The Whitecliff factor
By Rodney Dial
July 31, 2010
Mr. Thompson, I agree with your letter and share your frustration
with the way the Whitecliff project has progressed. Here is
my take on the issue as I see it over the last several years:
Borough officials convince themselves that that Reid Building
is inadequate for borough offices. They start hyping themselves
into believing that mold, lack of compliance with current building
codes, etc. is justification for an entirely new building, vs.
renovation of the existing one.
During this timeframe the Borough Government is also debating
what to do with the vacant, Whitecliff building. Mayor Kiffer
(borough assembly member at the time), who is the Executive Director
of Historic Ketchikan in combination with non-profit groups,
obtain borough assembly approval to place on the ballot the following:
Renovation of the Whitecliff Building for a combined Performing
Arts Center and Senior Citizens Center.
Significant private resources were spent to sway the public to
vote for this project, and the voter was told it would only cost
them 50 cents, per $100 purchase (sales tax increase) to fund.
The public voted and said... hell no.
The following is my opinion on what happened next:
The borough assembly realized that if the public would not pay
50 cents to fund a Performing Art / Senior Center, there was
ZERO chance they would vote for bonds for a new borough building.
Just like many other groups in this community, renovation of
the existing building was not good enough. The borough building
had to be new, bigger and better. The fact that the population
was declining was of no consideration, and they convinced themselves
that "code compliance" was a significant concern (mold
and maintenance issues could have been remedied).
I want to digress for a moment and mention code compliance.
Look at any major project in recent history in this town, where
one group is pushing to "build new" vs. "renovate"
and you will see code compliance as a justification. Usually
this is in regards to the American with Disabilities Act (ADA),
or Fire Codes. In the past, proposals for new Borough offices,
new Pool, new Library, new Fire Station, etc. have all listed
"code compliance" as a justification for a new structure.
Think about that for a minute. When the ADA law was passed in
1990, the millions of buildings in this country did not instantly
become illegal, or obsolete. Existing buildings had a duty to
remove barriers to access IF readily achievable, and new construction
had to be made accessible to the disabled... that's it. But
look at how local government sells these projects and you will
always see "code compliance" as a reason to build new.
In the Borough's / City's legislative write-up the very first
reason that is given as to why the community should spend $11.1
million to build a new fire station is that the existing one
is not "ADA /other codes" compliant. To local government
I would ask this: How many firefighters can't get their wheelchairs
up the stairs of the existing building? Yes, I am being sarcastic,
but my point is that when you try to "baffle the public
with bull" vs. making your case on the merits you breed
distrust. No, I do not want to pay $11.1 million for a new fire
station to comply with NEW building codes, but I may support
the project if you can show a demonstrated need / benefit for
I got off on that side note because code compliance of the Reid
building was used as one of the insurmountable reasons why the
borough had to have something new, vs. simply renovate the existing
Anyway, the Borough moved forward with the process for new offices
and a request for bids was issued for a new facility. Let's
stop here for a moment and consider the governmental bid process.
A bid, or request for a proposal can be written in a manner
to "include or exclude" almost anyone, or anything.
I believe that the bid process in this manner was somehow unduly
influenced by Mayor Kiffer, and his desire to "Save Whitecliff"
as a historical property.
Mayor Kiffer is an intelligent and gifted man, and I have a great
deal of respect for him. However, he has clearly shown through
his actions and writings that he leads more by emotion, and less
by logic. This leadership style, plus his long term involvement
in Historic Ketchikan, leads me to believe that Whitecliff was
favored to be borough offices prior to creation of the bid requirements,
and that the bid was tailor made for this purpose.
Keep in mind that when Dawson Construction bought the building
from the borough they only paid a $50k retainer to hold it, and
did not pay the purchase price until it was clear that the borough
was moving forward to use Whitecliff for governmental offices.
As you may remember, other entities submitted proposals to provide
office space for the borough, including the old bowling alley
building, and the Mall. Both were significantly less expensive
with ample parking. Both were dismissed as options by the borough
based on technicalities and / or the way the bid request was
On a side note here, not long after the borough entered into
the contract with Dawson for the Whitecliff building, the Mall
sold for a little over 3 million (less that one third of what
Whitcliff will cost us).
The borough could have bought the Mall and leased out sections
for a new public library to the City, and for local stores.
With a little creative effort the borough could have had new
offices; the City a new library, for almost nothing in the long
term as the rent from existing Mall tenants could have subsidized
this project. Politics killed this proposal, and the reasons
why the Mall was not used were NOT insurmountable. Both Anchorage
and Juneau have libraries in private Malls, and Anchorage has
some governmental offices in them as well.
So here we are today. After two years of begging, the borough
has faced the reality that the State is not likely to fund the
Whitecliff building purchase. So what are their choices?
1. Put the issue before the
public for a vote to approve bonds, or
2. Deplete borough reserves to fund this project without voter
As Mr. Thompson pointed out
in his letter, his peers have selected choice number two.
Lets not be naive here Mr. Thompson, your fellow assembly members
are not stupid. Put this before the voters and its DOA. I have
not met a single person diluted enough to believe that Whitecliff
was the most cost effective choice for borough offices. Several
of you who were supposed to be safeguarding public funds put
emotion before substance. Had you been representing us, you
would have never sold the Whitecliff building in the first place,
and simply put before the voters a proposal to renovate a building
we already owned.
You (Assembly) knew what the public would say and through your
actions essentially made the determination that you knew better.
As a result we are now at that stage where lack of planning on
the assembly's part will at some point constitute an emergency
on the part of the taxpayer. We are bleeding a half a million
a year for your new digs that we didn't get to vote on. You
could have rented other existing property for a fraction of the
cost, and at some point renovated the old building for what we
will spend on rent.
Mr. Thompson you can still make a difference. I would like to
see you submit the following proposals to the assembly for an
up or down vote:
1. Ballot proposal prohibiting
the assembly from entering into any contract worth more than
million dollars without voter approval.
2. Ballot proposal for the voters instituting a strict property
tax cap (existing one is too weak).
3. Term limits for Assembly members
The best minds are not in government.
If any were, business would hire them away Ronald Regan
Received July 29, 2010 - Published
July 31, 2010
to old tricks. By Glen Thompson
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Your Opinion Letter to the Editor
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to email@example.com
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
Stories In The News