Sept. 12, 2002 The Juneau Empire argues for a road to the state capital

The City and Borough of Juneau Assembly's action to support completion of the Juneau Access Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has placed the issue of ''the road'' squarely on the front burner.

At a time when Juneau should be seeking long-term strategies to fortify its status as the state capital, it is unfortunate that the community is so rudderless when it comes to making the necessary decisions for its greater good.

The notion that road access into Juneau is an issue just for Juneauites to discuss is a bit myopic. The impression widely held throughout the state is that Juneau covetously lays claim to the state's seat of government and all of the trappings that go with it, but arrogantly and selfishly feels it has the right to limit access from the rest of the state.

As Alaska's capital city we must consider the wishes of all Alaskans to have affordable, dependable 24/7/365 access to ''their'' capital city.

Deputy Mayor Ken Koelsch, along with four other Assembly members, should be commended for their leadership on a monumentally important decision. By a 5 to 4 vote, the Assembly took a proactive role in assuring all Alaskans that Juneau wants them to have better access to their capital.

Over the past month, those responsible for placing the legislative move initiative on the ballot have openly stated that if Juneau had road access, the legislative move initiative would not have happened. This was one factor behind Koelsch's motion.

Voting for a motion that supports completion of a nearly finished study that has cost taxpayers over $5 million was the logical and responsible thing to do. Completion of the draft EIS does not mean that a road will be built. Not until a record of decision is rendered will the Lynn Canal road be pursued and then funding must be secured before the first shovel is turned.

Assembly member Marc Wheeler has promised that the environmental lawsuits will fly if an east-side road route advances. The EIS stands as a valid, thorough, legally defensible document. Wheeler, along with Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer, say they support completion of the EIS but want to change the scope of the study. The time to change the scope of the study was back in 1994 when the scoping was done.

Changing the scope of the EIS at this point would essentially cause the whole process to start over again, wasting millions of dollars and resulting in several more years of delays.

In Juneau, sentiment for the road has grown along with the knowledge that road access is an increasingly important component in retaining the capital.

The last road vote unfairly pitted the ferry system against the road. In reality, Juneau needs a stronger ferry system and a road from the north to effectively meet its and Southeast Alaska's transportation needs.

One might view Monday night's 5-4 assembly vote as a proportionate reflection of how a popular vote on the road might play out were it taken today. Add this to the outcome if the following question was asked of voters statewide:

''Do you support construction of a road to the state capital?''

Road access alone will not prevent future move efforts, but it is clear that it will go a long way toward swinging future votes throughout the state in Juneau's favor. These votes will become ever more critical in future elections as the balance of representation continues to shift north with population growth.

The window of opportunity to build a road into Juneau is shrinking. However, the highway appropriation bill now in front of Congress would contribute an additional $140 million a year for six years to Alaska's highway construction projects.

Juneau cannot continue to exist as both the state's capital and a remote outpost. Juneau will survive in only one of these forms over time. It is time for Juneau to send a strong, unified message to the rest of the state that the welcome mat is out!

------

Sept. 10, 2002

The Voice of the Times blasts conservation views on forest fires

The National Wildlife Institute, one of the greenest of the greens, has taken a somewhat narrow view of the forest fires which have swept through the Western states.

In a newsletter, it discussed in a rather high-tone way the unhappy drought situation in the West. It did note that ''some of the worst wildfires in history have burned vast portions of Arizona and Colorado.'' And it noted that ''fire danger'' forced closure ''of some national forests to public use.''

But no mention was made of the fact that anti-logging, anti-road campaigns by environmental zealots now are drawing most of the blame for the horrible fires, which spread through heavy undergrowth and out of reach of most on-the-ground suppression efforts.

There was no mention of the actual millions of acres of timber destroyed by the fires. No mention of the deaths of firefighters. No mention of the homes destroyed. No mention of the economic and human losses. No mention of the wild animals and birds that perished in the blazes. No mention of the wildlife habitat destroyed.

But the drought . . . well, the drought is bad. If it continues, ''public and wildlife managers will be faced with deciding whether to allow hunter access this autumn and winter, mainly because of the heightened threat of accidental fire.''

And with ''reduced food supplies for wildlife, negative human/wildlife interactions are expected to peak.''

All in all, a pretty benign reaction.

What do you suppose the National Wildlife Institute would have said if some of these forest fires had been caused by an industrial accident involving an energy company?

------