Anchorage Daily News
Published: January 11, 2006
The Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday night ruled out the possibility of claiming private land for any future extension of the city's Coastal Trail.
The Assembly adopted member Chris Birch's ordinance barring the use of eminent domain for "leisure" purposes, including parks and trails. Eminent domain is the government's right to acquire private property at fair market value for public uses even over the objections of the property owner.
Some amount of property taking would be required to build the south extension of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, which is what has fueled this debate.
The vote in favor of the ordinance was 7-4, with Allan Tesche, Janice Shamberg, Dick Traini and Pam Jennings against it. Birch, Anna Fairclough, Debbie Ossiander, Dan Sullivan, Dan Coffey, Ken Stout and Paul Bauer voted in favor.
"It goes a long way toward protecting private property rights in our community," Birch said.
Tesche said the threat to private property in Anchorage is from the proposed Knik Arm crossing, not the Coastal Trail. The route selected for accessing any such bridge would go right through Government Hill, he said.
Tesche urged the Assembly to wait for the Legislature to make a decision on eminent domain so one law would exist statewide. Several proposals are pending in the Legislature.
Coffey said that argument doesn't work -- the Assembly regularly passes legislation that the state is considering as well.
The decision is yet another blow for supporters of continuing the Coastal Trail south from Kincaid Park to Potter Marsh. Recently, the committee that allocates federal transportation dollars in Anchorage deleted the Coastal Trail extension from its list of projects.
The trail now runs 11 miles from downtown to Kincaid.
The city says the route being studied for a 12-mile extension to Potter Marsh would cross about 100 pieces of private property. In 20 cases, the trail would take such small pieces of private property that the trail might be able to go around them, when it comes down to actual construction, said Michael Johnson, aide to Mayor Mark Begich.
But the idea of taking any property for the trail upsets some people. More than a dozen spoke in favor of Birch's plan at a public hearing Dec. 20. Several said they own property that would be affected by the proposed route of the extension.
No public testimony was allowed Tuesday.
When the existing Coastal Trail was built from 1985 to 1988, the Assembly approved use of eminent domain if property owners refused to cooperate. The threat of condemnation helped the city negotiate with property owners.
The new ordinance says eminent domain can't be used for leisure amenities such as greenbelts, small boat facilities, sports activities of any kind, trails, parks or natural resource areas.
Besides the private property issue, some opposition to extending the Coastal Trail stems from the cost, last estimated at $24 million.
Birch, in an opinion piece that appeared in the Daily News on Monday, said he would favor constructing more trails on land that is already public, along roads and through greenbelts and parklands. That would be less expensive than building along a coastal route and would provide "similar recreational and transportation opportunities" without taking private property, he said.
However, Assemblyman Coffey, in a Coastal Trail position paper, said if the city decides to build such a trail, it should indeed be on the coast and not inland.
Coffey agrees with Birch that private property shouldn't be taken and also suggests the costs could be reduced if a trail were on public lands.
"If we can do all this, then we should build the Coastal Trail at the toe of the bluffs so it is truly coastal," Coffey wrote. He said a Coastal Trail built solely on public land has been estimated to cost $15 million.
However, some land at the toe of the bluffs is considered to be sensitive habitat for birds, fish and mammals, and much of it is protected by being included in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The Legislature would have to agree to any refuge boundary changes.
Though the Coastal Trail extension has officially fallen out of favor, the city and the Federal Highway Administration are nearing completion of a final route and environmental report. It's not clear if the idea will go anywhere after that.
Daily News reporter Rosemary Shinohara can be reached at rshinohara@adn.com or 257-4340.