Bridge over troubled locals

I like bridges - they're just cool. I love watching water flow underneath them, I love the way they look from a distance, I love the metaphors that flow from them ... they're just cool.

But I've never thought the Knik Arm Bridge was a particularly good idea. Are we really going to be able to build a safe bridge in an earthquake zone, on notoriously unstable soils (volcanic sandy silt), over water with enormous tidal shifts and icebergs 6 months out of the year?

And, if so, why? For a quicker trip to Wasilla? I thought we were spending millions on the new Glenn/Parks interchange for that same purpose.

The real reason Don Young (Anger Management Poster Child for All Alaskans!) wants to build this bridge, of course, is to open up the Susitna Flats to development. And the boon, of course, is to developers and land speculators. Is this really worth the many millions we would spend on such a bridge? Not to mention the other social costs that such sprawl would bring ...

Now, if there is any group whose positions on making land use policies should be taken with a truckload of salt, it would be the developers and real estate investors. They do not care what a city looks like or whether it is pleasant or safe to live in - they want to make money. This is not bad, of course - quite to the contrary, there has to be an incentive for such beneficial economic activity to take place. But their energies have to be directed in a way that makes what is good for them good for us as well. We need plentiful parks, attractive houses that provide some opportunity for communal interaction, good energy efficiency and construction standards, trails connecting various neighborhoods and commercial districts, streets that discourage traffic congestion, areas of concentrated development that reduce sprawl, redevelopment of blighted areas to reduce sprawl, enough open space to allow wildlife to live in the city and to allow healthy watersheds. The market incentives that developers respond to will provide none of these things.

Developers will tell you that all of this simply drives up the cost of housing - raw land development with fewer of the requirements described above is much cheaper, and allows for affordable housing. But, do you really believe they're interested in saving you money? When multi-millionaire developers cry that you're taking bread off their tables ... well, use the salt, folks.

Anyway, like I said, when these folks are pushing for a big government project, it's appropriate to ask a lot of questions. Sometimes there are good answers. Sometimes there are not.

Seems like some G-Hill residents have some questions - good ones, too. And it doesn't seem like there are any answers at all ...