Permafrost Friday: Moving Arguments

February 5, 2010: As Alaska prepares for the 2010 census and an inevitable change in the make up of the geographical representation in the Alaska State legislature, a new twist to an old argument in favor of moving the location of Alaska's State Capitol is emerging.

With population growth trends over the last decade favoring urban areas like Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough, it seems quite likely that rural Alaska regions may lose legislative seats due to re-districting. Rural lawmakers have stated a desire to expand the number of seats in both the House and the Senate to ensure rural communities maintain a voice in Juneau.

In response, Rep. Carl Gatto (R-Palmer) wants to attach a provision that any expansion of the legislature would be done in conjunction with moving the state capitol.  

Gatto suggests adding more legislators and their attendant staffs will overload the current capacity of the state capitol, so we should seize upon the need for more space to move the capitol to a more centrally located community.

The debate over moving the Alaska's capitol has been raging for fifty years and isn't going away. 

Since 1960, the people of Alaska have voted on the issue in some form or another seven different times.

In 1960 the effort was designed to move the Capitol to the Cook-Inlet Railbelt. Voters rejected the effort.

In 1962, the effort was designed to move the Capitol to Western Alaska. Voters rejected the effort.  

In 1974, again the effort was designed to move the Capitol to Western Alaska. This time voters approved the move.

In 1978, four years after approving the Capitol move, Alaskans overwhelmingly approved an initiative that mandated the entire bond costs associated with financing the Capitol move must be approved by voters.

Finally in 1982 voters had the chance to reaffirm their decision to move the Capitol passed eight years earlier by approving the $2.1 billion bond which would have financed the cost of the move.  Alaskans voted down the bond, thus defeating the Capitol move.

In 1994 the issue of approving Capitol moving costs again came before voters in the form of the F.R.A.N.K initiative. The initiative which stood for Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge mandated once again that before the state can spend money to move the capitol or legislature, the voters must know the total costs, and approve a bond issue for all bondable costs of the move for the 12-year period after approval. A commission would determine both bondable and total costs of the move. 

In 2002, Alaskans reaffirmed their support for the FRANK initiative as 67% of voters opposed repealing it.

The challenge with the historical debate over moving the seat of government in Alaska is that it often gets re-written. Some complain that we already approved the move twice and so the poeple have spoken not once but twice.

Wrong.

Four years after approving the capitol move in 1974, Alaskans came back and voted against approving the bond needed to pay for the capitol move. So while voters initially expressed support for moving the capitol, when it came time to approve the cost of the move they voted no.

For decades, advocates of moving the capitol have contended that better access will ensure better government. The common sentiment being that having the process closer to the population center – read Anchorage or the Valley - would result in more trustworthy government.

Historically, local talk radio callers and letters to the editor have all been peppered with opposition to any new capitol not within a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive. “They’re isolated in Juneau and surrounded by lobbyists” one local talk show caller proclaimed. Move the legislature to Point McKenzie and turn Juneau into a casino town suggested a recent letter to the editor.

But the reality on the ground is quite different.

Moving the capitol to Anchorage or the Valley will always be a political non-starter. Aside from regional opposition – read everywhere in Alaska other than Anchorage or the Valley- there are insurmountable economic and practical reasons. It begins with your definition of moving the capitol.

If moving the capitol includes the state jobs from Juneau, the economic impacts would be devastating. It would cripple Juneau’s economy and the resulting movement of employees would drive up local property values wherever they shift.

In addition, at a time when many communities including the Mat-Valley are struggling to keep up with schools, roads and police, forcing more people into the region while taking land for a state buildings off the tax roles is the last thing property taxpayers need.

If moving the capitol means just the legislature, the costs clearly outweigh the return. The framers of Alaska’s constitution envisioned a part time citizen legislature and voters later confirmed that desire by limiting the legislative session to 120 days. The legislative session was shortened by voters in to ninety days in 2006.

With a proposed fy11 budget of $68.2 million, the legislature is one of the smallest cost centers of state government. When compared to eighteen state agencies, eleven have a higher cost than the legislative branch. Moving the legislature won’t save government any money while new debt incurred for the massive infrastructure would be costly.

Even the practical arguments for better access ignore the legislature’s accessibility through technology and that residents rarely engage lawmakers when they’re in the neighborhood. And it ignores that voters have the ultimate access, the ballot box.

With toll free numbers, cell phones, texting, email and live coverage on television and Internet, the public has instant access to their lawmakers. Legislators also attend community council meetings and hold constituent events throughout the session.

The problem is very few show up for meetings or even fewer contact their legislator. During four years of highly publicized town hall discussions and regular Anchorage Caucus meetings, public participation was always light.

And if Alaskans still can’t trust their legislator 900 miles away, they could always vote for a candidate they can trust. But the truth is, the more we hear of self serving legislators isolated on a remote island, the more we keep returning the usual suspects to Juneau.

A quick glance at the roster of lawmakers in Juneau shows that out of 60 lawmakers, the average length of service is six years and growing. In addition, out of the sixty lawmakers currently serving in Juneau, twenty nine have been there eight or more years.

If Alaskans feel their legislature is out of touch, they certainly aren't reflecting that sentiment at the ballot box every two years.

In the end if competent and trustworthy government is what we want, the most affordable and effective route is to reform the capitol don’t relocate it.