AK Legislation Move it Vs. Leave it

Ballot Measure No. 2
First, the bill as stated by http://www.gov.state.ak.us

********
This bill would move all sessions of the state legislature to the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough. If facilities fit for these sessions can not be found in that borough, sessions would be held in Anchorage until facilities are available in the Mat-Su Borough. The bill would repeal the requirements that before the state can spend money to move the legislature, the voters must be informed of the total costs as would be determined by a commission, and approve a bond issue for all bondable costs of the move.
*******

...

I have seen commercials for only one side to the debate of this bill, but I also remember something about how the opposing side was going to advertise on more important issues.

Here are the stances.

Leave it.
The legislature move could be extremely costly and we might have to move it twice. Not only that, we do not get to know or vote on any bonds stating the total cost of the move.

As the commercials against the move state, why give the government a blank check? We are having enough financial difficulties with the fiscal gap to worry about moving the legislature and spending more money.

We may have to foot the bill to move the legislature twice because if facilities in the Mat-Su Borough aren’t adequate the legislature will have to reside in Anchorage until the facilities are adequate.

It will put Juneau businesses that depend on the legislature’s presence out of business.

Move it.
The legislature move needs to be done now and will only be more expensive if we wait.

Even if the move is costly, it will save us money in the long run. It is already extremely costly to put up our legislature members in hotels, apartments and condos while they are in session in Juneau. How many of us know how much it actually costs to have the legislature in Juneau and how many of us can guarantee those costs will not increase in the near future? Isn’t that like writing a blank check? Why should we have to foot the bill for the legislature to be in a remote town when it can be held in a location more accessible? Speaking of more accessible…how may people can be involved in the legislative processes when they are held in Juneau? How many more people can be involved when they are held in the Mat-Su? Our government is supposed to be a government of the people but when the people do not have access to the government how can that same government claim it is of the people.

Moving the legislature twice will not be such a big deal. Most of the move will be directly to the Mat-Su and any movements to and from Anchorage will be minor compared to the movements already being made to and from Juneau.

Yes, business is very important in our nation’s capital, but even business has a way of evolving. The same shops in Juneau can take their name and reputations with them to the Mat-Su area just as easily. In any case, new businesses will be created in the Mat-Su area and that will result in stronger competition meaning lower costs for the legislature in the long run.

The move is a win-win situation.