Crosswalk Wanted
Dear Editor: I’d like to bring awareness for public safety that a crosswalk is desperately needed in front of the public library. With the large amount of tourists being bussed or tendered to Centennial Hall visitors use the crosswalk on Lincoln Street, dangerously in front of the library (because of its beeline from Centennial Hall to downtown), or on Maksoutoff Street.
Many of us locals that utilize our public library park across the street because of its close proximity to the front door. Many pedestrians (in the summer) dislike the inconvenience of walking an extra 300 feet to Maksoutoff Street or 900 feet to the Lincoln Street to cross legally. With so many pedestrians crossing in front of the public library I think it’s imperative that a crosswalk be established because of the high probability of injury and/or death.
In Ketchikan to deter people from illegally crossing, the city/DOT built a large rope barrier decades ago between crosswalks. I don’t feel that would be cost-effective in Sitka as to the large amount of work it would require. The more cost-effective and feasible solution would be to install a marked crosswalk in front of the library. To bring more awareness due to heavy crossing at this beeline to downtown would be to install a crossing signal and lights that would flash on “pedestrian crossing” signs, and bring attention to drivers. Sitka has a crosswalk like this on Peterson Ave., near the old McDonald’s. This would allow visible safer pedestrian alternative where people can cross guardedly in an already high-use crossing area. If you would like to help get a crosswalk put in, please give the local Department of Transportation a call.
Scotty Gyatso, Sitka
Proposal 179
Dear Editor: There is going to be a very important meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 8, at 6 p.m. here in Sitka at NSRAA, 1308 Sawmill Creek Road. This important meeting will address Proposal 179 that the Advisory Board will be taking to Ketchikan at the Board of Fish meeting and the board will be taking public testimony on Proposal 179.
Proposal 179, if passed by the board, will protect the spawning grounds for the taking of herring eggs which usually happens every spring here in Sitka. Traditionally and historically, the Alaska Native peoples have been able to do this. We greatly enjoy being able to do this. Please attend or call in on Jan. 8 as this meeting is open to the public.
Thank you to the Sitka Fish and Game Advisory board and the Sitka Daily Sentinel for giving us this service.
Harriet Miyasato Beleal, Sitka
Citizens Initiative
Dear Editor: As a former Tourism Task Force member, I wanted to write my thoughts and perspective that led to the way I voted on the task force recommendations. As the general public can see, tourism is a highly polarizing and divisive topic, with strong feelings on both sides. During the task force process, a few things were clearly evident to me. First, it was clear to me that a cap is and was necessary. This is clearly due to the growth of tourism happening at exceptionally fast rates post pandemic. The growth was happening much faster than the community can absorb. Second, it was clear to me that tourism as a community needs to be managed better.
From what I’ve seen in other communities, TBMP (Tourism Best Management Practices) is the program to accomplish the management of tourism, under the oversight of the City and Tourism Commission. In order to be successful, TBMP needs some teeth, so it should be tied into the ability to get city permits to operate on city owned property, thus forcing companies to comply with its regulations. Without teeth, this program is not capable of inflicting change to improve tourism overall. As this moves forward into the implementation phase, I will continue to advocate for enhancements to this program and addition of teeth, to ensure the program inflicts the change necessary.
Lastly, due to the legality behind the cap issue, it was clear that the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) was the best option, given the multitude of legal challenges and repercussions that could be present. There is very little legal precedence on this issue and there are multitudes of jurisdictions and laws at play.
In terms of the cap, the data the task force collected (which was subject to each person’s interpretation) showed two groups of close to the same size. One group for dramatic reductions, and one group for continued growth. It was clear and evident to me that the group in the middle needed more studying. Further, the information received likely had a large skew, given the consistency of the same people from both sides clearly showing up at every polling point. Based on the conversations I have had as a task force member, it was clear that most people in the community thought the high days were too much and some cap was necessary. Additionally, it was clear that there was a very large economic impact we couldn’t quantify, given the massive rise in business licenses. So when it came to a cap, I knew a dramatic reduction could impact people’s businesses and livelihoods, but some cap was in order from what felt the majority of the community wanted to see. Based on this information, I voted for a cap that essentially took out the spike days when the town was overrun, but a cap that kept the number relatively stable while we continued some more studying through formal groups like McKinley Research. This would give us the information to make an informed decision, both on economic impacts and community sentiment. McKinley’s reports will provide statistically sound and reliable information, something that was ultimately missing. This recommendation was the consensus of the tourism task force as a formal body.
It was clear TBMP needed to move quickly and we recommended that TBMP get approved, funded, and start collecting data as soon as possible. This will take a process of revisions, but over time, will yield benefits to the community to control how operators businesses interact within the community. Again, this program needs some teeth to be successful and revisions to this program are likely.
Lastly, I strongly supported an MOU to move this group’s recommendation forward. It was shocking to me the multiple levels of issues the city has to work through to initiate change. They have to deal with state DOT, DNR, federal agencies, USCG, and more. Given the multitude of agencies involved, the amount of regulations and rules give the likelihood of legal issues a high probability. Further, enacting a cap through the city code exposes the city to the cost of legal challenge. In the case of a citizen initiative, the city’s insurance doesn’t cover that cost, so the taxpayers in the community do. Additionally, a code change exposes the city to issues at the state, federal, and constitutional level, many of which would need to be taken through the Supreme Court given limited precedence. Again, this expense is mainly carried by the city through taxpayer dollars. The MOU avoids all of this and cuts through the bureaucracy and makes agreements within industry to self-regulate. While it does lack the penalties and fines to enforce legally, the truth is most companies are going to uphold their end for the sake of destroying their own reputation and image in the community. If there are permits and other items on the line, the city does have some say with certain group to ensure some adherence.
As I look at this citizens initiative, I am concerned about the direction this is moving. First, I see the fact that the city, tourism task force, industry and community was moving in an improving direction, but is having its legs cut off before the changes could start yielding much of a return. This takes time and this issue is being pushed before we can see the benefits from the work performed, though some improvement is already evident between the 2023 and 2024 seasons. Second, it is clear that in this process, industry experience was excluded, which has significant repercussions. The scheduling process alone is so burdensome and the timing doesn’t align with industry. As a result, this will likely push ships to explore other opportunities like Klawock or Wrangell, just like ships did in the mid 2000’s by going to Hoonah. The reality is we likely could see numbers well below 300,000, which could put the number back to low points in the industry of 100,000 or less, fully gutting the whole tourism sector. Lastly, there is large legal exposure, from Federal Tonnage laws to appropriation laws, to the constitutional right to travel to the constitutional takings clause. This could cost the city significant amounts of money, which detracts from potential revenue uses, coming at a time city resources are being significantly cut as the initiative takes hold. Some of these legal exposures could be significantly higher than the taxing ability of the city. These issues are the issues I was seeing as a member of the tourism task force which led to the way I voted on the final recommendations.
I strongly urge all citizens to read the citizens initiative. At face value, this initiative looks like it does establish a cap and daily limits, but the formal processes built behind the scenes are going to cost the city money and staff to implement. Those processes also don’t work for the industry, so likely will push most operators away from Sitka as a port. Some of the popular things in the citizens initiative are already present in the MOU, like quiet days. The reality is that the impact of this will catastrophically hurt the whole community and lead to repercussions that we don’t even know. This citizens initiative was done without the necessary research to know it’s repercussions and I strongly urge everyone to be informed before you put your name to this proposed legislation. Please also read the MOU and see the items within that document and see the steps that are already being taken to improve Sitka for the whole community.
These facts led to why I voted the way I did. The concerns around this citizens initiative is the reason I will Decline to Sign.
Jeremy Plank, Sitka
