Candidate For Ketchikan Gateway
3 year term ( 2 seats open)
September 27, 2003
- 2:30 pm
Questions For Borough Assembly Candidates
Reader's question #1. (09/15/03) - What planning methods would you use for future
to question #1 (Published
10/01/03 - 2:30 pm)
Planning requires a few things.
First, What's needed? Everyone wants something but with limited
funding priorieties need to be established. Then a cost benefit
anaylsis. Will there be a real benefit from the money/resources
expended for the project, or are we just spending money? What
is the timeline for reaping the benefits? What are the costs?
ALL of them! Who is paying for the project? How are we paying
for it? Bond or increased taxes/fees? Who is going to do the
work? What guarantees are in place that the work will be finished
timely and correctly. Planning for a borough project should be
done as if the assembly members were using THEIR OWN money!
You don't just ask people to
for a 5 year tax increase for a pool and make them responsible
for a new government building , that may not be needed, or visa-versa,
and not tell anyone HOW MUCH IT WILL COST!!!!!
Reader's question #3. (09/16/03)
- Recently the current Assembly increased our property taxes
and refused to make significant cuts in Borough grants to non
profit special interest groups. In at least one case, the Borough
obligates local taxpayers to pay for services from the UAS Ketchikan
Campus that, according to Statute, should be paid by State funds.
Should local residents be forced to pay for University services
that are an obligation of the State?
How can we bring some sort of control and spending limit on this
Borough grants program?
Should we continue this Borough grants program when we are forced
to cut required services such as the Borough bus? Thank you!
to question #3 (Published
10/01/03 - 2:30 pm)
NO! Taxpayers should not be
required to pay for UAS Ketchikan. Especially after what they
did with reguards to the land sale. As to the borough grants
program, I believe that we can and should fund some of these
programs. Some of these programs help to define "Ketchikan"
such as the library and the arts. We need to create or enhance
an enviornment where people want to live, work and play. However,
as services need to be cut for financial reasons, grant recipiants
ned to realize that there funding will be reduced.
Reader's question #4. In light of the current and continuing
tight budget situation within the borough, what is your position
with regard to the possibility of raising taxes to increase revenues?
And if you favor increased taxation, how would you accomplish
it? i.e. property tax increase, head tax, increased user fees,
etc. (09/22/03 - 11:30 pm)
to question #4 (Published
09/27/03 - 7:35 pm)
It's easy for someone to say
" I'm not in favor of raising taxes". The realty of
the current economic situation in the borough is that there are
decreasing revenues and increasing costs. This is a simple math
problem with not so simple answers. Am I in favor of raising
taxes? No. Would I consider raising taxes? Yes. government needs
to funded and services need to be provided and "someone"
has to pay for them. There should be no mystery as to who will
pay for them.We all will. I'm not opposed to a reasonable head
tax as long as the monies don't disappear into the "black
hole" ( general fund). Cruiseship passengers will still
come and the industry is still growing. However, the burden and
responsibility of funding the community we live in, is and should
be ours. Increase the user fees as long as there is an increase
in service. Let's not charge more for the same service. Same
goes for the property taxes, though I wonder about the method
used in assessing property. At least ther is a tax advantage.
I personnaly would pay a higher mil rate for added services,
ie area wide EMS, as was suggested in a previous consolidation
ballot, and I already live in the city. We will all have to 'bite
the bullet" to get back to where we should be financially.
Hopefully, future borough assembly members will make better financial
decisions then were made in the past, ie. disaster relief, roads
to nowhere, confusing and irresponsible tax ballot measures.
Reader's question #5. Have you ever been asked to be dishonest
as part of your job? If so, how did you handle it? Would you
lie to, or mislead, the public if you felt the public would ultimately
benefit? (09/28/03 - 11:50 pm)
to question #5 (Published
09/29/03 - 1:25 pm)
Yes. As a pilot flying for
a different scheduled air taxi companies, I've often been asked
to be vague or less than honest when it came to letting customers
know about the timeliness of flights, weather delays, etc. Anyone
who is reading this has probably been subjected to this with
ANY airline. Not trying to make an excuse or a justification,
it's more of a job requirement. HOWEVER. , that
is a far cry from lying or misleading the public, because "
I felt" the public would be better served. Who am
I to do that? I'm no better or smarter than the 'public', I'm
part of them.
Stories In The News