by Sue Demers
June 29, 2004
Ketchikan is a beautiful area, who wants to look at a HUGH bridge? What happens when the salt water starts to make the bridge look bad? Do the people of Ketchikan want to hire someone to paint it? That is another expense. And what about the local air traffic (bush planes) and the very important cruise ships that support Ketchikan with tourists. I know many people dread when the ships are in town but they still spend a lot of money that probably won't be spent after the bridge keeps most of them from docking.
Have "you" ever taken a cruise? If you have, you know that if the seas are too rough or you just don't like "little" boats, you don't get off the ship unless it's docked. I realize that one of the reasons it's being built is the do away with the five minute ferry ride to the airport.
Why doesn't Alaska let the people that catch planes or meet their loved ones, at the airport, continue to pay for the ferry trip and Ketchikan can use that 230 million dollars for something else like preventing some of the buildings along the water front from falling into the channel. There is a bar (I don't recall the name) that the dance floor seems could cave in at any time while people are dancing. 230 million could go along way to help Ketchikan's residents to have better roads, safer buildings and for that matter keep schools open (that's another matter).
Mr. Rick Grams, who cares
that some people of the lower 48 think the bridge is a good idea
or not, it's the people of Ketchikan that have to live with it.
You sound like one of those people that believe that the trees
grow back from clear cutting in 20 years, look around.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.