Sitnews - Stories In The News - Ketchikan, Alaska - Opinions


Seth Krasnow
Candidate For Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly
3 year term ( 2 seats open)
About the Candidate


Published: Saturday
September 27, 2003
Last updated:10/01/03 - 2:30 pm


Seth Krasnow

Seth Krasnow
3527 Baranof Ave
Ketchikan, AK

Questions For Borough Assembly Candidates

Reader's question #1. (09/15/03) - What planning methods would you use for future projects?

check Response 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!

check Response 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)

check Response 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)

check Response 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
Ketchikan, Alaska