Hospital Initiative
Dear Editor: Did you read the article in last Friday’s Sentinel reporting the City and Boroughs rejection of a ballot initiative focused on a bit of our community hospital’s future? Perhaps you read it but missed the part about the initiative being for a “bit” of our hospital’s future? Everyone has missed this part so far. Even CBS’s rejection didn’t acknowledge that the initiative would only apply for one year. Here’s the missing part. If successful, the proposed ballot initiative would have required CBS to retain ownership of our hospital for one year only. How can such an initiative be unconstitutional?
This rejection follows in the footsteps of the Assembly’s and City Administrators’ previous changes to Ordinance 18 – the ordinance that required a community vote on larger CBS property sales and leases. This ordinance was changed so that citizen votes could no longer ratify CBS property sales and leases. These changes were made just in time to prevent our voting on any aspect of our hospital’s future. The rationale that led to this outcome was that such ratifying votes are unconstitutional. But as pointed out by Thad Poulson in his editorial published in the May 7 Sentinel, the relevant constitutionality issue has not been legally addressed. We have one attorney’s ingrained opinion and CBS is using it to keep citizens from voting on such things as the sale of our hospital.
Changes are underway. Our hospital is in the final stages of hiring a new CEO – knowledgeable and experienced management is just around the corner. And the Oct. 2 CBS elections are close behind. But CBS is doing everything it can to decide our hospital’s future before these changes take place. They intend to decide amongst the RFP proposals on Aug. 28. Which brings me back to the proposed ballot initiative. Why can’t we have a year to make sure we take the best steps forward with our hospital? Why shouldn’t the new CEO have an opportunity to chart paths forward? Perhaps even negotiate with one or more of the original RFP responders? What is so bad about letting us vote on providing time for careful transitions? This shouldn’t have come down to a ballot initiative question but current CBS leadership just doesn’t seem to want time for careful transitions.
Travis Hudson, Sitka
Bears and Garbage
Dear Editor: Last year the Assembly clarified the Sitka ordinances relating to garbage collection in response to several aggressive bear actions toward people. This year some of the bear-people interactions have also been scary. Sows raiding the garbage are showing their cubs that trash is a good source of food, and that people are not to be feared. The problem continues.
The ordinances mandate that people control their garbage: See Chapter 9.24 of the Sitka ordinances. In summary they say:
–Don’t maintain a bear attraction nuisance, defined as food or fish waste or other organic material, including disposable diapers, or any organic material which has attracted a bear within the last five years.
–these items should be put into a garbage can the day of collection only, unless the garbage can is enclosed in a bear-resistance container.
–There are penalties. Both a tenant and an owner of a property may be liable for monetary fines for a violation, and for allowing a violation to happen again.
–The police have the ability (and the obligation) to enforce these ordinances, citing the offenders. The penalties range from $50-$500 depending upon the number of violations. Every day the violation continues is a separate fine.
Juneau has substantially cut down on garbage bear problems (the city has much stronger enforcement and penalties for mishandling garbage, which may have helped.) Sitka can reduce its bear problem too.
No organic garbage should be out before trash day in a garbage can that is not in a bear-proof container (it’s illegal in any case).
The city allows every utility holder 200 free pounds at the transfer station. this is the place to take extra or particularly desirable garbage such as fish waste or crab shells.
The person depositing organic waste in a trashcan prior to pickup day is not only behaving illegally according to the Sitka ordinances, but more importantly is contributing to a dangerous situation.
Sitka as a community must make the effort to stop people who appear indifferent to their or their neighbors’ safety by irresponsibly handling their garbage. Someone is going to get seriously hurt. That’s a high price to pay.
What to do? Call the police and ask them to cite violators who put their garbage out early, dispose of garbage responsibly, help your neighbors get rid of garbage, build bear-proof containers, and so forth. It takes some effort to act responsibly, but it might save a life.
Galen Paine, Sitka
