By Rob Holston
June 09, 2006
I have not been a vocal opponent of the bridge because I've never bought into the hypothetical idea that we could use the 300 million for many other things more important to our community. That has never been an option. The option that we must now consider is Gravina Island without a hard link. My uncle, Dick Taylor owned and operated Taylor's Landing at Mukilteo, WA. for years. His home was out on the islands of Puget Sound and for years thousands of commuters would use the ferry to and from the islands. The ferry ride at Mukilto is much longer than our ten minute ride accross Tongass Narrows and still the islands have developed into vibrant communities, supporting recreation, agriculture, industry and residential use. If the demand is there for Gravina Island, we can develop the island without a bridge. We are a maritime community.
Let's come up with some "no-hard-link" options for the development of Gravina Island and get on with it. Our leaders have chosen to this point to ignore options so as not to look UN-united in our efforts to get the bridge BUT at some point other plans must be discussed. Many months ago, Steve Seley spoke of developing Gravina first, making it a "bridge to somewhere" and then we would have a reason to demand the bridge. This idea should be embraced. The present environment at the federal level is not conducive to spending $300,000,000+ to connect to a basically UNdeveoped island. It is time to move ahead as a community and openly discuss options for Gravina. Perhaps then at some point in the future the bridge may once again become an option for federal funding.
About: Resident of Ketchikan
for over 25 years, retired health & music educator, owner
of Lighthouse Excursion.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.