(Cato Institute, Timothy Sandefur) The Environmental Protection Agency has many administrative powers including the use of compliance orders to deny property owners the right to use their property without judicial recourse. In Idaho, Michael and Chantelle Sackett purchased property on which to build their dream home in 2005. After clearing the property and backfilling in preparation for laying the foundation, they were served by the EPA with a  wetland “compliance order” to cease building and return the land to its original state. When the Sacketts attempted to challenge the compliance order with a hearing before the EPA or a federal judge  they found that they had no right for a hearing in either venue. They only could assert their rights when, and if, the EPA filed an “enforcement” action. In other words, the Sacketts could only challenge the EPA determination that their property was designated a wetlands when the EPA allowed them, regardless of the EPA’s denial of their property rights. This would be bad enough if it weren’t for the $37,500 per day fine the Sacketts would incur if they did not restore the property to its original condition within 5 months. (read more…)

We have heard much about Alaska’s film tax credit incentive and whether or not it benefits the State as a whole or only special interests. Forty states offered similar tax credits in 2010. Many of these states have now abandoned these credits because they do not create the promised jobs for their citizens.  The glamour and Hollywood hype are there but are the financial benefits? The Legislature needs to closely audit the investment and the returns for our economy before it reauthorizes the film tax credit. The Tax Foundation’s Joseph Henchman has reviewed the status of these credits and reports that many states have abandoned them.(read more...)

By: Lance Roberts

On June 23rd the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, with a large audience attending, voted 8-1 for Resolution 2011-26, which would protest the State of Alaska’s Redistricting Board’s final redistricting map. That night the audience was heavily favored by those who support a redistricting map that the FNSB Mayor has been supporting with our tax dollars. This map was created by the Democratic Party’s Rights Coalition. The vote by the Assembly was tacit approval of the partisan activity of the Administration and could cost the Borough taxpayers significantly.

The Resolution didn’t just signal a protest; it specifically stated that the Fairbanks North Star Borough would sue the State over the Board’s approved redistricting map. By the way, the Redistricting Board approved the final redistricting map by a vote of 5-0, to include the Democrat on the Board. The Borough Attorney gave the Assembly an estimated range for court costs between $5,000 and $25,000. The cost incurred for the original plaintiff in the year 2001 redistricting lawsuit (which the then Borough Assembly wisely did not join) was approximately $1.4 Million. In that case, the State reimbursed the plaintiffs $1,047,781.32, but they incurred additional costs of more than $350,000. If this scenario holds true today, the Borough taxpayers could be on the hook for about $1.4 Million to support a partisan agenda. The odds of the FNSB winning this suit against the State are probably slim to none. To understand these slim odds, let’s look at the redistricting criteria mandated to the Board in order of highest priority to lowest:

1) Federal Constitution Equal Protection – One Man-One Vote

The generally accepted variation in district population is 10% from smallest to largest. The 2000 Redistricting Board exceeded this greatly and was chastised by the courts for it. The variation achieved by the 2010 Final Redistricting Plan is 8.46%, so it easily meets the 10% criterion. The variation of the districts with any portion of the Borough in them is 7.71%.

2) Federal Voting Rights Act

The Act requires that the Plan have the same amount of districts with the required percentage of Native Voters, as in the last redistricting. It was determined that four Effective House Districts, three Effective Senate Districts and two House Influence Districts were necessary. A consultant was hired by the Redistricting Board to determine the percentages. The required percentages came out higher than expected, which resulted in not one single map presented to the Board meeting these percentages. The Alaska Constitution doesn’t come into play in this regards. So, arguing State Constitutional issues in a Federal Voting Rights jurisdiction is a moot point. The Redistricting Plan is reviewed and approved for meeting The Voting Rights Act standard by the Department of Justice. In the 2001 Alaska redistricting case the Alaska Supreme Court stated:“…Board had a valid non-discriminatory justification based on its forming an effective Native senate district to avoid retrogression under the Voting Rights Act.” and “…the “fifth” Fairbanks district had to be paired south so that House District 5 could be paired with House District 6 to form an effective Native senate district to avoid retrogression under section five of the Voting Rights Act.”

3) State Constitution

The State Constitution Article 6 Section 6 requires that House Districts “be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area.” The new District 38 may not meet this standard, but since it was required to meet the Voting Rights Act, it may not be practicable for it to meet the State standards. It should also be noted, that half a district in Fairbanks has to be combined with a non-Fairbanks-centric district; so no matter what other area they chose to combine, they would not be able to meet this requirement since the entire Borough is surrounded by very rural territory. The Board had to choose from Ester, Goldstream, Fox, Gilmore Trail, North Pole and Salcha. They chose Ester, Goldstream and Salcha to make up the new District 38.

The FNSB Resolution is basing its argument on the following: “WHEREAS, the proposed Redistricting Plan unnecessarily divides the half house district, consisting of 8,806 residents, between two separate districts, …”, in 2001 “the Supreme Court held that: … (5) dividing borough among two proposed house districts did not deny borough residents equal protection”.

Finally, we need to address those who think that the FNSB will lose representation. We will now have seven House Districts and four Senate Districts made up of Borough residents, which greatly increases our delegation and influence. The City of Fairbanks also increases its representation to two Representatives and two Senators. Opponents might say if we have a legislator that doesn’t live in the Borough, that he/she won’t adequately represent us. Two points are in order: first, one should not assume that just because a legislator doesn’t live here that he will be a slacker. Specifically, Eric Feige of House District 12, which includes Salcha, has represented us just fine. Similarly, is the Borough Assembly not representing Gilmore Trail because none of the Assembly members currently live there? Second, anyone paying attention will know that FNSB voters are a very large voting block. Ester and Goldstream in Districts are about one-third of that District. Do you really think the legislator for that District will forget that?

Maybe the Assembly should reconsider its Resolution in light of the above overriding criteria. We could maybe spend the money more wisely on infrastructure.

After the Municipality of Anchorage hosted a series of public forums on the upcoming FY 2012 budget, a report on the discussions reveals many taxpayers would like to see budget cuts within the police department.

With an estimated city budget shortfall of up to $18 million, the forums gave Anchorage residents an opportunity to give input on service cuts or increases and different forms and levels of taxation.

“One of the main areas targeted for budget reductions was the police department,” Erkmann said.

Citing everything from multiple officers responding to minor car accidents to officers earning overtime while patrolling construction zones, Erkmann said forum participants believed the department was one of the city’s most inefficient, and could achieve the same level of safety with far less funding.

Director of Management and Budget Cheryl Frasca said the report also revealed many Anchorage residents would be comfortable paying increased taxes.

“Looking at the questionnaire surveys, people like the services they have,” Frasca said. “They’re willing to pay more taxes, up to the cap, but the least acceptable avenue would be property taxes.”

In lieu of a property tax increase, Erkmann said forum participants discussed everything from wholesale alcohol taxes to sales taxes to increased bed taxes.

“Through either seasonal taxes or “sin taxes,” there is an appetite for increasing the amount of money going to the city,” Erkmann said. “The thing that stood out the most was the desire to diversify the tax base.”

The proposed budget is set to be released October 1, and the official report on the budget forum findings is scheduled to be released September 15.

By Kirsten Adams

Visit Alaska Watchdog online at www.alaska.watchdog.org

An often overlooked provision in Alaska statute allows cities to exempt themselves from campaign financial disclosure requirements, and several Alaskan boroughs have made the move to include the exemptions on the upcoming October ballots.

On Tuesday night, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly introduced an ordinance that would place the question of exemption on the ballot, allowing the Borough to create its own financial disclosure requirements and making it one of many Alaskan municipalities to do so.

“Mat-Su is looking at putting its own financial disclosure law to a vote of the people,” Assemblywoman Cindy Bettine, who sponsored the ordinance, said via email. “It would be something that is more fitting for citizen legislators and volunteer planning commissions.”

Bettine said the Assembly has not yet taken action on the resolution, and will revisit it at its next scheduled meeting August 12.

A report on the opt-out process by the Alaska Public Offices Commission states that if the issue is put on the ballot and approved by the voters, the city or borough would be allowed to conduct elections with no financial disclosure whatsoever.

“If your municipality votes to opt out of the reporting requirements, the information is no longer required by the state,” the report states. “If your municipality votes to opt out of the Public Official Financial Disclosure law and substitute a simplified version of financial disclosure reporting requirements, there will be no further requirement for you to provide the information to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.”

The Ketchikan Assembly has already approved the ballot question, and voters will now be able to decide whether to exempt Borough political candidates from financial disclosure requirements.

Assemblyman Mike Painter said the Ketchikan voters had already moved to exempt the Borough several years ago, but the revised rules so closely resembled APOC regulations the Borough subsequently reverted back to the original requirements to avoid confusion.

Painter said many municipal candidates were frustrated by the extensive reporting mandates, which were intended to increase transparency in the elections process. Now, voters would have the option to banish financial disclosure requirements altogether.

“In my opinion, as a business person, it’s very tough to get a business owner to run for local office because of the onerous requirements of APOC disclosure,” Painter said.

Municipal elections are scheduled for October 5.

By Kirsten Adams

(NCAP) Recent reports state that due to over-estimated discount rates, the public employee retirement pension liabilities of many state and local governments have been under-estimated by 75-86 percent.

Read the article <here>

(The Heritage Foundation) When Gallup recently polled Americans on the biggest threat to America’s future well-being, the escalating national debt tied terrorism at the top.

They’re right to worry. Washington’s debt is on a completely unsustainable path. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt held by the public — which stood below $6 trillion as late as 2008 — will top $20 trillion by the end of this decade if President Obama’s budget is implemented. At 90 percent of the economy, such debt levels would risk large increases in interest rates and tax rates, and could also result in a Greece-like economic crisis. Beyond our own economic consequences, dumping this staggering debt load on future generations would be absolutely immoral.

Read the full article <here>

(AlaskaWatchdog.org) After several years of internal discussion and organization, the Legislative Finance Division has completed a project that adds more than $750 million into the General Fund in an effort to simplify State finances.

Legislative Fiscal Analyst David Teal said the Budget Clarification Project reassigned almost 60 minor funds, including the State corporation dividend funds and proceeds from University of Alaska tuitions, to the General Fund.

(Read more…)

STATEHOUSE (June 24, 2010) – Senate Republican leaders today proposed the Daniels administration unilaterally move forward without a legislative mandate on a new “transparency website” showing budgets and spending by Indiana state government.

The key GOP senators said the site should later be expanded to offer finance plans and records of Indiana school districts and local units of government.

Read the full article <here>

(The Spokesman-Review) The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a big victory for open government when it ruled that political petition signers do not have a broad First Amendment guarantee to hide their names from public view. The 8-1 decision stemmed from a challenge by a Washington state religious group, which sought to block the identities of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions out of fear they would be harassed for trying to overturn the state’s “everything but marriage” gay-rights law.

Of the 24 states that allow for citizen initiatives, 23 of them, including Washington and Idaho, deem petitions to be public records. When a couple of advocacy groups sought the Referendum 71 names so they could post them on the Internet, the cry arose that this would chill free speech.

Read the full  article <here>