UPDATE: The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner ran a story about the Assembly debate regarding inclusion of the Alaska Long Trail in the legislative priorities list. I have included excerpts below.
Local voting in the Fairbanks area is underway.
Early voting has started for the elections, which happen October 7. Local elections matter. Please remember to vote. Our local representatives decide local laws and how local government funds are spent. This came up with the borough in a big way in recent years with the Fairbanks Comprehensive Trails Plan. It comes up regularly when our representatives have to decide whether to provide matching funds for grants or how much to fund the Parks and Recreation Department.
Make sure your voice is heard. Democracy only works well when many people participate.
You can vote early in person or vote absentee either in person or by mail. Find out how HERE.
Find out about candidates and other local election information here.
Trails at the Fairbanks Borough Assembly
Trails have not been a big election issue this year, but they have come up recently in the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly.
Legislative Priorities List
The Assembly recently passed its Legislative Priorities list, which included general support for the Alaska Long Trail.
Here’s the complete wording:
Alaska Long Trail
To support the continued development of the Alaska Long trail though federal, state and private grants and to establish access though state and borough land.
At the September 25 meeting, Assemblymember Barbara Haney made a motion to delete that reference from the list. It was seconded by Assemblymember Brett Rotermund. Both voted for the amendment to delete the words, but it was defeated by a vote of 6-2.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner ran a story about debate regarding the Legislative Priorities list. It included a section about the Alaska Long Trail.
From the story:
Lisa Agnew with the Alaska Snowmachine Alliance argued the priority should be considered in a separate resolution due to concerns that it might impact trappers, motorized vehicle users and other groups.
“It’s too complex and controversial to be bundled into routine legislative priorities,” Agnew said. “It deserves its own discussion.”
Haney “requested that the long trail be removed, calling it a fabulous idea fraught with problems.”
“It could bog down hunting, or ATV and other activities associated with that area,” she said.
On the other side, Assemblymember David Guttenberg spoke in favor of keeping the item in the list.
“This is an economic development issue and all we’re saying is keep working on it,” Guttenberg said. “It’s worth the effort. The Long Trail in the long view is economic development. It’s people in hotel beds, buying equipment, coming back year after year.”
Other Recent Trails-Related Assembly Issues
A couple of other related issues have recently come up that included trails but were not specifically about trails.
- In September, the Assembly voted unanimously to accept a donation of land from the Interior Alaska Land Trust that will nearly double the size of the Isberg Recreation Area. The new land has several trails on it, most of which connect to trails in the recreation area. See my blog post about that HERE.
- In August, the Assembly also voted by a 5-4 margin to approve the borough moving forward with the Ridge View Heights Subdivision, which includes easements for the part of the Alaska Long Trail and part of another trail. However, the trails did not appear to be much a part of the disagreement over the subdivision (or part of the discussion at all). Read my blog post about that HERE.
- In June, the Assembly unanimously voted to accept an ordinance that would make it easier to build trailheads in the borough. Read my blog post about that HERE.
Alaska Long Trail Questionnaire Answers
In its candidate questionnaire for the Fairbanks Borough Assembly, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has included a question about the Alaska Long Trail. The question asks:
What are your thoughts on the Alaska Long Trail?
Here are how the candidates have answered.
Candidates for Seat C
Jeanne Olson
BLM’s feasibility study is still pending. Who is going to fund the construction and maintenance? Private land ownership agreements, building bridges and a very short hiking season are also some drawbacks. Alaska isn’t like the rest of our country with accessible facilities and relatively few natural hazards. So, while I like the concept, the devil is in the details. Only rugged individuals would be drawn to this sort of adventure and wouldn’t contribute significantly to the tourism economy.
We already have lots of hiking trails for the average visitor and the trails need to be maintained. We haven’t kept up with deferred maintenance of existing trails. This would be a wiser investment. Volunteers and grants are instrumental in that. Note the success story of Ester Dome singletrack.
See her entire questionnaire answers HERE.
J.T. McComas-Roe
Outdoor recreation opportunities are part of what makes living here wonderful. Advocates of the Long Trail have their work cut out for them. I’m happy to consider what the Borough can do to help, so long as constituent property rights are respected.
See his entire questionnaire answers HERE.
Garrett Armstrong
I support the Alaska Long Trail as a means of attracting more tourists and showcasing the natural beauty of Alaska. It would also be beneficial to local residents for hiking, berry picking, foraging, and overall outdoor recreation.
See his entire questionnaire answers HERE.
Candidates for Seat I
Patrick Roach
I wholeheartedly support the Alaska Long Trail. I have hiked parts of the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and El Camino de Santiago. I have seen the impact a well-known trail through beautiful country can have. I believe the Alaska Long Trail with dramatically increase tourist dollars, and it’s certainly something we should be working to complete.
See his entire questionnaire answers HERE.
Barbara Haney
The Long Trail sounds like a great idea. However, there are several issues in regard to this trail that need to be resolved. First, it gives the Secretary of the Interior tremendous authority over land along the trail. There have been discussions that an 11-mile scenic overlay on either side of the trail could excessively regulate properties miles from the trail and usurp the property rights of long-time residents. Second, there is a concern regarding the restrictions on motorized traffic and access to certain game management units for hunting and thereby interfere with the state’s ability to manage various herds and hunter access. If these two issues can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, then the trail could be a tremendous recreational and business opportunity for the interior. Residents should be a bit cautious about additional federal regulation of land, as it can have unintended consequences.
See her entire questionnaire answers HERE.
Candidates for Seat B
Brett Rotermund is the only candidate who will appear on the ballot for this seat. The News-Miner has not run a set of questionnaire answers for him. I am unsure if they will since no one will appear on the ballot opposing him. But just recently Allegory Smith has filed as a write-in candidate for that seat, so the News-Miner may run questionnaires for the both of them. If so, I will post those answers when they are published. (KUAC had a story on September 29 on Smith’s write-in campaign, including comments from both candidates. Trails did not come up in the story. Hear it HERE, starting at 6:32.)
There is an official write in candidate, Allegory Smith, challenging Brett Rotermond
Thanks. I had heard someone might be running a write-in campaign, but I hadn’t heard who.