How growth possible is Gravina?
By Rob Glenn
August 07, 2007
I lived in Ketchikan for three years. And I am against using
the money for the Gravina Island bridge.
However, while I am against
the bridge, I think Alaska and Ketchikan should be getting federal
Here are my arguements against the bridge.
A couple of years ago, I researched into the growth of Ketchikan.
More people per year were leaving Ketchikan then coming in. The
population was decreasing. Now people will say that is because
there is no room to expand. My reply to that is, make it easier
for people to move there. Who moves to Ketchikan. Mainly it is
people who are in the Coast Guard, then you have those inported
by marriage or other family reasons, and then lastly you have
those who just move there for what ever reason. People normally
just dont move to Ketchikan. It is not a thriving job market
(although a few people do move there for jobs), in fact it is
just a self seficiant little town.
But for those who do move to
Ketchikan...how easy is that? Moving in general is a total pain,
but when you can pack up your truck and your life and drive roads
to where ever you plan to go it is easier then having to drive
to Bellingham or Haines and then taking a ferry with all your
belonings to Ketchikan. Building a bridge to Gravina is not going
to bring people to ketchikan. Building a road and bridge to the
mainland may encourage growth.
Which headline as an American Tax Payer living in the lower 48
would convince you your money is being used properly?
1. Island City of Ketchikan access only by plane or boat with
population 8000 looking to build a bridge to an island of 50
residents and the city airport for 350 million dollars.
2. Island City of Ketchikan access only by plane or boat with
population 8000 looking to expand growth by asking the federal
government for money to build a road to the mainland?
How growth possible is Gravina? I mean is it easy to build out
AS for the rest of your points, I have to say they dont bother
me nearly as much as the bridge. I dont see why Ketchikan should
not make money from tourists. Fact of the matter is if people
dont want to spend money in Ketchikan, well dont go. You are
not forcing people or cruise lines there. And it is true that
a lot of KTN is tourist based. Just look at downtown in the winter.
But hey if the money can be made, make it!
In the end, I think that Ketchikan, and the state politicians
would have a lot better chance not getting negative feed back
from the "lower" 48 if they were using the money for
more reasonable things. Should money be given to the entire state
of Alaska or just to Frank, Ted and Don and their business partners?
Alaskans need to understand reasons that those in the lower are
against this spending. It is not that they hate you or dont want
you to survive, it is because 350 million dollars is a lot of
money for 8000 people to get to the airport.
Get the money by all means but use it properly. Especially when
many people in Ketchikan don't want the bridge.
Received August 05, 2007 - Published August 07, 2007
tax dollars, bridges, and more... By Tyrell Rettke - Ketchikan,
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Your full name, city and state are required for publication.
Stories In The News