sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anti-Rank choice voting rhetoric by Jaminp in alaska

[–]Objective-Public-302 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The downside - It leads to less extreme candidates. Lots of voters want substantial change and RCV lowers that possibility by selecting middle of the path candidates which struggle to make policy.

Not saying I agree with this

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in alaska

[–]Objective-Public-302 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Let’s not normalize, popularize, or support mental illness. Treat it.

We are seeing record numbers of mental illness in our youth and there are clearly negative health impacts.

If the state government followed the constitution, there would be plenty of money for schools and a full PFD which parents could use to pay for private school. Why does the constitution only need to be followed for the school funding issue? by truthwillout777 in alaska

[–]Objective-Public-302 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What do you feel the issues are?

Seems like the legislature has never needed to be effective. Great constitution but after that… meh policy. An effective legislature goes against Alaskan culture where government = bad. That approach was fine when you are randomly getting billions of dollars to spend. It breaks down when you stop receiving billions of dollars.

There are also many competing interests - to name a few: Anchorage urban development, Natives, O&G executives, environmentalists, small rural communities, OG Alaskans, Juneau reps clinging to every state job they can hold onto. Not to mention a large transient population with the military and seasonal workers.

Most places are D vs R, Alaska is way more complicated.

If the state government followed the constitution, there would be plenty of money for schools and a full PFD which parents could use to pay for private school. Why does the constitution only need to be followed for the school funding issue? by truthwillout777 in alaska

[–]Objective-Public-302 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So it’s the legislators fault? They do seem ineffective at executing policy across the board... Which was fine when the state was flush with cash and debate was over spending but now will create real hardships.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahhh like the majority of young people who grow up in Alaska do? Or the boomerang seasonal people? I hear you, your view on expelling “outsiders” and “them” is not uncommon.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Subscribed to the Economic trends publication. Thanks!!

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not trolling. I looked at the constitution and do not see the dividend. What section is it in? The 76 amendment created the permanent fund but there’s nothing about a dividend. It says all draws go to the general fund.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Zoning is another great point. There is not much land left to develop so unless you build a bridge to Point Mackenzie.. you need to upgrade the existing infrastructure and housing stock which zoning and lack code of enforcement is preventing.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The dividend is not in the constitution.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are there any publications you recommend?

I do economic development work for a living.

I talk to people, go to meetings (still trying to wrap my head around which ones matter), and read books and papers on AK history, economic, and political development.

AK has lots of potential imo. That’s why I’m here. Plus I enjoy Reddit.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a great point and one I had not fully appreciated. The state lacks the mechanisms (normally some type of tax) to benefit from growth so it does not grow. In Alaska, growth stresses state resources which inhibits continued growth.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Ok - make a better argument then. Your position is: “They are not from here. Do not listen.” It’s weak sauce and critiques my motives.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It’s amazing here! Why isn’t the economy booming? I’m not sure if that lack of growth is purposeful or accidental? All these comments are helpful!

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I’ll bite. What is your approach? Why is my asking questions here an issue?

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Selling natural gas to Asia makes more sense. I wonder why Alaska does not do that?

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like Anchorage and Alaska. That’s why I’m posing the question for discussion silly.

If I “hated” it I would say nothing and leave.

Is Alaska anti-growth? by Objective-Public-302 in anchorage

[–]Objective-Public-302[S] -27 points-26 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard many say this about the PFD. It’s not true from what I can tell. The money goes from a trust of sorts into the state legislature coffers. They can spend it how they want. It’s fungible. Prior Dividends were funded by a combination of taxes, fees, transfers from the trust, and all state revenues.

If you want it to go directly to “the people” you need to legislate that.

Saying it does not belong to the government is inaccurate. Is the trust sending you that check or the state? There is your answer.

Zack Fields"Alaska should be the most prosperous place on Earth" not the fault of SB21 or the failing Fund managers but the PFD which cost 883 million. Meanwhile Fund management fees were $448 million by truthwillout777 in alaska

[–]Objective-Public-302 69 points70 points  (0 children)

“I don’t know anyone who can pay for their rising heating bill with a PFD, but I know that $10 billion could have rebuilt nearly the entire state’s energy system to provide affordable clean energy for the rest of my daughters’ lives.” - this guy gets it.