No on Ballot Prop II
Dear Editor: First let me disclose that my company would likely benefit financially from a boatyard in the Gary Paxton Industrial Park, and as an owner/operator of multiple vessels, would also be a direct user.
I will however be voting against the proposition for the following reasons:
As someone who clings to old-fashioned principles, and with a heart for those less fortunate, I’m concerned that the proposed yard will not be the “economic engine” that it’s being marketed as. Not everyone in Sitka owns a boat and it is for them that I am concerned.
Will the land-based resident be blessed or burdened by the yard? If the selling point is job creation and meeting a “critical” need, then I offer you (tongue-in-cheek) this idea.... a hospital. It would create possibly 100 jobs and provide a service that every resident needs, not just boat owners. The fact that we closed a business that truly was “critical infrastructure” and a large employer, and then will perhaps use the money for new infrastructure, that might create three direct jobs, is reverse investing.
I say this to make the point that it’s bad business to step over dollars for dimes, and bad business plans make bad businesses, always.
On the subject of business plans, another reason I will not support this is the complete lack of a plan as to how the private operating entity will be selected, or what the terms and obligations will be for said entity. At a basic level (barring lost interest and penalties) the idea of using funds we already have to build a yard is respectable and obviously astute. I believe in self-investment and have built my company from scratch without any financing, but I take issue with being asked to vote for something without full knowledge of the details. The devil is in the details and I don’t know any of them. In fact, I’m astounded that it is not the “details” that we are voting on, with the financing to be worked out after a successful ballot prop.
I admire the heart that is being put into this proposition by those in favor, but I caution allowing emotion into business decisions. I’m turned off by those wanting the yard so badly that they feel it necessary to exaggerate the benefit to residents. I don’t think anyone is opposed to a yard if it’s not an economic drain, but the fact is, the yard needs to be viable on its own, without unquantifiable secondary revenue propping it up.
I have an excellent memory and I recall when, on more than one occasion, individuals at different times proposed to build a yard at GPIP and the opposition was emphatic. The public outcry against the yard ranged from “it’s a terrible location and an ice box” to just not liking who was proposing it, and being certain they might “get away with something.”
The most recent example being the Chris McGraw offer to build the yard in exchange for raw land for tourism, a deal that would have been foolhardy to reject. The hand was masterfully played, with the land ending up as he originally intended, and with Mr. McGraw not having to build a yard. Well played, Chris, touché, and shame on the selfish people that caused him to withdraw the offer.
My observation is that the issue has not been whether or not to have a yard, but rather “who” has the yard. Clearly emotions have entered into the business plan.
I have heard the word “fleet” associated with the ballot proposition ad nauseam. It has reached a point with me that I feel like maybe the “fleet” should pay for it if that’s who needs it. We are also told that we need to do this to keep the fleet here. Really? Is anyone going to move somewhere else because of where they haul out? Of course not, Sitka is a wonderful place. If you want to keep the “fleet” here, keep moorage affordable, it’s a larger expense to vessel owners than an annual haulout.
If there’s fish to catch, money to make the fleet will be here. Our local waters and harbors are filled with vessels from elsewhere. Vessels that have arrived from locations that may not have a yard, and yet here they are making and spending money in Sitka. Small passenger, charter fishing, bear hunting, private recreation, and fishing
vessels of all gear groups have chosen Sitka, and none of them did so for our yard.
The fact is that this is a want and not a need. We just went through a season without a yard and, and while not convenient, everyone survived. Don’t misunderstand me, I do want a yard and I think we should have one, and I believe we will under the right circumstances. But launching an ill-planned underfunded enterprise will fail no matter how much it is willed to succeed. Sadly Sitka is late to the modern boatyard business and its market share will reflect this.
As a tug owner I’m familiar with the Ketchikan shipyard and have spent months there. I can tell you that 90% or more of the shipyard work there happens while vessels are actually in the water. The vessels in shipyards undergo all painting (waterline up) mast/rigging construction and repair, hydraulic work, wiring, window replacement, engine rebuilds, interior remodel, fish hold fiberglassing, electronic repair/replace, bulwarks, decks, bait sheds, propeller changes, and anode replacement while in water and dockside. It is only for brief periods that a vessel will haul for bottom paint or below waterline hull repairs. This is due to the high price a yard must charge for haulout time in order to remain solvent. All of the tasks I’ve listed are currently being carried out in Sitka and will not appear as new revenue with a boatyard.
If we want a glimpse of what Sitka’s economy could look like with a boat yard just look back over the last 40 years, we’ve had one, and sometimes two. That’s right, Wrangell cleaned our clock, and they did it while we had operating yards. I know trades people that left Sitka for Wrangell, and the reason they did it had nothing to do with the yard and everything to do with cost of living and Wrangell’s casual, accommodating approach to the vendors.
In more than 25 years in business I have salvaged over 150 vessels with a large percentage ending up in our local yards. Without a yard my business will suffer some loss, but I am willing to endure for a time if it means long-term stability and a better end product.
Please don’t disregard my comments, they come from experience in exactly this field. I have salvaged vessels everywhere in Southeast and towed them to every yard. I myself have been in every yard. I had a mobile welding business in the early 90’s working exclusively in the local boatyard, and I was the first employee of Mike Litman and Precision Boatworks before that. Also in the early ’90s I worked for the Sitka Shipwrights Co-Op. I have fished in most fisheries and held limited entry permits for decades. I have more knowledge on this subject than most and have not come to my decision hastily.
Please join me in patiently holding out for a better plan.
Lee Hanson, Sitka,
Hanson Maritime Co.
Farmers Market Thanks
Dear Editor: The Sitka Local Foods Network just completed its 15th season of hosting the Sitka Farmers Market. We hope Sitka residents enjoyed the market, and we plan to be back next summer for a 16th season.
Over the last couple of years, we had to make some adjustments as we dealt with this Covid-19 pandemic thing, which meant relocating our market for two years and reformatting it in one of those years. This year we were able to return to our usual venue, the ANB Founders Hall, even though we still had to require masks when we had markets during high-Covid risk weeks.
But we got through it and hope to have a better season next year.
The Sitka Local Foods Network couldn’t host the market without the support of a wide range of sponsors. We have a tiered sponsorship program with four levels — Grower ($2,500-plus), Harvester ($1,000-$2,499), Planter ($250-$999) and Friend ($50-$249). These are local businesses and individuals, and even a few not from Sitka, who are supporting our programs.
Our Grower Level sponsors in 2022 included the Alaska Cancer Partnership (a program of the Alaska Division of Public Health), The Alaska Community Foundation, and Alaska Food Policy Council.
Our Harvester Level sponsors were the Sitka Salmon Shares 1% For The Planet Fund, Sitka Legacy Foundation, SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Sitka White Elephant Shop, the GCI Gives Fund, ALPS Federal Credit Union, and the Alaska Farmers Markets Association.
Our Planter Level sponsors were Harry Race Pharmacy/White’s Inc., Sea Mart, Market Center, Fish and Family Seafoods, the Sitka Employees of First National Bank Alaska, Sitka True Value, Linda Schmidt, Amanda Anjum, David and Margaret Steward, and Charles Bingham.
Our Friend Level sponsors included Beth Short-Rhoads, Patricia Atkinson, Guillermo Espinoza, Ehsan Espinoza, Robb Garni, Jud Kirkness, Catherine Allgood-Mellema, Joe Leghorn, Pat Hanson, Beth Kindig, Lisa Sadleir-Hart, Jaime Zelhuber, Christina Kowalczewski, Traci Gale, Math Trafton, Zoe Trafton, Leah Mason, Moira McBride, Steve Paustian and Mary Beth Nelson, Aubrey Nelson, and Robin Sherman.
We thank you for your support. We also appreciate everybody who came to one of our markets this summer to support the local businesses selling local food or arts and crafts.
This brings us to our offseason, where we plan and raise funds for 2023. The Sitka Local Foods Network is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to increase the amount of locally produced and harvested food in the diets of Southeast Alaskans. In addition to the Sitka Farmers Market, we grow food at St. Peter’s Fellowship Farm, sponsor the Sitka Food Business Innovation Contest, and connect residents to education opportunities for growing, cooking, and preserving local food.
We always need new board members and volunteers. For more information, go to our website at www.sitkalocalfoodsnetwork.org or contact SLFN Board President Charles Bingham at sitkalocalfoodsnetwork@gmail.com.
Charles Bingham for the
Sitka Local Foods Network
