The View From ‘Nowhere’

@Barbietre (1438)
United States
October 25, 2008 11:02pm CST
The View From ‘Nowhere’ Our town in Alaska sorely needed a bridge to its airport. Instead, we became a national punch line. By Dave Kiffer | NEWSWEEK Published Oct 24, 2008 From the magazine issue dated Nov 3, 2008 Two years ago the small Alaska town of Ketchikan, where five generations of my family have lived, became the poster child for all that is wrong with the United States government. We wanted a bridge to connect us to our airport, which is on a different island from our town. The bridge had been promised to us 30 years ago when the government chose—over the objections of many in this community—to put our new airport across the narrows from Ketchikan. Unfortunately, when it finally arrived, the money for that bridge came in the form of a congressional earmark. Earmarks were once considered a good way for elected representatives to meet the needs of their communities. The federal bureaucracy could not move fast enough or act specifically enough to meet those needs, whereas a targeted earmark could. But since then earmarks have become synonymous with the worst excesses of federal spending, the pork-barrel projects that bloat our budget, compound our deficit and raise our taxes. Earmarks actually make up less than 1 percent of the federal budget, but they are the political equivalent of a big, slow softball floating toward the plate. Politically, it's as pointless to be "for" earmarks as it is to be "against" moms and apple pie. But the politics of earmarks didn't mean much to us up here in Alaska. We were too busy focusing on the need for a bridge to get to our airport. Then somehow our bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere." To us, the name seemed odd. Ketchikan was never "nowhere." It is 90 minutes north of Seattle by plane. The rest of Alaska, including Anchorage, with a population approaching 300,000, lies to the north—well beyond "nowhere." The media reports never seemed to mention that Ketchikan has a year-round population of 14,000—making it the fourth-largest community in the state. And they forgot to account for the more than 250,000 people who pass through our airport every year, and the nearly 1 million visitors who come here each summer, mostly on cruise ships. What also went unstated was our town's need for development. Ketchikan is perched on the side of three mountains and is only a few blocks wide in spots. There is no place for it to grow. Gravina, the island with the airport, is one of the few spots in the region with flat, undeveloped land. We need that space for the houses and businesses we hope will replace the timber industry that once dominated the area. A bridge would provide more access to that land. But this rarely got reported, and so we continued to take our lumps in the news. In a matter of weeks, the entire country began to equate my town with government waste. By the end of 2006, things finally quieted down a bit and we went back to being blissfully anonymous. Then Sarah Palin became John McCain's vice presidential nominee, and there on national television was our governor bragging (not quite truthfully) about how she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. Just like that, we were back on the front page, exhibit A in Palin's reformist résumé. We settled in for a second round of public lashing. Sure, we had been unhappy last spring when the governor shelved our project by sending press releases to the media and not telling us to our face. But we were really disappointed when she called us "that community" on national television, in the same tone of voice that Bill Clinton had once used to describe "that woman." But we will get over it. We will even make up with our governor, no matter what happens on Nov. 4. That's what Alaskans do. We pull together to make a go of it in a place where survival—physical or economic—is not necessarily a given. Ketchikan does not claim to be representative of anything, least of all some long-lost fantasy of small-town America. We are a working-class community that is trying—like many others—to transform itself from a resource-based economy into a service economy. We are struggling to create new jobs and stanch the flow of residents to the big city. And we have problems that are unique to our geography: our frequently unpleasant weather and our island topography, which makes roads without bridges an impossibility. But we are a small part of this country's greater whole. We are not "nowhere." We are somewhere. In America. Kiffer is the newly elected mayor of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. © 2008
2 people like this
4 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Oct 08
I never thought about how the issue of the bridge to nowhere effected the people who live in Ketchikan but I can certainly understand how they feel about being the butt of their own governor's jokes for months now.
1 person likes this
@nanajanet (4436)
• United States
27 Oct 08
One of the many reasons why I fear if McCain wins. He is not my first choice anyway, but if anything happened to him, we would be stuck with her as president. How scary is that?!!! Ketchikan was great when we visited there in 2002 and I would go back, btw.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
26 Oct 08
Thank you for posting an intelligent view from the inside. Unfortunately, we don't usually get that. Especially, not when the local "maverick" has the national spotlight and is putting her own spin on things.
• United States
26 Oct 08
I started to respond to this last night, and got frustrated when my wireless disconnected after I'd already typed in a full response. First, thanks, Barbietre, for posting this. One of the things that has totally frustrated me in this campaign is the way that it has turned earmarks-pork-barrel-spending into one compound word. The two are not synonymous. There are certainly ridiculous expenditures in our budgets - but every earmark is not evil, and many, while aimed at a particular area, will actually benefit far more than just those constituents. This article points out what happens when something is viewed through a very narrow lens: we were shown a bridge that would connect the mainland to an island with a very small population. We never were shown the other side of the equation - that it connected thousands of people to a necessary resource. I still probably would disagree with spending federal funds on it - but it doesn't seem anywhere near as ridiculous. I personally don't want a president who will blanket-veto any targeted spending. I'd far rather have a president who goes through that spending line by line and decides whether or not it is a wise expenditure - or one that we can afford to pay right now, or one that gets sent back to the state with a note that says 'figure out how to pay for this yourself'.