The opinions expressed in the following commentary are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by KCAW’s board, staff, or volunteers.
My name is Doug Borland, and my wife and I are 30-year residents of Sitka. As long-time Sitka downtown business owners, our Russian American stores employ six full-time Sitkans and up to 12 including our summer temporary staff. Today I would like to express some concerns regarding the upcoming anti-cruise ship referendum vote.
Like most of Sitka’s citizens, we are aware of, and appreciate, the “small-town ambience” and the uniqueness of our town and the surrounding areas that make us special. We too value and want to preserve that special uniqueness.
We relocated from Anchorage all those years ago precisely because of the advantages of living in such a small coastal town. We are on the waters, hiking the trails, and avid hunter-gatherers in the mountains and forests around town. So, of course we also want to preserve these values.
For example, in the early 2000’s, we voted against the proposed downtown cruise-ship dock in front of the Sheldon Jackson campus because it would radically change the face of our downtown.
We hear every day from visitors that Sitka is the best cruise ship stop they have made on their Alaskan trips! This is apparent, as we are decidedly different. Therefore, we have mixed feelings about the upcoming referendum and vote to severely limit cruise ship visitors.
We do recognize that the rapid increase in cruise ship tourism that the town has experienced since covid has resulted for sure in some growing pains, and those, such as traffic and pedestrian safety, certainly must be addressed.
As main street businesses we are engaged with the City and other stakeholders regarding these issues, through an ongoing structured process encouraging input from all.
Considering this, we feel that the referendum may be a too radical approach, which in our opinion could have some serious unintended consequences that the well-meaning proponents of the anti-cruise ship vote may not have considered.
First of all, the economic impact to our city of the loss of sales tax revenues if this referendum passes is unquestionable, although what exactly the ultimate losses amount to might be debatable.
To us, as business owners, and to the town relying on us as a continuing viable economic engine, this issue is more complicated: Mainly, will the cruise ships, redirecting to other Alaskan ports if this passes, push ours and other businesses below the break-even point where we will be forced to close? Can we continue to keep our stores open in the winter, which we have always done, even though operating at a loss, if we cannot make it up from our summer business?
As the proposed “cap” is a mythical figure, there is in no way to guarantee, if this referendum passes, that the cruise ship numbers will actually approach the upper limits of the cap amount. The unintended consequences may very well be that we will see way less than the maximum visitor cap set by the referendum, which could for sure lead to employee layoffs, (not just the loss of revenues through sales taxes), and could result in the complete shutdown of ours and other businesses, with our employees, and their families having to leave Sitka to earn a living elsewhere, and could lead to permanent closures of even long-time downtown businesses.
Also, it must be noted that if this passes, it is not just the direct major losses of sales tax revenues that our city will feel from the multitude of businesses; it is also the recirculation of these dollars throughout the city economy throughout the year, as we re-spend these dollars collected from our customers throughout the city.
We pay our suppliers, our employees, our utilities, our rents, etc. – all of which again create an additional sales tax that supports our city services. Then again each of the recipients of these dollars will re-spend and recirculate them to create more sales taxes! This “multiplier effect” means the economic impact of our revenues from the tourist dollars is much higher than just the initial collection made by our stores, and could ripple throughout the town.
Finally, it must be noted that we, along with most of the other tourist-related businesses, also are major supporters of Sitka’s many nonprofits.
These deserving nonprofits include social programs for elders and the less fortunate, our most important educational and school programs, the renowned Sitka Summer Music Festival, the Fine Arts Camp, SitkaTrails, the Legacy Fund, and yes, our valued public radio station! Every year we have helped to sustain these valuable programs.
But they can only gain our support if we have a viable, stable, and growing downtown business community, which is quite concerning.
And, this is especially true now, as other public sources of support, mainly from our state and federal governments, for this nonprofit sector, are seriously threatened.
In conclusion, the radical approach of a referendum suggests some serious possible downsides that could negatively affect most all Sitkans.
We would hope that the growing pains from the increase in tourism could be better addressed through collaboration, cooperation, and shared values of what we all should want for our special unique coastal town.
In our opinion, this referendum raises many, many uncertainties of possible serious, negative, unintended consequences, and every listener should be considering these before going to vote.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
