Cskin Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/pauljacob/pj20040418.shtml Taxpayers across the nation will pay to build two bridges in Alaska. One bridge connects Ketchikan, population 8,000, and lonely Gravina Island, home to 50 souls. Yup: $120 million for a bridge to an island that has 50 people on it. Yet, your taxes are building quite an impressive bridge--higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and just as long as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. Then there's the bridge being built between the Port of Anchorage and Mackenzie Port. What's that? You've never heard of Mackenzie Port? You don't know why it needs a $200 million bridge? Maybe that's because Mackenzie Port has a permanent population of one. Not 1,000 or 100; just one. Two bridges built in Alaska for $320.00 million to support 51 people... not 51,000 people..... a total of 51 people. This should be grounds for removal from office. These are our taxpayer dollars being set ablaze by this moron. A perfect example for the line item veto....but that was ruled unconstitutional. We've got to understand... the people have to get involved and stop this. As long as 50% of the registered voters don't vote or take a vested interest in this goverment, they're going to believe they have free reign to spend our money as they please. I'm pissed!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 And now you know why the GOP Senator from Alaska was the ONLY GOP Senator to vote against the balanced budget... :cuss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Additionally, I believe this is why we need term limits. This Tom Stevens heads the appropriations commitee, argueably the most powerful position in Congress. So... he has the power to allocate spending projects to Alaska for multi-million dollar rest stops no one uses and many multi-million dollar highway projects that end in the middle of nowhere and no one uses. How on earth has the state of Congress gotten this way? Did our forefather's invision this type of abuse of power? This has got to stop because it's doing nothing more than bankrupting our children's children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Same thing back when Mr KKK from W. Va. ran that committee. W. Va. had a billion dollar highway noone used, and a $50million science research grant to a piddly college that had no graduate science program. At one point, Byrd even tried to force the CIA to relocate to W. Va. I guess Stevens learned from the dark master. I agree, this is the biggest reason for term limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Before you freak out, why don't you find out WHY they want the bridge. Maybe they want a company to go there, or more people to live there, or maybe there was bridge before but was destroyed, etc.... Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Yep, Ted Stevens R- Alaska has been known for years to pony up to the taxpayer trough and just gorge. But this, as presented, is just sickening & I can't believe it got through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 More wasted money when the deficit is already out of control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Before you freak out, why don't you find out WHY they want the bridge. Maybe they want a company to go there, or more people to live there, or maybe there was bridge before but was destroyed, etc.... Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it is wrong. B.S. If it is potentially of such benefit to the local economy, why doesn't/shouldn't the state finance its construction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Riggotoni B.S. If it is potentially of such benefit to the local economy, why doesn't/shouldn't the state finance its construction? maybe like our area they need help from the federal government, who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 not $350 mil worth of help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenmdixon Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 :soapbox: Just once, guys, I would love to see those who run their mouths on an issue to actually DO A DAMN SEARCH ON GOOGLE to find out more about the issue before you spout off. I mean, come on people. There are at least two sides to every issue. I'm sorry if you take offense, but jeez. Not everything is wrong just because YOU do not agree with it. :doh: If anyone is really interested, the Census Bureau puts out publications that will tell you how much aid is given by the federal government to each state, and for what programs (broadly) by year. The page to access each report is here: Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year: 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 This report presents Federal Government aid to state and local governments by state and U.S. Outlying Area. Coverage is restricted to Federal Government expenditures for grants to state and local governments for which data are available by state and outlying area. For fiscal year 1998 (October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998), the statistics compiled cover $253 billion. The data are shown by Federal agency and program whenever possible. Also, if you are interested, there are two articles online from the Alaska Journal of Commerce that mentions why these bridges may be necessary to the area. Note the highlights in yellow. http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/092903/loc_20030929014.shtml Web posted Monday, September 29, 2003 Juneau access, bridge at Ketchikan lead list By Timothy Inklebarger Morris News Service-Alaska HAINES -- The state Department of Transportation laid out plans for dozens of new roads in Southeast Alaska Sept. 16, putting the Juneau Access project among its top projects. Tom Briggs, deputy commissioner for the Department of Transportation, Gary Paxton, DOT's Southeast region director, and Capt. George Capacci, general manager of the Alaska Marine Highway System, laid out the new transportation plans at the 46th annual meeting of the Southeast Conference. The Southeast Conference is a coalition of community and governmental organizations that advocate for economic development in Southeast. "Transportation in Alaska is not just marine transportation," Briggs told attendees at Haines' Chilkat Center for the Arts. "It's not just air transportation. It's not just surface transportation. It's all these things and so much more." But since the election of Gov. Frank Murkowski, DOT's emphasis has shifted to road construction rather than putting more money into the Alaska Marine Highway, which provides ferry access to panhandle communities. Briggs said DOT, with the help of the Southeast Conference, is revising the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan, a long-range plan developed in the late '90s to provide reliable transportation in Southeast. He said a draft version of the revised plan is expected to be completed by January, in time for approval by the Legislature. Top proposed projects in Southeast include the Juneau Access project, the Gravina Bridge project and the Bradfield Canal Project. The Gravina Bridge project would provide road access from Ketchikan to its airport, located on nearby Gravina Island. The project would include two bridges, one from Ketchikan to Pennock Island and another from Pennock Island to Gravina; they would replace a ferry which currently operates between the island and Ketchikan. The project is expected to cost about $244 million, according to DOT. DOT is completing the environmental impact statement for the Juneau Access project, which is reviewing a variety of options to provide better access between Juneau, Haines and Skagway. Briggs described the project as a road from Juneau to Skagway. DOT has estimated that the project could cost about $300 million, but some argue that it could cost more. A shuttle ferry would provide access between the communities of Haines and Skagway, Briggs said. "By reducing the water miles of the Marine Highway System in Southeast by 25 percent, this project will free up vessels and provide more frequent port calls to other Southeast communities," Briggs said. The Bradfield Canal project near Wrangell would link Alaska to the Cassiar Highway in British Columbia and cost approximately $300 million. Briggs said DOT also is looking at building small access roads in Southeast and Interior Alaska. A worksheet distributed by DOT Southeast Region Director Paxton estimated construction of the Juneau Access and Gravina Bridge projects could begin as early as 2005. Paxton also handed out a map of Southeast showing proposed road and ferry projects throughout the region. Combined ferry and road proposals would connect Juneau to Hoonah, by way of a road through Admiralty Island. Other proposals include roads from Coffman Cove to Thorne Bay, from Kake to Petersburg and from Ketchikan to Wrangell. "I don't think we've made progress in the last 10 years," Paxton said. He said he and others at DOT are working to improve the quality of life for Alaskans. "We need people who don't understand to get out of the way so we can move forward," he said. Briggs also said DOT is working to reduce the amount of money the state spends subsidizing the Alaska Marine Highway System. ============================ http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/093002/foc_knik_bridge.shtml Web posted Monday, September 30, 2002 Land sales slow near Knik bridge -- for now By Nancy Pounds Journal of Commerce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land sales and prices in the Point MacKenzie area have not seen an increase despite talk of building a Knik Arm crossing, according to local real estate brokers. PHOTO/Courtesy Marc Van Dongen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land-buying near Point MacKenzie shows few signs of heightened activity despite a promised campaign to build a bridge across Knik Arm. Realtors and others said it may be too soon to speculate on the shortcut between Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna area. "I haven't seen the real estate demand increase that much out there," said Ron Swanson, Matanuska-Susitna Borough community development director. "I think most people realize putting in a crossing is a long-term event." The borough and University of Alaska own 5,000 acres at the port while private landowners have another 200 acres in the area, Swanson said. Access to available land would be a boon to Anchorage, which has grown to its boundaries. The city is restricted from major expansion by mountains, ocean and property owned by the military. Alaska Republican Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is championing the causeway. He intends to secure funding for a Knik Arm bridge plus Alaska airports and harbors when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, more commonly known as TEA-21, is rewritten in January. Young told the Journal earlier this year he is committed to finding funds "within seven years" for the link between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie, a crossing that has a price tag of more than $1 billion, according to some estimates. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough hasn't recorded any major land buying near the possible bridge area. "I don't see any indication that there's any land speculation going on," said David Dunivan, the borough's senior land appraiser. "You probably won't see anything until funding (for a bridge) actually occurs." Many Alaskans gambled on a past push to move the state capital to Willow and subdivided land there, Dunivan said. The move, although still debated, didn't occur, and people couldn't sell the subdivided land, he said. "I think the lesson was learned during that movement so they might proceed more cautiously" until bridge plans are finalized, Dunivan said. Most recent land sales in the Point MacKenzie and Goose Bay area are small-sized recreational properties, Dunivan said. The borough assessment division showed five property sales through August; one was about 40 acres with the others at less than 10 acres. Last year, the borough recorded 11 land sales in that area, also with one about 40 acres. Bernie Vockner, owner of Remote Property Inc., has seen greater buying activity and a slight increase in land prices in that area. Land prices would jump if a bridge is built, he said. A bridge connecting Anchorage and Point MacKenzie has been discussed for many years, said the 30-year Alaskan. "I'd like to see it first before I get too excited," Vockner said. One Matanuska-Susitna Borough official hopes businesses will be attracted by efforts to build a Knik Arm bridge. Marc Van Dongen, port director at Port MacKenzie, believes the bridge would provide access to more land than acreage available in Anchorage for businesses and houses. "What we're trying to do at Port MacKenzie is attract new businesses and new jobs," he said. The port has 5,000 acres, and currently, there aren't many people who live within 20 miles of the port, Van Dongen said. Port MacKenzie also could be an ideal site to relocate Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, allowing more room for expansion, Van Dongen said. The drive to Port MacKenzie now takes about 90 minutes from the Port of Anchorage, but a proposed 2.5 mile bridge would reduce travel time between the ports to just a few minutes. Van Dongen has taken calls from real estate agents and others about a possible bridge and its results on land values. Work on a bridge requires environmental studies, years to secure funding and two years for construction, the port director said. "Realistically, I think it will take eight to 10 years for a bridge to happen," he said. Until then, borough officials are studying the feasibility of a ferry service. Preliminary designs are under way on a ferry landing at the port and final work depends on results from the feasibility study, Van Dongen said. Ferry passengers would be people headed to jobs near the port rather than residential commuters, he said. Carl Anderson, owner of Cook Inlet Tug & Barge Co., is selling his 55 acres 2 miles north of the Port MacKenzie dock. Now, the price tag is $2.5 million for the property with dock rights and tideland leases, he said. "The price might go up if a bridge goes in," Anderson said. So far this year, five tracts of developable land -- 20 acres or more -- have been sold in the Point MacKenzie, Goose Bay, O'Brien Creek and Houston areas, said Jerry Moses, an associate broker at Prudential Vista Real Estate in Wasilla. "That's not much," he said. Four parcels sold last year in the area, according to the Valley Board of Realtors. There are 12 listings of more than 20 acres near Port Mackenzie. Moses has seen other major projects like a proposed Hatcher Pass ski resort play into real estate activity during 20 years in Alaska. Some Alaskans expect to see the bridge project come through, he said. "People who have property out there are hanging onto it because it might be worth a lot," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Jen... you could probably find reports that support just about any boondoggle project requested by a congress person. What's your point? MY POINT is this Stevens moron is the king of pork... and he continues to bilk the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars for projects in ALaska... a state with a small civillian population and a state most people find less than an ideal place to live. MY POINT is that his leverage and power means we, the taxpayers, are held ransom to his demands and whims. The facts still remain... they're building two very expensive bridges to islands where no one currently lives. Furthermore, they're creating land and space for growth not with a reasonable amount of Federal funds... but a massive pork-barrel spending project most everyone sees as excessive. Finally, were the citizens of other states privy to the cost of these bridges? Did members of Congress even see the study and estimated cost of this bridge? Finally, is the expansion of land in Alaska as important as the failing infrastructure in Detroit.... Washington DC..... Altanta's century old water system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Cskin, you don't have a leg to stand on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Brown.. and you keep being a Sheep ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Explain sheep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 must be election year again or something. Cant they just build a nice boat instead to connect that island, wouldnt that be cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 some of you throw around the treason accusation pretty liberally... for conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenmdixon Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin Jen... you could probably find reports that support just about any boondoggle project requested by a congress person. What's your point? MY POINT is this Stevens moron is the king of pork... and he continues to bilk the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars for projects in ALaska... a state with a small civillian population and a state most people find less than an ideal place to live. MY POINT is that his leverage and power means we, the taxpayers, are held ransom to his demands and whims. The facts still remain... they're building two very expensive bridges to islands where no one currently lives. Furthermore, they're creating land and space for growth not with a reasonable amount of Federal funds... but a massive pork-barrel spending project most everyone sees as excessive. Finally, were the citizens of other states privy to the cost of these bridges? Did members of Congress even see the study and estimated cost of this bridge? Finally, is the expansion of land in Alaska as important as the failing infrastructure in Detroit.... Washington DC..... Altanta's century old water system? Cskin, my point (or one of them) is that there are two (or more) sides to every issue and just because you think that spending $300 million on a bridge that you and the majority of Americans will never drive on does not necessarily mean that it is not money well spent. What does Alaska contribute to the national economy? Alaska is a state that trades with Japan, China, and Europe, correct? In seafood? Minerals (via mining)? Oil? How much money will the expense of building the bridges or passways end up bringing in over the long term? How will the building of these expanses improve the local economy by creating jobs in that area? Will that bring more people into the area? Are they anticipating growth and are trying to meet growth ahead of the curve? The federal government owns more land in the state of Alaska than in any other state except Nevada and Utah. (reference: http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html, although this link ranks Alaska as #1: http://www.wstpc.org/Publications/FedLandWest.htm) 67% of the land mass. And who is 'most everyone'? Please show me where that is being said... As for the porkifying, I am more concerned about how many farm subsidies people like Ted Turner get from the feds. I don't know about you, but I would rather see a bridge being built and people collecitng paychecks for honest work than another multi-billionaire making money off our backs via subsidies. Yes, I am concerned about crumbling infrastructures in other states. How many subsidies are those states getting? And for what? source for farm subsidies: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm Table 4 details other notable farm subsidy recipients, including: David Rockefeller, the former chairman of Chase Manhattan and grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, who received 99 times more subsidies than the median farmer; Scottie Pippen, professional basketball star, who received 39 times more subsidies than the median farmer; Ted Turner, the 25th wealthiest man in America, who received 38 times more subsidies than the median farmer; and Kenneth Lay, the ousted Enron CEO and multi-millionaire, who received 3 times more subsidies than the median farmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 As for the porkifying, I am more concerned about how many farm subsidies people like Ted Turner get from the feds. I don't know about you, but I would rather see a bridge being built and people collecitng paychecks for honest work than another multi-billionaire making money off our backs via subsidies. You're not possibly implying that these bridges should be built for the sole purpose of providing jobs, and subsequently paychecks, to people are you? Subsidies is a completely seperate issue, not a part of this thread. I too believe subsidies are disgraceful... paying farmers not to grow crops... meaning large farming conglomerates get paid money by the federal govt. to do nothing with their land. So... we have a crumbling infrastructure in a number of areas such as Detroit... the automobile capital of the world.... and Atlanta... the largest city in the south. But... with Stevens at the helm of the appropriations committee... we're building two bridges for $300million to connect the mainland with islands inhabited by 51 people. Couldn't additional ferries be a stop-gap temporary measure while more urgent needs are funded with this money? As for the word treason used in the thread title, it was a subtle jab at Destino and Chomerics who believe I throw the word around to lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenmdixon Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin You're not possibly implying that these bridges should be built for the sole purpose of providing jobs, and subsequently paychecks, to people are you? Subsidies is a completely seperate issue, not a part of this thread. I too believe subsidies are disgraceful... paying farmers not to grow crops... meaning large farming conglomerates get paid money by the federal govt. to do nothing with their land. So... we have a crumbling infrastructure in a number of areas such as Detroit... the automobile capital of the world.... and Atlanta... the largest city in the south. But... with Stevens at the helm of the appropriations committee... we're building two bridges for $300million to connect the mainland with islands inhabited by 51 people. Couldn't additional ferries be a stop-gap temporary measure while more urgent needs are funded with this money? As for the word treason used in the thread title, it was a subtle jab at Destino and Chomerics who believe I throw the word around to lightly. No, that wasn't the sole purpose - I know better I'm trying to look at the bright side. It's a real struggle, so bear with me Yeah, ferries probably could have held down the fort. But the point isn't necessarily just the residents, but for commerce too (travel in and out of the airport, etc.) Perhaps it could bring more tourist trade in, more dollars in, I dunno. I can't say I am really unhappy, though. At least the money isn't going towards another dead-end study of how widening the Capital Beltway will impact the NIMBYs in Springfield, for instance, but to actual structures - actual work being done. Atlanta? Detroit? I'll be honest, I don't know much about their problems, but would love to read up on it if I am pointed in the general direction of information about it (hint hint ). Yep, subsidies are a different issue, but all part of the same pork barrel, no? And quit causing trouble with Destino and chomerics, you're being a bad boy :slap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I'm not to thrilled about a 320 million dollar bridge to make commuting go from 90 minutes to 4 minutes. I'm not to thrilled about a 320 million dollar bridge to relocate an airport named after the guy that got the 320million passed with a paperclip to another bill moved to a better location... which will also probably be named after him as you go over the bridge named after his kid... Oh and Like the big dig in Boston. Count on this costing somewhere around 760 million dollars... The least they could do is just build an Nuclear Air Craft Carrier and use it during slow times to protect that side of the country... Edit: it could provide jobs for 5000+ Navy personnel It could provide air support for all the jets onboard It never needs to stop for gas and can make the trip in 6 minutes also. And its got room for trucks and cars and pets And call it the U.S.S. Stevens ahahahhahahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.