August 11, 2005
Thursday

Thank you, Rick for your thoughtful research on the City's plan to build these docks. You are reinforcing my major concern about this project. According to the information provided to us by the City, this plan is incomplete, both in terms of design and financial projections.

From a design standpoint, we have a promise of $10 million to be spent on upland improvements without any further understanding of what that money will buy. There are serious issues to consider regarding the effect on residents in terms of congestion and lack of parking. We are promised redevelopment of this last remaining historic part of Ketchikan with absolutely no idea of how such redevelopment could be financed. Notice that the information provided in the brochure only speaks to: "upgrades to Casey Moran Harbor,upland pedestrian walkways and amenities and improved tour bus staging." That is a very incomplete list of what will need to be done to fulfill the visions that some are foreseeing (taking quotes from prior postings to SitNews): (JUMP TO THE BOTTOM OF MY "QUOTES" FOR MY POSITION ON THE "FINANCIAL" PART if you don't want to rehash old comments)

"a significant portion of this project is for uplands improvements that relieve congestion, improve parking, safety, and beautify our city for both locals and tourists" I DO NOT SEE A PLAN FOR RELIEVING CONGESTIONS AND IMPROVING PARKING

or,
"That big of a harbor (Casey Moran) is not needed there any more because the boats only have Murray's Pacific there now. The boat docks need to be closer to food and fuel. If we shrink that harbor down, we can in the future build more docks or add fill to develop places to get these buses and lost people out of the middle of the damn road." I DON'T THINK SHRINKING THE HARBOR DOWN IS THE ISSUE; THE ISSUE IS MOVING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THROUGH A SMALL AREA NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE THEM.

or,
"City float will be vastly improved and expanded and the sidewalks will be widened, Hopkins Alley will become the next Creek Street as it is one of the last wooden streets in town and the tourists that make it there just love it."
YES, THEY LOVE FINDING ANY PART OF OUR TOWN THAT STILL LOOKS ORIGINAL...SO COULDN'T WE ACCOMODATE THEM BY KEEPING SOME ORIGINAL SHORELINE?

or,
"This bond will turn the area north of the tunnel into a vibrant historic shopping district and possibly save the old cannery from destruction along with other historic buildings that will be utilized in the tourism industry...New parking structures for locals will emerge, property owners will fix and paint their shoddy broken down properties, sidewalks will be widened, those horrible telephone poles will come down and be replaced with the historic clean looking lamps of downtown, there will be more jobs created..."
I CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE THE BUILDING ALONG WATER STREET TURNED INTO MORE TOURIST SHOPS! SORRY ON THE JOBS PART, ALL THOSE PEOPLE GO BACK TO ST. THOMAS IN THE WINTER.

WE WILL HAVE **NOTHING** OF KETCHIKAN LEFT!

Regarding the incomplete FINANCIAL projection:

The City's materials indicate that the Bond Bank will review our projections and if passenger fees prove insufficient in the future, a consultant will be required to tell us how to get more money out of the Port revenues to pay the bonds. First of all, what are the projections? The numbers provided by KPFF have already proven to be much too optimistic according to recent news stories that predict flattening out of the numbers. The last week of July, the Sapphire Princess, one the newest, largest ships, was in town with only 2000 of 2900 available berths occupied...in the middle of tourist season. What trend does that portend? What if there is a catastrophic terrorism event on a cruise ship somewhere in the world?

Then if an alternative plan is required, where do these additional revenues come from? Are we able to increase the per passenger tax without limit? If no, where else within the port operation do these funds come from?

Sorry, I am not convinced yet that there is a sound plan here.

Roberta McCreary
Ketchikan, AK - USA

P.S. By the way, regarding the Northern, Alternative C, option, I was informed by one KPFF consultant AFTER a community meeting that the cruise ship industry had already agreed, with only 15 minutes advance notice, to delay the departure or arrival of any cruise ship in order not to interfere with the business activity of the fish processing plant. Also, know how many locals are employed by that business? I've been told the number is 5 or so.

Why can't we confine the effect of tourism to one central part of our community instead of sprawling it across our entire downtown area? I realize, this is just a rhetorical question... however, unless we become more informed by Tuesday,

VOTE NO!

Related Viewpoint:

Ketchikan Port Berth Expansion Bond By Rick Grams - Ketchikan, AK - USA

On the Web:

Ketchikan Port Berth Expansion Bond Initiative

Ketchikan Port Berth Expansion Bond Initiative Vote August 16, 2005  The City of Ketchikan is proposing to expand and improve facilities along the waterfront to provide enhanced public use and additional economic benefit to residents, business owners, and the City. A bond initiative will be placed on the August 16, 2005 ballot to gain approval for up to $70 million to fund the project. - More... Port Expansion Project Information

 

Write a Letter -------Read Letters

E-mail the Editor

Sitnews
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska