  Responses By David LandisAbout David Landis
Question #1 For Assembly Candidates: Published Saturday - September 7, 2002 - 11:46 pm Do you consider yourself to be pro development and if so, what type of economic development do you favor and what type of development are you opposed to?
I am solidly "pro-development" for the benefit of Ketchikan. My family history (three generations living in a resource-dependant community), employment background (commercial and charter fishing, construction contracting, project management...), voting record (Borough Planning Commission) all bear out my enthusiasm for economic progress through development. With regard to my favored type
of development, allow me to first say that Ketchikan is challenged
with some LONG-TERM economic problems -- and LONG TERM solutions
are needed. In order to fully implement these solutions, however,
the community also needs to "make it through" the next
several years without settling into a new (i.e. "lower"!)
equilibrium of population, industry and other economic activity.
Make no mistake about it -- we are heading in the wrong direction
now, and despite the best efforts of the strongest congressional
delegation in Alaska's history, our community has not stewarded
our resources well nor developed a vibrant and growing economy
outside of federal disaster-assistance money. What shall we do,
then, to stimulate both long- and short-run solutions to our
economic woes? For the sake of brevity in this forum, I'll leave it at that for now -- although I am constructing a page on my website landisforassembly.org entitled "economic recovery" since I have much more to say on the issue! Regarding the types of development that I am opposed to... certainly, anything that detracts from the essential character and livability of our community needs to be carefully examined before they are given the green light -- that's why the public process and access to Ketchikan's leaders are so important. It's also why planning is so important; for instance the Gravina Island Plan that we are currently working on at the Planning Commission is intended to give us an idea what picture the community wants to paint on an essentially blank canvas. The other broad area of development that I am opposed to -- in terms of Borough investment of time or resources at least -- is ANYTHING that doesn't have proper due diligence performed before it is implemented.
Question # 2 For Assembly Candidates: Published Tuesday - September 10, 2002 - 7:00 pm Given less funding and the likely need to further cut services, what services would you reduce or cut first?
I fully understand the question -- but want to make a statement that I sincerely don't believe that services should HAVE to be cut -- for several reasons: a.) My centerpiece plank of economic recovery for the Borough is to actually RAISE revenues for the Borough instead of cutting expenses. What is this mysterious concept? I'm glad you asked! The Borough is RICH in only one resource, and it is the resource of LAND. The Borough has thousands upon thousands of acres of land, and it can be SOLD to raise $$$ for the Borough coffers, as well as for building the tax base. Is this fact being advertised? NO! Yet the price of any small scrap of land is unbearably high on the open market! Doesn't the Borough selling land sound like a good way to raise the revenues instead just cutting expenses? b.) There are an abundance of grant-makers who are "out there", just waiting to fund certain projects that could defray many Borough expenditures... but are we as a Borough pursuing enough of these funds? NO! Why not? Perhaps there isn't enough effort and knowledge put forth by those who have been in charge for the last few years. We have to remember that grant-making agencies and foundations NEED us as much as we need them! The very existence of these organizations requires that they disburse dollars to the people. c.) In spite of these efforts, if there is still a "budget gap", I believe that there are many superfluous administrative positions and ones that could be consolidated within practically every department. I have personally seen and experienced all angles of this type of budget-cutting, and although it is never easy or pleasant, the end result is that the essential services can continue, while the folks who "run things" have to take on a bit more responsibility and workload. As a final thought, I am a firm believer that if the Borough citizens really feel they NEED some certain service that is important to a large majority, they will tell us, and I want to hear from all of them. It seems that citizens have become a bit intimidated to even come and speak to the Assembly because of the way that they have been treated in the past -- THAT'S WRONG! I went down to the Borough offices recently and asked for an 'organizational chart', since my line of work involves these types of tools, and I can put things in perspective better if I am looking at a sheet of paper like this. A chart was provided that showed the folks at the TOP of the 'food chain' are actually THE CITIZENS. Is that how you feel? Are you at the top rung of the organizational ladder? I pledge that if the citizens of the Borough elect me to represent them, I will do so only reluctantly, because I think that the citizens ought to be allowed and encouraged to represent *themselves* in every way without fear and intimidation! If the Borough residents want us who sit on the Assembly to preserve some certain program, service, function or activity, I am confident that we will hear from a sufficient number of folk to make a good determination what the will of the people really is!
Question # 3 For Assembly Candidates: Published Tuesday - September 10, 2002 - 7:00 pm What is the most serious challenge facing the Ketchikan Borough and how would you address this challenge?
Our declining economy is the most serious challenge we face. As a community, we need to decide whether to "allow things to happen to us" or whether to do something about it! Encouraging the type of development that I have described in the previous two questions is exactly how I would address this challenge. The reason I feel we need to resist the pervasive pressures that are driving our economy to a new equilibrium (i.e. low paying service and tourism jobs/government jobs/retirees instead of a diversity of family-wage jobs and job creation) is admittedly personal... I WANT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN MY HOMETOWN! I want my children to be able to have that opportunity as well, and right now this community is headed in a direction that won't permit these simple goals.
Question # 4 For Assembly Candidates: Published Tuesday - September 10, 2002 - 7:00 pm Should the voters eliminate term limits for the Assembly? If so, what do you think would be the benefits to the community?
I won't vote to eliminate term limits -- I think that our future depends on people who have fresh ideas and are committed to the mission of government. Potential candidates like that are always going to be coming along, and six years of the heavy responsibility of local government should be enough for anyone. I understand the opposing view of "experience matters", but I have a lot of faith in the abilities and commitment of the citizens (and potential candidates) of this community.
Question # 5 For Assembly Candidates: Published Tuesday - September 10, 2002 - 7:00 pm Should the Assembly members be paid more for their service? If so, what amount would you consider appropriate?
NO. It is *service*, so let it be service -- not employment.
Question #6 For All Candidates: Published Wednesday - September 18, 2002 - 7:00 pm During the interviews of the school board candidates on KRBD, the issue of violence in our schools was brought up as a reason that some parents are seeking alternatives to education other than public schools. I'm concerned about the level of abuse that seems to occur in the schools and wonder what thoughts the school board and borough candidates have about adopting a policy of zero tolerance in our schools for any form of abuse including verbal as well as physical and sexual.
I'm sure that violence and
abuse of any kind are some of the reasons that parents are considering
alternatives to the KGBSD. We have problems in this District that need to be solved, whether they are abuse-related, class size-related, teacher's salary-realted or otherwise. Unfortunately, the single biggest factor in all case is FUNDING. To keep funding levels as high as possible, we have to keep the faith of parents as well as lobby Juneau for more funding. We also need to encourage the economic recovery of this community, and for all of these reasons, I hope to offer my full energy helping address these needs. I have everything -- my own children -- at stake in making sure that Ketchikan has schools that are second to none in all areas. I won't stop advocating for a better education for ALL of our childern, no matter what happens on October first.
Question # 7 For Assembly & Mayoral Candidates: Published Thursday - September 19, 2002 - 2:30 pm The Gateway Forest Products bankruptcy has dominated front page news over the years, and has consumed tens of millions of dollars of Borough money. How do the candidates feel about the past decisions and future consequences of this issue?
The past is certainly the past, and we can't undo what has been done, so I don't know how much good it will do anyone for me to say that "investing" this much money in a failed enterprise was wrong. Of course it was wrong, and it is very easy to look at it with 20/20 hindsight and say that. If I was questioned as to the intentions of those who made those decisions, I would say that they certainly were trying to "do the right thing" for the community, but ended up doing exactly the opposite. Was there a sinister plan to the whole fiasco on anyone's part? I really can't see how that could be the case. NOW, for the good part -- 1.) We learned something! The Borough formed the KEDA board to help out with future economic development issues... and If I am so fortunate to be elected, I can say for sure that there will be no more significant expenditures in the name of economic development without proper due diligence. 2.) The Borough is now the owner of some outstanding industrial land at Ward Cove. Some folks have said that these lands are a liability, not an asset -- but I have seen nothing yet to make me think otherwise. (More on this in a later question...)
Question # 8 For Assembly Candidates: Published Thursday - September 19, 2002 - 2:30 pm What are your views regarding the timber industry and fishing industry?
The timber industry is down but not out. Please don't lump me in with those who "had their cheese moved" and keep coming back to the place where it was last detected... I don't think that we will ever be cutting at 1972 levels again! However, I know that there are numerous small markets for specialty and value-added wood products that have not even been thought of yet. I'll even give you a "for instance" -- when I built our house on North Tongass a couple years ago, I wanted to utilize indigenous wood(s) in the construction, so I chose Western Hemlock for exclusive use as a finish material. Well, wouldn't you know it... almost ALL of the Hemlock finish lumber is obtainable only from British Columbia, not from any U.S. sources! Then, when I was completing the end panels on the kitchen cabinets, I ran out of Canadian trim wood, so I had to add some local salvage-harvested (by me!) wood to the Canadian sheetgoods that I was using -- and you know what? The local wood was so much more dense and fine and tight-grained that it didn't even take stain the same as the Canadian stuff. So why couldn't there be a premium placed on these superb local woods and local products made from these local forests? If there were proper marketing, furniture, millwork, picture-frames, practically any value-added product could have a cachet similar to the "Copper River" Salmon phenomenon that we've seen further North in Alaska. Regarding the fishing industry, there have been some recent ideas about how local governments might assist in the development of needed infrastructure, such as in a community cold storage facility. I don't know yet if that idea or others are the appropriate actions to take, but I do know that -- as I stated before -- there should never be any government money spent on projects that have not gone through a complete due diligence study. I can also say that this industry has about 1400 jobs associated with it, so if there are ways to assist in the creation of new jobs or retention of existing jobs, we should be looking at ways to exercise a PROPER government role in supporting this industry.
Question # 9 For Assembly Candidates: Published Thursday - September 19, 2002 - 2:30 pm Given that the borough is so rich in land what are your thoughts on returning some of the land to the landless Indians of Ketchikan?
This is certainly an interesting question since I am the administrator in charge of the workings of the largest Alaska Native/American Indian group in the area... and I will say that there could be ways to mutually benefit all parties in certain types of land deals. For instance, if a federally-recognized Indian Tribe were to petition the Borough for land to conduct some type of economic development operation on (and I am not talking about extractive resource development), I would say the Borough would be wise to consider what could be a significant influx a federal dollars into the community. The jobs that this type of development could provide may also be significant. As far as other types of land use are concerned, the federal-lands realm is probably a more appropriate venue for this question.
Question # 10 For Assembly Candidates: Published Thursday - September 19, 2002 - 2:30 pm Recent news reports indicate that Washington state is experiencing one of the largest unemployment rates in the Nation. How can Ketchikan compete with cities and counties in Washington state that are trying to attract new business and industry?
We have to distinguish ourselves from our close neighbors by advertising the positive aspects of our community -- and then try to create MORE positive points in the community.
Question # 11 For All Candidates: Published Thursday - September 19, 2002 - 2:30 pm Our community focuses on the importance of 'Youth Asset Building' - I would like to know that our elected officials set a good example. Have any of the candidates been charged for any serious violations of the law other than for minor traffic tickets.
No -- I don't think I've even gotten a traffic ticket in twenty years or so. Parking tickets? Maybe one or two...
Question # 12 For Assembly Candidates: Published Friday - September 20, 2002 -8:00 pm I understand that Ketchikan is the secret owner of a priceless and fairly uncommon natural treasure, the protected deepwater cove that we call Ward Cove. I also understand that this resource has the potential to generate a great deal of much-needed income for the community of Ketchikan if we established a northern marine amenities base so vessels don't have to travel all the way to Seattle to get what they require in maintenance, repairs, replacement parts, etc. And yet, I have watched as the Assembly has invested large amounts of taxpayer money in returning Ward Cove to a past forestry industry that has no foreseeable future in this region due to a decimated market, a market that won't cut the lumber it has contracted here, because they can't sell it for what it would cost them to cut it. I've seen the Assembly try to divest itself of Ward Cove when it came into its possession due to the default of the aforementioned veneer mill, and now the Assembly appears to be trying to make it into a garbage dump. My questions are:
Question # 13 For All Candidates: Published Sunday - September 22, 2002 -3:50 pm Would you recommend to all the citizens of Ketchikan that they support building a bridge to Gravina? If so, what would you say to community members about the short-term and long-term benefits to the community as a whole? If you support building a bridge, will you or your family personally benefit monetarily from bridge construction or do you or your family own property on Gravina?
Ha, Ha! My favorite question! I have said this so many times that I am starting to sound like a broken record: If I'm not the biggest supporter of the Bridge, then I want to be! The whole community will experience a short-term economic boost for several years, and then we will have the long-term benefit of having access to our airport, to industrial, commercial, recreational and residential lands that are unsurpassed in the entire area. PERIOD. There has been so much misinformation floating around recently about this project, and I hope many of you remember all of these fabrications, insecurities and suppositions after the Bridge is completed. Maybe then we can all look back and say something similar to what a recent commenter on Sitnews wrote: "I didn't want Wal-Mart, I wrote letters to that effect. I did not want change in my community. Now I love Wal-Mart. I go there several times a week. It's like shopping in Seattle, but all your friends are there. We need the bridge to Gravina. Move forward. Don't stand still or go backwards. People need property to build on that's not straight up a mountain. Change is difficult, but change is what is always happening!" I have absolutely nothing to
gain monetarily from Bridge construction. None of my family,
extended family, or close friends has anything to gain monetarily
from Bridge construction. Neither I nor any of my family owns
property on Gravina Island. Moreover, I cannot personally name
any of these carpet-bagging individuals who would make loads
of money from a bridge to Gravina (as has been asserted by others).
I have, however, as a member of the Borough Planning Commission,
had many opportunities to study and observe the relative proportion
of Gravina owned by private landowners -- and it's almost nothing
at all!
Stories In The News |
||
