Comments by Fairbanks76
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 29 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" that could adversely affect water ..."
If we decided to make rules that eliminate the possibility of catastrophic events, our lives would be diminished significantly. Every time you get in a car, there is a chance you "could wreck". Houses are built all the time that "could flood". Ballot measure 4 takes away our ability to determine an acceptable amount of risk associated with mining operations. The state has regulations that require mining engineers to design facilities such that any risk of pollution is minimized. If you think these regulations need to be more stringent, than an initiative should be pushed forward that increases required safety factors in the design of mining facilities. This ballot initiative puts in place language that is absolute and does not allow for engineers and mining officials to do their job, which is to build and permit mining facilities where the risk of potential pollution is minimzed. There is always a chance that something bad "could" happen in all aspects of life. It is our responsibility to make choices that minimize these risks without diminishing our quality of life.
Posted on July 25 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this is supposed to be energy relief, the only fair way to do it is to subsidize heating oil costs to the point that the per btu rate is similar to that of Anchorage. If this is supposed to be an energy rebate to distribute the windfall oil profits, than every Alaskan should receive an equal share (Adult or Child). What is unclear from Palin, however, is which this is supposed to be. I would personally prefer a heating oil subsidy that would provide relief for both the citizens of Fairbanks as well as local businesses. If we keep whining about what form it is going to take, however, we probably won't see anything in time for winter. Let's hope quick progress is made on the bullet line, and that we get the same deal as Anchorage on gas prices to provide some real equity in the cost of energy.
Posted on July 24 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It stops being your uterus and becomes the baby's home when you get pregnant. Not fair, but most things aren't.
Posted on June 30 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tell the guy who got seven years in prison for running over the lady who was passed out on a dark snowy street that chronic inebriates are not a problem worth dealing with in Fairbanks.
Posted on June 27 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Someone should have to pay for their ignorance." Sure sounds like Ms. Bruce thinks the government should have told him what to do with the property.
Posted on June 27 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever happened to private property rights? If the owner wants to cut down trees on his property, he is entitled to. I don't necessarily think it was the smartest or most attractive choice, but since he payed millions for the property, he has a right to cut down the trees. He did a favor for local landscape contractors, as they will now get the contract to plant new trees when the development plan goes for approval by the city building department.
Posted on May 9 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is a person with a blood alcohol content of .229 percent passed out in the middle of the street an innocent person? It seems like the victim was clearly more at fault in this case.
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 29 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry. The "could" statement eliminates the ability to keep these materials on site which are necessary for the mine. The engineers for the mine are charged with building facilities that keep and treat dangerous chemicals on site. There will always be some small risk of a catastrophic event trigguring a release of these chemicals. The idea is to decide an acceptable level of risk rather than banning all activities that have risks.
On Mining initiative