To the Editor:
Demand destruction is a phenomenon that is often referred to when oil prices rise high enough to harm the economy and reduce its ability to purchase fuel.
I have another example of demand destruction; getting rid of ferry service to Alaskan communities because the State budget has been mismanaged, which will result in a self inflicted wound to the economy.
These small towns have ferry docks, how much was spent to build these docking facilities? Should that investment be, in hindsight, a waste of resources?
People bought land from the State of Alaska, moved to these remote locations and built homes and businesses with the understanding that there was what amounts to public transportation and access. Will the state now fail to maintain the marine highway and let these people and their businesses suffer? This amounts to a harmful bait and switch over a budget squabble.
Yes, the ferry system is subsidized by public monies, and likely always will be. But the ferry also provides an economic positive in Alaska which is not easily measured but is a feedback into the state coffers.
It seems silly to waste all of the long term investment and energy expended on the ferry system for a short term budget battle.
Denny Corbin
Pelican, Alaska
To the Editor:
Let's stop servicing Prince Rupert if they want the presence of armed law enforcement while agents conduct inspections at the Prince Rupert ferry terminal when they want to charge a system already facing severe cuts
The Alaska Marine Highway System was put on notice March 15: Either ensure that there's a "continuous law enforcement presence" during inspections, or shut down the port in 30 days. Alaska shouldn't have to pay for a enforcement service that Canada wants. Just keep the ferries running from Bellingham and outlying communities.
Capt. Loretto Jones
Reader Comments(0)