By William Lidster
September 13, 2005
Of course, everyone is concerned about their specific interests and the impact to them of a port expansion. If it is true that the number of passengers in Ketchikan will decline due to the failed bond measure, then everyone in Ketchikan is going to lose.
The city should rapidly readdress this issue. As Rick Watson indicated in his August 29 letter, "Choices", it is prudent for all the facts and options be provided to the citizens of Ketchikan. Ketchikan's officials can provide several options with cost, bond, and impact statements to accompany them. The people of Ketchikan voted "no" on the past bond - not because they don't appreciate the value of tourism in the city - but because THAT OPTION didn't present the benefits needed to overcome the disadvantages.
Ketchikan's officials appear
to understand the need for tourism and it would be terrible if
they decide to proceed in lieu of the voters' wishes. Instead,
they need to develop a few options that continue to support tourism
and give the voters clear understanding of what they are considering.
I am sure, then, that the folks in Ketchikan would select a
viable plan to expand the docks and help maintain a vital source
of their revenue.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.