Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

My name is Bethany Goodrich, and I wonder how many of you listening have also made your favorite memories on Kruzof Island? An Island so iconic, so important to our community, it’s part of our identity. If you care about Kruzof, listen up.

The Forest Service recently published draft Forest Plan material and maps that could shape the Tongass for decades. In those maps are some unnerving changes to zoning and allowed activity on Kruzof including the volcano that stands sentinel over our town. This new map would allow for high intensity commercial tourism use at Shoals Point, with dramatic changes that stretch right up to Edgecumbe crater. A third party could lease land, build a cruise ship dock and tourism infrastructure, maybe even a tram and bar, to a sacred place where many of us hunt, fish, play and depend on to escape. It could bring heavy traffic to the thickest stretch of herring spawn, where gray whale numbers are so dense, you have to crawl to avoid hitting them. 

There are even wider proposed changes to much of Northern Kruzof, opening the Island we love to major development. 

Now, I am not anti tourism. I understand that a balanced economy is the foundation of a healthy community, that there needs to be economic opportunities  for my child and yours too. But the details matter. How we develop tourism, where and what we build matters. Alaska isn’t a bucket list location because of its landscaping. People come to Alaska, and Sitka in particular, because of the overwhelming wildness, the space, the abundance, the moments when you look around and realize you are in the most beautiful place on earth, with just the people you came with. When you pull up your first king salmon or hunt your first deer beside a wild volcano – you never forget that. 

And once that’s gone, it’s gone forever. There are some places too special, too globally rare, too important to the character of our community, to develop for heavy tourism infrastructure. period.

The proposed maps and plan are about much more than just Kruzof. There’s good ideas, and bad ones. What’s important is that they weren’t drafted by the people who live here. That’s exactly why the Forest Service is hosting community meetings to hear from us. This plan will determine the forest our children inherit, it will shape the lands where they might fall in love, where they will challenge themselves physically and emotionally, where they might commercial fish or build a business, this plan might determine whether they choose to stay here at all. The decisions being rushed through right now are too important to be made FOR us, they must be made WITH us.

Kruzof is the backdrop to my most cherished memories: honing my hunting skills, catching waves, learning to camp in bear country, watching my baby splash inside a perfectly smooth lava tub. There comes a point, when you love a place so much– it becomes family.  Kruzof is that for me, and I know I’m not alone. Her future, and the future of the lands and waters we all depend on- are in our hands. 

My name is Bethany Goodrich and I will be seeing you at the Tongass Forest Plan community meeting Monday the 27th from 4-6 in Centennial Hall.

Because I believe accurate information is necessary for good decision making, I must push back on a statement made by Chris McGraw on KCAW’s call in-forum for Ballot Initiative 2. From the transcript:

Chris McGraw: “The concept of having what I would call a fiscal note on a citizens initiative … isn’t something that is new. Numerous states require this on state initiatives, and it’s for the purpose of voters understanding what the impact is that they’re voting on.”

Katherine Rose: “So there’s precedent for this in other places?”

Chris McGraw: “There is precedent for this in other places.”

Mr. McGraw is correct that there are 18 states that require a fiscal impact statement, but for statewide initiatives only, – NOT at the municipal level.

But more importantly, completely left out of the narrative, is that in all 18 states the impact statement is prepared by an entity of the government AFTER receiving the initiative petition. The analysis that is provided BY THE GOVERNMENT is then included as part of the initiative petition. NOWHERE is a petitioner required to hire a professional financial analyst and pay for a very extensive impact study at any point in the process! (Google it – Sitka is the only example that comes up). For further information see: https://ballotpedia.org/Fiscal_impact_statement

So, the accurate answer to Ms. Rose’s question on precedent is: “NO. There is no precedent for Proposition 2.” My question for study would be: What is the impact on Democracy when onerous financial costs are levied in order for citizens to be engaged in the shaping of their government? Please vote NO on Prop 2.

Donna Donohoe

Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Hi. My name is Brandie Cheatham. I have considered Sitka home for 14 years. I am not someone who generally submits public commentary, but Ballot Proposition 2 disturbs me enough that I had to speak up. Ballot Proposition 2 requires that initiative sponsors pay for and deliver a very comprehensive Economic Impact Study Report (EISR) with their application for petition. This is even before any idea reaches the signature gathering stage. It is outlined in detail that the report be written by an economist with a master’s degree and over 5 years’ experience in an economic field and SE Alaska. On the surface this doesn’t seem like a bad idea. So why am I voting No on Proposition 2? Several reasons. When the sponsor of this proposition was asked how many professionals meet these qualifications he replied, “I don’t know.” Does it make sense to you that such a rigid outline of qualifications be specified with no idea who might be found with said qualifications?

When asked about the cost of having such an EISR be put together, NO range of pricing was given. It was simply stated that it depends on the initiative. Of course. But still…you wish to require an economic impact report to be provided with any future initiative but cannot provide any indication of what the economic cost to the citizen would be? I therefore find the claim that this proposition wouldn’t price democracy out of the hands of ordinary citizens fairly empty. In fact, a recent estimate of the cost given by an informed citizen was “likely over $10,000.” A very wealthy individual or corporation could pay that. Most Sitkans cannot. The sponsor of this proposition emphasized that folks still have plenty opportunity to be a part of the democratic process by voting on their assembly members. To me that isn’t enough. Democracy is a government for the people by the people. It’s why constitutional convention delegates put so much effort into crafting citizen powers. There have been several letters to the editor published in the Sitka Sentinel recently (three in the September 19th paper alone) that outline more eloquently than I, why these concerned citizens are Voting No on Proposition 2. I echo their sentiments: The city isn’t bombarded with frivolous initiatives. If anything, there should be more community engagement. I do not think those with the most money should have the biggest voice in our government. Not in Our Town. This is Brandie Cheatham and I will be Voting No on Ballot Proposition 2.

Note: The opinions expressed in commentary on KCAW are those of the author(s), and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

Good morning, Sitka! My name is Brian McLaughlin and I represent SCORE, or Sitkans for Community Outdoor Recreation Enhancement. I’ve lived in Sitka for over 5 years now, am currently a volunteer at the Sitka Fire Department, a substitute teacher in the Sitka School District, a tour van driver, and was the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Air Station here in Sitka. On October 7th, Sitkans will have an opportunity to vote on Sitka Ballot Proposition 1. Proposition 1 asks voters to consider allowing the funds from the sale of the Sitka Community Hospital and the Tobacco Tax to be used to support recreational facilities throughout Sitka, both existing and new. Unlike many other cities throughout Alaska, such as Juneau and Anchorage, Sitka does not have any funding source for necessary rehabilitation, upgrades, and new builds for recreational infrastructure. Using the funds collected from the Tobacco Tax and Hospital Fund would provide a long-term and lasting means of keeping our city and borough active and healthy.

Proposition 1 helps to meet the purpose and spirit of the tobacco taxes, which were originally intended to mitigate the impacts of tobacco use. It helps signal to state, federal and local governments, private donors and grant agencies that recreational facilities are an important priority for Sitkans, helping to bring in more funding to support the health of our community. This could support facilities like Whale Park, the Swan Lake Dock, the playground, tennis courts and basketball courts at Crescent Harbor, Moller and Kimsham fields, and future development of new initiatives.

Some very legitimate and valuable concerns regarding competing priorities have been raised about this proposition. For example, Sitka has been struggling to support adequate availability of childcare for working families with young kids for quite some time. As the former Commanding Officer of the base and the 125 families there, I saw this all too often. While steady funding is certainly needed, the Hospital Fund and Tobacco Tax will not provide adequate funds in a timeline necessary to support the immediate childcare needs, as the funding may not be available for many years still. Fortunately, this has been identified by the City Assembly who is actively working on a funding solution specifically for childcare that is independent of the Hospital Fund and Tobacco Tax. On the other hand, the recreation infrastructure can stand to suffer a little more of a delay in funding that is likely with this mechanism.

It should also be noted that all beneficiaries of the funds from the Sitka Community Hospital will continue to receive their full retirement benefits. Only funds that are remaining after all obligations have been met will be considered for the recreation fund. Additionally, Proposition 1 will not affect tax rates.

I invite you to learn more at www.scoreforsitka.org. I’m Brian McLaughlin with SCORE, where we’re investing in recreation to foster healthy living and create community connections. Thank you and have a great day!

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.

Note: Candidate Statements on KCAW are not an endorsement of the candidate. All candidates have been offered an opportunity to publish a candidate statement. The Sitka Tribal Council election is Tuesday, November 12, 2024.

I am ‘Lingit and Haida, My ‘Lingit name is ShoolNik, my clan are the Kaach.adi people from Kake, also known as the Raven~Sockeye clan. My parents were Henry and Jada Smith, who lived here until the end of their lives in 2016 and 2017. My son also works in Sitka and provides for his family.

My value statement: overall I see alcoholism and other drugs have impacted Sitka’s service delivery programs for healthcare in the following ways: 1. mental health, 2. suicide, 3. family dysfunction and separation. As Tribal citizens we need to bridge this gap between healthcare and culture.

In my personal life I am dedicated to long-term sobriety of 32 years. This includes being a mother, grandmother, auntie and sister.

I worked directly with youth for the past nine years, mainly teens. I began as a Night-Awake staff and finished as the Cultural Specialist, then became self-employed as a Tribal artist.

One thing I believe the Tribe is doing well in serving Tribal citizens is through the Food Sovereignty and the Senior Citizen Program. It would be wonderful to see coffee-time with elders expanding to a fry bread and chowder lunch.

I would like to see change within the Tribal Council by having term-limits apply to everyone who has already served in the past.

I am motivated to help create change.

In closing I believe the Council serves in many capacities, if I’m elected into the Council I would like to make my contribution through the health care infrastructure. My goal would be to ultimately serve our Tribal citizens.

Hello, this is Tim Pike in Sitka. I hope you’ll join me in voting NO on Ballot Measure 2 to keep political parties from limiting choices for Alaska voters like you and me.  

I’m registered as a non-partisan voter because like many Alaskans I like to think for myself and consider all the options before choosing the one that suits me and my family best. That holds true when voting for political leaders to represent our state.  As a member of the Sitka Assembly for the last couple of years, I’ve found that government works better when we choose good representatives, and they work together on common-sense solutions to problems facing our community. Partisan politics is not part of how we get things done. 

Under our current system of voting, voters choose candidates in primary elections, not limited by any political parties. That means that candidates whose views don’t match up perfectly with the Democratic or Republican party platforms still have a chance of getting on the ballot for the general election. If Ballot Measure 2 passes, we’ll go back to our old system of political parties serving up a limited slate of candidates for us to choose from. 

Alaska is unique in many ways that we all appreciate, including the use of ranked-choice voting in the general election. This means that there will be multiple and varied candidates running in the general election allowing us to be able to choose our first, second, and possibly our third and fourth choices for state legislature, Congress, and the Presidency.  We are allowed to choose from among this varied group of candidates and can pick the one who best represents our views. If your first-choice candidate doesn’t win, your vote will still count if you pick a second and third choice.  In my book, having more than one choice is a good thing.  

In 2022, using ranked-choice voting, Alaskans elected, in my opinion, a moderate Democrat for the House of Representatives, a moderate Republican for Senate, and a conservative Republican for Governor. Sitkans elected a non-partisan candidate for State House and a moderate Republican for State Senate. That’s proof enough for me that our system isn’t biased one way or the other. It just gives Alaskans better chances to pick candidates who are truly representative of our diverse state. I hope you’ll join me as an independent Alaskan in voting NO on Ballot Measure 2 to keep power with the voters and our options open.

Tim Pike is a member of the Sitka Assembly.

Note: Opinions expressed in commentaries on Raven Radio are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

My name is Tory OʼConnell Curran and this is my opinion. Alaskans may vote early beginning October 21st. Voting for Trump and Vance includes supporting Project 2025, the Presidential Transition Project of the Heritage Foundation. I would like to highlight a few things that would mean for Alaskans that you might not be aware of: 

• It would eliminate NOAA and the National Weather Service – no more weather or marine forecasts, no federal fisheries surveys (page 664);
• It would effectively eliminate overtime pay through several mechanisms, for instance calculating overtime based on monthly instead of weekly hours (page 592); So when Trump said he wouldnʼt tax overtime pay there would be nothing to tax.
• It would shift the tax burden to the middle class.  Alaskan households earning less than $168,000 would face significantly higher taxes – for example between $3,000 and $6,000 more per year for a family of 4 making $100,000 (Democracyforward.org);
• It would eliminate the FDIC – government-backed deposit insurance (page 705);
• Students enrolled in public schools would be required to take a military entrance exam but students in private schools would not (page 102/103); 
• It would limit disability benefits for our veterans potentially impacting 20,000 disabled Alaskan veterans (pages 649-650);
• It would put limits and lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits – over 62,000 Alaskans will be at risk for losing coverage (page 463);
• It would raise the cost of prescription drugs for over 30,000 Alaskans by eliminating out of pocket Medicare drug cost limits (page 465);
• 95,000 women in Alaska would lose guaranteed access to free emergency contraception and it puts contraception availability at risk (page 485);
• It would criminalize mailing of misoprostol effectively creating a nationwide abortion ban including in Alaska where our state constitution guarantees a personʼs right to privacy including abortion, and it takes away critical care for rural women as this drug treats and prevents postpartum bleeding, the 2^nd most common cause of maternal deaths (page 459); 
• It would eliminate Head Start, impacting 3,000 children in 100 Alaskan communities (page 492);
• It would eliminate the Dept of Education including Title 1 funding cutting nearly 7% of Alaska teaching positions (page 480) among other cuts (page 326);
• It would increase food insecurity by restricting food access programs like SNAP and WIC (page 299-300)

As alarming as all of this sounds it is only the tip of the iceberg  in terms of how a Trump/Vance administration would make life more difficult for regular Alaskans. The entire document is online to search and read if you would like to do your own research; you don’t have to take my word for it.  My name is Tory OʼConnell Curran and for these and other reasons I am excited to be voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for President and Vice President. Thank you. 

References: 

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Pbs.org

What is Project 2025.net

Medscape.com

Democracyforward.org

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/P2025-AK.pdf

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/project-2025-tax-trump-economy-heritage-foundation-how-it-works/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE5_QJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVPWTRXpSAMkTj8ahIvQGtYEUP9P8yPfftX8X_TCqTwjOm1DQeRWTMAPEg_aem_gND59JpaIjFLvyjbM4JCrA

Note: Opinions expressed in commentaries on Raven Radio are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the station’s board, staff, or volunteers.

My name is Martina Kurzer. I have lived in Sitka since 1995. We have heard a lot recently about the question what number of cruise ship passengers would be appropriate to maintain a robust economy in our home town. I presented my thoughts at the tourism task force town hall meeting and was asked to let more people know about them.

If we have to close down Lincoln Street, the numbers are too high.

If we can’t timely get through the Lake and Lincoln intersection, they are too high.

When Grandpa is worried the kid breathes too much exhaust, the numbers are too high.

If the painter gets sick after days of working close to the bus route, the numbers are too high.

If we can’t enjoy our trails because of overcrowding, they are too high.

If we can’t get a cell signal and can’t place emergency calls, they are too high.

If an elder doesn’t get her medicine because a cruise ship visitor just got the last pack, the numbers are too high.

If the emergency doc can’t provide for locals, they are too high.

If an entire community suffers to accommodate the vision of one businessman, the numbers are too high.

If we have to place toilets on main street, they are too high.

If we avoid businesses downtown, they are too high.

If we need to change our lives to accommodate visitors, the numbers are too high.

If we start suffering from anxiety, the numbers are too high.

You are asking us to submit numbers, but numbers don’t reflect our grief. Any number can be taken out of context and be used to justify any action against our way of life.

That’s not community.

That’s not why we live here.

That’s toxic. That’s abuse.

That’s a pattern I know.

That violates my soul.

I resist to accept that this complex issue of quality of live is boiled down to numbers.

Let’s look at the costs these numbers bring us.

Then let’s go back to pre-pandemic levels of cruise visitors that maintain the balance we deserve.

Through my professional experience for the last 18 years I am well acquainted with behavior patterns that lead to unhealthy and dangerous relationships that begin with grooming. That’s when a person showers an often vulnerable person of interest with compliments and gifts to create a false sense of love and care. The victim feels desired and allows the most hideous acts to be committed against them. 

When I see how this city rolls over to the demands of the international cruise ship industry that doesn’t even pay taxes in this country, I see the patterns of abusers who intentionally and strategically plan profits at the expense of their victims. 

I urge the City and Borough of Sitka to not act like a victim in a relationship where the cruise ship industry has power and control over us. We don’t have to sell ourselves to the international cruise ship industry. Let’s remember that our economy is one of strength and diversity, and where individual travelers are really bringing the money.

And if you give in to the demands of the industry, please also consider the physical, emotional, and economic costs all community members have to pay. Don’t only look at the increase in sales taxes.

Hello, my name is Auriella Hughes, and I’m the founding director of Brave Heart Volunteers and a nurse who has worked closely with elders throughout my entire 45-year nursing career.

Hello, my name is Dr. Marilyn Coruzzi. As an internist, I provided care to patients for over 40 years — 15 in Sitka — prior to retiring in 2018. SEARHC had an excellent Home Healthcare department, which it chose to close with fairly short notice to the community on September 30, 2023. The nurses involved included three dedicated full-time, and several intermittent nurses to cover unavoidable absences. They coordinated ongoing services, such as wound care, physical, occupational and speech therapy, palliative care, that is pain and comfort management, supportive and time of death care for the dying patient and family. Referrals for social services and grief counseling were made as well.

And now we hear that there are fewer Home Health-dedicated employees.

Now we hear an unclear plan for providing palliative and supportive care for those choosing to die at home.

Now we hear there are reduced home services. For instance, a patient suffering Parkinson’s Disease was receiving at least four home visits a week, which ended even before the closure of Home Health. This patient presently has no home visits, and must travel to Mountainside Clinic for once-a-week physical therapy.

Now we hear patients now receiving home-based services will begin to incur a charge per visit.

In light of Sitka’s aging population, and in light of studies showing that nurse-coordinated services after hospitalization reduce emergency room visits and negative outcomes. The question is: Is search prepared for the present and future home-based health care needs of our community?

We strongly encourage you to attend the community informational forum November 15, 5-7 p.m. at Harrigan Centennial Hall regarding the closure by SEARHC of the Home Healthcare department.