By ERIC McCALLUM
(Published: March 2, 2003)
I live on the bluff in South Anchorage, just above the proposed Coastal Trail extension. My wife and I believe one of the best decisions we ever made was to buy a home with the ever-changing view of Turnagain Arm.
Recently I attended a gathering of bluff property owners. I was told the meeting was to discuss the concerns we might have about the proposed Coastal Trail extension. I quickly realized that the purpose of the meeting was to stop the trail from being built along the coast. Half of the people in the room were providing misinformation, while the other half, including myself were just plain uninformed.
In the days after the meeting, I talked with people at the state Department of Transportation, met with the group Friends of the Coastal Trail and went to public hearings to become more informed about a trail that would run almost in my backyard. After these discussions, I came to some conclusions of my own: Running the trail on the coast is the best choice.
The Coastal Trail extension will benefit the community of Anchorage and the economy. The existing trail attracts locals and tourists alike. And companies are drawn to places where the quality of life is inviting. I speak as someone who built a business here because of the "liveablity" of this city -- and outdoor recreation is an important part of that.
Ninety-one percent of the funding for the trail extension comes from the federal government. It has to be spent on trails or transportation enhancements. The money cannot be spent on roads or other types of infrastructure.
Friends of the Coastal Trail, a broad coalition of Anchorage citizens, has pinpointed ways to save between $15 and $19 million in construction costs. This can be accomplished by moving the trail off most private property and having the trail cross only small portions of the refuge with minimal impact on wildlife.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages the refuge "for protection of wildlife and their habitat, and for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state." The Alaska statutes do not preclude refuge crossings -- it simply states that it should not be done if reasonable alternatives exist.
The question of wildlife needs thoughtful consideration. Ironically, the presence of wildlife is one reason that a coastal alternative is attractive to so many people. I hear the volleys of gunshots from the Rabbit Creek Range loud and clear at my home. I see hunters plying the coastal flats. Can the wildlife not adapt to a contained, relatively quiet, nonconsumptive incursion of sections of trail?
Opposition to the coastal route is organized and influential, but there seems to be a silent majority who support it but have not yet voiced their opinions. If you want a trail that truly runs along the coast, speak up now. This is a public process. The planners and politicians need to hear your voice to decide and refine the final trail route.
Send your comments by March 7 in support of a trail along the coast. E-mail: southtrailcomment@hdrinc.com or fax 646-9018, att: Jim Childers.
For more details, go to: home.gci.net/~bjarne/trail.html.
This area is worthy of a true coastal trail. Take my word for it. I see it every day.
Eric McCallum owns a wire and rope supply business in Anchorage and is a member of Friends of the Coastal Trail.