Senior Discounts
Dear Editor: Seniors, do not despair, Sea Mart is there for you. Be smart, shop at Sea Mart. also, Harry Race and White’s.
Just hand them a card. They smile at you. No humiliation.
Jan Brookman, Sitka
Carbon Offset Fund
Dear Editor: Here at the Island Institute, we try to make our space available for good things happening in the community (for instance, meetings of the local Carbon Emissions Reduction group who have launched this offset initiative).
We were recently awarded a grant of $500 through the Carbon Offset Fund to replace our Toyo stove with two heat pumps in our building. Matt Christner of Bay Contracting helped select and install the heat pumps, and Sitka Electric took care of the wiring.
Including installation, costs came out to around $4,500 per unit. We expect we’ll make that money back in savings on our utilities and oil heating bills in the next few years.
The second heat pump will keep the upstairs apartment warm through the winter, which will help us bring visiting artists, writers, and other guests to Sitka through the year.
Now, our building is quieter, warmer, cheaper to heat, and isn’t using fossil fuels. We’re using local hydro power, which helps get user-ship up closer to capacity, which will eventually mean lower electric rates for everybody in town. Thanks to Sitka Carbon Offset Fund for helping us get there. Gratefully,
Board & Staff of the Island Institute
Assembly Property Vote
Dear Editor: Consider this.
If the city was to sell a large chunk of city-owned property, which scenario would be most likely to get the best deal for Sitkans:
A. Four Assembly members decide, or;
B. A majority of Sitkans decide in a binding public vote?
It’s pretty obvious, right…
Option B is set in law, as it has been for decades. But Option B is likely to change at the next Assembly meeting.
In short: Ordinance 2018-18 is up for second reading next Wednesday and the Assembly is poised to remove your right to vote on large property sales. The ordinance passed last week 6-1.
This is perhaps the biggest decision the current Assembly will make, and yet Sitkans are being told this is just a simple matter of housekeeping.
But it isn’t a matter of housekeeping.
It is a power grab, and I do not know who is behind it or what the motivation is.
Many have pointed to a potential hospital sale. I won’t speculate or comment.
Instead, I’ll give some background. The City is suggesting that a binding public vote is against the Alaska State Constitution. The City sites a legal opinion by Anchorage attorney Michael Gatti, who argued this very same argument in front of the Alaska Supreme Court in 2012—and LOST.
Despite the Alaska Supreme Court saying that Mr. Gatti was wrong, the City recently hired Mr. Gatti to author a legal opinion misconstruing other Supreme Court rulings. That’s the “legal” basis for Ordinance 2018-18—one delusional attorney’s opinion.
At a bare minimum: we as Sitkans deserve to know more before an important right is taken from us. If this is so important: let’s have a public meeting where Sitkans can ask questions, then put the ordinance up for a binding vote in the next scheduled election.
Sitkans: I strongly encourage you to contact your Assembly members and ask them to educate themselves and vote NO on Ordinance 2018-18.
Zach LaPerriere, Sitka
Property Acquisition
Dear Editor: Coincidence?
The city administrator has sponsored a change in the city ordinance that covers “Property Acquisition and Disposal” – Section 18. This change was Item J on the Assembly’s April 24 meeting agenda. The most important part of this change is the removal of language that requires a community vote on the sale of property valued at $500,000 or more (or a lease valued at $750,000 or more). It passed first reading on a 6 to 1 vote … the only “no” vote coming from Dr. Wein. If it passes on second reading (scheduled for the May 8 Assembly meeting), citizens will not be able to vote on the outcome of the Sitka Community Hospital RFP process. Here are some concerns and apparent coincidences with this current Assembly business item.
Why now? A key justification for the change is a legal opinion that Section 18 is “unconstitutional” and handicaps the Assembly’s doing business. Yet this situation has been known for several years and the City’s business has been carried on satisfactorily. Is it a coincidence that this change is now being pushed through before the Sitka Community Hospital (SCH) RFP process is completed?
Why has this change been fast-tracked? The proposed change, inserted in a challenging agenda, was a surprise new business item. Why did it become a priority action item for the City Administrator? Why did it rise to the top of the contract attorneys City projects list? The SCH RFP process has built-in deadlines - getting this change accomplished now means that a citizen vote on the RFP process outcome is preempted. Is this a coincidence?
Why was SEARHC executive management in attendance at the April 24/25 Assembly meeting? Mr. Charles Clements (SEARHC president and CEO) attended the April 24 Assembly meeting and Mr. Dan Neumeister (SEARHC senior executive vice president) attended the continuation of this meeting on April 25. SEARHC has aggressively pursued takeover of SCH and has interacted with City leadership about the RFP that is now in place. Is it possible SEARHC executives favor removal of the citizens’ right to vote on a SCH sale? Is it a coincidence that they attended these particular Assembly meetings?
Perhaps these apparent coincidences are just that… coincidence. I hope they are. Changing the Section 18 Ordinance in a way that enables the citizens to vote on the sale of SCH would help everyone accept these coincidences. It is decisions like this one – that affect our community so profoundly and in so many ways – that you would think the Assembly would want citizens to participant in by voting. A property disposal ordinance that enables the Assembly to request citizen ratification by voting – but doesn’t require it – would surely not be unconstitutional.
Travis Hudson, Sitka
