Letter to the Editor
Four nos
Published Friday, August 22, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Aug. 19, 2008
To the editor:
In a few days, we’ll all have a chance to vote. To vote “no.” In fact, we’ll have the chance to vote “no” four times, and we should seize that opportunity.
The ballot issues this time are prime examples of the dangers inherent in a special interest writing law exactly as they want, putting on a catchy title, paying for signatures, and then using Outside secret funding to con voters into bad decisions.
No, we don’t need a gross expansion of our ability to gamble. No, we don’t need government to pay campaign costs — we just need mandated total public exposure of campaign donations. No, we don’t need to change game laws into predator coddling. No, we don’t need to destroy the mining industry in Alaska.
The best laws are those which start as a draft, and get hammered, crafted, reshaped and refined into solid, functional purpose after all public perspectives have been heard from, and all affected interests have been allowed to review and propose alternatives, after new costs and staffing requirements have been weighed against potential gains.
The worst laws are initiatives secretly written on complex issues for a single, hidden purpose without any clear understanding of potential, unintended impacts — but sold to voters because of innocent-sounding titles, like “clean water.” These never consider costs, staffing, or impacts to Alaskans.
Having extensively reviewed the state and federal permit requirements for mines in my capacity as chair of habitat on the Board of Fish, I can state unequivocally that there is no problem within the current permitting system, no fatal flaw that would allow damage to water or fish. Instead, there is a rigorous, demanding and very expensive process which effectively requires the mining company to amend/change/redesign until each of 67 separate permits have met government requirements. It’s amazing that any company ever gets through the process.
Remember to vote, and remember to vote “no no no no.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I agree. 4 no's for me.
no not at all.
having a COPPER mine at the headwaters to 3 rivers ain't gonna cause problems. no way. every other copper mine has caused pollution, but pebble will be different. of course, that's what they say now....
yes on 4.
The other 3 are useless.
I agree with pebblequestions. We are talking about protecting the #1 salmon fisherie in the WORLD. If we allow them to pollute it, we're never going to be able to undue the damage. VOTE YES on 4.
Fbksmom, pebblequestions....you have to bear something in mind: Bonnie Williams is a self-avowed expert in the fields of gambling law administration, wildlife management, election funding procedures, and environmental pollution control and engineering. On top of all this incredible expertise, she also finds the time to tell us how we should vote for after all who would know better than she?
As one example, she talks about "predator coddling". Had she bothered to read the measure 2 (and it's obvious she didn't) she would have seen it provides for predator control by aircraft and only restricts it to Fish and Game personnel instead of the present system favored by the Alaska Outdoors Council (in her busy schedule Ms. Williams forgot to mention she belongs to the AOC, a recognized group of trophy hunting extremists) where anyone able to get someone with a gun and a plane together can and is allowed to hunter predators from the air.
Ms. Williams also neglects (tsk!) to mention while she has served on the borough assembly, in her attempts to rise any higher in the political scheme she was continuously and rather handily defeated in each election. It makes you wonder why she therefore feels so sure her advice is worthwhile.
Having worked with Ms. Williams in the past I can attest to the fact she is good at administration; she fills the space behind a desk most admirably. But having followed her political career over decades as well as the comments she has made in the press in the past I can also attest to the simple fact she knows far less than she thinks. If you want clean water, vote "Yes" on measure 4. If you want wildlife management done by professionals instead of AOC thugs, vote "Yes" on measure 2. If you want to see Alaska diminished in the quality of its wildlife and fisheries, follow Ms. Williams' advice.
Damn "dobieman!"
That's a nice (verbal)"upper-cut" you got there.
I think you got that in, plus two left "jabs," and a hard right to the ribs. Ouch!
Got my popcorn ready.....this ought to be good!!!!!!!
Vote Yes On 4!
Since this is a primary election, I doubt that very many people in Fairbanks will even bother to turn out to vote. There is a reason why these measures were placed on a primary rather than Presidential/Congressional election ballot. This is like jelly beans in a glass jar, how many do you think will actually vote Tuesday?
dobieman, Ms. Williams used her real name. Her opinion counts with me. Your opinions line the bird cage. Come out from behind your Cowardly Lion costume and then maybe I will read what you have to say.
I too will vote NO on all 4 ballot issues. The legislature is the body responsible for proposing laws. Because they lack any semblance of a backbone, we now have special interest groups from the far Right to the far Left pushing their narrow agendas. The ballot initiative process is extra constitutional and needs to be repealed.
A for the current incumbents, they have failed to make any kind of headway on any issue of importance to Alaskans. They fail to take care of State business in their alloted time and then the Governor has to call them back for Special Sessions. Vote the bums out. Let us try a new crop and perhaps our yield will increase.
totally agree with you bonnie. it's all no's for me.
This is a "no" brainer - vote no all four. Definitely vote no on measure 4.
I'll bet we don't get 15% turn out at the polls, it seems that no one in the FBNS Borough cares enough to vote. So the few that do, control, control the majority!
Bonnie Williams says:
"I can state unequivocally that there is no problem within the current permitting system, no fatal flaw that would allow damage to water or fish...It’s amazing that any company ever gets through the process."
I was ready to give the mining industry the benefit of doubt on this one until I wondered...
Why is there still a relatively recent huge excavation and former cyanide heap leach pit on the south side of Ester dome in which no visible reclamation efforts were ever attempted?
Why does the defunct Illinois Creek mine built south of Galena in the late 1990's still have a huge a gaping hole in the ground with a cyanide heap leach pit still festering beside it?
Both are examples that I am personally familiar with, and both seem to be poised to release toxins into our streams at some unknown time in the future. Why should I believe the pro-mining development interests when I know the State cannot even manage impacts from mining projects that are considerably smaller than the proposed Pebble mine project?
The State has been asleep at the switch when it comes to monitoring hard rock mining. Clearly the State needs the public's direction on this issue. It appears to me that they are not taking much initiatve on their own, or if they try, they are rebuffed by pressure from special interests at high levels.
I'll vote yes for the Pebble initiative!
Measure 4 isn't just about Pebble. While I'm not particularlly to thrilled about Pebble, I'm definitely not for passing legislation that will affect 'all new permits'. Why didn't they just turn that place into a State Park Preservation or something. I wouldn't agree with that idea necessarily either, but it'd at least tell me people were interested in only Pebble than a nuclear wipe-out of our entire mining industry.
As for gambling? I'm curious why there's been so little talk about it? Barely heard a peep...I would generally support such an issue but am not sure with barely any mention of it I'm hesitant to believe anyone is really supporting it.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/2008_pri...
Read, make your own choices.
Forgot, we will just have to wait to see how Anchorage determines these measures.
Ulises Gonzalez: Vote as you will, but you are quite mistaken about the initiative process being "extra-constitutional." It is prescribed IN THE CONSTITUTION!
I sure hope Anchorage supports gambling!! It is so far past time that this issue should be closed! We NEED HISTORIC GAMBLING!! If that means casinos, so much the better, but we have needed this for the last 20 yrs. (ever since FDA killed downtown) Voting no on the other three will be how I vote, even if it does correspond with how Bonnie Williams votes!
John Greene
Woodman you are on the mark on the issue of who controls the majority. It is the voters, and sadly Anchorage will probably fall prey to the ad campaigns thus leaving us with all the hoops to jump through in the future. Other than measure one, I will vote no across the board.
Establishing a State commission to oversee and possibly expand gambling in Alaska is a good idea.
Allowing the Department of Fish and Game to continue to invovle citizens in preditor control in extreme cases is a good idea.
Public campaign funding for any and all candidates will not reduce corruption and will put money in the coffers of those that we otherwise woudn't support.
The clean water innitiative doesn't make the current industry standards better for the fish or people. If we applied the standards in that measure to all groceries and waters in Alaska, we would not have anything to eat or drink.
Read the measures, decide for yourself and vote.
I know I'll be voting NO to all!
I know I will be voting NO to all also !!!
Ulises Gonzalez-
It is all very well for you to give your real name but, sometimes people have very polarizing viewpoints that sometimes lead other people to say things to their families or themselves that are hateful, threatening or violent.
Use of your real name gives other people a very distinct advantage of being able to find out just about anything they want to about you. Starting with your phone #, physical address including any and all currently/previously owned property in the whole state, past court troubles ect..That are all available online in different databases.
"Posting anonymously can be beneficial when discussing very private matters, or taboo subjects or expressing views or revealing facts which may put someone in physical, financial, or legal danger."
Calling someone a coward who chooses not to let the world know who they are is like calling the ANONYMOUS Federalist Papers, that led to the ratification of our Constitution, cowardly even though they were a very important part of our becoming the country we are. We know now who wrote them but, at the time they were anonymous. I personally do not want some radical who does not agree with a comment I made showing up at my house to take me on in person.
I will be voting NO to all and so will the three other people who live in our household!
Ditto
No to all!!!!!
Before you vote No, you had better check into the damage that Pebble has already done elsewhere. They are bad news, and really, Companies that have the potential of doing the damage that mines do should have to jump through hoops before mining in a place that could really be catastrophic.
I'm voting yes on 4.
Spruce is right, the cyanide heap leaching operations he mentions are a disaster waiting to happen.
Does anyone remember the worker fatalities at Fort Knox? Exhausted truck drivers falling asleep and running off the road in their giant ore trucks. Scheduling drivers for adequate rest was just too much trouble.
How about the recent coal mine troubles in the lower 48?
Anyone who thinks the mining industry will act responsibly is mistaken, it will be business as usual for them. We will all pay the price if there's trouble at Pebble.
I've frequently voted "no" on Bonnie Williams. Does that count?
Wow, "Four nos" is almost more effective than a catchy jingle.
"Look, folks, it's easy. When you get into the voting booth, you won't have to read, think or keep track of anything... just remember, "four nos"."
Bonnie is exploiting voters who are too lazy or stupid to think about the issues. One would hope that she'd be encouraging people to think about their votes instead.
Now, I don't respect Bonnie.
NativeAlaskan
Very well said. Too many sickos out there I think it is foolish to put yourself or family in possible physical danger.
YES on all four measures - my family makes that three votes for each.
yes on four
-
silverwindrune
- 8/22/2008, 1:09 p.m.
-
Suggest removal
-
</hmmm four months a year or a soild ten years of year round work.I'll take the year round thanks.Not to mention the fact that we have not considered what that messure will do for the mines that are already here.Fort Knox is a major mine and supplys a decent amount of jobs.
People complain there are not enough of high paying jobs so make a choice and stick with it better jobs or no mines?
Yes there could be damage done by mistake.How ever if a fishing ship sinks fully loaded with fuel then how much damage does that do if they really are worried for the fish then they'ed fish on boats powered by wind.
How about we bane all moterized boats on the ocaens of the world.shut down all coal mines and power plants that use coal to operate.And stop useing heating oil in this part of the world.
This is really simple new jobs on the market or none and a job that's only done for four months.pebble has already started highering people to help them with feeding the crews that will be working there.
Jobs that are year round,or a short work season.