Alaska Congressmen Attempt to Earmark ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ For Personal Profiteering

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/bridge-to-nowhere-ii/

Alaska Congressmen Attempt to Earmark ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ For Personal Profiteering


In 2005, Congress defeated the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark spearheaded by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), which would have spent $200 million connecting mainland Alaska to an island home to 50 people.

Roll Call reports today that members of Alaska’s congressional delegation are persisting in making another bridge in the Alaskan tundra. Their pet project this time is for a bridge in the sparsely populated Knik Arm region, and the earmark “could mean a significant windfall for a number of people close to the Congressional delegation…some of whom purchased land in the area.”

Both Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) have several relatives and former aides who own land or stock in companies with property in the Knik Arm region. Most notorious, however, is Stevens, whose underlings stand to make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the bridge:

George Lowe, Chief of Staff: “(O)wns a 2.6 acre parcel of undeveloped land on the Knik Arm…Borough records show that Lowe’s land went from being appraised at $47,000 in 2005 to $57,500 in 2006.”

Lisa Sutherland, former aide: “(O)wns just under four acres on Knik Arm, which they purchased in October 2002. The value of the land went from $38,400 in 2005 to $65,000 in 2006, according to the assessment.”

Trevor McCabe, former aide: Owns stock in Point Bluff LLC, which holds tens of acres of land in the area. “McCabe and his wife also own a separate parcel on Knik Arm, 3.7 undeveloped acres. … The value of that property went from $37,800 in 2005 to $62,400 in 2006, according to the property assessment.”

Sen. Stevens’ cronyism here is a continuation of years of abuse of his power for personal gain. His son, Ben Stevens has received millions of dollars in consulting fees from several of Sen. Stevens’ projects (see the list HERE). For example, Sen. Stevens secured more than $10 million in federal aid to put the 2001 Special Olympics Winter Games in Anchorage. Ben Stevens ran those Olympics and received over $700,000 in salary for doing so.

Sen. Stevens also helped settle a disputed contract favorable to VECO, an Alaskan oil company which recently pleaded guilty to bribing at least four Alaskan officials, including paying over $200,000 in bribes to Ben Stevens.

[Ian David]

1. I think it needs to be designated as a National Forest with a 1,000 year environmental easement.

Then again, perhaps Harry Reid can be convinced that this is a much better location than Yucca Mountain for a nuclear dump.

Cold, isolated, sparsely populated...

[sharp_stick]

2. I love that idea

Honestly that would shut that prick Stevens up for good.

Could you imagine the rant on the Senate floor if that came up for a vote? The tears, the drama... I think CSPAN would finally knock American Idol off the #1 position.

[formercia]

3. A Bombing Range

Just like Russia. Getting ready for the big one.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. While I agree that Ted, et al. are greedy bastards,

I would quibble with the designation of the area as "sparsely populated." As you can see from the map, the bridge would go from Anchorage, the most populous city in the state, to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, which is the fastest growing region of the state. Presently, there are only two ways out of Anchorage, the Seward Highway going south and the Glenn Highway going north connecting to Palmer and Wasilla. Ostensibly this bridge would provide a shorter route from specifically Wasilla to Anchorage and would ease the crowding on the Glenn Highway during the rush hour commutes.

However, from what we've been told, the toll on the bridge would most definitely preclude a lot of people from using it, particularly on a daily basis, plus there are major issues with the impact it would have on the Government Hill neighborhood of Anchorage. The whole bridge project has kind of been put on the back-burner here for the moment, as there really isn't a whole lot of enthusiasm for it.

Also I think there is a lot of concern about potential earthquake impacts and the fact that the Knik Arm regularly has 20-foot tides. This would be a major engineering nightmare, I would think.

ed. Correction - make that 30-foot tides. High tide today was 30.6, low at -.9. I also forgot to mention the ice floes in the winter. All in all, not an easy project.

[texastoast]

5. From a resident

I emailed the link to my friend in Anchorage, and this is what she says.


This is interesting - it's only half true. There has been an interest in building this bridge for a long, long time because Anchorage sits in what we call a "bowl" that is, it is shaped like a large piece of pie. The rounded portion (the "pie crust') is surrounded by mountains and land that is designated as state or federal property - state wilderness parks and an army base, and is not available for development - thank God. The corner and lines that would be the outline of the sides of the "pie" are water - Knik Arm and Cook Inlet. Anchorage maxed out on property that could be developed without sacrificing greenbelts for the wildlife a few years ago, I think about 7. I know it was before I bought my place here in town, but I remember when the last piece of large property that could be subdivided got sold because it was noted in the news.

The most obvious, and certainly the very best place for Anchorage to acquire more land for the city to continue to grow, and let's face it - Anchorage is not very big with a population of only about 270,000 - is across the arm where there is lots of reasonably priced land that is available for private ownership and is immediately across from downtown. Environmentally, for the city not to sprawl, to keep greenbelts to be wildlife friendly, to cut down on long-distance commutes, in every way - the bridge across Knik Arm is a good idea.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the people listed, aware of the inevitable reality of the necessity of the bridge and having the money to invest, have purchased land in that area. I would have done the same if I had been able. It's been a good idea for many years. In fact, given the geography of Anchorage, there has long been an interest in building such a bridge but the glacier silt at the bottom of the arm and the extremely high tides have made such a bridge too difficult or too costly or both. The silt is difficult to build on, and Knik Arm has the second highest tides in North America, right after that famous place (Bay of Fundy? can't remember) in Canada that has the first highest. Knik Arm isn't really very wide so far as bodies of water go, but those two factors have prevented a bridge from being built prior to now.

I have to say that in this case, Think Progress doesn't really know what they are talking about, I mean apart from the insider knowlege and land speculation that I would have no doubt is going on. But that bridge will get built, sooner or later, barring some catastrophic crash in the population, for the simple reason that there is no place else for the city to go.

Thanks for the link. It is a crazy place I live in.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Your friend is correct...

...as I explained not quite so well in the previous post. There's been a lot of misinformation spread about particularly this bridge project. The one in Ketchikan is a bit more loopy, in my opinion, since the only stated reason for building a bridge is that Ketchikan built their airport on Gravina Island.

[izzie]

8. They have been talking about this when I lived in Alaska 20 years ago

I sort of liked the new 'capital' plans better if only the feds would pay for it and not the tax payers of Alaska. The new 'capital' was voted in but not the money to do it. And the chain link fence from Anchorage to Fairbanks on both sides of the high way was the all time great one for keeping moose off the road and ways to spend money.. Alaska I am sure is still tops of getting federal money and Steven was in office when I lived in the state so I am sure it will go on. In the 70's they dropped their income tax for the state. I am sure they got enough from the feds so why have that pesty thing around. I loved Alaska.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. We still get a lot of federal money

but the bulk is from the oil companies.

[izzie]

11. Are you sure most comes from oil?

Are you counting in what the people make on the fund of what the state makes? I can not see why that type thing of payment for oil could not be used in Iraq so the people of Iraq would see some of it and not just people living off Wall Street.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. I am counting the Permanent Fund actually

and I agree with you on the Iraq thing. That was something our late governor Jay Hammond, the so-called "father of the Permanent Fund," was really pushing for before his death a couple of years ago.

[txaslftist]

7. If they want a bridge...

...they should float a bond issue like everyone else has to.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I don't believe that it was ever proposed

to be 100% federal money. If so, I'm sure it would have been built already. :evilgrin: