Editor:
In response to Andrew Amanovich’s letter concerning the “benefits” of a fixed link, it’s certainly reasonable to forecast that, in general, such a link would bring significant economic inflow to the area. This has been suggested not only by the various sources Amanovich has cited, but also by esteemed politicians such as Alaska’s former governor and U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with her precedent-setting 2006 Gravina Island Bridge to Nowhere proposal. That said, Buzz Bennett is correct in his assertion of the previous week that no hard data has been presented to our community with regards to this particular proposal.
One may also surmise without the benefit of a formal study that a fixed link will, in addition, lead to various negative externalities and de-merit goods, such as: overall increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents, more air and noise pollution, higher housing costs and housing taxes, more lax zoning restrictions, loss of farmland, increases in household and industrial waste, depletion of resources, more and larger chain stores, pressure on water sources, overcrowding, deforestation, more crime, less barrier to entry for less preferred establishments such as casinos and most likely a raft of other less savoury outcomes.
No one has yet to explain why they waste even one breath of our nice clean air demanding all this for here, when they can just go over to the other side of the water where those benefits and costs are all so readily available.
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
