Proposition 3 is an advisory vote that asks Kenai borough voters whether the state should construct a bridge across the Kenai River, connecting the Funny River area with Sterling.
Construction of this bridge would be a poor way to spend our tax money. Especially when one considers how many roads we now have that are ill maintained. Construction of this bridge will destroy critical salmon habitat, require construction of roads through wetlands and forever change a quite, rural and residential neighborhood.
Why does this proposition use a 1992 cost of $9.3 million when the rate of inflation is known? The inflation factor should have been used to produce a number that was more factual and realistic. Why does this proposition not include the additional costs that will be required with construction of this bridge? This would include replacement of the current unimproved boat launch where Huske intercepts the river, the very place where three vehicles and their corrosives have gone into the river. A teenage girl drowned in one of these vehicles.
The property proposed for a new boat launch was vacant in 1992. It is now occupied by private residences valued at more that $2 million. Eminent domain will have to be exercised to confiscate this property from private citizens. This will be an added taxpayer expense.
The answer to these questions is simple. Those responsible for Proposition 3 do not want the voters to know how much taxpayer money this bridge will cost.
David A. Morris
Peninsula Clarion © 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us