The south extension of the Coastal Trail took some heavy blows in the past week. A small, well-organized, politically influential group of neighborhood opponents has done an excellent job of resisting a project that would be every bit as spectacular and popular as the northern Coastal Trail has proven to be.
At Tuesday's Assembly meeting, opponents of the extension clamored for a ban on using eminent domain for "leisure" projects. They were clearly aiming at the Coastal Trail, which would require a number of small easements across the properties of well-connected homeowners.
This week, the politically influential opposition also got the trail extension dropped from the city's long-range transportation plan.
And last week, the Anchorage Assembly's hearing on the city's long-term plan for parks turned out to be a talk-a-thon about the Coastal Trail extension. Opponents of the proposed extension grabbed headlines by using the parks hearing to air their familiar complaints about having the trail traverse their neighborhood. Despite the headlines, trail supporters from elsewhere throughout the city outnumbered the complainers at the hearing.
This long-running argument is as familiar as it is discouraging. The same battle was fought some 20 years ago over the northern section of the Coastal Trail. That trail has turned out to be one of the city's most popular outdoor attractions. It had to overcome the same parochial opposition of a few landowners who didn't want their little corner of paradise invaded by the masses.
With the southern extension, there's supposedly a key difference. Trail opponents claim that compared to the northern Coastal Trail, it is more biologically rich and more vulnerable to harm by trail users.
That argument has produced some bizarre political twists. The powerful state and local politicians who oppose the trail have no qualms about oil drilling in the heart of a distant wildlife refuge on the North Slope. But those same politicians contend that a wildlife refuge here in town can't possibly stand to have a trail just outside its boundaries.
Meanwhile, many environmental groups enthusiastically favor the Coastal Trail extension. They contend, correctly, that any potential conflicts -- say altered drainage patterns or loose dogs harassing birds or wildlife -- can be handled through good design and planning.
The Begich administration has gone a long way to shape a project that minimizes any disruptions to neighborhoods and the wildlife refuge. It has reduced the number of private properties crossed. It is collecting trail easements on subdivisions now in the works. It got donations of money and land to help advance the project.
To avoid one particularly sensitive stretch, it routed the trail inland. The Begich administration made sure the southern extension would have connections with neighborhoods and existing trails. It reduced the projected cost by a third. It has offered a practical, nine-phase construction plan, leaving trail money each year for other projects.
The southern Coastal Trail could be a spectacular civic showpiece for Anchorage. This is a case where the staunch opposition of a vocal few should yield to the greater good for the community.
BOTTOM LINE: Don't let the vocal opposition of a few kill the southern extension of the Coastal Trail.