would be any real
>>benefit to Alaska from either item. In which case, replace
>>"intentional" with "immense" as the modifier of "stupidity".
>
>Floyd, you don't have the money in the PF.
So who said I did? I'm looking around, I'm searching the
Internet, I've called Interpol... nobody can find a trace of
_anyone_ suggesting that I have the money in the PF. And you
know what, nobody found any evidence that the people of
Anchorage own it either!
>It just sits there piling up
Well, so? It is a _permanent_ fund.
And so far we have managed to legislature-proof it too. The
whole idea is to let it keep growing until it is so big that the
interest only, after inflation proofing, can be used to support
the States needs. Until then, I see no reason at all to siphon
of any part of it that we don't have to. The current dividend
is the one and only useful use that we can make of it! So far
that has worked very well to cause the citizens to tell the
legislators to keep their dirty little hands off of it. What
a _great_ use it is!
>and the legislature is going to use it, whatever you say; so my
>idea is to at least give them the right heading with economic
>expansion and building the infrastructure.
I doubt that an even significant proportion of the population
would agree that the projects you have chosen are worth spending
a nickel on, with the single exception of a transit system to
Wasilla. The others are nothing but frills to further encourage
a plastic non-Alaskan society to grow even further out of bounds
than it already has. We don't need that. We need to support
Alaska's unique characteristics and lifestyles, not do our
best to destroy them.
>It sounds like you have decided to believe what Hammond doled
>out to be popular, like discontinuing and refunding state
>income tax, discontinuing homesteading and starting land
>disposals by lottery, giving money away to people with the PFD.
>Children are kept satisfied this way, but the weaning time is
>made worse.
It also seems to be working exceedingly well too. Jay Hammond
is most certainly going to be recorded as one of, if not the
most, significant of Alaska's first dozen or so governors. We
haven't seen the likes of him for an unfortunately long time.
(I'd put Bill Egan in the same category, btw.)
>>
>> "another airport"
["Alaskans use airplanes like others use cars," Sen. Stevens]
I haven't heard Stevens asking for more Anchorage airports
though. I have heard him working on ways to make flying in
Alaska safer... and as he point blank says, he has some
experience with fatal air crashes.
>> "extension of the monorail to ?"
[Bethel? Other new towns on the Peninsula?]
That was funny in your first incarnation, but suggesting Bethel
is an indication that you have no idea what you are talking
about. First it isn't feasible technically, nor
environmentally, nor financially. Second the people in the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta flat do not want any such transportation
system connecting them the your side of the Alaska Range.
Most of them thank their lucky stars for that wonderfully
huge mountain that keeps you away from them.
Your only understanding of it seems to be that Anchorage
residents might find it fun or fascinating (but not even
necessarily useful).
>> "rapid-transit connection ... to Wasilla and Eagle River"
[This idea is already being floated because of the traffic of commuters]
That one makes some sense, but I have seen a couple of
commentaries on it pointing out that it probably would not
accomplish any significant reduction in vehicle traffic on that
road. Alaskans want to do their own thing, and they want to do
on their own. Getting off the commuter train in the middle of
Anchorage just isn't going to be popular and the vast majority
of people are _still_ going to drive back and forth. That's what
they say, and for that reason they say it just isn't worth the
expenditure, because it would not be an investment but rather a
deep hole to bury money in.
>> "bridge ... to Hope ... roads to Soldotna"
[You can't just have a bridge without connecting roads, you know]
Why build either of them? What benefit is there to Alaska other
than providing more Anchorage state supported welfare work and
more weekend recreation for the welfare recipients? It would
also provide another huge annual cost for the State of Alaska
to pay each and every year. Everyone else wants to cut the
budget while you want to mortage the future of all Alaskans
to have a weekend picnic!
>> "railroad to Homer"
[If Seward gets a railroad, why not Homer?]
Why not one to Delta and to Canada, where it might actually
do some good for Alaska?
>> "dykeing ... mudflats into ... lake or land reclamation"
[They did it in Holland, didn't they?]
So what. What benefit is there in Alaska? In Holland there
was no land, here we do have a few acres last time I heard.
>>Ah, the troll continues from the large absurdity down to
>>little one liner jokes suitable for a late night TV comedy
>
>My comments about what I think Anchorage needs are not meant to
>be that absurd, Floyd, though you can heckle all you want. I
>reserve the right to treat as a joke any rediculing comments
>that obviously need enlightenment.
Your comments on what Anchorage can do for itself can be any
thing you like, but the instant you started talking about
spending the Permanent Fund for _anything_ it became dear to the
hearts pocket books and lifestyles of everyone in the state. We
don't think much of Anchorage legislators trying to spend every
god damned dollar this state has on Anchorage. We don't think
much of anyone suggesting that we spend our money on your play
pen either. You people in Anchorage don't want to let the state
educate our children, don't want to provide us the same level of
health care or environment that you have, and then you all
insist that Anchorage legislators should control how village
governments work (or can't work) rather than let people with
different concepts of society than you have continue to use the
methods that have been working exceedingly well for thousands of
years.
Your comments on what Anchorage needs may not be meant to be
absurd, but they are.
>>If you think Alaskans should, or are going to, ever agree to
>>spend our PF on making Anchorage into Disney Land, your
>>reality is a little different than the rest of us.
>
>It sound like you really want to get into the rural subsistence
>preference versus equal rights for cities, or the whole Native
>Alaskan versus non-native ideas of civilization, with
I don't recall mentioning subsistence, or Native anything either,
or even coming close. What I mentioned was Anchorage vs. the
rest of the State. You may not be familiar with Delta Junction,
Tok, Nome, Juneau and other places that really don't have much
to do with subsistence or with Native people, but that is where
a very significant (probably half) of the population is that
you are willing to put the screws to in order to buy more
toys or Los Anchorage.
>"Anchorage needs . . . " the present focus. But at least my
>idea of an international zoo and bridges puts the money
>constructively back into Alaska and enhances a natural
>lifestyle.
It puts it all in one place in Alaska. And where do you get
this "enhances a natural lifestyle"???? A natural life style
for Los Angeles???? Thats fine, but this is Alaska (you did
know that, eh?).
> This, of course, is much better than letting the
>two political parties broker deals for outsiders, depending on
>Alaska Natives to go along.
Such as? You are making a rather broad generalization there,
which has no basis unless you are more specific about what
you define as "broker deals for outsiders". And I haven't seen
Alaska Natives just go along with much of anything the State
of Alaska has done since about 1971 or so.
Floyd Davidson
Dave Thompson <bdtho...@home.com> wrote:
>bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It should be a rural vs. cities argument. If we are going to
>dissipate the Permanent Fund, priority SHOULD go to the Bush
>until they are awash in luxuries such as clean water, sanitary
>sewer disposal, good education and basic health care. Once
>we've done that, we can then look at building pyramids in
>Anchorage.
>
>Dave
>Anchorage Resident by job, not by choice.
One of the very important things that is easy to lose sight of
when people like myself start jumping on "Anchorage" is that
there are *many* people who live there that flat do understand!
Dave is clearly one of those. And fortunately there are enough
of them that whenever a rural/urban issue is actually put to a
direct vote, they vote a rural preference every time. They are
wonderful people with understanding of Alaska, and of Alaskans.
The shame is that when they vote on indirect issues, such as
State Senators and State Representatives there is commonly (but
not always) a different result. I don't for a minute think that
most Anchorage residents intend that result either, but it
happens and most of them are very very embarassed by it.
I know that I can speak for all of rural Alaska in saying thank
you to Dave Thompson and all other Anchorage residents like him
who support the concept that the rest of Alaska is part of the
State too.
Quyanakva Dave!
Floyd Davidson
enough thought.
Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>>i guess bookburn's been taking lessons in "thinking big" from
>>wally hickel's "little man". what's next, a water pipeline to
>>california?
>
>---I rarely agree with bookburn's posts, but this time the
>gentleman has made some sense. Ideas represent good urban
>planning, which would result is ecological benefits. Moreover,
>the projects would not only help Alaska's economy,
Using the PF to finance them, and the State's future budget to
maintain them, would not be any help to Alaska's economy. They
are all just what he said to start with, aid to the ANCHORAGE
economy. But they are far far too much for the Alaska economy.
> but also structure growth in the right direction., not to mention
What???? More state expense that benefits ANCHORAGE only.
There is no way this state is going to do any of those projects.
>structure the growing tourism industry
How would it do _any_ structuring of the tourist industry?
> in a way that would provide less harm
>to our environnment.
No way. A mono rail to Bethel? (Or anywhere else outside the
immediate vicinity of Anchorage for that matter.) That would be
nothing short of an environmental disaster. The bridges he
mentioned simply can't be done due to the environment, never
mind the harm trying would cause.
And roads that we don't need, which do nothing more than
transport more people into a place they don't have any other
reason to go, is also nothing short of an environmental
disaster.
>---Actually, one particular statement stuck in my mind --- NEW
>CAPITOL. That is one, so-called pork project, that would
>benefit the majority of Alaskans. Tradition is nice, but
>access to governement is much nicer.
We all _have_ equally _good_ access to government today. That
is a _very_ different situation than what we had back when the
capitol move vote passed with a majority yes vote. The only
significant result that we would see today from moving the
capital close to Anchorage would be a very unhealthy added tilt
towards Anchorage, which would then be the only area of the
state with permanent 24 hour a day physical access. That might
benefit Anchorage, but the other half of the state's population
would be at an even greater disadvantage than is now the case.
Basically you can _forget_ a capitol move, because nobody
outside of Anchorage is ever likely to again find any benefit
from such a move.
>We all hate to see urban blight spread; however, growth will
>take place whether or not we like the idea.
Yes, so lets channel it into _productive_ areas that do not
damage the uniqueness of Alaska that most of us have always
found appealing. We don't need to pave Alaska from coast to
coast, we don't need to starve everyone who doesn't live in
Anchorage or give them a Mississippi quality education either.
We don't need to farther the existing separation between what
urban Anchoragites see Alaska as being and what those of us who
live in Alaska (mentally as well as physically) find it to be.
bookburn
Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net> wrote
in message news:b2P9Nwskn5Gk38...@4ax.com...
> >> >Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
> >> >> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
big" from
> wally hickel's "little man". what's next, a water
pipeline to
> california?
>
under attack
> from both animal rights groups and scientists.
attendance is
> dropping off at zoos worldwide now that everyone can
see wildlife
> in the wild on their tv set every week, and folks
prefer that
> wildlife be left in their habitat rather than rounded
up and put
> in zoos.
Because zoos are recognized as a major contributor to a
city's quality of life and educational program, all
cities have them. I haven't hear of any "going out of
business," and the Anchorage zoo has invested millions
in renovations lately. One of the priority places
tourists visit in Anchorage is the zoo because a main
attraction to tourists is Alaska's animal life.
People's interest in animals is not limited to or
satisfied by television, either. With species in nature
becoming extinct, zoos play a major role in their
preservation.
>
> second, the permanent fund trustees are required to
make the most
> prudent investments, which means that they often do
not invest in
> alaska because either the risk is too high or the rate
of return
> is too low. they invest the fund to make money, not
to provide
> pork barrel projects for politicians. the earnings
record for
> the fund indicates that they have done the right
thing.
>
> the types of projects suggested are either silly or
horrifically
> expensive from an engineering standpoint. if it was
easy to
> bridge either turnagain or knik arms, it would have
been done by
> now. there is nothing to build on out there but silt
and clays
> that turn to jelly every time there's an earthquake,
and pilings
> sufficient to support a roadway would have to be sunk
hundreds of
> feet. the tide rips and the ice would destroy a
floating bridge.
>
> and quite frankly, i'm glad that access to the far
shores of the
> inlet are limited. it prevents the entire shoreline
on the north
> end of cook inlet from looking like muldoon or
spenard.
>
> you folks in los anchorage should just continue
shitting in the
> anchorage bowl and leave the rest of south central
free of your
> crap. it's bad enough that the cancer has already
spread into
> the southern matsu and northern kenai. there's enough
> californication there already.
The spread of material culture happens, like cancer, but
who is against systems providing clean water,
sanitation, medical services, schools, law enforcement,
post offices, stores, telephones, TV, etc.? People get
addicted to these comeforts and conveniences pretty
quick, as Anchorage demonstrates. I think people in
rural Alaska want the same thing, except they "want
their cake and to eat it, too" by living naturally but
taking advantage of what material culture offers. Here
in Anchorage we enjoy more advantages and expect to
commute to access the real Alaska. Would you deny us
that?
bookburn
Dave Thompson
(SNIP)
> Because zoos are recognized as a major contributor to a
> city's quality of life and educational program, all
> cities have them. I haven't hear of any "going out of
> business," and the Anchorage zoo has invested millions
> in renovations lately. One of the priority places
> tourists visit in Anchorage is the zoo because a main
> attraction to tourists is Alaska's animal life.
> People's interest in animals is not limited to or
> satisfied by television, either. With species in nature
> becoming extinct, zoos play a major role in their
> preservation.
>
(SNIP)
>
> The spread of material culture happens, like cancer, but
> who is against systems providing clean water,
> sanitation, medical services, schools, law enforcement,
> post offices, stores, telephones, TV, etc.? People get
> addicted to these comeforts and conveniences pretty
> quick, as Anchorage demonstrates. I think people in
> rural Alaska want the same thing, except they "want
> their cake and to eat it, too" by living naturally but
> taking advantage of what material culture offers. Here
> in Anchorage we enjoy more advantages and expect to
> commute to access the real Alaska. Would you deny us
> that?
>
> bookburn
> >
If Anchorage wants a new zoo, let Anchorage pay for it. I own property here
and would probably vote to raise my property taxes to pay. But. why should
the folks in Kaktovic pay for your zoo?
So? If the folks in St. Mary's want drinking water without e coli, a
Village Health Aid (forget a doctor or nurse), and want to maintain
traditional food sources and way of life that is having cake and eating it
too?
No one is trying to deny you access to the real Alaska. Just don't pave
paradise and put up a parking lot (to coin a phrase).
Dave
Mary T
If someone built a Disney Land type park in Bethel, would the people come?
Why?
If someone built a Disney Land type park in Anchorage, would the people
come? Why?
Explain the historic course of development --- why do cities develop where
they do --- how does economic and social development take place for areas
surrounding urban centers?
Then maybe you can explain to us why Alaska should be the one exception
among all the countries and continents of the world?
When you have done this, explain who or what forces you to live in an area
which lacks the infrastructure you find so important to your well-being?
Neither society or government owes us a living. There is no free lunch.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd, five questions for you.
>
>If someone built a Disney Land type park in Bethel, would the
>people come? Why?
Not many. They would have not reason to go there.
>If someone built a Disney Land type park in Anchorage, would
>the people come? Why?
Not many. They would have not reason to go there.
>Explain the historic course of development --- why do cities
>develop where they do --- how does economic and social
>development take place for areas surrounding urban centers?
Look it up yourself. There are _many_ reasons, and if you cite
less than half a dozen totally different ones, you need to do
more research.
>Then maybe you can explain to us why Alaska should be the one
>exception among all the countries and continents of the world?
One Exception? *which* one exception? We are an exception in
many many ways, and it isn't clear which one you need explained.
Whatever you do, make it short and snappy because I'm not going
to be available to read Usenet after tomorrow evening... I'm
taking a vacation and will be in Kipnuk and Bethel next week,
and in Anchorage for the AFN convention the week after.
>When you have done this, explain who or what forces you to live
>in an area which lacks the infrastructure you find so important
>to your well-being?
Who forces _you_ to live in an area that lacks infrastructure
you find so important to your well being? We are, after all,
discussing projects for _Anchorage_, the place where you live,
not Barrow. Why does Anchorage have so many expensive needs
that they can't afford and feel that the rest of the state is
obligated to pilfer the Permanent Fund to finance?
I don't think _any_ of your needs are that great! (And note
where I have not suggested the PF be used to build
infrastructure of any kind any where else either.)
You might also note that Anchorage isn't where the PF money came
from. You might note that virtually _all_ of the money required
over the past 25 years to make Anchorage what it is came from
resources located in my back yard, not yours.
>Neither society or government owes us a living. There is no
>free lunch.
Then why are you supporting the idea that society and government
should take money from the rest of Alaska and spend it on making
Anchorage into a Disney Land park? That sure amounts to looking
for a free lunch. Why is that OK for Anchorage, where you live,
yet in your defense of that you are clearly denouncing anything
similar for the area where I live (even though that is not what
was suggested and was not the subject of discussion). What an
interesting point of view that is! Anchorage wants a free lunck,
so Barrow citizens are scumbags who feel government owes them a
living???? Come on, you normally use much better logic than
that.
And I'm sure that you have no fantasies, like bookburn, that
these projects are realistic or would ever get the thumbs up
from the rest of the people in this state.
If you want to live in a place where highways have been built in
every direction that could be expected to encourage
"development", go live near Seattle. The scenery is (was)
beautiful, the weather is much like Anchorage, those roads are
already finished, and the development already exists! No need
whatever to pollute Alaska with that kind of urban sprawl and
the resulting social disease when it is so near by and
accessible for you already.
bookburn
Dave Thompson <bdtho...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4UpL3.14211$Gg6.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
The funding formula for the international zoo I describe
would include federal, state, and municipality, and the
state portion would be justified for Kaktovicians on the
same budgetary basis legislature uses for all
expenditures, hopefully cost-effective. The small but
world class zoo I picture, with live TV, would be
attractive to international travelers who presently stay
at the airport to change flights, attractive to
Kaktovicians who could watch tigers and giant pandas.
The polar bears are my favorite. Attracting
international investiment in Alaska is not a bad idea
either.
>
> So? If the folks in St. Mary's want drinking water
without e coli, a
> Village Health Aid (forget a doctor or nurse), and
want to maintain
> traditional food sources and way of life that is
having cake and eating it
> too?
In the sense of expecting that material advantages not
generated by that life-style are due them. What is more
hypocritical is the "dog in a manger" attitude of some
who, like the dog who won't let the cow eat the hay,
want to prevent people in cities from using the
Permanent Fund because they don't want that use in the
bush, or in Alaska, as they would say.
>
> No one is trying to deny you access to the real
Alaska. Just don't pave
> paradise and put up a parking lot (to coin a phrase).
In William Faulkner's _The Sound and the Fury_,
paradise/eden shrinks and becomes a golf course. Anyone
looking at what has already happened in Alaska must
realize that outside politics and economics work their
will here. A million barrels of toxic waste left by the
military at King Salmon. Right now, we are lucky if we
can even work with what is going to happen anyway. So I
say let's invest the PF in Alaska and control future
development by establishing the guidelines and
safeguards.
bookburn
>
> Dave
>
>
>
Kev
to invest in project around the cities is because then there will be a
return on the investment. It will be paid back because there is a
population base.
But unfortunately most investments into the bush will end up as a form of
welfare. Sorry but it's economics, a community has to be a certain size in
order to support the infrastructure that comes with all the utilities. And
that community must have a regular or steady income. As long as the bush
insists on maintaining a subsistence lifestyle, it will be a dream.
And that's the same reason that Anchorage will never have the Zoo that
bookburn wants, or the professional sports teams that others in the past
have wanted. Everything requires an economic base to support it.
But I always though the Exxon trust fund would have been better spent on
building sewage treatment plants for the Prince William Sound communities
rather than spend the money to buy up forest land. It makes more sense to
stop the human pollution than to lock up the land. But the problem with
that idea is who pays for the upkeep and upgrades of the equipment down the
road?
It still comes down to economies of scale.
Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:7tn9tf$o...@enews3.newsguy.com...
bookbu...@my-deja.com
"Dave Thompson" <bdtho...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Please refer back to Project 80's for pyramid building. Even in
Anchorage
> the Sullivan Arena, PAC, Lousac Library and the Egan Center are all
> continuing drains on resources. This is not to say that the
facilities
> should not have been built. If, however, they had been built with
local
> resources the voters would have had their eyes open going in.
I agree with your estimation of these projects. I have lived in
Anchorage for years without ever going in the Sullivan Arena, and the
Egan Center is a rococo white elephant--they now are saying they need a
new bigger one, too. The Loussac Library similarly demonstrates a
retrograde move back to fortress mentality from a rather progressive
branch libraries organization with community service interests.
My thought is to use the PF for investment in economic diversification
and building infra-structures around the state. I'm glad to see
Wasilla got a new airplane manufacturer to invest there, evidently
because they have been taking care of planning, and the mayor was
accordingly re-elected.
> It should be a rural vs. cities argument. If we are going to
dissipate the
> Permanent Fund, priority SHOULD go to the Bush until they are awash in
> luxuries such as clean water, sanitary sewer disposal, good education
and
> basic health care. Once we've done that, we can then look at building
> pyramids in Anchorage.
>
> Dave
> Anchorage Resident by job, not by choice.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mary T
non-user?
The population of Anchorage is over 1/2 million individuals and growing.
That population comprises the majority of Alaska's population. Anchorage is
Alaska's primary point of entry, cultural center and commerce center.
What is the appropriate infrastructure for an urban center with a population
approaching 3/4 million people? What is Anchorage's transient population
(not homeless people, but number of visitors)?
Have you attended or attempted to book an event at the Egan Center lately?
Seems doubtful to me. First, you complain that they built it in the first
place -- what would you have had to say if they had built it even larger
than they did? Now, it is too small and can no longer meet the needs of the
city's population and you are complaining.
So you do not use the Sullivan Arena. Does this mean no one else does?
Have you even looked at the use statistic for the facility before reaching
your conclusions?
Anchorage does not need a permanent, main library facility? Where would the
Alaska collection be safely housed? Residents should have to run all over
the city to different branches to obtain the reference materials they need
to use? Just where do you think the bulk of the Alaska Library System's
holdings are stored -- in a warehouse somewhere in the bush? Are you really
foolish enough to believe that the Lousac only serves Anchorage? Do you
even have any idea what the Lousac's circulation count is? Try 2 million
items last year. If you limit the head count to those individuals who
visited the Lousac and checked out books, the total is over 250,000.
On top of the library use, the building also serves as a meeting center and
houses local government facilities --- yep, that basic infrastructure which
serves the entire state has to be a resource drain.
Show me one urban center, which is the port of entry and commerce center for
a state, that does not offer a convention center, arena, performing arts
center and a main library.
Yep, Anchorage is a drain on the entire state. The city receives an unfair
share of the state's resources. Never mind that it provides vital services
and resources to the entire state. Never mind it houses the companies that
provide vital services to the entire state. Never mind that it houses
government agencies that serve the entire state. Never mind that it is the
point of entry for the lions share of goods. Never mind it is the point of
entry for most visitors. Maybe, the Municipality should get smart and
become self-supporting by charging for those services and resources. A
place to start would be imposing a use tax on all goods and services not
consumed or provided to individuals not residing within the city limits.
Logic and common sense or a very narrow view point. I call it human
nature --
Mary T
bookbu...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7tpafo$hp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Dave Thompson
was going on. I and a very vocal minority said the Egan Center, the PAC and
the Sullivan were inappropriately sited. None of the sites allow for growth
or expansion.
I also clearly said that we should have paid for them in the beginning. The
Projects 80's funding method gave a "gift from heaven" aura to them. As a
result, the voters did not care.
I don't care if the Egan Center is overbooked. It has not carried its own
weight since day one. Same goes for the PAC. That monstrosity is the most
inappropriate venue for the sub-arctic ever designed. Between the snow
fences on the roof, the horrible custom carpet and the exterior that looks
like rejects from Color Tile, it has been a joke since the day it was built.
The current governor so changed the plans and ran the cost up, he was
reduced to begging to even get seats installed in the three theaters.
We should have had the vision to build a single center when we did the dirty
deed. We should not ask the rest of the state to pay for our LOCAL
mistakes.
The Lousac is still a joke with its exterior staircase that is basically
unusable for six months of the year. Another example of an architect that
had no clue on sub-arctic design. Just because we were suckered into
including council chambers does not justify it. And yes, I resent the fact
that the beast cost so much to operate that my local library was closed.
I am not the one who said the Sullivan was unnecessary. Quit the contrary.
It was and is needed. It should have never been built in the swamp with no
parking and should have been twice the size. Just let it support itself.
Anchorage already charges the rest of the state for goods and services
originating inside the Municipality. Real Estate taxes, license fees and
use fees are paid by the ultimate consumer where ever in the state they
reside.
I have lived in Anchorage since 1976 with time out for two years in
Ketchikan and two years in Delta Junction. Trust me when I say, Alaska
would survive without Anchorage. Anchorage would never survive without
Alaska.
Get out of town occasionally, really out of town. You will find that most
of Alaska wouldn't miss Anchorage if it disappeared tomorrow.
Dave
Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message news:3802a...@news.gci.net...
Scott Ruby
> Mary T wrote
> The population of Anchorage is over 1/2 million individuals
Where did THIS figure come from??? The official July 1, 1998 population was
258,000 for the Municipality of Anchorage.
> That population comprises the majority of Alaska's population.
No, is comprises 41.5% of the population (258,000 or of 641,000)
> Alaska's primary point of entry, cultural center and commerce center.
This may be true for freight only. Definatley not true for people! Try
Tok, Ketchikan, Juneau, Seward... Those are ports of entry. Anchorage only
gets airline customer's, and many of them have stopped in Juneau... before
getting to Anchorage, or they have come in from oversea's and never get out
of the airport before continuing on to the lower 48
>
> What is the appropriate infrastructure for an urban center with a
population
> approaching 3/4 million people?
Well 640,000 is a fair bit from 750,000, and I think it will be awhile,
given the oil, fishing, timber industry before we actually hit 750,000.
> Have you attended or attempted to book an event at the Egan Center lately?
> Seems doubtful to me. First, you complain that they built it in the first
> place -- what would you have had to say if they had built it even larger
> than they did? Now, it is too small and can no longer meet the needs of
the
> city's population and you are complaining.
> So you do not use the Sullivan Arena. Does this mean no one else does?
> Have you even looked at the use statistic for the facility before reaching
> your conclusions?
This is a good arguement. Both Egan and Sullivan are booked to capacity.
When they were first built they were subsidized, but now I believe they are
the only two municipal building that bring in more than they cost to
operate.
> Anchorage does not need a permanent, main library facility? Where would
the
> Alaska collection be safely housed? Residents should have to run all over
> the city to different branches to obtain the reference materials they need
> to use? Just where do you think the bulk of the Alaska Library System's
> holdings are stored -- in a warehouse somewhere in the bush? Are you
really
> foolish enough to believe that the Lousac only serves Anchorage? Do you
> even have any idea what the Lousac's circulation count is? Try 2 million
> items last year. If you limit the head count to those individuals who
> visited the Lousac and checked out books, the total is over 250,000.
Most people do not realize the role the Lousac plays in the library system.
They don't realize that many of the bush libraries rely on it and the
university libraries to loan them volumes. It is not a stand alone library.
> On top of the library use, the building also serves as a meeting center
and
> houses local government facilities --- yep, that basic infrastructure
which
> serves the entire state has to be a resource drain.
>
> Show me one urban center, which is the port of entry and commerce center
for
> a state, that does not offer a convention center, arena, performing arts
> center and a main library.
True, but we could have definatly used a better designed set of buildings.
The Egan center is acceptable, but the PAC was so overdesigned, poorly
designed, cost ineffective, piece of junk. It really is too bad they wasted
(and continue to have to waste on maintenance) money on it.
> Yep, Anchorage is a drain on the entire state. The city receives an
unfair
> share of the state's resources. Never mind that it provides vital
services
> and resources to the entire state. Never mind it houses the companies
that
> provide vital services to the entire state. Never mind that it houses
> government agencies that serve the entire state. Never mind that it is
the
> point of entry for the lions share of goods. Never mind it is the point
of
> entry for most visitors. Maybe, the Municipality should get smart and
> become self-supporting by charging for those services and resources. A
> place to start would be imposing a use tax on all goods and services not
> consumed or provided to individuals not residing within the city limits.
>
Now the other part of this arguement is that without the several hundered
million in goods and services that the bush buys out of Anchorage each year,
Anchorage would not be where it is. It is not a one way street, both need
each other. Once people start to figure it out, everyone will be better
off. One of the best programs to start this was a couple of years ago by
the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce (and possible helped by the State
Chamber??). They took Anchorage business leaders on a tour of bush
communities, let them see what it was like. Talked with community business
folks. I was in the villages when some of these folks came through. Was an
eye opener for BOTH parties.
Scott
Eric Holeman
>The population of Anchorage is over 1/2 million individuals and growing.
A little more than a quarter million in the borough. Another 100,000 or
so in the Mat-Su and Kenai Boroughs, if you consider those Anchorage.
>Have you attended or attempted to book an event at the Egan Center lately?
>Seems doubtful to me.
Never been. I was, however, a frequent user of the old Loussac Library,
which was quite the bustling community center in its day. Various youth
and community groups used it seven days a week.
I don't usually book (or attend) very large events, but I do recall that
before the Egan or the Sullivan--each named, interestingly, for
politicians--if you had a big function you could usually squeeze it into
one of the big hotels, or whatever that big banquet hall was near Arctic
and Airport Road. The population was smaller than, but not by a huge
factor, and a town of a quarter million only needs so much get-together
space at one time. And, amazingly enough, those needs were generally well
served by private developments like the hotels and the Sports Arena.
If there'd been a buck to be made by putting up a larger facility, you can
bet someone in that dollar-hungry town would have built it. That nobody
did speaks volumes about how much money can be made by such facilities.
> First, you complain that they built it in the first
>place -- what would you have had to say if they had built it even larger
>than they did?
I'd have bitched louder than I did. Big convention centers are really
rotten things to be dropping in downtown areas. The old library was
used seven days a week by locals, young and old alike. Convention centers
tend to get used by out-of-towners, who'd probably rather be in Las Vegas
anyways.
>Show me one urban center, which is the port of entry and commerce center for
>a state, that does not offer a convention center, arena, performing arts
>center and a main library.
Anchorage provided three of those twenty years ago. The public
facilities, like the Sydney Laurence Auditorium, West High auditorium, the
Boeke arena, and the old Loussac were all built with local funds, and were
scaled to fit local needs. Convention facilities for out-of-towners were
privately provided. When a compelling need came along for a new facility,
as when the Loussac got cramped, we'd weigh the pros and cons and vote it
up or down, and we'd either build it or not, but we didn't go shaking down
the whole damn state.
>Yep, Anchorage is a drain on the entire state. The city receives an unfair
>share of the state's resources. Never mind that it provides vital services
>and resources to the entire state blah blah blah
>point of entry for the lions share of goods. Never mind it is the point of
>entry for most visitors.
Many Alaskans would be most happy if visitors followed the fine example of
the folks who used to get off the plane, drop a few bucks at the Duty Free
and jump right back on. Of course, the airport is state-owned, for what
that's worth.
> Maybe, the Municipality should get smart and
>become self-supporting by charging for those services and resources.
I believe it's already factored into the price of every $5 quart of milk
in rural AK. Anchorage doesn't provide those services out of the goodness
of its heart, y'know.
>A place to start would be imposing a use tax on all goods and services
>not consumed or provided to individuals not residing within the city
>limits.
It's always fun watching conservative free-market types turn all
tax'n'spend when it comes to things like convention centers and sports
facilities. Schools they wanna privatize; business they wanna subsidize.
Go figure.
--
-----
Eric Holeman Chicago, Illinois USA
"This was the best place ever to play baseball."
Darrell Evans, at Tiger Stadium
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>Yep, Anchorage is a drain on the entire state. The city receives an unfair
>share of the state's resources. Never mind that it provides vital services
>and resources to the entire state.
Horse puckey. If Los Anchorage fell into the inlet tomorrow,
most of the rest of Alaska would never miss it.
And remember (as Floyd keeps pointing out): The resources that
provide the revenues that are diverted to support Los Anchorage
and its infrastructure don't come from Anchorage. THE RESOURCES
THAT PROVIDE THE REVENUES TO SUPPORT URBAN ALASKA COME FROM RURAL
AREAS, which are robbed of those revenues to support urban
services and lifestyles.
Anchorage doesn't grow one fish or one log, nor does it provide
any minerals or hyrdocarbons. All of those revenue-generating
natural resources come from rural Alaska.
Just because it has the largest population in the state (and I'm
willing to bet now that it's *not* the majority of the
population, either) doesn't make it right (morally or
economically) for the majority of the state's financial resources
to be diverted to its largest city.
==============================================================
Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable
Dennis P. Harris NO_SPAM_FO...@alaska.net
Virtual Juneau http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris
spambots can reply to senator...@stevens.senate.gov
Mary T
At 1,698 square miles, Anchorage is comprised of .30% of Alaska's land
mass -- yes, that is right, less than 1% of the land mass.
If the bed room communities surrounding the city are ignored, at 260,000
(1997 figures) Anchorage holds 42% of the state's population.
Half of Alaska's population resides in Anchorage and its surrounding bedroom
communities --- and you wonder why the area receives a large portion of
state funding?
That spending you are complaining about --- why don't you break it down on a
per-capita basis. I think you would find the answers do not support your
premise that Anchorage is a drain on state resources.
Anchorage is the center of commerce for the state. Oil and gas industries,
finance and real estate, utilities, transportation, insurance,
communications, and government agencies are headquartered in Anchorage.
The majority of Alaska's jobs are found in Anchorage. Hence, the area is
also a major contributor to the Gross State Product.
The Port of Anchorage handles (I.e., is the port of entry for) 85% of
Alaska's water, rail, and land freight. It is the only primary urban center
which is accessible, by land, to the Contiguous United States.
Now, one interesting fact most of you probably do not know: Anchorage
International Airport handles more freight tonnage per year than any other
airport in the United States. Yes, that is correct -- Anchorage handles
more freight than even Miami International. Of all the airports in Alaska,
only those in Anchorage are accessible for the most part, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year.
For all of you who decry the infrastructure in Anchorage, especially those
who have narrow tunnel vision and speak to local population needs ---
Anchorage's facilities do not just serve out-of-state tourists, in-state
visitors and local populations. Anchorage is an international market place
and meeting place.
For example, two years ago Alaska provided Japan with CPA testing services.
The Egan Center was the test site. Just how many accounting professionals
do you think availed themselves of those services at each session?
Also, for those of you who defined "primary port of entry" as the initial
port of entry you need to check the definition of the word primary. In
addition to first or initial, the word is also defined as first in rank,
quality and/or importance.
The entry ports of Tok, Seward, Juneau, Ketchikan ... etc., etc. do not rank
first in importance to the state. Moreover, those entry ports do not have
the facilities or permanent infrastructure to handle the traffic --- cargo
or people. In addition, Anchorage and Fairbanks are the only two cities in
Alaska which have the facilities to support winter tourism.
Mary T
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>>Yep, Anchorage is a drain on the entire state. The city receives an
unfair
>>share of the state's resources. Never mind that it provides vital
services
>>and resources to the entire state.
>
>Horse puckey. If Los Anchorage fell into the inlet tomorrow,
>most of the rest of Alaska would never miss it.
---Are you so sure of that? Where does your food, fuel, building
material, clothing, etc., etc. enter the state? Where are the facilities
that provide your communications? When you need emergency surgery, do you
want to wait until you can reach Seattle? When you need a technical
expert, such as a engineer, do you want to pay their transportation costs
from the Lower 48? How about your mail --- do you think the facilities in
say Tok could handle the volume?
Anchorage became a urban, commerce, economic .... center as a result of the
normal course of development. The main factors were ease of access by
water, land and air.
>
>And remember (as Floyd keeps pointing out): The resources that
>provide the revenues that are diverted to support Los Anchorage
>and its infrastructure don't come from Anchorage. THE RESOURCES
>THAT PROVIDE THE REVENUES TO SUPPORT URBAN ALASKA COME FROM RURAL
>AREAS, which are robbed of those revenues to support urban
>services and lifestyles.
>
>Anchorage doesn't grow one fish or one log, nor does it provide
>any minerals or hyrdocarbons. All of those revenue-generating
>natural resources come from rural Alaska.
No, Anchorage only provides the backbone on which those industries do
business. The access and infrastructure which permits those businesses to
operate. I guess you would prefer that all the services provided in
Anchorage were moved to the Lower 48.
>
>Just because it has the largest population in the state (and I'm
>willing to bet now that it's *not* the majority of the
>population, either) doesn't make it right (morally or
>economically) for the majority of the state's financial resources
>to be diverted to its largest city.
I see, you believe that some residents in Alaska are more worthy than
others? What form of discrimination criteria do you feel would be
equitable: race, sex, ethnic background, religion, age ... geographic
location, employment, income?
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>>most of the rest of Alaska would never miss it.
>
>---Are you so sure of that? Where does your food, fuel, building
>material, clothing, etc., etc. enter the state?
Dixon Entrance. See a map.
>Where are the facilities
>that provide your communications? When you need emergency surgery, do you
>want to wait until you can reach Seattle? When you need a technical
>expert, such as a engineer, do you want to pay their transportation costs
>from the Lower 48? How about your mail --- do you think the facilities in
>say Tok could handle the volume?
For those of us in Southeastern Alaska, Los Anchorage has no
relevance as far as freight or commerce is concerned. Your city
is just as far away (or further) than Seattle. We have a large
number of professionals dispersed throughout the region that
provide the services you erroneously believe are concentrated
only in Anchorage. We have direct high-bandwidth marine fiber
cable connection to Seattle.
You really should get away some time, and notice that not
everywhere in the state is as "backward" as you believe, nor do
they believe that Anchorage is part of Alaska.
>
>Anchorage became a urban, commerce, economic .... center as a result of the
>normal course of development. The main factors were ease of access by
>water, land and air.
>
Not hardly. The main factors were 1) the railroad went through
there and 2) we had a war, and Alaska became strategically
important. It was the military presence that made Los Anchorage
what it is, and though it started during WWII, it really didn't
happen until the mid to late 50s.
Seward and Valdez were the primary ports for Southcentral and
Interior shipping until after the 1964 earthquake, when Anchorage
started sucking up port development money from the Corpse of
Engineers.
If you had been around before statehood, you would know a little
about the historical reasons for the Californication of
Southcentral.
>>
>>Anchorage doesn't grow one fish or one log, nor does it provide
>>any minerals or hyrdocarbons. All of those revenue-generating
>>natural resources come from rural Alaska.
>
>No, Anchorage only provides the backbone on which those industries do
>business. The access and infrastructure which permits those businesses to
>operate. I guess you would prefer that all the services provided in
>Anchorage were moved to the Lower 48.
For the natural resource based businesses in Kodiak, Bristol Bay,
Prince William Sound, and SE Alaska, Anchorage is hardly a
factor. If Anchorage didn't exist, Fairbanks would probably be
the commercial center of the state, especially for the oil
business.
>
>>Just because it has the largest population in the state (and I'm
>>willing to bet now that it's *not* the majority of the
>>population, either) doesn't make it right (morally or
>>economically) for the majority of the state's financial resources
>>to be diverted to its largest city.
>
>I see, you believe that some residents in Alaska are more worthy than
>others?
I didn't say that. Once again, you're trying to make it look
like I said something I didn't.
I said that rural areas don't get their fair share, because Los
Anchorage sucks up a disproportionate share of the resources
produced in rural areas. I didn't say *anything* about
residents.
=============================================================
Widening roads to cure traffic congestion is
like buying a bigger belt to cure obesity!
Dennis P. Harris dpha...@alaska.net
Virtual Juneau http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris
Scott Ruby
> Mary T
> Tunnel vision serves only the immediate needs of the individual.
> In addition, Anchorage and Fairbanks are the only two cities in
> Alaska which have the facilities to support winter tourism.
Unfortunately, all that was snipped was as much BS as this last line. Mary,
if you really believe this last line, you need to thing very hard about your
first one.
Mary T
serves for mainland Alaska.
Yes, Anchorage's development received a boost from government intervention
and a war. However, the military does not control the weather.
Yes, Seward and Valdez were important ports prior to the earthquake.
Possibly you would like to enlighten the readers in regard to the
geographic/geological changes that were experienced in those two locations
during the earthquake?
Having flown in and out of Ketchikan, Juneau, Valdez and Seward on a number
of occasions, I have little doubt as to why Anchorage was chosen as the site
not only for the military air strips, but also as the hub for international
air cargo, as well as the port of entry for mainland Alaska. Reliability of
access is one factor. Safety is another factor.
Then there is the issue of room for expansion. I can understand why the
major corporations doing business within mainland Alaska are headquarters in
Anchorage. Geography; geology; weather; suitable available land for
expansion; and air, water, land access just to name a few factors. Maybe
you can list those I left out.
Maybe you should step back a few paces and take a more unbiased look at the
reality of the situation.
As for the "time away" you suggested, I might suggest the same for you. I
have lived in Southeast. I have flown in and out of Ketchikan, Juneau, POW,
Kodiak, Sitka more times than I can count and more times that I care to do
again. I've also spent more than one night in a sleeping bag, because
weather has closed the airports --- that is where there were airports. I've
also waited 6 to 8 hours in those airports for another plane to come from
Seattle or Anchorage due to mechanical failures.
Moreover, I have traveled extensively within interior Alaska by water,
vehicle, air and rail. Maybe you should try traveling to those areas for
which Anchorage serves as a goods and services hub? Take a sleeping bag
with you, your trip may take longer than you expected. The airport may be
closed due to weather --- for days, not hours. There may not be any nice,
cozy motel or hotel for you to sleep in. There might not even be a
restaurant. Don't get sick while you are on your trip or break a leg ---
there are no doctors or hospitals. Do take an ample supply of any
prescription drugs you will need -- the nearest drug store is 3 hours or
more away by air -- if you can get a plane out. If you plan on doing any
service work or construction while you are out there, take everything you
need with you --- there are no department stores or well-stocked hardware
stores.
Don't develop a major medical problem while in Seward or Valdez, you might
just find yourself be evacuated to Anchorage --- your life may depend upon
it.
Mary
Mary T
Certainly, Scott. More than happy to.
How about I share your opinion and attitude with the gal over at Costco, who
earns minimum wage? You know, the one who gets to walk around the store and
shop for Jane Doe in St. Mary's.
How about I share your opinion with Joe Smith over at XYZ Electric. You
know, the electrician that spent 6 days in your bush village, sleeping on
your neighbors floor, while restoring the electric power for the entire
population. Maybe his wife and children will not feel as bad that he missed
Christmas with the family.
Then there is Lt. John Doe, of the U.S. Coast Guard. Maybe your attitude
will make up for the fact his son was born while he was out rescuing you and
the crew of that fishing boat of yours that was sinking?
Then there is CWO4 Joe Smith, out there at Ft. Richardson. Your attitude
really would express gratitude for his risking his life and the life of his
crew while rescuing that bush family last winter.
Then there is the pilot and crew of the air ambulance. They might find your
attitude very rewarding for putting their lives at risk when you had that
major auto accident on the Seward Highway this summer.
I'm sure the nurse, or audiologist, or dentist, or special education
teacher --- who does a circuit through the bush every few weeks would like
to hear your opinion of Anchorage and the people who live there -- don't you
think?
Then there is Mike Doe, who spends half the night out on the flight-line, in
below zero weather loading cargo for the bush all winter. I expect your
attitude would make him feel very appreciated.
How about the crew of the Alaska Airlines plane that spent four days at your
air port waiting for the ice fog to clear? Maybe they would find your
attitude makes the job more rewarding?
Scott Ruby wrote in message <3804a...@news.gci.net>...
Dale Lobaugh
Scott Ruby
> Mary T wrote
Well Mary Again you are jumping to conclusions. I LIVE IN ANCHORAGE!!!
My job allows me to travel to Rural Alaska frequently. Most of the times, I
end up sleeping on the floor someplace, and taking my own food because there
is not any restraurants, and no "hotels" as most people would think of them.
I VERY frequently express my "opinion" to people living in Anchorage. We
have some lively debates. (funny several of the people I have talked with
about this DO work at Costco). Likewise I spent a week in Mekoryuk bunking
in a VERY chilly building with an Electrician who was out on a project. He
lives in Anchorage, and was out there for 6 months making his living off of
rural projects. We had most interesting conversations because we both saw
both sides of the urban/rural debate.
However, most people I talk to in Anchorage have never been to rural Alaska
and have very inacurate ideas on what it is like. Likewise, I have had very
lively debates with folks in rural Alaska on what it is like in Urban. One
in particular that I can recall is it came as quite a shock to folks in the
villages that I as a resident in Anchorage had to pay of $1,800 in property
taxes just to support theoperation of schools each year. I have no
children. They did not know that people had to pay property tax, that it was
that much, or that it was used to fund schools.
Information exchange is the key. The us vs. them attitude is nothing but a
hinderance.
Scott
Charles Eggen
wrote:
Well put Mary. In states or countries that are somewhat dominated by
a single metropolitan area, there is a tendency to berate that
community by those residing elsewhere. The fact is that the urban and
rural areas need each other. It is also true that some people are more
suited for an urban or a rural setting. I know that I am not suited
for a rural environment as my residence. I very much enjoy
visiting/vacationing in a rural setting, but I enjoy the benefits of
an urban area too much to reside elsewhere. I respect the hardships
that rural residents experience, but I assume they endure those
hardships to gain benefits that I cannot have in my urban setting.
Both environments have pluses and minuses. Can't we just accept that?
Chuck
Mary T
personally, I would have replied to your post by e-mail. Your response
provided an opportunity to humanize the "the us vs. them attitude." I thank
you for repling in a manner which provided a great deal of information to
all readers. As you stated, many individuals have never been to rural
mainland Alaska and have no comprehension, whatsoever, of the conditions
that exit there or the vital relationship that Anchorage has with those
communities.
As you stated attitude is a hinderance ... forming opinions without having
sufficient information is the KEY to the problem -- I agree 100%.
Reluctance to accept information contrary to the beliefs one holds is also a
major hinderance.
It would be nice if Alaska could be kept a pristine wilderness, but
realistically we all know this is not possible. Anchorage and its bedroom
communities do recieve the lion's share of state municipal assistance. We
may dispute the exact percentage of Alaska's population which resides in the
Anchorage area, however, there can be no doubt that the largest portion of
Alaska residents live in this geographic area.
It appears to me that most of the individuals expressing the "the us vs.
them attitude" lack a clear understanding concerning the relationship that
exists between rural mainland Alaska and Anchorage. Anchorage may be an
evil, but it is a vital, necessary evil.
The state already subsidizes the infrastructure that exists in rural
mainland Alaska. Your statement concerning the fact that rural residents
did not realize that Anchorage schools are funded through property taxes
demonsrates the lack of real information that exists. Most individuals,
including those living in Anchorage, do not realize that Anchorage (and
those of all other developed urban areas) utilitiy bills include charges
which subsidize rural utilities. Logic dictates that Anchorage, with the
highest population density, provides the lion's share of the rural utility
subsidy.
The better Anchorage's economy becomes, the larger our gross product
becomes, the lower rural Alaska's expense becomes. Corporations could not
operate profitably if the cost of operations were not spread across the
total volume of business.
Similarly, there are individuals in areas which have sales tax who feel
Anchorage would have to impose a sales tax if the city was not subsidized by
the State. Anchorage residents, mostly the property owners and businesses,
provide this subsidy for the city and everyone who elects to purchase goods
from Anchorage businesses.
To put the Anchorage situation under a microscope, and provide a nuts and
bolts example of the ripple effect, take a look at Wal-Mart. When
Wal-Mart moved to Anchorage, a number of local establishments went out of
business. This caused financial pain to the individuals with direct ties to
those businesses.
If you are have been outside, you are aware that the prices for the majority
of goods in Alaskan Wal-Marts are not higher. Hence, Wal-Mart customers in
the Lower 48 are subzidizing Alaskan buyers, as well as those in Hawaii.
Alaskan consumers, not just Anchorage consumers, now have access to a wider
variety of goods at a lower cost.
It is the very same cost/volume economics which stand in evidence to support
development in Anchorage. It is the outside traffic that Anchorage
attracts which works to subsidize the rest of Alaska --- even Southeast
Alaska. Yes, it sounds prejudical to state that Anchorage's economic
position supports all of Alaska. However, in financial and economic terms
this is a fact.
There can be no doubt that the nautural resourses which provide the bulk of
Alaska's Gross State Product do not originate in Anchorage. However, the
volume/cost economic factors which act to lower the cost of goods and
services for all Alaskans are, in fact, a viable resource. Anchorage is the
only city in Alaska which can provide a cost/volume economic resource at
this time.
Mary T
Mary T
Viewing the whole picture is difficult, but cutting it into segments does
not, cannot, tell the whole story.
Development proceeds rationally and logically, albeit much too slowly for
those who must wait. I too empathize with rural residents, yet, if their
choice did not provide sufficient benefit, they would move to a more
pleasing area.
I would love to live in rural Alaska. Sadly, such a move will have to wait
until I am independently wealthy or a location develops sufficiently to
permit me to support myself through my profession.
Mary T
Charles Eggen wrote in message <3805feba...@news.teleport.com>...
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:12:51 -0800, "Mary T" <bso...@chugach.net>
>wrote:
(huge snip)>
>>How about I share your opinion and attitude with the gal over at Costco,
who
>>earns minimum wage? You know, the one who gets to walk around the store
and
>>shop for Jane Doe in St. Mary's.
>>
>>
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>Development proceeds rationally and logically,
Not so. Development proceeds in fits and starts. Politics and
greed are what direct development almost everywhere, not rational
thinking or logic. I suppose Malthusians might think that greed
is rational self-interest, but they aren't hampered by empathy
for the poor or downtrodden.
Mary T
logically?
Hold it under a microscope, and it appears the way you see it. Back off,
look at the picture alongside other pictures across time and you will see
the pattern.
The development of civilizations and societies follow a known progression.
Alaska is not an exception.
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
Mary T
Dale Lobaugh wrote in message
<428-380...@storefull-237.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
sales tax!!!!!!!!
Eric Holeman
Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net> wrote:
>Not so. Development proceeds in fits and starts. Politics and
>greed are what direct development almost everywhere, not rational
>thinking or logic.
Among the more interesting things about the d word is the underlying
assumption that development, economic or otherwise, desirable, necessary,
positive, and universally good.
Eric Holeman
>Alaska. Yes, it sounds prejudical to state that Anchorage's economic
>position supports all of Alaska.
There you go again. As has been calmly repeated, Southeast's economy is
essentially separate from Anchorage and the rest of the state.
> However, in financial and economic terms this is a fact.
No. Anchorage supplies much of the state, but it does not support it.
>There can be no doubt that the nautural resourses which provide the bulk of
>Alaska's Gross State Product do not originate in Anchorage.
Thank you for remembering what really drives the state's economy.
> However, the
>volume/cost economic factors which act to lower the cost of goods and
>services for all Alaskans are, in fact, a viable resource. Anchorage is the
>only city in Alaska which can provide a cost/volume economic resource at
>this time.
Anchorage is a well-situated supply depot, and its role as such is a good
deal for both rural and city dwellers; however, in any competitive or
contestable market, it's the supplier that's the dependent one. A market
can always find a new supplier, but suppliers find it much harder to
replace markets. You'll recall that the Air Crossroads of the World found
itself very replaceable (and replaced) in the 80s when its fine, year
round, all-weather airport was no longer needed as a refueling station,
and that it took a while for a replacement market to be found--indeed,
Anchorage's current role as an international cargo depot is very much
dependent on the current glut of cargo-capable jets that don't have
nonstop transpacific capability.
As any frequent reader here knows, I'm not unfond of big burgs, Alaskan or
otherwise, but just because Anchorage is a good place to get your milk
shipped in from doesn't mean that the rest of the state owes Anchorage a
convention center. My corner market is a fine place for me to buy my milk
(tho their salmon sucks) but that doesn't mean I owe them any more than
the price on the package for the privilege.
Mary T
use, such as studying the world around you -- past and present?
Christopher Effgen wrote in message <38085...@news.gci.net>...
>
>Mary T wrote
>>The development of civilizations and societies follow a known progression.
>>Alaska is not an exception.
>
>
>Please explain this "known" progression?
>
>Christopher
>
>
Mary T
to waste my time speaking to the drain on the State's resources represented
by welfare.
Development for the sake of development? OK, where do we start putting the
brakes on growth? When do we drop the US Constitution and begin imposing
strict restrictions on freedoms?
Should we adopt strict zero-population growth measures, such as abortion and
euthanasia? Should we force children to leave the state at a given age?
How will we choose who will live, die, enter or leave the state? What laws
will we impose to restrict the number of people immigrating to Alaska? What
laws will we pass to decide which babies will be aborted? What laws will be
passed to decide who dies?
Shall we limit low-wage jobs? How will be do this? Shall we institute law
which increase minimum wage? How will those wage be paid? Who will pay
them?
At the current minimum wage, you can buy bread at $1.00 a loaf. If the
minimum wage is increased by $2.00, and bread costs $2.00 a loaf has anyone
gained? At the current minimum wage, XYZ Company can afford to employ 8
people. If minimum wage is increased by $2.00, XYZ Company can only employ
4 people. Has anyone gained?
Unemployment for the state is at its lowest level in many, many years, as
are the welfare levels. Has anyone gained?
What age and experience level represents the largest portion of Alaska's
population? Where are the most jobs needed? Who will fill those low-paying
jobs you are complaining about?
To put the question much more simply --- where will your teenage child work
this summer and after school? Where will that teenage child gain their
first work experience? How will that young person pay for their college
education or technical training?
Your mother, who is now a widow; where will she work to make the money she
needs to balance her budget? Will she, at age 60, go back to school to
learn how to be a welder or will she work part-time as a cashier at
Wal-Mart?
Kev wrote in message <7u9cn5$1f...@enews5.newsguy.com>...
>But there comes a time when you have to question the costs. Do we really
>need to promote winter tourism? Do we really need to spend money promoting
>tourism at all? Do we want it to grow?
>
>If you read ADN today there is the article on too many people going to
>Denali, and Doogan's excellent article on the proposed convention center.
>Tourism is not a good industry to provide long term, good wage jobs. It
>provides plenty of minimum wage and only a few positions within the decent
>wage.
>
>And tourism wages always remain low. Tourism is the last thing we need for
>a solid economic base. The people who benefit from tourism are the outside
>companies who use their lobbying dollars to get the city/state to spend
more
>on tourism.
>
>Anchorage hasn't out grown the Egan center, the hotel/convention business
>has done the out growing. Or actually more accurately, they see more money
>to be made if we build a larger facility. Of course they don't care if the
>current one can't even pay for itself.
>
>And I really don't care about Anchorage getting all the development. I
just
>think we need to very carefully consider what development we allow and if
we
>really need it. Development for development sake is the last thing we
need.
>
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message
news:3807d...@news.gci.net...
>> The more information one has, the better one can form opinions and make
>> decisions. Anchorage will have completely outgrown the Egan Center
within
>3
>> to 5 years if the market expands at a snail's pace. If the market
>continues
>> to grow at its current rate, the growing pains now being felt, will
become
>> terminal within 2 years.
>>
>> There are more visitor types attracted to Anchorage than that which fills
>> the dreaded tourist stereotype we all envision. Anchorage serves a large
>> number of business class visitors who do, in fact, make heavy use of the
>> existing convention facilities. Not just in-state business, or those
>drawn
>> from the US market; but an international market. From serving as a
>> professional testing site for Asia, rest areas for military and civilian
>> flight crews, to stop-overs for international travelers...Anchorage's
>> visitor traffic is growing.
>>
>> Moreover, contrary to the belief of our friends in Juneau, the Anchorage
>> commerce area is the only location in Alaska which has the infrastructure
>to
>> support the growing winter tourism market. Yes, Girdwood and Hatcher
Pass
>> are part of the Anchorage commerce area. Anchorage is the only area in
>> Alaska that offers world-class Nordic and Olympic skiing. There are six
>ski
>> area of note within this area, three of which have lodges. In addition
>the
>> helicopter skiing in Valdez is based at Alyeska Resort.
>>
>> The Fairbanks commercial area is the only other location which offers
more
>> than one ski area. Like Eaglecrest in Juneau, neither Moose Mountain or
>> Skiland offer lodges or resorts.
>>
>> The remark "just because Anchorage is a good place to get your milk
>shipped
>> in from doesn't mean that the rest of the state owes Anchorage a
>convention
>> center," speaks to a grave misunderstanding and lack of information. It
>is
>> the infrastructure you decry that makes Anchorage a good place to get
your
>> milk. Without the traffic volume attracted by Anchorage's infrastructure
>> that makes your milk not only fresh, but affordable.
>>
>> Out of one side of the mouth comes a cry that god-forbid "Alaska becomes
>> like Hawaii," out of the other side of the mouth comes the scream "why
>> should Anchorage get all the development." Keeping the unwanted
>outsiders
>> in Anchorage will protect the rest of Alaska's mainland from becoming
like
>> Hawaii. Allowing Anchorage to develop new markets will provide stable
>> employment for over half of Alaska's labor force. Helping Anchorage
>> develop new markets will also reduce the cost of living in other parts of
>> mainland Alaska.
>>
>> What is the point of biting the hand that feeds you?
>>
>> What is the point of decrying the development of new businesses within
>> Alaska -- most of them are locally owned, not operated by large
>corporations
>> outside of the state.
>>
>> Yes, wages within the new industries are lower. Yes, the loss of oil
>> industry jobs will be painful for some -- for awhile. It will take
awhile
>> for the supply and demand cycle to work. In the long run, the economy
>with
>> balance out and adjust. Then costs will be lower for everyone.
>>
>>
>> Transition and change can be difficult. However, short-term thinking and
>> planning are deadly.
>>
>> Mary T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kev wrote in message <7u84pl$1b...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> >
>> >Eric Holeman <eh...@enteract.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7u7gc8$j6j$1...@eve.enteract.com...
>> >>
>> >> As any frequent reader here knows, I'm not unfond of big burgs,
Alaskan
>> or
>> >> otherwise, but just because Anchorage is a good place to get your milk
>> >> shipped in from doesn't mean that the rest of the state owes Anchorage
>a
>> >> convention center. My corner market is a fine place for me to buy my
>> milk
>> >> (tho their salmon sucks) but that doesn't mean I owe them any more
than
>> >> the price on the package for the privilege.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Even better yet, why do need to continuely increase increase the number
>of
>> >tourist? More tourist gives us more polution, more development, more
>> >problems, more low paying jobs. It's the big outside companies who
>profit
>> >from it not Alaska. I would be surprised if more than 20% spent by
>> visitors
>> >actually end up in Alaskan's pockets. The last thing we need is a
larger
>> >convention center.
>> >
>> >If we don't watch it, we are going to end up no different than the lower
>48
>> >or worse, like Hawaii. I grew up over there in the 60's and can
remember
>> >what a beautiful place it use to be. Now it's wall to wall high rises,
>> >people everywhere.
>> >
>> >Kevin
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Christopher Effgen
Mary T wrote in message <380a5...@news.gci.net>...
>Maybe the time you put toward developing arguments could be put to a better
>use, such as studying the world around you -- past and present?
Mary,
You stated "The development of civilizations and societies follow a known
progression."
Are you now saying that it is a "known" progression that is "known" by
yourself?
Are you saying that the "known" progression of society so self evident that
it requires no explanation?
Where can I get a book that explains this "known" progression?
Who else knows about this "known" progression?
Is Kosova, Indonesia, the cold war, the world wars, the Great Depression,
the slaughter by governments of millions in the former Soviet Union and
China, of the slaughter of millions of civilians by Turkey, Germany and
Japan part of this known progression?
If there is a known progression, it would seem that not everyone "knows it."
I am sure that we would all benefit by learning about this "known
progression."
Will you share with us what this known progression is?
Christopher
I am quite serious.
Mary T
Christopher Effgen wrote in message <380a6...@news.gci.net>...
>
>
>Mary T wrote in message <380a5...@news.gci.net>...
>>Maybe the time you put toward developing arguments could be put to a
better
>>use, such as studying the world around you -- past and present?
>
>
>Mary,
>You stated "The development of civilizations and societies follow a known
>progression."
--I admit to this statement.
>
>Are you now saying that it is a "known" progression that is "known" by
>yourself?
If I were not familiar with this progression, I would not have stated that
such a progression had been identified.
>
>Are you saying that the "known" progression of society so self evident that
>it requires no explanation?
---The progression of development within societies and civilizations has
been recorded and studied extensively. The information is available to
anyone who wishes to obtain it.
>
>Where can I get a book that explains this "known" progression?
---At your local library. If it does not have such works within its
holdings, the reference librarian can assist you in obtaining works from
other libraries through the inter-library loan program.
I'm afraid, however, one book will not provide all the information you are
looking for. The information used to be presented accross 4 to 6 years of
study, within the programs which were required learning to complete a high
school deploma. Sadly, our schools no longer provide this education.
>Who else knows about this "known" progression?
---Almost everyone who completed a high school and/or college education
prior to the modernization of educational curriculum which took place in the
late 60s to date. Those poor students were also required to learn dead
languages such as Latin and Greek.
>
>Is Kosova, Indonesia, the cold war, the world wars, the Great Depression,
>the slaughter by governments of millions in the former Soviet Union and
>China, of the slaughter of millions of civilians by Turkey, Germany and
>Japan part of this known progression?
---Sadly, the answer to your question is yes. Sadly, violence, bigotry, and
hatred seem to be an established part of the human condition and nature.
>
>If there is a known progression, it would seem that not everyone "knows
it."
---This speaks to the quality of education being presented in our schools.
Yet, another area of loss to be mourned.
>
>I am sure that we would all benefit by learning about this "known
>progression."
---I agree with you, 100%. Possibly, you would like to become an advocate
of better education?
>
>Will you share with us what this known progression is?
You local institution of higher learning offers many courses on history,
civilization, sociology, economics, literature and the arts. Also, your
library also has many selections avavailable for your use should you not be
able to afford to register for formal courses.
Mary
Christopher Effgen
progression," that marks the development of civilizations and which
societies follow.
Your answers to the questions I asked, were not answers at all.
What you did was to comment on my lack of education. This type of response
is what marks most of your arguments. It is what makes discussing issues
with you impossible.
In fact there are many different ideas about the development of
civilizations, and about the courses that societies follow. (Note: there is
no one course that society follows and no one except you, as far as I know,
has ever claimed to "know" the one course that society follows. I don't
think you have a Ph.D. in cultural Anthropology or have been awarded a Nobel
Prize in the field. You certainly here have not, in this forum, demonstrated
any knowledge regarding the field.)
Mary you are a prig. Do not consider this to be an act of depreciation of
your personality type. In your case it is your character trait. It is
something that you have consistently maintained through out our discussions.
I really would like to know what your theory is, if in fact you have one.
Christopher
Mary T
Christopher Effgen wrote in message <380ab...@news.gci.net>...
>You did not in any way demonstrate any knowledge of such . ."a known
>progression," that marks the development of civilizations and which
>societies follow.
>
>Your answers to the questions I asked, were not answers at all.
---Give us a break, Christopher --- you have no desire to obtain or share
information. You much prefer to muddy the waters with accusations and
arguements.
I have no desire, whatsoever, to discuss recorded history with you at
nausium. I have no burning need to defend recorded history.
>
>What you did was to comment on my lack of education. This type of response
>is what marks most of your arguments. It is what makes discussing issues
>with you impossible.
---I did not comment on your lack of education, but rather the sorry state
of education as a whole. I told you where you could find the information,
if you did not have it and really wanted the answers. You aked me where you
could find the book, didn't you? Or was question just your usual bait and
switch tactic to justify another personal attack?
I cannot speak to the quality or quantity of education you have recieved. I
do not know when or where you attended school or how much time you invested
in that education. I do know, however, that in the late 60s and early 70s,
our education system (as a nation) began a downward spiral that may never be
recovered from. I know that some geographic areas and ethinic populations
were discriminated against, and are still discriminated against -- and
segregated -- through the use of substandard education.
>
>In fact there are many different ideas about the development of
>civilizations, and about the courses that societies follow. (Note: there
is
>no one course that society follows and no one except you, as far as I know,
>has ever claimed to "know" the one course that society follows. I don't
>think you have a Ph.D. in cultural Anthropology or have been awarded a
Nobel
>Prize in the field. You certainly here have not, in this forum,
demonstrated
>any knowledge regarding the field.)
---Actually, all developing cultures have followed a very similar
progression of development. That progression begins with hunter-gatherers
and ends with high population urban centers. What is not know is why some
civilizations do not progress or why others fail. It is also not known why
some civilizations progress at a faster rate than others. It is, however,
and accepted fact that isolation is a contributing factor in those that fail
to progress.
>
>Mary you are a prig. Do not consider this to be an act of depreciation of
>your personality type. In your case it is your character trait. It is
>something that you have consistently maintained through out our
discussions.
---Here you go, calling me names, remarking on my character --- and you
known absolutely nothing about me and have never met me. Talk about making
assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I'm damned if I do, damned if I
don't
>
>I really would like to know what your theory is, if in fact you have one.
I don't have a theory, Mr. Effgen --- history has documented the facts.
Why don't you tell us why Joshua Tree is tiny while San Diego is huge?
While you are at it, why don't you also tell us why Miami now extends from
Ft. Lauderdale to the Florida Keys?
Kev
industries that only provide minimum wage jobs. We can stop looking at
growth for growth's sake as good. We can try to encourage slower growth,
discourage increases in tourism (we don't need to advertise or give breaks
to the tourist industries).
NO one said anything about zero population growth. And unfortunately we
can't limit immagration (though we could spend some of the tourist
advertising dollars asking people if they have their visas for entrance into
Alaska. (We don't have one, we just ask if they have gotten one).
While our unemployment rate maybe very low, it is still higher than alot of
the lower 48. And the increase in jobs we have gotten lately is due to all
the minimum wage jobs replacing the high paying jobs of the past. While it
might be nice for some to have an opportunity to work for minimum wage, it
is not what is desireable.
And no, my mother wouldn't work for minimum wage, even after my father died.
Isn't it more desireable for someone who finds themselves needing to work to
be able to find something in a good field making $10-20/hr. instead of the
minimum wage cleaning hotel rooms.
And we aren't talking about teenagers working for minimum wage we are
talking about people your age with families.
Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message news:380a5...@news.gci.net...
Eric Holeman
>I'm not going to waste my time arguing cost/volume economics.
Promises, promises.
>Development for the sake of development? OK, where do we start putting the
>brakes on growth? When do we drop the US Constitution and begin imposing
>strict restrictions on freedoms?
Here's a clue: Land in Wasilla isn't worth as much without a four-lane
highway to Anchorage. If you don't build the highway, you don't get the
population growth. It's that simple. The right to sell agricultural or
wilderness land at a profit for use as human habitat isn't in the
Constitution. Not the last time I checked, anyways.
>Should we adopt strict zero-population growth measures, such as abortion and
>euthanasia?
Look, Mary! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Hitler, Hitler!!!
>Should we force children to leave the state at a given age?
Many do, anyways. Used to be you had to bribe them to stay.
>How will we choose who will live, die, enter or leave the state?
I get to decide. Send your bribes to my P.O. box for consideration.
>What laws
>will we impose to restrict the number of people immigrating to Alaska? What
>laws will we pass to decide which babies will be aborted? What laws will be
>passed to decide who dies?
>At the current minimum wage, you can buy bread at $1.00 a loaf. If the
>minimum wage is increased by $2.00, and bread costs $2.00 a loaf has anyone
>gained?
You could buy bread for a buck a loaf when the minimum wage was $3.15.
Next question, please.
>Your mother, who is now a widow; where will she work to make the money she
>needs to balance her budget? Will she, at age 60, go back to school to
>learn how to be a welder or will she work part-time as a cashier at
>Wal-Mart?
No, silly! She'll get a job mopping the newly-expanded convention center!
Eric Holeman
>I have no desire, whatsoever, to discuss recorded history with you at
>nausium. I have no burning need to defend recorded history.
You cited a historical basis for your arguments. If you can't come up
with at least a quick summary of why history supports your argument,
you're better off not citing the history in the first place.
>---Actually, all developing cultures have followed a very similar
>progression of development. That progression begins with hunter-gatherers
>and ends with high population urban centers.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere.
While the pattern you've described has indeed been observed in numerous
societies, it's worth remembering that it's an observed trend, and not
necessarily the only path for Alaska to march down. Further, even if this
trend were unavoidable, a few things are subject to much debate; namely,
where exactly Alaska and the U.S. are on this timeline (i.e., are they
close to full urbanization, or do they have a ways to go?), what
relationship one has to the other (to what extent is Alaska's development
separate from that of the rest of the U.S.?) and the definition of the
endpoint or next stage (does population concentration approach
completeness, or will it take a centrifugal turn at some point, or do
something still different?)
>Why don't you tell us why Joshua Tree is tiny while San Diego is huge?
For what it's worth, Joshua Tree and San Diego are not distinct
civilizations, though the residents of both might see it otherwise. I
would suspect, though, that most residents of Joshua Tree do not wish
their town to become in any way like San Diego.
>While you are at it, why don't you also tell us why Miami now extends from
>Ft. Lauderdale to the Florida Keys?
Actually, greater Miami stops rather abruptly at Everglades National Park,
Key Biscayne notwithstanding, but that said, the sprawl of Miami, Los
Angeles, and yes, Los Anchorage didn't happen because there was no other
way. They happened because national and local transportation and land use
policy allowed them to--specifically because of all the options available
for housing and transporting a growing population, the option chosen was a
combination of ever-widening roads and the conversion of wilderness land
to low-density human habitat. This happens in most American cities
because our laws encourage it and discourage alternatives--not because
it's the only way for urbanization to occur. It doesn't always happen in
other countries--the town I lived in in Japan contained an Anchorage sized
population in an area of about 5 square miles, if that.
Moreover, isolation, which you assume to be a problem, and which many
rural (and some urban) Alaskans don't, needn't necessarily be cured by
concentration. Modern Alaska still has its hunters and gatherers, of
course--many of whom don't see what you consider progress to be anything
of the sort, by the way--but with more tools at their disposal, they can
be connected without being concentrated. Twenty years ago, my stockbroker
in Anchorage didn't have the information available to her that a kid in
Barrow has access to today; it should be self-evident that the
availability of this sort of communications technology increases the
choices available of paths for development in an economy of information.
What any of this has to do with the supposed need for the rest of the
state to subsidize Anchorage's need for biggerness is beyond me. I
suppose the crux of your argument is that the state needs the city to pull
it forward, judging from the development models you've cited. As I've
suggested here, such models may be inappropriate to the Alaskan case for a
number of reasons. For one, Anchorage didn't grow to be the size it is
because 100,000 rural Alaska need a town of a quarter million to supply
their groceries--instead, Anchorage today is the size it is because of oil
and the military. Because of that, it's probably more accurate to think
of Anchorage as an American outpost than as an Alaskan central place, and
while it does serve some central place functions, the outpost functions
are about as useful to rural Alaska as--well, about as useful as Chicago
was to the plains Indian tribes.
Mary T
of bread. Are you better of than the person who makes $30,000 a year, pays
$70,000 for a house and a $1.00 for a loaf of bread?
I know, the title, hotel maid, is not glamorous. However, if you were a
mother with children to feed, clothe and house; would you rather earn $6.25
an hour and take home $50.00 to $100.00 a day in tips or earn $12.00 an hour
as a bookkeeper and receive no tips? Take time to think it through before
you reply...
Don't go knocking fast food, either. The young women who lived with us and
took care of our children is a prime example. She went to work for
McDonalds after she graduated from high school. She did her time at minimum
wage with crazy schedules. Less than a year later, she was in the
management training program. Ten years later, she still works for
McDonalds, as a district manager -- her salary, profit sharing, and benefit
package totals $150,000 a year. How many individuals do you know at age 28,
without a college education make that much money?
You mother would take a minimum wage job, if the alternative was hunger,
homelessness or lack of medical care. Moreover, she would be very happy to
be able to find employment. What you do not seem to realize is that there
are no public assistance benefits for able-bodied adults who do not have
minor children at home. Moreover, with the advent of welfare reform, even
those with minor children must find work -- their benefits terminate in five
years.
Kev wrote in message <7uefdu$8...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
Mary T
Everglades National Park butts the Big Cypress National Preserve and
actually begins up in Miami's urban sprawl at about Kendall. Now, honey,
before you go getting all hot under the collar, my sister-in-law's condo
sits only about 20 miles east of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation. In
fact, honey child, that condo and the damn shopping center down the street,
sit where me and my childhood buddies used to go alligator poaching.
Now, go find yourself a map of Florida circa 1960 or so. If you can't find
one that old, take a look at a recent map. Follow US #1 south out of Miami,
past Perrine, Cutler Ridge, Goulds, Princeton, Leisure City, and Homestead
to Florida City. If you take a side trip just a blink past the road at
Naranja, you will be at my dear departed brother's best friend's house.
Don't let the name on the map fool you -- the address is SW 287th Terrace.
Miami.
You and I both agree that Key Biscayne really is not part of the geographic
area known as the Florida Keys. Now, that we have your attention focuses on
Florida City, take a look directly east and what do you see? Well, Sands
Key, Old Rhodes Key and of course, Key Largo. Sands Key is not inhabited,
but Elliot Key is.
If you have a new map, you will see a road marked highway 905 running from
Florida City to Key Largo. That is the old US #1. Anyway you cut the pie,
honey child, Miami ends at Florida City and what the locals view as the
official beginning of the Florida Keys starts with Key Largo (never mind Old
Rhodes, Elliot, and Sands Key are north of it). Yes, honey child, I was born
and raised in Miami -- spent the first 20 years of my life there --- go back
at least once a year to visit family.
Yes, Eric, Alaska still has hunter gatherers. Guess what, Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, N. Dakota, S.
Dakota, etc .... also still do. What has that got to do with the price of
tea in China?
Now that we have dispensed with the smoke screen, let me ask you a question.
No, I am not being sarcastic. Are you asking all of us to believe that the
oil industry and government mucky-mucks put on a blind fold, turned around
10-2o times, stuck the tail on the donkey and decided that is where they
would build?
No one disputes the point that Anchorage's development was accelerated by
both the military and oil. On the other hand, Anchorage still would have
developed into the commerce center it is today, albeit more slowly. Why
don't you get down off your high horse and tell us why. I know you know
the answer; you just don't want to admit it ... even to yourself.
While you are at it, try putting that military/oil history into perspective
for the rest of the readers. Back when the military began development of
facilities here in Alaska, the Arctic Circle route was mainly used by
military planes. You see, flying was a still a scary thing back then, and a
luxury used by business people and the well to do traveler. There wasn't
the commercial air traffic we have today, or for that matter 20 years ago.
Now, honey child, makes sense that commercial air traffic, as well as the
military would want their fuel stop for the Arctic Circle route on home
ground -- does it not? Now the air cargo industry, line the transportation
wing has also grown. Gee whiz, what has Anchorage become in just the past 5
years?
Now, certainly, mainland Alaska does not need Anchorage for a grocery store.
On the other hand, 100 widgets shipped to Nome from Seattle cost a hell of a
lot more than the same 100 widgets from a 100,000 widget shipment originally
made to Anchorage.
Eric, what did a loaf of bread cost in Anchorage in 1978? I can speak to
Ketchikan: bread $2.50 a loaf, eggs $4.00 a dozen, milk $5.00 a gallon --
gasoline $3.00 a gallon. Don't even bother to call me a fool -- I still
have a grocery slip in a scrap book.
Now, all of mainland Alaska receives benefits from Anchorage's urban sprawl,
whether or not you want to admit it. The bigger Anchorage becomes --- and
it will, regardless of oil or the military -- the more mainland Alaska will
benefit. We hated Anchorage residents subsidize a lot of those rural
benefits through our property and use taxes, not to mention our buying
power, and the traffic we put up with in our city ... etc. It is a street
that travels both ways --
Mary
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7ufk1k$ci4$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
Mary T
page at: http://joshua-tree.com/chamber/jt.html#1. Sorry to burst your
bubble, but it appears the JT worships at the tourist alter just like
Anchorage. Guess it beats the hour or more drive to slummy San Diego.
Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce welcomes you...
to the village of Joshua Tree - the home of Joshua Tree National Park and
situated in the very heart of the Morongo Basin. You will find our lodging
and dining accommodations affordable, attractive, comfortable and
hospitable, and our business owners "user friendly."
Joshua Tree has grown rapidly in the past few years. Our permanent
population not long ago about 3,000 and is now over 13,000! New businesses
have opened up offering a variety of merchandise and services. Over 2
million visitors passed through in the past year, from all over the world,
to enjoy the unique splendor of the National Park and many of them paused to
experience our village atmosphere, to browse in our shops, enjoy our fine
food and lodging - and some even choose to come back and make their homes
here. If you would like information about Joshua Tree mailed to you, please
contact our Chamber and we will be happy to send you our latest visitor
packages.
Gary Brown, President.
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7ufjkd$c6m$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>In article <380ac...@news.gci.net>, Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>>Why don't you tell us why Joshua Tree is tiny while San Diego is huge?
>
>For what it's worth, Joshua Tree and San Diego are not distinct
>civilizations, though the residents of both might see it otherwise. I
>would suspect, though, that most residents of Joshua Tree do not wish
>their town to become in any way like San Diego.
>
>-
<snip>-
Mary T
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7ufjfm$c25$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>In article <380a5...@news.gci.net>, Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to waste my time arguing cost/volume economics.
>
>
>>Development for the sake of development? OK, where do we start putting
the
>>brakes on growth? When do we drop the US Constitution and begin imposing
>>strict restrictions on freedoms?
>
>highway to Anchorage. If you don't build the highway, you don't get the
>population growth. It's that simple. The right to sell agricultural or
>wilderness land at a profit for use as human habitat isn't in the
>Constitution. Not the last time I checked, anyways.
---Here is a bigger clue -- the gravel road came first, then the two=lane
highway. Now, there is a short four-lane highway. In the not too distant
future, the four-lane highway will extend from the Canadian border to
Anchorage.
The valley commuters complained. Now, the entire state is complaining about
traffic congestion.
>
>>Should we adopt strict zero-population growth measures, such as abortion
and
>>euthanasia?
>
>Look, Mary! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Hitler, Hitler!!!
He can offer sarcasm, but when it is returned he becomes insulting.
However, he cannot provide one realistic senerio for limiting growth and
development in the state.
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>In the not too distant
>future, the four-lane highway will extend from the Canadian border to
>Anchorage.
hell, we can't even maintain the existing two lane road! and
there is NO money to make it 4 lane. mary, stop smoking that
stuff!
========================================================
Dennis Harris NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>Are you asking all of us to believe that the
>oil industry and government mucky-mucks put on a blind fold, turned around
>10-2o times, stuck the tail on the donkey and decided that is where they
>would build?
yep, that's about how los anchorage came about. before that, it
was just another section camp on the railroad.
The Hateful Donut
put this thing to rest.
And you're right, Eric, about Tiger Stadium. I had the pleasure of
seeing a game there last month (Sept. 2 to be exact--Tigers beat Texas
with 9th inning homers) and it is (was) a truly great stadium. I think
Camden Yards has 'em all beat though.
--
______________________________
The Hateful Donut
http://www.bigfoot.com/~goshrx
______________________________
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kev
Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message news:380bc...@news.gci.net...
> So, you make $60,000 a year, pay $140,000 for a house, and $2.00 for a
loaf
> of bread. Are you better of than the person who makes $30,000 a year,
pays
> $70,000 for a house and a $1.00 for a loaf of bread?
Gee, you can multiply by 2. Why don't you ask a reasonable question.
>
> I know, the title, hotel maid, is not glamorous. However, if you were a
> mother with children to feed, clothe and house; would you rather earn
$6.25
> an hour and take home $50.00 to $100.00 a day in tips or earn $12.00 an
hour
> as a bookkeeper and receive no tips? Take time to think it through before
> you reply...
Well, 1st when was the last time you heard of someone leaving a tip for a
maid? That's a thing of the past. Secondly the bookkeeper job is steady
and provides a solid base for a family where the maid job is seasonal.
>
> Don't go knocking fast food, either. The young women who lived with us
and
> took care of our children is a prime example. She went to work for
> McDonalds after she graduated from high school. She did her time at
minimum
> wage with crazy schedules. Less than a year later, she was in the
> management training program. Ten years later, she still works for
> McDonalds, as a district manager -- her salary, profit sharing, and
benefit
> package totals $150,000 a year. How many individuals do you know at age
28,
> without a college education make that much money?
>
And how many people does that happen too? There are exceptions to every
rule.
>
> You mother would take a minimum wage job, if the alternative was hunger,
> homelessness or lack of medical care. Moreover, she would be very happy
to
> be able to find employment. What you do not seem to realize is that there
> are no public assistance benefits for able-bodied adults who do not have
> minor children at home. Moreover, with the advent of welfare reform, even
> those with minor children must find work -- their benefits terminate in
five
> years.
But a thinking person would never be in a position where they didn't have
the skills to get something besides a minimum wage job.
Mary T
Overlay weather patterns and temperature charts with a map of the coastline
of Alaska and your prospective on this subject becomes much more difficult
to maintain.
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message <0gsMOB2nVmlIVl...@4ax.com>...
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:11:06 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska, "Mary
>T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>>Are you asking all of us to believe that the
>>oil industry and government mucky-mucks put on a blind fold, turned around
>>10-2o times, stuck the tail on the donkey and decided that is where they
>>would build?
>
Mary T
road. What is your point of reference in regards to distant and not too
distant?
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:51:18 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska, "Mary
>T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>>In the not too distant
>>future, the four-lane highway will extend from the Canadian border to
>>Anchorage.
>
>hell, we can't even maintain the existing two lane road! and
>there is NO money to make it 4 lane. mary, stop smoking that
>stuff!
>
Mary T
had a really good, three-dimensional chess game in mind ... or perhaps an
advanced interactional language tutor for Russian, Japanese or Chinese ...
The Hateful Donut wrote in message <7uhvr4$cos$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Christopher Effgen
Mary T wrote
>---Actually, all developing cultures have followed a very similar
>progression of development. That progression begins with hunter-gatherers
>and ends with high population urban centers. What is not know is why some
>civilizations do not progress or why others fail.
."a known
>>progression," that marks the development of civilizations and which
>>societies follow.
The known progression that Mary writes about is one in which she says she
does NOT know, " why some civilizations do not progress or why others fail."
I would suggest, that if it is not known why some fail and others succeed
than there is no "known progression."
We live in physical world with finite resources, even the number of hairs on
your head is counted.
That we live in such a world and do not know why our civilizations rize and
fall, but somehow believe we are involved in a known progression is a
vanity.
> It is also not known why
>some civilizations progress at a faster rate than others.
What standards do we apply to measure progress? Are these standards driven
by numbers? Are they in some way related to the object that they measure?
Does the object that they measure have some role to play in determining
their own ability to create and adapt to the world? Are the numbers and the
interpretation of the numbers, by some high Priesthood of financial
advisers, the pattern upon which we wish to create our culture?
>It is, however,
>and accepted fact that isolation is a contributing factor in those that
fail
>to progress.
Now we get back to the point of my
arguement.......................................
We belong here.
"The hunger to belong is at the heart of our nature. Cut off from others we
atrophy and turn in on ourselves. The sence of belonging is the natural
balance of our lives."
What the Alaska Question is about is the people of Alaska being able to
believe that they belong, and that a process exists which is open to all the
people of Alaska.
Under our present system, as it operates, an almost incestious relationship
exists among a small group of people, who have an extrodinary degree of
influence around the State of Alaska.
>>
>>Mary you are a prig. Do not consider this to be an act of depreciation of
>>your personality type. In your case it is your character trait. It is
>>something that you have consistently maintained through out our
>discussions.
>
>---Here you go, calling me names, remarking on my character --- and you
>known absolutely nothing about me and have never met me. Talk about making
>assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I'm damned if I do, damned if I
>don't
The definition of the term indicates an individual who effaces opinions for
which they have no basis to justify, and are based on opinions, that are a
mimic of an established veiw.
>>
>>I really would like to know what your theory is, if in fact you have one.
>
>I don't have a theory, Mr. Effgen --- history has documented the facts.
>
>
>Why don't you tell us why Joshua Tree is tiny while San Diego is huge?
>
>While you are at it, why don't you also tell us why Miami now extends from
>Ft. Lauderdale to the Florida Keys?
>
The people of San Diego had no choice.
Where are the Miami Indians?
Christopher
Dennis P. Harris
Hateful Donut <gos...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>And you're right, Eric, about Tiger Stadium. I had the pleasure of
>seeing a game there last month (Sept. 2 to be exact--Tigers beat Texas
>with 9th inning homers) and it is (was) a truly great stadium. I think
>Camden Yards has 'em all beat though.
well, eric's lucky to be close to another classic ballpark ---
wrigley field. it and fenway are the only 2 original ballparks
left now. and with the cubs there's always hope. not much more
than that, but at least a faint hope...
Mary T
Christopher Effgen wrote in message <380d6...@news.gci.net>...
>
>Mary T wrote
<snip>.
>
>The known progression that Mary writes about is one in which she says she
fail."
>
>I would suggest, that if it is not known why some fail and others succeed
>than there is no "known progression."
---Save the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo for those that are easily impressed.
The early mariners risked their lives based on known progressions of winds,
tides and seas --- they sailed around the world quite successfully based on
those known, observed progression. It would be hundreds of years, if not
thousands, before the question as to why those elements behaved in the
manner they did would be answered.
That something occurs is easily validated. Defining why the occurancr takes
place is a lengthy process, which is not always successful. However, there
can be no doubt that it is the process of defining the why that moves
science forward.
>
>We live in physical world with finite resources, even the number of hairs
on
>your head is counted.
---This time you have put your foot squarely in your mouth. New resources,
albeit different, are continually under development. I suggest you refer
to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy: Energy cannot be created
or destroyed, although it can be changed in form.
<snip>
>>>
>>>Mary you are a prig. Do not consider this to be an act of depreciation
of
>>>your personality type. In your case it is your character trait. It is
>>>something that you have consistently maintained through out our
>>discussions.
>>
>>---Here you go, calling me names, remarking on my character --- and you
>>known absolutely nothing about me and have never met me. Talk about
making
>>assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I'm damned if I do, damned if I
>>don't
>
>
>The definition of the term indicates an individual who effaces opinions for
>which they have no basis to justify, and are based on opinions, that are a
>mimic of an established veiw.
Yes, Christopher, you have then just identified yourself. You are
continually offering opinions concerning those who disagree with you,
without any basis to justify those assumptions. You know nothing,
whatsoever, about me, my background, training, education, experience,
associations, knowledge, beliefs, values, character .... yet, you feel
justified not only in expressing an opinion, but also sitting in judgement.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>I really would like to know what your theory is, if in fact you have one.
>>
>>I don't have a theory, Mr. Effgen --- history has documented the facts.
>>
>>
>>Why don't you tell us why Joshua Tree is tiny while San Diego is huge?
>>
>>While you are at it, why don't you also tell us why Miami now extends from
>>Ft. Lauderdale to the Florida Keys?
>>
>
>
>The people of San Diego had no choice.
>
>Where are the Miami Indians?
--Are you speaking to the Miami tribes of the midwest or the Miami tribes of
Peru? Perhaps you are incorrectly refering to the Cherokee, Seminole or
other indeginious peoples of the southeastern United States -- are you
asking about my people, Christopher?
Why do you insist on answering questions with questions?
Why do you feel the need to cloud the issue being discussed?
Why do you feel the need to insult and resort to name calling?
A rational discussion produces information --- circular discussions are
fruitless.
---
MAry
>
>Christopher
>
>
Mary T
Kev wrote in message <7ui9n9$7...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message
news:380bc...@news.gci.net...
>> So, you make $60,000 a year, pay $140,000 for a house, and $2.00 for a
>loaf
>> of bread. Are you better of than the person who makes $30,000 a year,
>pays
>> $70,000 for a house and a $1.00 for a loaf of bread?
>
>Gee, you can multiply by 2. Why don't you ask a reasonable question.
---Contrary to your snide remark, it was a reasonable question. Simplistic,
yes, but a very accurate example of inflation within an economic system.
It matter not what you earn. The important factor is what purchasing power
the wage has.
>>
>> I know, the title, hotel maid, is not glamorous. However, if you were a
>> mother with children to feed, clothe and house; would you rather earn
>$6.25
>> an hour and take home $50.00 to $100.00 a day in tips or earn $12.00 an
>hour
>> as a bookkeeper and receive no tips? Take time to think it through
before
>> you reply...
>
>Well, 1st when was the last time you heard of someone leaving a tip for a
>maid? That's a thing of the past. Secondly the bookkeeper job is steady
>and provides a solid base for a family where the maid job is seasonal.
Tipping is not a lost art, contrary to your stated belief. Please stop
maligning maids. They perform vital services and deserve dignity and the
ability to take pride in their work. You need to do a bit more research in
regard to the seasonal nature of the employment.
>
>>
>> Don't go knocking fast food, either. The young women who lived with us
>and
>> took care of our children is a prime example. She went to work for
>> McDonalds after she graduated from high school. She did her time at
>minimum
>> wage with crazy schedules. Less than a year later, she was in the
>> management training program. Ten years later, she still works for
>> McDonalds, as a district manager -- her salary, profit sharing, and
>benefit
>> package totals $150,000 a year. How many individuals do you know at age
>28,
>> without a college education make that much money?
>>
>
>And how many people does that happen too? There are exceptions to every
>rule.
---Actually, Kev, it happens for quite a few individuals. Fast food does
not have a glamouous reputation. For most employees in the industry, it is
a temporary stop on their way up the work experience ladder. The industry
is always looking for individuals willing to put out the effort to establish
a career.
Two of my classmates in graduate school were part of Taco Bell management.
Taco Bell paid thier tuition. One was a highly decorated, retired Special
Forces Colonel. Eric may even know him --- he was in charge of the district
that included Chicago.
>
>>
>> You mother would take a minimum wage job, if the alternative was hunger,
>> homelessness or lack of medical care. Moreover, she would be very happy
>to
>> be able to find employment. What you do not seem to realize is that
there
>> are no public assistance benefits for able-bodied adults who do not have
>> minor children at home. Moreover, with the advent of welfare reform,
even
>> those with minor children must find work -- their benefits terminate in
>five
>> years.
>
>
>But a thinking person would never be in a position where they didn't have
>the skills to get something besides a minimum wage job.
---Sorry, Kev, you are way off base here. There are many individuals, who
through no fault of their own, do not have the skills to obtain anything
other than minimum wage positions. They are thinking individuals, worthy of
respect and dignity.
Before you can obtain a position that requires skills, the job must exist.
Mothers forced into the labor force due to divorce or death of a spouse are
thinking individuals -- many of them have the skills to which you speak.
Yet, they must compete with others who have current experience. That is
only one example. There are many more, including inividuals such as those
who worked in auto manufacturing plants, steel mills .... on and on and on.
Eric Holeman
Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net> wrote:
>well, eric's lucky to be close to another classic ballpark ---
>wrigley field. it and fenway are the only 2 original ballparks
>left now. and with the cubs there's always hope. not much more
>than that, but at least a faint hope...
Very faint, this year. On the brighter side, I did find out that my 1990
Upper Deck Sammy Sosa card (he seems to be wearing some really ugly jersey
that says something like "White Sox") that I paid 30 cents for is fetching
around nine bux on ebay. I'm adjusting my retirement plans accordingly.
And on an even brighter side still, ding dong, the Mets are dead!
--
Eric Holeman
>Now that we have dispensed with the smoke screen,
Gosh, you sure got me there.
> let me ask you a question.
>No, I am not being sarcastic. Are you asking all of us to believe that the
>oil industry and government mucky-mucks put on a blind fold, turned around
>10-2o times, stuck the tail on the donkey and decided that is where they
>would build?
Uh, no. What on earth gave you that idea?
>No one disputes the point that Anchorage's development was accelerated by
>both the military and oil. On the other hand, Anchorage still would have
>developed into the commerce center it is today, albeit more slowly. Why
>don't you get down off your high horse and tell us why.
Since you seem to know the answer, why not spare us the suspense?
> I know you know
>the answer; you just don't want to admit it ... even to yourself.
Since there wasn't much to Anchorage before the military, that's rather
debatable; take away oil and the military from today's Anchorage and there
wouldn't be much there. There'd be an airport, of course, but Fairbanks
has one of those. There'd be a railroad, but Fairbanks has the same
railroad. There'd be a port, but better ports could be found in Valdez,
Seward, Whittier, and Cordova. Locational advantages for certain
industries sometimes translate to others; but the abundance of ghost towns
in the west would seem to provide ample evidence that economies based on
mineral wealth don't do very well when you take the minerals away.
>Now, honey child, makes sense that commercial air traffic, as well as the
>military would want their fuel stop for the Arctic Circle route on home
>ground -- does it not?
Thanks for the geography lesson. By the way, doesn't Fairbanks have a big
airport too?
>Eric, what did a loaf of bread cost in Anchorage in 1978?
Oh, about a buck. Somewhat less if it came from Outside. Your point,
caller?
>I can speak to
>Ketchikan: bread $2.50 a loaf, eggs $4.00 a dozen, milk $5.00 a gallon --
>gasoline $3.00 a gallon. Don't even bother to call me a fool -- I still
>have a grocery slip in a scrap book.
I'll save my breath, and calmly remind you that nothing except for the odd
moose-turd swizzle stick comes to Ketchikan from Anchorage.
>Now, all of mainland Alaska receives benefits from Anchorage's urban sprawl,
>whether or not you want to admit it.
Even if that were true, it's hard to imagine how having Anchorage's
residents spread out Miami-style would benefit folks in Nome any more than
having them live in a few large housing projects, Whittier-style. But
since you've constructed this marvelous image of rural Alaskans reaping
great rewards from Anchorage residents who benefit the rest of the state
just by being there--gosh, it kinda brings to mind those wonderful old
Chinese propaganda posters of grateful peasant kids beaming at a smiling
Mao--I'll just sit back and marvel at the Rube Goldberg intricacy of it
all.
>benefit. We hated Anchorage residents subsidize a lot of those rural
>benefits through our property and use taxes,
Cue the violins.
> not to mention our buying
>power, and the traffic we put up with in our city ... etc.
Um, hate to break it to you, but Anchorage has had three decades to decide
what it want to look like, and you can't hardly blame rural Alaska for the
fact that Anchorage decided that it wanted to look like a somewhat uglier
version of suburban Miami. Or to put it another way, you built your
traffic; now go sit in it.
>It is a street that travels both ways --
On that I can agree. So stop making it sound like such a noble sacrifice
for Anchorage to be making a buck off a can of peas.
Eric Holeman
>And for the rest of the smoke screen, here is a quote from the official web
>page at: http://joshua-tree.com/chamber/jt.html#1. Sorry to burst your
>bubble, but it appears the JT worships at the tourist alter just like
>Anchorage. Guess it beats the hour or more drive to slummy San Diego.
You're confusing, as you often do, business types for the rest of the
community.
Mary T
the community. They are ordinary, everyday people, struggling to make a
living just like everyone else. The fact that they help others make a
living while they are at it, usually makes them quite popular. Business
people are not aliens from outer space, nor are they immoral, evil devils.
For JT to have tripled its population in such a short period of time, took
the cooperation and approval of the community. Stop and think about zoning
changes, construction, roads, etc., etc.
JT has always worshipped at the alter of tourism -- even 20 years ago when I
was there last. Used to be a dusty little town that hawked a lot of fake
Native American trinkets from Japan and China, not to mention cheap silver
jewelry with fake turquoise.
Mary
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7ukniv$b6j$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
Mary T
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7ukngd$b4p$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>
>> let me ask you a question.
>>No, I am not being sarcastic. Are you asking all of us to believe that
the
>>oil industry and government mucky-mucks put on a blind fold, turned around
>>10-2o times, stuck the tail on the donkey and decided that is where they
>>would build?
>
>Uh, no. What on earth gave you that idea?
---No one, not even you, seems willing to admit Anchorage's geographic
location presents some marked advantages over other parts of Alaska.
>
>>No one disputes the point that Anchorage's development was accelerated by
>>both the military and oil. On the other hand, Anchorage still would have
>>developed into the commerce center it is today, albeit more slowly. Why
>>don't you get down off your high horse and tell us why.
>
>Since you seem to know the answer, why not spare us the suspense?
---Answers you discover for yourself are often far more acceptable.
>
>
>Since there wasn't much to Anchorage before the military, that's rather
>debatable; take away oil and the military from today's Anchorage and there
>wouldn't be much there. There'd be an airport, of course, but Fairbanks
>has one of those.
---Yes, Fairbanks has an airport; however, that airport has a number of
distractors, for example:
A) Extremes of temperature.
B) Geographic location requires divation from the normal Artic Circle route.
C) Fuel costs.
D) Cost of construction.
E) Available labor pool.
F) Higher cost of living.
G) Willingness of individuals to relocate.
Not being an expert on modern jets, I cannot speak to their fuel range.
However, I strongly suspect that Fairbanks might prove a problem in that
area. A crash in the surrounding wilderness would also present some very
interesting search and rescue challenges. Moreover, over-water flight is
the preferred mode of operations.
There'd be a railroad, but Fairbanks has the same
>railroad. There'd be a port, but better ports could be found in Valdez,
>Seward, Whittier, and Cordova. Locational advantages for certain
>industries sometimes translate to others; but the abundance of ghost towns
>in the west would seem to provide ample evidence that economies based on
>mineral wealth don't do very well when you take the minerals away.
---Anchorage's natural resource is commerce and trade; not minerals. The
ports in Seward, Whittier and Cordova may be structurally better, as in
depth and protection; however, Anchorage presents better weather
conditions. In actuality, Anchorages main advantage over Seward, Whittier
and Cordove is the terraine --- room for expansion.
>
>>Now, honey child, makes sense that commercial air traffic, as well as the
>>military would want their fuel stop for the Arctic Circle route on home
>>ground -- does it not?
>
>Thanks for the geography lesson. By the way, doesn't Fairbanks have a big
>airport too?
>
>>Eric, what did a loaf of bread cost in Anchorage in 1978?
>
>Oh, about a buck. Somewhat less if it came from Outside. Your point,
>caller?
>
>>I can speak to
>>Ketchikan: bread $2.50 a loaf, eggs $4.00 a dozen, milk $5.00 a gallon --
>>gasoline $3.00 a gallon. Don't even bother to call me a fool -- I still
>>have a grocery slip in a scrap book.
>
>I'll save my breath, and calmly remind you that nothing except for the odd
>moose-turd swizzle stick comes to Ketchikan from Anchorage.
>
>>Now, all of mainland Alaska receives benefits from Anchorage's urban
sprawl,
>>whether or not you want to admit it.
>
<snip>
>
>>It is a street that travels both ways --
>
>On that I can agree. So stop making it sound like such a noble sacrifice
>for Anchorage to be making a buck off a can of peas.
---I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that Anchorage provides as many
benefits as it recieves --- To state that Anchorage presents nothing other
than a drain on the State's resources is patenently false.
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>No one, not even you, seems willing to admit Anchorage's geographic
>location presents some marked advantages over other parts of Alaska.
>
that's because it *doesn't*. as a matter of fact, the extra
distance to reach cook inlet, the tides and ice in the inlet, and
the constant shoaling that requires expensive dredging to keep
the port open are all *disadvantages*.
in spite of what you think, anchorage's weather is not
advantageous either. seward and valdez have less fog, and
whittier is much more sheltered from storms.
funny that everyone but you can see that los anchorage has no
location advantage.
and btw, you don't need to quote an entire 100 line post just to
add a dozen lines. it's enough to quote the paragraphs to which
you are responding. if folks want the entire thread history they
can always go to deja news.
Mary T
published fraudulent, incorrect data. I do a lot of flying around this
state. Have only experienced one flight delay out of Anchorage. Wish I
could say as much for the other airports.
All those international investors, freight companies, finance houses, trade
companies, etc., etc., must be as crazy as I am -- they sure see some
advantage to locating in Los Anchorage. I guess they fell victim to the
fraudulent data as well. Those commuters that crowd the Glenn and Seward
Highways every morning -- are they as insane as I am, or are they all
military. You know, as blind and stupid as I am, I could have missed the
big base located down town without too much trouble. Oh, by the way, can you
point out where the parking meters with electrical outlets are located here
in Los Anchorage?
Of course, given the rancor expressed in this venue concerning urban
sprawl --- maybe Los Anchorage's main advantage is the welcome mat it puts
out for business.
Seems like quite the quandary. Everyone hates Los Anchorage for its
development. Everyone hates Los Anchorage because their community does not
get the development.
You can't have one without the other ...
I'm so ignorant and stupid --- guess I would just have to see it to believe
it. You are so much smarter than I am, and can process information so much
more logically, why don't you do a graphic overlay for me --- show me how
Los Anchorage would fit in Seward, Whittier, etc.
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
Mary T
in the sky? Field of dreams? Yep, the military built Anchorage and is
responsible for its growth. The Army built Whittier --- why has it not
developed? You do realize of course that the Anchorage's census count does
not include the +/- 5,000 military members and their families.
Have you been out to the Port of Anchorage in the last ten years, Dennis?
Whittier a much better port? Almost 70 inches of rain a year, then almost
90 inches of snow. No problem. Anchorage gets about 20 inches of rain and
60 inches of snow.
Looked at a map of Whittier lately? Where would you suggest they build a
130 acre industrial park or 31 acre staging and storage facility, not to
mention the required tank farm? Maybe they could put it on floats? I know,
they can put it on stilts up the side of the mountain. They could also
put airport runways out on pontoons, or better yet, have it run vertically
up the side of the mountain. Then again, maybe those huge cargo planes
could land on that small gravel strip. I know, when they get the new road
built, the planes can use that.
If the Port of Whittier and the Port of Seward have the facilities, why is
it that 80% of the exported refined petroleum products from the Kenai and
Valdez go out of Anchorage?
Then the 280 population could work 24-7 to man the facility. No, I have a
better idea, they could import 2 or 3 thousand employees and they could all
hot-sheet at the Begich Building. You do realize that the Port of Anchorage
operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year --- and that the
combined employment exceeds 280 persons per shift don't you?
You are aware, of course, that the Port of Anchorage handles 90% of all
consumer goods for interior Alaska and 100% of all exported refined
petroleum products coming out of the Fairbanks area? You are aware, no
doubt, that the Port of Anchorage is the only authorize foreign trade zone
in the state? You are, of course aware that Anchorage is the half-way point
for the railroad?
Maybe Whittier and Seward could get the feds to release some land, then they
could get permission from all the regulatory groups to level a few mountains
... not to mention getting the Permanent Fund to pay for the dream.
Are you beginning to get the idea why Anchorage is the State's commerce
center ... why it has continued to develop ... why it has geographic
advantages?
Dave Thompson
Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote in message news:380e9...@news.gci.net...
(SNIP)
>
> ---Yes, Fairbanks has an airport; however, that airport has a number of
> distractors, for example:
>
> A) Extremes of temperature.
> B) Geographic location requires divation from the normal Artic Circle
route.
> C) Fuel costs.
> D) Cost of construction.
> E) Available labor pool.
> F) Higher cost of living.
> G) Willingness of individuals to relocate.
>
> Not being an expert on modern jets, I cannot speak to their fuel range.
> However, I strongly suspect that Fairbanks might prove a problem in that
> area. A crash in the surrounding wilderness would also present some very
> interesting search and rescue challenges. Moreover, over-water flight is
> the preferred mode of operations.
>
(SNIP)
I haven't been following the rest of your argument closely, but your
positions on the Fairbanks Airport are all wet, to say the least.
A. Extremes of temperature. Operations at FBX are much easier because it
has MUCH fewer days when icing is a problem. Anchorage, due to its maritime
location has many more icing days.
B. Great Circle Route. I'm not sure which Great Circle Route you are
discussing, but if you had the Orient/Europe Routes in mind, NEITHER city is
anywhere near that route which goes over Russia. If, however, you are using
a model where long haul aircraft stop in Alaska for fuel, FBX is a much
shorter route. Fairbanks knocks over an hour off the trip from Tokyo to
London as compared to Anchorage.
C. Jet A costs the same in FBX as ANC.
D. Constructions Costs. I won't speak to that as I am not a Construction
Engineer.
E. Labor goes where the money lives. Not a problem.
F. True, but non-consequential. If it were true, there would be no
commercial operations from FBX.
G. ? People follow the money.
Your comments about wilderness crashes and over water flights are a puzzle.
If you think that the area around FBX is more of a wilderness that the west
side of Cook Inlet, you need to get out more. In addition, Fairbanks has two
diversion three diversion fields within 100 miles that can handle large
aircraft (Fort Wainwright, Eielson AFB and Fort Greely). Anchorage has one,
possibly two if you include King Salmon. I don't know where you got your
comment about over-water being preferred. No long haul pilot I have ever
known has ever expressed that sentiment. Extended over-water operations
bring all kinds of complexities and risk to aircraft operations that are not
there with overland operations. If over-water were preferred, SEA/ANC
routes would be great circle rather than hugging the coastline.
You need to study a little Alaska history. Until the 70's FBX was the major
stopping point for long haul carriers between Asia and Europe. The FBX
folks thought they had a cash cow and upped the landing fees and fuel
surcharges. The airlines said 'pfffffft' and moved to Anchorage.
Dave
Michael F. Pickett
> Yep, the military built Anchorage and is
> responsible for its growth.
Chugach Foresters surveyed it, Railroad "built" it...military, later
responsible for additional growth...
ffurGy
Mary T
Dave Thompson wrote in message ...Like, I stated, I am not an expert on flight operations.
>A. Extremes of temperature. Operations at FBX are much easier because it
>has MUCH fewer days when icing is a problem. Anchorage, due to its
maritime
>location has many more icing days.
Yes, Anchorage has an icing problem, however, this is not the weather
conditions that elilicted comments from the few commercial pilots I have
taked with. The extreme cold seemed to be of more concern to them and
military pilots as well. I do know that, without expception, the military
pilots in my classes dispise having to use Elison in winter.
>B. Great Circle Route. I'm not sure which Great Circle Route you are
>discussing, but if you had the Orient/Europe Routes in mind, NEITHER city
is
>anywhere near that route which goes over Russia. If, however, you are
using
>a model where long haul aircraft stop in Alaska for fuel, FBX is a much
>shorter route. Fairbanks knocks over an hour off the trip from Tokyo to
>London as compared to Anchorage.
With the exception of my flights to destination points in the USSR, I have
never been on a flight which was permitted to violate that air space. I
have not, however, flown from the Orient to Europe since the cold war ended.
I seem to remember a Korean passenger jet entering Soviet air space by
accident some years back and getting shot down for the mistake.
>C. Jet A costs the same in FBX as ANC.
---I stand corrected. Additional shipping usually increases the cost.
Appears that the additional cost is spread accross total sales.
>D. Constructions Costs. I won't speak to that as I am not a Construction
>Engineer.
>E. Labor goes where the money lives. Not a problem.
---This, I must disagree with. Fairbanks has a much greater problem with
labor force shortages, especially in some of the technical fields.
>F. True, but non-consequential. If it were true, there would be no
>commercial operations from FBX.
>G. ? People follow the money.
>
I don't know where you got your
>comment about over-water being preferred. No long haul pilot I have ever
>known has ever expressed that sentiment. Extended over-water operations
>bring all kinds of complexities and risk to aircraft operations that are
not
>there with overland operations. If over-water were preferred, SEA/ANC
>routes would be great circle rather than hugging the coastline.
---I must disagree with you on this one. I agree that flight patterns hug
the coast line, you have no disagreement from me, whatsoever, on that
aspect. However, those flights take place over water, not land, as much as
possible. Somewhere around is a crash survival study that substaniates
this. I'll see if I can find it and post the URL if you desire. Let me
know.
>You need to study a little Alaska history. Until the 70's FBX was the
major
>stopping point for long haul carriers between Asia and Europe. The FBX
>folks thought they had a cash cow and upped the landing fees and fuel
>surcharges. The airlines said 'pfffffft' and moved to Anchorage.
---Strange thing about Alaska history; it consistantly changes with the
viewpoint of the teller.
>
Anchorage said they wanted the business and developed the infrastructure for
it and hung out the welcome mat. One of Anchorage's market advantages ---
they don't find growth and development undesirable.
>
>
Dennis P. Harris
T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>C. Jet A costs the same in FBX as ANC.
>
>---I stand corrected. Additional shipping usually increases the cost.
>Appears that the additional cost is spread accross total sales.
no. once again, you *assume* things are not based in fact. jet
fuel is cheap in fairbanks because williams (mapco) makes it in
their north pole refinery.
once again, you really do need to spend some time outside of los
anchorage.
Mary T
round trip so the Anchorage-based shipping companies can get their pound of
flesh?
Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
Floyd Davidson
>Strange, Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time.
>Maybe it makes a round trip so the Anchorage-based shipping
>companies can get their pound of flesh?
Just because Anchorage ships "stuff up there all the time" does
not mean that anyone ever ships a drop of jet fuel to Fairbanks.
Your Anchorage centricity is showing!
As far as I know, all of the jet fuel used at the Anchorage
airport comes from the Nikiski refineries. I am certain that
all of the jet fuel used at the Fairbanks Airport comes from
the North Pole refinery.
It happens that the North Pole refinery is one of the lowest
cost refineries anywhere, making jet fuel in Fairbanks a
bargain. (All of the byproducts from cracking crude, that are
normally expensive to ship to chemical plants, are just pushed
back into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline at the North Pole refinery.
Plus the low cost they have for crude in the first place because
they are that much closer to Prudhoe Bay than anyone else.)
Nikiski is also a low cost refinery; however, it is a well
known fact that the price of any fuel sold in Fairbanks is
adjusted to be whatever the market will bear. The automotive
gas refined at North Pole sells for less in Anchorage than
it does in Fairbanks, for example.
Floyd
>Dennis P. Harris wrote in message ...
>"Mary T" <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>C. Jet A costs the same in FBX as ANC.
>>>
>>>---I stand corrected. Additional shipping usually increases the cost.
>>>Appears that the additional cost is spread accross total sales.
>>
>>no. once again, you *assume* things are not based in fact. jet
>>fuel is cheap in fairbanks because williams (mapco) makes it in
>>their north pole refinery.
>>
>>once again, you really do need to spend some time outside of los
>>anchorage.
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Mary T
Floyd Davidson wrote in message <7urrqn$2...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>Strange, Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time.
>>Maybe it makes a round trip so the Anchorage-based shipping
>>companies can get their pound of flesh?
>
>Just because Anchorage ships "stuff up there all the time" does
>not mean that anyone ever ships a drop of jet fuel to Fairbanks.
>Your Anchorage centricity is showing!
---Go right ahead, Floyd, get right on the "in Mary's face" bandwagon.
Everyone else is, you might as well go for a pound of flesh. I did not say
"stuff up there all the time." I was respnding to a post with only one
basic subject --- fuel. My post read "Anchorage ships the stuff up there
all the time."
>
>As far as I know, all of the jet fuel used at the Anchorage
>airport comes from the Nikiski refineries. I am certain that
>all of the jet fuel used at the Fairbanks Airport comes from
>the North Pole refinery.
Actually, 100% of the production out of theFairbanks, not scheduled for
local delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment outside of the state. For
the Kenai area, 60% to 80% of all production, not scheduled for local
delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment outside of the state.
I expect that Anchorage International Airport purchases fuel from all
in-state producers. I also expect that Fairbanks also follows this type of
purchase plan.
I know this may sound a bit crazy to those who are not familiar with
purchasing practices, but big business and the military are vary wary of
sole-sourcing, unless the source is the only provider of the goods. Gives
the provider too much power. Also, if any one of the refineries were to
have a production crises, then the purchaser would be hard pressed to get
fuel, let alone enough fuel. All federal government contracts, and
purchases over $5,000 must be put out for bid. I know for a fact that DOD
purchases fuel from multiple providers. Having not revewed the shipping
documents, I can't say for certain what fuel went where, or came from
where -- but it is a good bet that DOD probably uses some Kenai fuel in the
Fairbanks area.
>
>It happens that the North Pole refinery is one of the lowest
>cost refineries anywhere, making jet fuel in Fairbanks a
>bargain. (All of the byproducts from cracking crude, that are
>normally expensive to ship to chemical plants, are just pushed
>back into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline at the North Pole refinery.
>Plus the low cost they have for crude in the first place because
>they are that much closer to Prudhoe Bay than anyone else.)
>
>Nikiski is also a low cost refinery; however, it is a well
>known fact that the price of any fuel sold in Fairbanks is
>adjusted to be whatever the market will bear. The automotive
>gas refined at North Pole sells for less in Anchorage than
>it does in Fairbanks, for example.
>
Private sector airlines and the federal governement purchase in bulk, under
long-term contracts. Most federal government contracts of this type are
multi-year, FOB destination, with inflation clauses based on the US
inflation rate. Those contracts go to the lowest bidder. However, with a
product such as air craft fuel, Uncle is not likely to go with a single
contract with a single provider --- much too risky for national defense
considerations. In any case, what the market will bear in the local economy
is probably not a factor for either buyer.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>>Strange, Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time.
>>>Maybe it makes a round trip so the Anchorage-based shipping
>>>companies can get their pound of flesh?
>>
>>Just because Anchorage ships "stuff up there all the time"
>>does not mean that anyone ever ships a drop of jet fuel to
>>Fairbanks. Your Anchorage centricity is showing!
>
>---Go right ahead, Floyd, get right on the "in Mary's face"
>bandwagon. Everyone else is, you might as well go for a pound
>of flesh. I did not say "stuff up there all the time." I was
>respnding to a post with only one basic subject --- fuel. My
>post read "Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time."
My appologies. I was giving you the benefit of some doubt.
In fact, that particular stuff is NEVER shipped up there.
>>As far as I know, all of the jet fuel used at the Anchorage
>>airport comes from the Nikiski refineries. I am certain that
>>all of the jet fuel used at the Fairbanks Airport comes from
>>the North Pole refinery.
>
>Actually, 100% of the production out of theFairbanks, not
>scheduled for local delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment
>outside of the state. For
Not true. Some of it is shipped to Anchorage for sale in
Anchorage, and is not shipped out of state.
>the Kenai area, 60% to 80% of all production, not scheduled for
>local delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment outside of the
>state.
>
>I expect that Anchorage International Airport purchases fuel
>from all in-state producers. I also expect that Fairbanks also
>follows this type of purchase plan.
Neither of them do. In either case there are very serious
restrictions on the volume of product that would be required to
ship via either rail or truck from sources other than the
particular supplier they do use.
>I know this may sound a bit crazy to those who are not familiar
>with purchasing practices, but big business and the military
>are vary wary of sole-sourcing, unless the source is the only
>provider of the goods. Gives the provider too much power.
>Also, if any one of the refineries were to have a production
>crises, then the purchaser would be hard pressed to get fuel,
>let alone enough fuel. All federal government contracts, and
>purchases over $5,000 must be put out for bid. I know for a
>fact that DOD purchases fuel from multiple providers. Having
>not revewed the shipping documents, I can't say for certain
>what fuel went where, or came from where -- but it is a good
>bet that DOD probably uses some Kenai fuel in the Fairbanks
>area.
I hesitate to say not a drop, but if there is any it is
literally a drop in the bucket compared to what comes from the
North Pole refinery.
They fly KC-135 tankers from Eielson AFB full, not empty.
>>It happens that the North Pole refinery is one of the lowest
>>cost refineries anywhere, making jet fuel in Fairbanks a
>>bargain. (All of the byproducts from cracking crude, that are
>>normally expensive to ship to chemical plants, are just pushed
>>back into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline at the North Pole
>>refinery. Plus the low cost they have for crude in the first
>>place because they are that much closer to Prudhoe Bay than
>>anyone else.)
>>
>>Nikiski is also a low cost refinery; however, it is a well
>>known fact that the price of any fuel sold in Fairbanks is
>>adjusted to be whatever the market will bear. The automotive
>>gas refined at North Pole sells for less in Anchorage than it
>>does in Fairbanks, for example.
>
>Private sector airlines and the federal governement purchase in
>bulk, under long-term contracts. Most federal government
>contracts of this type are multi-year, FOB destination, with
>inflation clauses based on the US inflation rate. Those
>contracts go to the lowest bidder. However, with a product
>such as air craft fuel, Uncle is not likely to go with a single
>contract with a single provider --- much too risky for national
>defense considerations. In any case, what the market will bear
>in the local economy is probably not a factor for either buyer.
Sounds good, but it hain't necessarily so. "Lowest bidder" is
by definition "what the market will bear". How is anyone
going to compete with the North Pole refinery when they have
to ship the fuel in? The result is that local fuel can be sold
with a price tag that includes 90% of the cost of shipping it
to Fairbanks from elsewhere, and it will still be cheaper for
the buyer, while of course the seller does quite well.
Fairbanks International, Eielson AFB, Ft. Wainright, and
Anchorage International are all essentially sole sourced. I
am not sure about Elmendorf and Ft. Richardson.
Floyd
ROBERT L BOLTON
Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:7v0vpe$2a...@enews3.newsguy.com.......
The old Haines to Ft Wainwright pipeline is still in
operation between Wainwright and Eielson as far as I
know, and it is tied into the North Pole refinery. I
imagine there is a supply contract, but I imagine the
refinery would get the contract every time. Who could
compete with a refinery where the customer has a
pipeline connected to it.
I don't know if the Whittier to Anchorage pipeline is
still in operation or not. Whittier was created as a
deep water port for the Military. There is a delong
dock there that was used to off load fuel into the
Whittier tank farm, where the fuel was then pumped
military Anchorage POL terminal, but I think that was
all mothballed a couple years ago. My guess is that
all fuels used in Alaska are produced in Alaska.
Eielson and Ft Wainwright have a contract with Usebelli
Coal to provide coal. It's not intentionally sole sour
ce, but who is going to supply coal at a lower rate
than Usebelli?
I'm not sure why Anchorage was chosen as the Railroads
headquarters instead of the Wasilla area, but maybe
there was already some infrastructure. I'd bet the
military chose Anchorage as a site because the railroad
ran through it, civilization was there, and Whittier
was near. It was the closest to Whittier. Valdez
would probably have been chosen as the railhead instead
of Seward if it wasn't surrounded by mountains, and
that probably would have meant that today Anchorage
would be like the community of Indian (a gas station
and store).
As it is, the things Anchorage has going for it are:
Seward and Valdez have no land; Seward and Valdez have
weather that stinks worse than Anchorage; it is already
built to service the population centers of Alaska;
Alaska's wealthy live there. Today, the way econnomies
keep growing is by bribing, I mean influencing, and
threatening, politicians. Anchorage is so much larger
than other areas, and has so many of Alaska's elite
living in it's community, that it certainly runs the
show in the state.
Anchorage (Anch/Palmer/Wassilla) sure doesn't need any
more people. It's rush hour all day long here.
Robert
Mary T
fuel and a heck of a lot more in the years I worked in Civil Service. Did
time with the Navy, Air Force, DOD, VA, Forest Service, Peace Corps and
Public Health Service in Alaska, Guam, New Mexico, South Carolina, Oklahoma,
Connecticut, New York, Hawaii, Florida, Britain, Spain, Wisconsin, Russia
.... and points in between.
DOD buys fuel by the billions of gallons. DOD stockpiles fuel. Now, that
is what is termed buying power. The bases in Alaska purchase fuel from local
refineries, but they also purchase fuel from DOD which comes in from
outside.
Uncle rarely pays state or local taxes, and never pays federal taxes. There
are only three states in which Uncle pays sales tax -- South Carolina was
one of them. Those states tax the seller based on his or her purchases not
sales. Uncle rarely purchases anything under a contract that is not FOB
destination, which for those not familiar with the term, means the seller
pays shipping costs and retains title (ownership) to the goods until the
good are delivered and accepted.
I could quote you from DOD fuel contracts, but doing so would put my fanny
in a federal prison. You want the information, you will have to ask for it
under the FOIA or wait and ask me in another year, when my oath expires and
I could accept employment with some of those providers.
Believe what you want to believe. Also, as far as I am concerned, in Alaska
if it does not go on a ship or a plane, it is local delivery for a provider
as large as the refineries.
Mary
Floyd Davidson wrote in message <7v0vpe$2a...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>>>Strange, Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time.
>>>>Maybe it makes a round trip so the Anchorage-based shipping
>>>>companies can get their pound of flesh?
>>>
>>>Just because Anchorage ships "stuff up there all the time"
>>>does not mean that anyone ever ships a drop of jet fuel to
>>>Fairbanks. Your Anchorage centricity is showing!
>>
>>---Go right ahead, Floyd, get right on the "in Mary's face"
>>bandwagon. Everyone else is, you might as well go for a pound
>>of flesh. I did not say "stuff up there all the time." I was
>>respnding to a post with only one basic subject --- fuel. My
>>post read "Anchorage ships the stuff up there all the time."
>
>My appologies. I was giving you the benefit of some doubt.
>In fact, that particular stuff is NEVER shipped up there.
>
>>>As far as I know, all of the jet fuel used at the Anchorage
>>>airport comes from the Nikiski refineries. I am certain that
>>>all of the jet fuel used at the Fairbanks Airport comes from
>>>the North Pole refinery.
>>
>>Actually, 100% of the production out of theFairbanks, not
>>scheduled for local delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment
>>outside of the state. For
>
>Not true. Some of it is shipped to Anchorage for sale in
>Anchorage, and is not shipped out of state.
>
>>the Kenai area, 60% to 80% of all production, not scheduled for
>>local delivery, comes to Anchorage for shipment outside of the
>>state.
>>
>>I expect that Anchorage International Airport purchases fuel
>>from all in-state producers. I also expect that Fairbanks also
>>follows this type of purchase plan.
>
>Neither of them do. In either case there are very serious
>restrictions on the volume of product that would be required to
>ship via either rail or truck from sources other than the
>particular supplier they do use.
>
>>I know this may sound a bit crazy to those who are not familiar
>>with purchasing practices, but big business and the military
>>are vary wary of sole-sourcing, unless the source is the only
>>provider of the goods. Gives the provider too much power.
>>Also, if any one of the refineries were to have a production
>>crises, then the purchaser would be hard pressed to get fuel,
>>let alone enough fuel. All federal government contracts, and
>>purchases over $5,000 must be put out for bid. I know for a
>>fact that DOD purchases fuel from multiple providers. Having
>>not revewed the shipping documents, I can't say for certain
>>what fuel went where, or came from where -- but it is a good
>>bet that DOD probably uses some Kenai fuel in the Fairbanks
>>area.
>
>I hesitate to say not a drop, but if there is any it is
>literally a drop in the bucket compared to what comes from the
>North Pole refinery.
>
Mary T
ROBERT L BOLTON wrote in message
<7v36er$2mqe$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>
>The old Haines to Ft Wainwright pipeline is still in
>operation between Wainwright and Eielson as far as I
>know, and it is tied into the North Pole refinery. I
>imagine there is a supply contract, but I imagine the
>refinery would get the contract every time. Who could
>compete with a refinery where the customer has a
>pipeline connected to it.
The Department of Defense supply depot.
>
>I don't know if the Whittier to Anchorage pipeline is
>still in operation or not. Whittier was created as a
>deep water port for the Military. There is a delong
>dock there that was used to off load fuel into the
>Whittier tank farm, where the fuel was then pumped
>military Anchorage POL terminal, but I think that was
>all mothballed a couple years ago. My guess is that
>all fuels used in Alaska are produced in Alaska.
---I can't speak to the pipeline you are discussing. The lines from the
Port of Anchorage to the bases have spouted a leak or two in the past 6
years -- as has the tank farm at the base.
However, I know for a fact Alaska military instalations do purchase fuel
from the DOD stockpile.
>
>Eielson and Ft Wainwright have a contract with Usebelli
>Coal to provide coal. It's not intentionally sole sour
>ce, but who is going to supply coal at a lower rate
>than Usebelli?
>
>I'm not sure why Anchorage was chosen as the Railroads
>headquarters instead of the Wasilla area, but maybe
>there was already some infrastructure.
I can answer this issue. Anchorage was originally a railroad construction
camp. The site was selected because it is the half-way point for the rail
line.
I'd bet the
>military chose Anchorage as a site because the railroad
>ran through it, civilization was there, and Whittier
>was near. It was the closest to Whittier. Valdez
>would probably have been chosen as the railhead instead
>of Seward if it wasn't surrounded by mountains, and
>that probably would have meant that today Anchorage
>would be like the community of Indian (a gas station
>and store).
>As it is, the things Anchorage has going for it are:
>Seward and Valdez have no land; Seward and Valdez have
>weather that stinks worse than Anchorage; it is already
>built to service the population centers of Alaska;
>Alaska's wealthy live there. Today, the way econnomies
>keep growing is by bribing, I mean influencing, and
>threatening, politicians. Anchorage is so much larger
>than other areas, and has so many of Alaska's elite
>living in it's community, that it certainly runs the
>show in the state.
--Thank you for stating the physical facts. Maybe someone will listen to
you. Whittier, Valdez, Seward ... could not host the infrastructure --
there is no room for it. Despite all the talk about fog and icing,
Anchorage has much milder weather, less rain and less snow.
Anchorage has, by far, the most voters in the state. The elite live here
because it has the most to offer in way of infrastructure, arts, music,
commerce, finance .... world access ... Without question, under our present
American form of government, Anchorage runs the show. With the largest
population center in Alaska, Anchorage also recieves the largest share of
state resources.
Mary
>
>Anchorage (Anch/Palmer/Wassilla) sure doesn't need any
>more people. It's rush hour all day long here.
>
>Robert
>
The area keeps growing and growing. Won't be long before the four-lane runs
to the Canada border -- I expect to see it in my lifetime.
Also for the poster who was bitching about minimum wage, hotel maid jobs --
you should try reading the want ads. They are now titled room attendents
and pay at the larger hotels starts at an average of $12.00 an hour ---
about the same as a bookkeeper. Guess a lab assistant job with the state
would be better at $985 biweekly (do the math).
Best job I ever had paid about $1.25 an hour ($200 a month), mostly less
considering there was no 40 hour work week. Of course, it also provided
room and board. Twenty years ago? No. Four years ago -- working for Uncle
in Moscow.
Mary
>
Floyd Davidson
>Well, Floyd, I've drawn up Uncle's contracts and I've paid
>Uncle's bills for fuel and a heck of a lot more in the years I
>worked in Civil Service. Did time with the Navy, Air Force,
>DOD, VA, Forest Service, Peace Corps and Public Health Service
>in Alaska, Guam, New Mexico, South Carolina, Oklahoma,
>Connecticut, New York, Hawaii, Florida, Britain, Spain,
>Wisconsin, Russia .... and points in between.
>
>DOD buys fuel by the billions of gallons. DOD stockpiles fuel.
>Now, that is what is termed buying power. The bases in Alaska
>purchase fuel from local refineries, but they also purchase
>fuel from DOD which comes in from outside.
You are saying they ship some significant volume of fuel from
outside to Eielson AFB????
I don't think so!
The point is *where* does DOD stockpile fuel! They stockpile it
in Alaska too, after purchase from local suppliers. And that
might even be the subject of some paperwork shuffles between
tanks here and tanks in Texax, for example. But nobody is
shipping jet fuel from outside to Eielson AFB in any significant
quantity.
>Uncle rarely pays state or local taxes, and never pays federal
>taxes. There are only three states in which Uncle pays sales
>tax -- South Carolina was one of them. Those states tax the
>seller based on his or her purchases not sales. Uncle rarely
>purchases anything under a contract that is not FOB
>destination, which for those not familiar with the term, means
>the seller pays shipping costs and retains title (ownership) to
>the goods until the good are delivered and accepted.
But that does not reduce the cost of the fuel. It just means is
the government buys it at its doorstep (for a price that
includes shipping costs for the seller), as opposed to buying it
at the sellers doorstep for a lower price, and then paying
someone else to transport it. Either way, the government pays
the shipping.
Consider the history of some of the massive contracts for
resupply of the various remote military sites in Alaska! The
old "Mona Lisa" and "Cool Barge" resupply projects. Those
were always FOB too, but if you think the government paid
Seattle prices for fuel oil delivered to Tatilina AFB or the
Barter Island DEWLINE site, I'll sell you a wonderful bridge
in New Yawk.
>I could quote you from DOD fuel contracts, but doing so would
>put my fanny in a federal prison.
Don't try to BS us Mary, it would not. The figures have been
published in local newspapers several times. Certainly I don't
remember any of the numbers, but the Fairbanks paper over the
past 25 years has several times published some rather extensive
reports on jet fuel usage and contracs as it relates to the
several suppliers and the major civilian and military buyers.
(The same is true of the coal supply contracts for
Ft. Wainwright and Eielson that Robert Bolton mentioned.)
> You want the information, you will have to ask for it under
>the FOIA or wait and ask me in another year, when my oath
>expires and I could accept employment with some of those
>providers.
>
>Believe what you want to believe. Also, as far as I am
>concerned, in Alaska if it does not go on a ship or a plane, it
>is local delivery for a provider as large as the refineries.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it goes into a pipeline,
I might agree that it is "local". But if you sit down with some
figures for how many gallons of jet fuel are used at either the
Anchorage or the Fairbanks airports (or try this with Eielson
AFB!) and figure out how many trucks it would take to supply
them from any source other than the one they currently use, it
gets very obvious very quickly why it amounts to a sole source
contract! Nobody else _can_ be competitive, and trucking fuel
is not a viable solution.
Eric Holeman
>I can answer this issue. Anchorage was originally a railroad construction
>camp. The site was selected because it is the half-way point for the rail
>line.
I don't know where you get this idea. By ARR mileposts, it's about 110
miles to Seward and 360 to Fairbanks from Anchorage. The halfway point is
somewhere north of Talkeetna. (http://www.akrr.com/pages/map.htm)
Charles Eggen
wrote:
>The area keeps growing and growing. Won't be long before the four-lane runs
>to the Canada border -- I expect to see it in my lifetime.
>
Well I hope you are no older than 15, and the average life expectancy
gets to 100 in another 50 years, or your "bet" will lose. The
likelihood of a four-lane highway from Anchorage to the border within
100 years is very remote (pun intended). Are we indulging in "funny"
mushrooms, Mary? A high speed rail line through Canada, within 100
years, is a greater likelihood.
Chuck
Mary T
are in 1999. Here is the brief history of Anchorage as published on SLED ..
this might help you better understand the past. To presume that the
half-way point during construction and the half-way point at completion are
the same takes a large leap of imagination.
You can find a more detailed history in the Alaska Collection, I'm sure they
would provide photo copies if your requested them through the inter-library
loan program.
History ----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1741 Russian sailors led by the Dane Vitus Bering came upon Alaska's
mainland. They were followed by British, Spanish and American explorers,
including Captain James Cook in 1778. In 1867, Alaska was purchased by the
U.S. from Russia. The discovery of gold in 1887 and in the Interior in 1922
sparked development in the area. Construction began in 1914 on a federal
railroad from the port of Seward, 126 miles south of Anchorage, through the
coal fields of Interior Alaska, to the gold claims near Fairbanks, 358 miles
to the north. The midpoint construction headquarters was Anchorage, and by
July of 1915, thousands of job seekers and opportunists had poured into the
area, living in a tent city on the banks of Ship Creek near the edge of the
present downtown. That July produced the "Great Anchorage Lot Sale," a land
auction that shaped the future of the city. Some 655 lots were sold for
$148,000 or an average of $225 each. A month later, the town voted to call
itself Alaska City, but the Federal government refused to change its name
from Anchorage. From 1939 to 1957, major military impacts and government
construction of roads, airports and harbors throughout Alaska contributed to
the growth of Anchorage. The Port was completed by the early 1960s. The Good
Friday earthquake in 1964 destroyed a large part of the city. During the
1970s, the development of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline brought rapid growth to Anchorage; population, office space and
housing tripled within a ten-year period.
Eric Holeman wrote in message <7v4cof$il$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
Mary T
you seal the bet, you might want to review some of the US-Canada
negotiations that were taking place before the fishing issues hit the
forefront.
Mary T
Charles Eggen wrote in message <3815bb03....@news.teleport.com>...
Mary T
refinery does not truck fuel to the Port of Anchorage for export either.
It would appear that you know much more than I do about government fuel
purchases and use -- why don't you tell all of us, and please, tell us where
we can look for more details on this information. I'm open to additional,
current, valid data.
Floyd Davidson wrote in message <7v3vrc$2r...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>Well, Floyd, I've drawn up Uncle's contracts and I've paid
>>Uncle's bills for fuel and a heck of a lot more in the years I
>>worked in Civil Service. Did time with the Navy, Air Force,
>>DOD, VA, Forest Service, Peace Corps and Public Health Service
>>in Alaska, Guam, New Mexico, South Carolina, Oklahoma,
>>Connecticut, New York, Hawaii, Florida, Britain, Spain,
>>Wisconsin, Russia .... and points in between.
>>
>>DOD buys fuel by the billions of gallons. DOD stockpiles fuel.
>>Now, that is what is termed buying power. The bases in Alaska
>>purchase fuel from local refineries, but they also purchase
>>fuel from DOD which comes in from outside.
>
>You are saying they ship some significant volume of fuel from
>outside to Eielson AFB????
>
>I don't think so!
>
>The point is *where* does DOD stockpile fuel! They stockpile it
>in Alaska too, after purchase from local suppliers. And that
>might even be the subject of some paperwork shuffles between
>tanks here and tanks in Texax, for example. But nobody is
>shipping jet fuel from outside to Eielson AFB in any significant
>quantity.
>
>>Uncle rarely pays state or local taxes, and never pays federal
>>taxes. There are only three states in which Uncle pays sales
>>tax -- South Carolina was one of them. Those states tax the
>>seller based on his or her purchases not sales. Uncle rarely
>>purchases anything under a contract that is not FOB
>>destination, which for those not familiar with the term, means
>>the seller pays shipping costs and retains title (ownership) to
>>the goods until the good are delivered and accepted.
>
>But that does not reduce the cost of the fuel. It just means is
>the government buys it at its doorstep (for a price that
>includes shipping costs for the seller), as opposed to buying it
>at the sellers doorstep for a lower price, and then paying
>someone else to transport it. Either way, the government pays
>the shipping.
>
>Consider the history of some of the massive contracts for
>resupply of the various remote military sites in Alaska! The
>old "Mona Lisa" and "Cool Barge" resupply projects. Those
>were always FOB too, but if you think the government paid
>Seattle prices for fuel oil delivered to Tatilina AFB or the
>Barter Island DEWLINE site, I'll sell you a wonderful bridge
>in New Yawk.
>
>>I could quote you from DOD fuel contracts, but doing so would
>>put my fanny in a federal prison.
>
>Don't try to BS us Mary, it would not. The figures have been
>published in local newspapers several times. Certainly I don't
>remember any of the numbers, but the Fairbanks paper over the
>past 25 years has several times published some rather extensive
>reports on jet fuel usage and contracs as it relates to the
>several suppliers and the major civilian and military buyers.
>(The same is true of the coal supply contracts for
>Ft. Wainwright and Eielson that Robert Bolton mentioned.)
>
>> You want the information, you will have to ask for it under
>>the FOIA or wait and ask me in another year, when my oath
>>expires and I could accept employment with some of those
>>providers.
>>
>>Believe what you want to believe. Also, as far as I am
>>concerned, in Alaska if it does not go on a ship or a plane, it
>>is local delivery for a provider as large as the refineries.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it goes into a pipeline,
>I might agree that it is "local". But if you sit down with some
>figures for how many gallons of jet fuel are used at either the
>Anchorage or the Fairbanks airports (or try this with Eielson
>AFB!) and figure out how many trucks it would take to supply
>them from any source other than the one they currently use, it
>gets very obvious very quickly why it amounts to a sole source
>contract! Nobody else _can_ be competitive, and trucking fuel
>is not a viable solution.
>
Floyd Davidson
>You are entirely correct, Floyd, they do not truck fuel to
>Fairbanks. The refinery does not truck fuel to the Port of
>Anchorage for export either.
>
>It would appear that you know much more than I do about
>government fuel purchases and use -- why don't you tell all of
>us, and please, tell us where we can look for more details on
>this information. I'm open to additional, current, valid data.
The trouble is, that's about all I know about it. It has been
written up in the Fairbanks paper every so many years for the
past few decades and I remember only the gross detail, but I
can't remember any really useful stuff like the actual numbers.
I did some poking around with a web search engine, but didn't
come up with much. The Anchorage paper doesn't give free access
to its archives, and the Fairbanks paper's web page it totally
down, so neither of them were useful.
I did find that the Anchorage airport facility uses about 1.5
million gallons a day, and that prior to Tesoro expanding their
facility in Kenai about 1/4 of that amount was from outside. I
thought what I'd seen was that most of it came from Nikiski, but
Tesoro says they are a "primary source", and Mapco says they are
the largest supplier. Mapco ships jet fuel from the North Pole
refinery to Anchorage via rail. The Mapco refinery in North
Pole produces something like 35,000 bbl per day of jet fuel,
so its entire production isn't enough to supply the Anchorage
airport alone.
The significant point for Fairbanks folks is that the price of
automotive gasoline at the Mapco pump located a mile or so from
the refinery is higher than the cost of that same Mapco (Williams
now?) gas when purchased 360+ miles away in Anchorage! And
that is one of the reasons the Fairbanks paper every few years
published a feature article on refining and transportation of
petroleum products in Alaska.
Eric Holeman
>Eric, one needs to remember that in 1914 this were much different than they
>are in 1999.
Fairbanks was closer to Anchorage in 1914 than it is now? Or maybe Seward
was further away? Hey, I knew the '64 earthquake moved things around a
lot, but...
> Here is the brief history of Anchorage as published on SLED ..
>this might help you better understand the past.
Gosh, thanks, Mar. I'd thought we'd covered Anchorage and Alaska history
rather thoroughly at Service High, but I guess we musta skipped over that
week or so in 1920 when Anchorage was the halfway point of the ARR.
> To presume that the
>half-way point during construction and the half-way point at completion are
>the same takes a large leap of imagination.
And to keep referring to a point as "half-way" some 76 years after the
route's completion takes a large leap of logic. It's somewhere in the
middle of the route, as is most anywhere else on the line outside of the
termini.
>You can find a more detailed history in the Alaska Collection, I'm sure they
>would provide photo copies if your requested them through the inter-library
>loan program.
Never mind that. Send me some of those mushrooms. They look like fun.
>>>I can answer this issue. Anchorage was originally a railroad construction
>>>camp. The site was selected because it is the half-way point for the rail
>>>line.
It's the halfway point of the Denali Highway, too, right?
Mary T
Floyd Davidson wrote in message <7v6fvb$t...@enews5.newsguy.com>...
>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>I did find that the Anchorage airport facility uses about 1.5
>million gallons a day, and that prior to Tesoro expanding their
>facility in Kenai about 1/4 of that amount was from outside. I
>thought what I'd seen was that most of it came from Nikiski, but
>Tesoro says they are a "primary source", and Mapco says they are
>the largest supplier. Mapco ships jet fuel from the North Pole
>refinery to Anchorage via rail.
---Anchorage International's fuel use has gone up. Add to that Elmendorf
AFB, Elison, and all of the Army sites. I think the light bulb might just
have gotten turned on. Fuel is still brough in from outside. I've gotten
in touch with my State of Alaska contacts to see if they have current data
on the issue.
Yes, fuel is transported to Anchorage by rail. Now, I am going to ask you
if you actually think all those tank cars go back up empty? Before you
reply, stop and think about what a scramble would take place if the refinery
up at North Pole went down for even a day? I don't know about Fairbanks
International Airport, but I do know about the military --- no, Eilson does
not risk depending on one supplier.
The Mapco refinery in North
>Pole produces something like 35,000 bbl per day of jet fuel,
>so its entire production isn't enough to supply the Anchorage
>airport alone.
>
>The significant point for Fairbanks folks is that the price of
>automotive gasoline at the Mapco pump located a mile or so from
>the refinery is higher than the cost of that same Mapco (Williams
>now?) gas when purchased 360+ miles away in Anchorage! And
>that is one of the reasons the Fairbanks paper every few years
>published a feature article on refining and transportation of
>petroleum products in Alaska.
Yes, Floyd, gasoline costs more in Fairbanks, even though the city is right
next door to the refinery. That will be the situation until Fairbanks'
population expands markedly.
No, it is not price gouging. No, it is not what the "market will bear."
The basis is easily explained by cost/volume economics. Distributers in
Anchorage purchase the fuel at a lower cost simply because they buy a lot
more of it than the distributers in Fairbanks. Same concept applies at
Costco, Sams Wholesale Club and Wal-Mart. Like DOD, those companies have
central contracting offices and supply depots. They purchase in tremendous
volume and then distribute to their stores.
Hopefully, this will help you and others better understand the some of the
many benefits Anchorage provides for rural Alaska.
Speaking to Anchorage's drain on Alaska's resources ... Did you, by some
chance, read the article on the Municipalities proposed capital expenditure
budgets through 2002 which appeared in the Anchorage Daily News today?
Looks like the residents of Anchorage are going to pay for infrastructure
development in outlying areas --- for example, roads, trails and other
projects in Eagle River are part of those budgets. Those capital projects
will be paid for through tax revenues and bonds --- not state funds, not
federal funds.
Mary T
Michael F. Pickett
> History ----------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
> Construction began in 1914 on a federal
> railroad from the port of Seward, 126 miles south of Anchorage, through the
> coal fields of Interior Alaska, to the gold claims near Fairbanks, 358 miles
> to the north.
The author got a bit too general...actually, the railroad had been long
since in service from Seward up to the north side of the Turnagain Arm,
give or take Girdwood, sometimes furtively, sometimes
bankruptedly......there are lots of wonderful stories about trips up the
railroad starting some years before 1914....including a single car that
ran up past Lawing...gotta tell you about the time they refused to take
any federal employees, including the foresters...the owner was pissed off
at the federal government...so the feds WALKED...all the way to
Sunrise...and back, on one occasion...
In fact, just to cause some people to really get pissed...the actual dog
trail north, took off (aka BEGAN) from the END OF THE RAILROAD on the
north side of the Turnagain...they used to run sleds through there to
Eagle River, and on up to Old Knik. In fact, the Chugach Forest went up
there, then, and the Eagle River/Chugiak area was known as "Gee Pole
Flats"...somehow, the revisionists have "proven" that the dog trail
actually went to Seward, hence the Iditarod Trail actually began in
Seward...it didn't...but don't tell Sewardites, or some of the Alaska
state "Archaelogists" that...they have to have it starting in
Seward...guess the dogs took the train as part of the trip...*grin*
Several years ago, one young archaeologist came to our claims and set
aside the old wagon road that Estes used to haul freight into the Fairman
Claim on Quartz Creek as "part of the Iditarod Trail"...we just about
cracked up as we tried not to gag ourselves with a finger...
The wagon trail up to Gilpatricks was just that...a trail...the foresters
used it to get to Gilpatrics, then they used a foot trail to get up to
Canyon Creek, where the foresters on fire watch would often spend the
night with the miners...then, they'd climb up the east side of the canyon,
and follow the Chinese dug ditchline down to the Tyee Wyble mine...one
time fighting some fires on the Tyee Claims with the miners... (real
animosity, huh)...
Anyway...the trail to Gilpatricd from Mud Lake (Tern Lake) became the
route for the Seward Highway...as they cut it up to Gilpatricks...then on
over to the Summit Lakes...but, they kept the road on the west side of the
canyon, rather than cross the canyon twice...that is now part of the
"Iditarod Trail" as is the railroad that began this meandering muse...a
railroad that began some years before 1914...
ffurgy
-------------------------
Headed for Alaska? Cruising? Driving the Alaska Highway? Wanna know where
Alaskans eat?...Visit Gruff's "Alaskan Feedbags" on Dennis Harris' Great
Web Site http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris/feedfaq.htm
Floyd Davidson
>>million gallons a day, and that prior to Tesoro expanding their
>>facility in Kenai about 1/4 of that amount was from outside. I
>>thought what I'd seen was that most of it came from Nikiski, but
>>Tesoro says they are a "primary source", and Mapco says they are
>>the largest supplier. Mapco ships jet fuel from the North Pole
>>refinery to Anchorage via rail.
>
>---Anchorage International's fuel use has gone up. Add to that
>Elmendorf AFB, Elison, and all of the Army sites. I think the
>light bulb might just have gotten turned on. Fuel is still
>brough in from outside. I've gotten in touch with my State of
>Alaska contacts to see if they have current data on the issue.
>
>Yes, fuel is transported to Anchorage by rail. Now, I am going
>to ask you if you actually think all those tank cars go back up
>empty?
Why sure Mary, all those tankers that are full of jet fuel on
the trip south to Anchorage are just as full of jet fuel on
the trip North to Fairbanks.
Do you have any more funny stories?
>Before you reply, stop and think about what a scramble
>would take place if the refinery up at North Pole went down for
>even a day? I don't know about Fairbanks International
>Airport, but I do know about the military --- no, Eilson does
>not risk depending on one supplier.
Give us some numbers to work with. Don't just say they
have more than one supplier, if that 2nd supplier sells them
1/2 of 1 percent of their jet fuel. Show me some numbers where
anything close to half of Eielson's jet fuel comes from other
than that pipe running from North Pole to Eielson AFB.
As far as I know the main diversity is 1) Mapco and 2) Petro
Star.
>>The Mapco refinery in North
>>Pole produces something like 35,000 bbl per day of jet fuel,
>>so its entire production isn't enough to supply the Anchorage
>>airport alone.
>>
>>The significant point for Fairbanks folks is that the price of
>>automotive gasoline at the Mapco pump located a mile or so from
>>the refinery is higher than the cost of that same Mapco (Williams
>>now?) gas when purchased 360+ miles away in Anchorage! And
>>that is one of the reasons the Fairbanks paper every few years
>>published a feature article on refining and transportation of
>>petroleum products in Alaska.
>
>Yes, Floyd, gasoline costs more in Fairbanks, even though the
>city is right next door to the refinery. That will be the
>situation until Fairbanks' population expands markedly.
>
>No, it is not price gouging. No, it is not what the "market
>will bear." The basis is easily explained by cost/volume
>economics. Distributers in Anchorage purchase the fuel at a
>lower cost simply because they buy a lot more of it than the
>distributers in Fairbanks. Same concept applies at Costco,
>Sams Wholesale Club and Wal-Mart. Like DOD, those companies
>have central contracting offices and supply depots. They
>purchase in tremendous volume and then distribute to their
>stores.
You don't seem to understand the dynamics of "cost/volume"
economics very well. Some people call gasoline pricing ing
Fairbanks gouging, though I don't. Some people realize that
what you just described is "what the market will bear". They
can't sell gasoline in Anchorage for that price because there
are 2 or 3 other sources which would immediately take the entire
market. That isn't the case with the Fairbanks market.
We are talking, in case you didn't notice, about gas pumped
at stations owned by the same company that owns the refinery!
They _do_ buy in bulk! They own the stocks in Fairbanks and
in Anchorage both, and "buy" it with a paper shuffle in both
cases.
>Hopefully, this will help you and others better understand the
>some of the many benefits Anchorage provides for rural Alaska.
We were hoping you would even begin to understand the
significance. But so far it doesn't seem likely...
>Speaking to Anchorage's drain on Alaska's resources ... Did
>you, by some chance, read the article on the Municipalities
>proposed capital expenditure budgets through 2002 which
>appeared in the Anchorage Daily News today? Looks like the
>residents of Anchorage are going to pay for infrastructure
>development in outlying areas --- for example, roads, trails
>and other projects in Eagle River are part of those budgets.
>Those capital projects will be paid for through tax revenues
>and bonds --- not state funds, not federal funds.
Turkey Gulch is an "outlying area"?
(I remember when it was!)
bookburn
Michael F. Pickett <uh...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.991027132040.6884A-100000@vtn1.
..
>
> >
History ------------------------------------------------
Mary T
Floyd Davidson wrote in message <7v8gka$8...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
<snip>
>Do you have any more funny stories?
--Last time you made that remark it was in reference to importing fuel from
outside. You did some research for yourself and found out that I was
correct, that the even the public sector still used fuel from outside. Why
don't you do some more research before you assume I am wrong.
>
>Give us some numbers to work with. Don't just say they
>have more than one supplier, if that 2nd supplier sells them
>1/2 of 1 percent of their jet fuel. Show me some numbers where
>anything close to half of Eielson's jet fuel comes from other
>than that pipe running from North Pole to Eielson AFB.
---Like I said, Floyd, I've put a research request in with my State contact
in Juneau. Shipments out are tracked, as that is part of the data compiled
to calculate the Gross State Product. Since shipments in come from a
domestic, rather than a foreign source, the data is not routinely compiled.
It will take a little while to get the information --- if it can be
obtained. I'm not about to put in a special research request, and put out
money to satisfy your stubbroness.
>
>As far as I know the main diversity is 1) Mapco and 2) Petro
>Star.
---Suggest you do some more research. Last time it proved your presumptions
to be wrong. You are not likely to accept the data unless you see it for
yourself.
<snip>
>
>You don't seem to understand the dynamics of "cost/volume"
>economics very well. Some people call gasoline pricing ing
>Fairbanks gouging, though I don't. Some people realize that
>what you just described is "what the market will bear". They
>can't sell gasoline in Anchorage for that price because there
>are 2 or 3 other sources which would immediately take the entire
>market. That isn't the case with the Fairbanks market.
>We are talking, in case you didn't notice, about gas pumped
>at stations owned by the same company that owns the refinery!
>They _do_ buy in bulk! They own the stocks in Fairbanks and
>in Anchorage both, and "buy" it with a paper shuffle in both
>cases.
---Yes, Floyd, compitition is part of the equation. On the other side of
the coin, you keep focusing on supply side economics. You are also
presuming that all outlets bearing the parent company name are corporately
owned and operated. Are all the McDonalds and Burger Kings corporate owned
and operated? Where do the Texico and Chevron outlets get their fuel? Time
to do some more research.
You are insisting that fuel in Fairbanks reflects what is termed as
adminstered price. Sorry to disappoint you, but all prices are administered
and all prices are set by supply and demand. The refinery may appear to you
as being oligopolist, but as you will come to understand after further
research, it is not. The refinery does not have a monopoly, contrary to
your assumptions. I suggest you look at the issue from the viewpoint of
price elastcity. The concept of price elasticity of demand provides a most
useful way of thinking and talking about the degree of market power the
buyer has. Floyd, alleged exceptions to the supply/demand economic process
are most always based on misinterpretation of the evidence.
Stop confusing the terms demand and quantity demanded. Try thinking of
quantity demanded and price as objects on the opposit ends of a seesaw, and
demand as a large balloon to which the seesaw is attached. When price goes
down, quantity demanded goes up. However, changes in demand (movement of
the ballon up or down) exerts simultanios pressures in the same direction on
both the price and quantity demanded.
>
>>Hopefully, this will help you and others better understand the
>>some of the many benefits Anchorage provides for rural Alaska.
>
>We were hoping you would even begin to understand the
>significance. But so far it doesn't seem likely...
---Again, Floyd, I suggest you do a bit more research. You argued with me
about fuel still being shipped into Alaska and found I was actually correct.
Maybe you should also take a look at the Municpality's budget and see where
the money actually comes from. Be prepared for some surpirises --- 60% of
the budget comes from property taxes.
>
>>Speaking to Anchorage's drain on Alaska's resources ... Did
>>you, by some chance, read the article on the Municipalities
>>proposed capital expenditure budgets through 2002 which
>>appeared in the Anchorage Daily News today? Looks like the
>>residents of Anchorage are going to pay for infrastructure
>>development in outlying areas --- for example, roads, trails
>>and other projects in Eagle River are part of those budgets.
>>Those capital projects will be paid for through tax revenues
>>and bonds --- not state funds, not federal funds.
>
>Turkey Gulch is an "outlying area"?
---Eagle River is only one example. Ignorance is not bliss. Do you really
want to know the truth, or do you just like to argue and denigrate? If you
want to understand, if you want the truth, you will open your eyes and look
for it.
>(I remember when it was!)
---So do I. Now you know where the some of the funding came from for the
development of its infrastructure --- the Anchorage budget and municipal
bonds -- debt Anchorage property owners must pay for.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>>>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>>>Mary T <bso...@chugach.net> wrote:
>
>>Do you have any more funny stories?
>
>--Last time you made that remark it was in reference to
>importing fuel from outside. You did some research for
>yourself and found out that I was correct, that the even the
>public sector still used fuel from outside. Why don't you do
>some more research before you assume I am wrong.
Actually, I have not make that remark before. But I did
deride your statement that any significant amount of jet fuel
from outside is shipped to Eielson AFB. My research has not
shown that any amount of jet fuel is shipped to Eielson from
outside. What I did find was that until not all that long
ago something under 25 percent of the jet fuel used at the
Anchorage airport was shipped in. But that percentage is
even smaller now.
Since _you_ haven't given a single number, and are coming up
with funny stories like how they ship jet fuel from Anchorage to
Fairbanks on the railroad in the same tanker cars that are
filled with jet fuel from Fairbanks and shipped to Anchorage, I
would think that your comments about doing research might apply
very well to you.
>>Give us some numbers to work with. Don't just say they
>>have more than one supplier, if that 2nd supplier sells them
>>1/2 of 1 percent of their jet fuel. Show me some numbers where
>>anything close to half of Eielson's jet fuel comes from other
>>than that pipe running from North Pole to Eielson AFB.
>
>---Like I said, Floyd, I've put a research request in with my
>State contact in Juneau. Shipments out are tracked, as that is
>part of the data compiled to calculate the Gross State Product.
>Since shipments in come from a domestic, rather than a foreign
>source, the data is not routinely compiled. It will take a
>little while to get the information --- if it can be obtained.
>I'm not about to put in a special research request, and put out
>money to satisfy your stubbroness.
If don't have the figures then don't make claims about what they
might be until you know.
>>As far as I know the main diversity is 1) Mapco and 2) Petro
>>Star.
>
>---Suggest you do some more research. Last time it proved your
>presumptions to be wrong. You are not likely to accept the
>data unless you see it for yourself.
Oh? Where was I wrong? You seem to have some fixation on that,
but rather than recall which items I corrected, you are now
saying that everything I said was wrong. What my research found
was that I was essentially correct in everything I said with the
single exception that all the jet fuel in Anchorage does not
come from Nikiski. (Note also that _you_ didn't correct that
statement, _I_ did.)
So far you have been wrong about a dozen times in just the
last three or four articles of this thread (not too mention
that ridiculous list of differences between the Anchorage and
Fairbanks airport operations that you have awhile back).
Do some research yourself, and provide some specifics instead of
the gross generalities that are so filled with obvious errors.
>>You don't seem to understand the dynamics of "cost/volume"
>>economics very well. Some people call gasoline pricing ing
>>Fairbanks gouging, though I don't. Some people realize that
>>what you just described is "what the market will bear". They
>>can't sell gasoline in Anchorage for that price because there
>>are 2 or 3 other sources which would immediately take the entire
>>market. That isn't the case with the Fairbanks market.
>
>>We are talking, in case you didn't notice, about gas pumped
>>at stations owned by the same company that owns the refinery!
>>They _do_ buy in bulk! They own the stocks in Fairbanks and
>>in Anchorage both, and "buy" it with a paper shuffle in both
>>cases.
>
>---Yes, Floyd, compitition is part of the equation. On the
>other side of the coin, you keep focusing on supply side
>economics. You are also presuming that all outlets bearing the
>parent company name are corporately owned and operated. Are
>all the McDonalds and Burger Kings corporate owned and
>operated? Where do the Texico and Chevron outlets get their
>fuel? Time to do some more research.
Time _you_ did some research there Mary dear. They both buy a
lot of gasoline from Tesoro and Mapco, the people who own the
refineries. What? you expected the shipped it all in from
Texas, California, or Washington refineries???
>You are insisting that fuel in Fairbanks reflects what is
>termed as adminstered price. Sorry to disappoint you, but all
>prices are administered and all prices are set by supply and
>demand.
Well, danged me if I didn't just say that myself! "Supply and
demand" sounds real similar to "what the market will bear", eh?
> The refinery may appear to you as being oligopolist,
>but as you will come to understand after further research, it
>is not. The refinery does not have a monopoly, contrary to
>your assumptions.
Oh? Where did I say the refinery had a monopoly? Did you
see where I was talking about the cost of gasoline shipped
to Fairbanks from Anchorage... and do you understand what
the significance of that statement is? And if it is not
oligopolist, then what is? How many refineries are
we talking about? In fact, it is a small handful.
Mary if you don't read the articles you respond to, whats
the point of discussion?
> I suggest you look at the issue from the
>viewpoint of price elastcity. The concept of price elasticity
>of demand provides a most useful way of thinking and talking
>about the degree of market power the buyer has. Floyd, alleged
>exceptions to the supply/demand economic process are most
>always based on misinterpretation of the evidence.
Lets see now, you keep applying all these wonderful terms to it.
"administered price", "oligopolist", "monopoly", "price
elasticity", and "supply/demand economic process" are all fine
terms, but you don't demonstrate where any of them apply to
any given situation. Not one iota of data to illustrate your
point: no dollar figures, no gallons, no percentages... nothing
at all! I get the distinct impression you want to baffle
somebody with bullshit!
>Stop confusing the terms demand and quantity demanded. Try
>thinking of quantity demanded and price as objects on the
>opposit ends of a seesaw, and demand as a large balloon to
>which the seesaw is attached. When price goes down, quantity
>demanded goes up. However, changes in demand (movement of the
>ballon up or down) exerts simultanios pressures in the same
>direction on both the price and quantity demanded.
What a wonderful analogy. But you haven't connected it to
anything we are talking about, so it floats out there, tied
to a helium filled balloon wandering at the whim of the
jet stream.
I'm not impressed with baffling bullshit Mary. Tie it to the
conversation or can it.
>>>Hopefully, this will help you and others better understand the
>>>some of the many benefits Anchorage provides for rural Alaska.
>>
>>We were hoping you would even begin to understand the
>>significance. But so far it doesn't seem likely...
>
>---Again, Floyd, I suggest you do a bit more research. You
>argued with me about fuel still being shipped into Alaska and
>found I was actually correct.
So tell me how much is shipped to Eielson AFB, which is where I
said there is no significant amount of outside fuel being used.
You haven't demonstrated where a single thing you've said is
true, and you haven't shown where a single thing I've said
isn't. You also haven't indicated that you have any idea what
the facts or figures for any of this are.
YOU do some research and stop trying to dazzle us with useless
verbage.
>Maybe you should also take a look at the Municpality's budget
>and see where the money actually comes from. Be prepared for
>some surpirises --- 60% of the budget comes from property
>taxes.
I don't have access to that information. I'm hard pressed to
see what your point is though? First, who cares if it is 60%
from property taxes or 60% from bribery? What difference does
that make?
Also, how much of the Federal and State moneys that Anchorage
encumbers are listed in their budget? I don't know, but until
that figure is known, then the percentages for sources in the
Anchorage budget don't mean a thing standing alone.
>>>Speaking to Anchorage's drain on Alaska's resources ... Did
>>>you, by some chance, read the article on the Municipalities
>>>proposed capital expenditure budgets through 2002 which
>>>appeared in the Anchorage Daily News today? Looks like the
>>>residents of Anchorage are going to pay for infrastructure
>>>development in outlying areas --- for example, roads, trails
>>>and other projects in Eagle River are part of those budgets.
>>>Those capital projects will be paid for through tax revenues
>>>and bonds --- not state funds, not federal funds.
>>
>>Turkey Gulch is an "outlying area"?
>
>---Eagle River is only one example. Ignorance is not bliss.
>Do you really want to know the truth, or do you just like to
>argue and denigrate? If you want to understand, if you want
>the truth, you will open your eyes and look for it.
I really would like to see some truth, but all you are providing
is an opinion, which appears to be highly stressed by regional
chauvinism.
>>(I remember when it was!)
>
>---So do I. Now you know where the some of the funding came
>from for the development of its infrastructure --- the
>Anchorage budget and municipal bonds -- debt Anchorage property
>owners must pay for.
And your point was?
Karibear
one in the thread.
I live in Kodiak, which is fairly remote. I've been here 30+ years,
with a brief hiatus in Anchorage. I always like visiting Anchorage, it
makes me appreciate home that much more overy time I go there.
When I lived in Anchorage, I never had the opportunity to go to the
Egan Center or the zoo or any of the places that have been mentioned. I
was too busy trying to find a job. I filled out 200+ applications and
got 2 interviews. One said ‘you're overqualified, we can't hire you,
you'd quit and go elsewhere' and the other, I was given the job until I
mentioned I came from Kodiak, whereupon I was told ‘sorry, we want
someone a little more civilized than someone fron Kodiak.' Excuse me? A
used car dealer from New Jersey wants someone ‘more civilized'? That
was when I decided to come home.
This past summer I was offered a free ticket to a concert in Anchorage
I would like to have attended. Unfortunately, a 300.00 plane ticket and
the necessity of a weekend in a hotel, to say nothing of buying meals
during that time, made it impossible.
I've flown in and out of Kodiak, Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
various other places. The only time I ever had to wait for an equipment
repair was in Anchorage. I will admit that we had to circle the field
at Kenai, waiting for a moose to get off the runway, but after all,
this is Alaska, right?
I've heard all kinds of reasons [excuses] for high costs of goods -
shipping, storage, etc. Cost of living - my property taxes are
approximately 8 times those of my family in the midwest. Of course,
they have to put up with the midwest to get that break. Anyway. We have
a subdivision her that is generally referred to as Little Anchorage;
oversized houses on undersized lots. But that's progress, or so we're
told. That area used to be forest, then it was developed with chainsaws
and bulldozers. Not very attractive, in my opinion.
It costs me less to call family and friends in the lower 48 than it
does to talk to friends in state. This is because the equipment is here
in Alaska? One would think it would be the other way around.
As far as using the PFD for any ‘improvements' to Anchorage - or
anywhere else, for that matter - forget it. My little share goes to
property taxes, snow tires, and a new muffler - casualties of the roads
that were built during the boom days and then not maintained because
the $$ went away.
Oh, and as for bridges, we've already built our end of the one that
will go to Seattle.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!