For the Palinistas

[Bunz]

Thanks for the info Andy, I knew when I posted my comment it would result in someone pointing out the various Christian groups that provide services to the homeless, but most recieve some government help in some form. Even the shelter you pointed out is somewhat on the take because they dont pay a local property tax. Either way, I do stand corrected.

 

[Bunz]

You know, it seems to me that if the problem is these people can not go back to where they live in “dry areas” after drinking and are stuck freezing on shop steps
that government again is the problem not the solution

Well people not being able to get back home after a night at the bar, especially in Alaska is partly because of the Government, because they dont want to build roads from community to community. Remember the bridge to nowhere? that was all to mentioned on the campaign trial? Well there really two in question. The first would have been in Ketchikan, and it would have connected Ketchikan to its AIRPORT! Now and indefinately into the future The 4th largest city in the state of Alaska requires ferry access.

Your favorite Alaskan decided to cancel the project without consulting the Ketchikan city government. This came after a few decades of work, and millions spent in design and other work, all wasted.

Then of course there is the Knik Crossing bridge, which really is more of a bridge to nowhere. It would put a road from Anchorage across the Knik Inlet towards Wasilla, through an area of the state that is largely undeveloped. It would shorten the roughly hour long drive from Wasilla to Anchorage to 45minutes, but the road would have less capacity than the existing highway, and it is being pushed instead of other more mass transit concepts that would work on existing infastructure, such as light rail.

Now I dont know, but it might be merely coincidental that some of the major landowners who would have a new highway run adjacent to thier otherwise low value property are close friends of the Palins.

 

[Bunz]

Question:


The dry areas you speak of

Is it mostly whites who live there or mostly natives?

and are they mostly rich or mostly poor?

I am betting its a high population of poor natives in these dry areas.

When I was there, every single drunk man laying on the sidewalk or in the snow was a Native, I never saw one white man.

I have seen it in other states too

Well you are generally not incorrect. Most of the dry/damp areas are remote villages where the poppulation is the majority Natives and they are generally cash poor.

There are a few notable examples, like Bethel, Kotzebue, and Barrow. Which are mostly native but I would not classify as poor. Especially Barrow and Kotzebue.

But the important thing here, is that those that are dry/damp areso at thier own discression. This is not something forced on them from the Feds or State. Every year, a handful of these communities will bring the issue to the ballot and for the most part the ban is voted to remain in place.

 

[Bunz]

There have been many places that refused Natives "spirits" long after Rosa parks refused to stand up on the bus. While the black population was gaining rights and respect the natives were mostly forgotten.

It was only 8-10 years ago I was refused service because the white clerk thought I was a Umatilla Indian, and that could easily happen again. I might just see next time I go to Umatilla.


It was years after MLK marched and blacks could vote that there were still signs in yards in places like Colorado saying Mexicans and dogs keep off the grass.

We have always celebrated the rights of African Americans (RIGHTFULLY SO TOO) but we often forget other minorities who still have a hard time in (some) places.

In reagrds to this, you are not incorrect. While Alaska is fairly different in our system when it comes to dealing with the Native people than from the lower 48, and the system of reservations, and the stigma of being generally separated from society when city life is only a short drive away. One important thing the feds and state did in Alaska was helping to establish various economic development corporations whereas the people of the region and local communities are share holders. It has worked better for some than others, but the model established in AK is much better than the system in the lower 48.

 

[Bunz]

If that story is even a little bit credible, how is it that it didn't surface during the campaign?

It did surface, even on this forum. I forget the name of the thread, but it was mentioned.

As PFOS mentioned, this is one of those unsubstantiated accusations that went nowhere, kinda like the guy who said he smoked crack with Obama.

Personally I have direct knowledge of juicier gossip or potential coruption on Sarah that has never been reported, than the snippit provided in the link by Shaman.

 

[Pandora]

Well you are generally not incorrect. Most of the dry/damp areas are remote villages where the poppulation is the majority Natives and they are generally cash poor.

There are a few notable examples, like Bethel, Kotzebue, and Barrow. Which are mostly native but I would not classify as poor. Especially Barrow and Kotzebue.

But the important thing here, is that those that are dry/damp areso at thier own discression. This is not something forced on them from the Feds or State. Every year, a handful of these communities will bring the issue to the ballot and for the most part the ban is voted to remain in place.

That is a big difference, most other native area's that are dry, are dry more because of the main connecting cities or the state and less about the actual dry town.

Knowing this, and thinking back to the men passed out in the streets, those towns have the total responsibiliy to fix this. If I lived in Alaska Id live in one of those dry area's and cause a stink till someone came up with better solutions.

Do the white people in Alaska dislike the natives?

 

[Pandora]

Well people not being able to get back home after a night at the bar, especially in Alaska is partly because of the Government, because they dont want to build roads from community to community. Remember the bridge to nowhere? that was all to mentioned on the campaign trial? Well there really two in question. The first would have been in Ketchikan, and it would have connected Ketchikan to its AIRPORT! Now and indefinately into the future The 4th largest city in the state of Alaska requires ferry access.

Your favorite Alaskan decided to cancel the project without consulting the Ketchikan city government. This came after a few decades of work, and millions spent in design and other work, all wasted.

Then of course there is the Knik Crossing bridge, which really is more of a bridge to nowhere. It would put a road from Anchorage across the Knik Inlet towards Wasilla, through an area of the state that is largely undeveloped. It would shorten the roughly hour long drive from Wasilla to Anchorage to 45minutes, but the road would have less capacity than the existing highway, and it is being pushed instead of other more mass transit concepts that would work on existing infastructure, such as light rail.

Now I dont know, but it might be merely coincidental that some of the major landowners who would have a new highway run adjacent to thier otherwise low value property are close friends of the Palins.

Oregon is always trying to push light rail, but there are too many people who wont use it so it has to be funded by the state, even in big cities where more use it, its not self sustaining. Why would you want another government burdon to pay for ? UGh!

You guys should just impeach the woman so we can stop hearing about her helping her friends!

 

[Andy]

Oregon is always trying to push light rail, but there are too many people who wont use it so it has to be funded by the state, even in big cities where more use it, its not self sustaining. Why would you want another government burdon to pay for ? UGh!

You guys should just impeach the woman so we can stop hearing about her helping her friends!

I honestly have never understood the push for mass transit. It rarely pays for itself. It always uses more energy to move fewer people. What exactly is the point, other than it "might" reduce the need for roads by a small small margin.

No matter how you look at it, it's a universal failure, except in specific cases like New York, where the population density is so high, or Chicago, where the commuters all live far away from the city. Other than that, it never works. Why do it?

 

[PLC1]

I honestly have never understood the push for mass transit. It rarely pays for itself. It always uses more energy to move fewer people. What exactly is the point, other than it "might" reduce the need for roads by a small small margin.

No matter how you look at it, it's a universal failure, except in specific cases like New York, where the population density is so high, or Chicago, where the commuters all live far away from the city. Other than that, it never works. Why do it?

I don't know how much of a subsidy it gets, but I can tell you as a visitor to the San Francisco Bay Area that the Bay Area Rapid Transit is a far better way to get into the city or go from city to city than the overcrowded freeway system is. Not only is it a lot faster, but you arrive with nerves intact, and don't have to pay $20 to park your car.

 

[Andy]

I don't know how much of a subsidy it gets, but I can tell you as a visitor to the San Francisco Bay Area that the Bay Area Rapid Transit is a far better way to get into the city or go from city to city than the overcrowded freeway system is. Not only is it a lot faster, but you arrive with nerves intact, and don't have to pay $20 to park your car.

No doubt. The problem is, like you admitted, you don't know how much the system is being subsidized. What if the cost was $50 per day, to save you that $20 to park? Would $30 every day be worth the savings? Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem is, many things can be justified, when you don't see the hidden expenses you are being forced to pay.

Similar to health care for example. One of the big claims is that nationalized health care will save you monthly insurance premiums. Yet we'd have to double our tax rates, to reach the tax levels that other nations have reached to pay for national health care. At 25% of a $20K income, that's $5K. A family coverage health plan is only $250 a month. That's only $3,000. So you might save the $250, but lose $415 in taxes.

Back to mass transit.
On average, most mass transit systems are subsidized anywhere from 45% to 85% of their operating costs.

Finding information on this has been more difficult than I had assumed. Nevertheless, here's an interesting article that makes my point in a around-about way.

Overall, San Francisco Muni will lose $61 million over the next two years. The Valley Transportation Authority figures it will lose $50 million. BART is out $42 million. AC Transit expected to get $26 million this year, but will instead receive a mere $1.7 million. Santa Cruz County's Metro estimates its loss at about $25 million. Caltrain and Samtrans will see combined cuts going from $9 million to $21 million.

"It's bad news," VTA General Manager Michael Burns said. "At a time when ridership is continuing to grow, gas prices are again on the rise. And when people need inexpensive transportation options, transit systems, including VTA, are being forced to cut service."'

Of course logically, if ridership is growing, then in any normal business, that would be increased revenue. Instead they are looking at a $61 Million loss, a $42 Million loss, and a $50 Million loss. Why?

Because the fares charged on buss lines and rails, isn't a fraction of what it costs to run those services.

It's actually an ironic paradox of the system, that when the economy is good, and everyone can afford to drive their cars, the largely un-used mass transit system is well funded. Yet when the economy is poor, and people start riding mass transit to reduce personal costs, the funding for the system is cut and reduces service.

Of course the solution is more government funding, which requires more taxes, which is the worst possible thing for an economy.

 

[Pandora]

I honestly have never understood the push for mass transit. It rarely pays for itself. It always uses more energy to move fewer people. What exactly is the point, other than it "might" reduce the need for roads by a small small margin.

No matter how you look at it, it's a universal failure, except in specific cases like New York, where the population density is so high, or Chicago, where the commuters all live far away from the city. Other than that, it never works. Why do it?

Places like Chicago, NYC, San Fran exc.. I understand needing it. There is only so much roadway and so many parking places. But this does not work for every city and places like Oregon where we just figured out how to build three stories high and every thing is spread out all over its a lame idea.

But they do the simple math of ten men in one bus is better than ten men in ten cars. But it creates new problems and they dont bother with that.. they just solve what they think is the easy problem

 

[Pandora]

Well people not being able to get back home after a night at the bar, especially in Alaska is partly because of the Government, because they dont want to build roads from community to community.

In an earlier post you said it could only be solved by the government, now you admit they are partly the problem.

I think the problem is directly connected to the government, some local some state wide but the government none the less.


local government tells some where they can and cant drink or be drunk, state government refuses to build roads for them to get home after hours.

Government sucks!

 

[Andy]

Places like Chicago, NYC, San Fran exc.. I understand needing it. There is only so much roadway and so many parking places. But this does not work for every city and places like Oregon where we just figured out how to build three stories high and every thing is spread out all over its a lame idea.

But they do the simple math of ten men in one bus is better than ten men in ten cars. But it creates new problems and they dont bother with that.. they just solve what they think is the easy problem

Yeah, they fail to realize, in order for busses to adquitely service the population, you have to have dozens of busses running on each buss line. Plus, busses slow down city traffic horrendously because they are not fast movers to begin with, and they have to stop at each city block. If you ever get caught behind a bus in the mild of down town traffic, you know what a pain in the but that is.

Just removing the busses from city traffic will free up lots of road way, and keep the flow of traffic moving.

Besides that, it really doesn't solve the traffic problem anyway, because as people use mass transit, the reduction in traffic causes more people to drive. Ultimately the amount of traffic remains roughly the same, no matter how many start using busses for their daily commute.

Think about it, which cities use the most mass transit? Now, which cities are known for the worst traffic? Often it's the same cities. New York, L.A., Chicago, and so on.

But government was never about results. It was about dependence. If you don't have a car, and become dependent on public transportation, what does that make you? Potential voters who is interested in who's going to keep and expand public transportation. Not to mention the payoff from corporations that benefit from tax money spent on public transportation.

 

[Pandora]

Yeah, they fail to realize, in order for busses to adquitely service the population, you have to have dozens of busses running on each buss line. Plus, busses slow down city traffic horrendously because they are not fast movers to begin with, and they have to stop at each city block. If you ever get caught behind a bus in the mild of down town traffic, you know what a pain in the but that is.

Just removing the busses from city traffic will free up lots of road way, and keep the flow of traffic moving.

Besides that, it really doesn't solve the traffic problem anyway, because as people use mass transit, the reduction in traffic causes more people to drive. Ultimately the amount of traffic remains roughly the same, no matter how many start using busses for their daily commute.

Think about it, which cities use the most mass transit? Now, which cities are known for the worst traffic? Often it's the same cities. New York, L.A., Chicago, and so on.

But government was never about results. It was about dependence. If you don't have a car, and become dependent on public transportation, what does that make you? Potential voters who is interested in who's going to keep and expand public transportation. Not to mention the payoff from corporations that benefit from tax money spent on public transportation.

I never thought about it that way, you are good at seeing the bigger picture.

 

[Bunz]

That is a big difference, most other native area's that are dry, are dry more because of the main connecting cities or the state and less about the actual dry town.

Im not exactly sure what you mean here.

Knowing this, and thinking back to the men passed out in the streets, those towns have the total responsibiliy to fix this. If I lived in Alaska Id live in one of those dry area's and cause a stink till someone came up with better solutions.

I thought government sucks? What ever happened to personal responsibility? Considering you live in an urban area of the lower 48, I doubt you would find much appeal in bush Alaska.
But why is it the responsibility of the various dry towns to fix the problem? Most of the wet towns make a considerable amount of tax revenue on the booze these people drink. And rightfully so, because they often need the local police to deal with them.
This would be similar to suggest that the US government needs to deal with the problem of under 21 year olds heading to Mexico to binge drink on spring break.

Do the white people in Alaska dislike the natives?

The far majority no. But like anywhere, you will find racists in Alaska as you would any other place in the world. It is just in Alaska, that Natives are the biggest minority group here, and the easiest target.