Comments (26)

Anonymous wrote on September 27, 2007 2:33 PM:

Has anyone looked into records about who owns the land on the 50-person (Gravina) Island?

Kelly wrote on September 27, 2007 2:40 PM:

His senility should help him out in prison!

TritoneSub wrote on September 27, 2007 2:42 PM:

Sounds to me like the money didn't get to the people who paid for the earmark. No I don't mean the taxpayers.

freshwrestler wrote on September 27, 2007 2:58 PM:

The bridge on Gravina will end up on or next to some land owned by:
A. The Stevens Clan
B. The Young Clan
C. The Murkowski Clan
D. All of the above.

If you picked C you would be correct.

And for clarity although only 50 people live on Gravina, it does have the cities airport on it. It isn't to get 50 people to walmart more easily, it is to ship out tourists, fish and the locals occasionally. Now, folks have to take a little ferry over. Cute, but try hauling mail, frieght and the rest, daily, by boat. I understand that everyone is upset, but how have other airports and infrastructure been built in this country? These asshat, our delegation, have damaged AK's ability to get anything done through congress for the next 25 years.
Please tear down the currupt bastards; keep up the pressure, the internet has been key in getting out this story as the local press is bought. But realize punishing Alaskans isn't going to help and will keep the honey bucket in many villages for another generation.

jm wrote on September 27, 2007 3:24 PM:

I don't think it about the land. Its about funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to a construction company that supports the Senator. Like, oh I don't know, the same sort of guys that raised his house?

After studying the information, I'm not sure I totally oppose a bridge. I think we have to realize that Alaska's unique situation as a frozen mountainous shoreland means that it costs more to do things there. Go find a map of the area, and you might decide that, yeah, they put the town where it needed to be, and they put the airport where it needed to be, and there needs to be a bridge between them.

Cindrella Ferret wrote on September 27, 2007 4:13 PM:

Many citizens of Alaska have been receiving individual dividend checks from an oil rent trust fund since 1982. Maybe Alaskans could forgo a few checks and pay for the bridge themselves.

Jeff wrote on September 27, 2007 4:15 PM:

JM and Freshwrestler,

If the ferry is such a pain in the ass, how did they manage to built an entire airport without the bridge?

Shouldn't they have built the bridge first?

I don't know how things get done in Alaska, but in Tennessee, they build the road to the airport before they build the airport.

Wow. I've never had the chance to brag about Tennessee urban planning before.

Anonymous wrote on September 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

Freshwater:

Is what Stevens was trying to push different from what the State of Alaska is already working on?

Alaska's DOT apparently has a project underway for Gravina access, except it goes over an island to the south.

http://dot.alaska.gov/gravina/

Was Stevens so specific that he tried to earmark a bridge to be built directly through the harbor?

slb wrote on September 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

Hey, I'm sorry. As I understand it, the ferry runs every 30 minutes (every 15 minutes during the tourist season) and it's a 7-minute ride. How is that such a hardship? And the island is bound to have a good-sized port to be able to accommodate cruise ships, so why would hauling in supplies by boat be so very difficult?

If you spread the anticipated annual maintenance costs for the bridge (or bridges, actually) out over the 1000 trips per day that is the expected traffic over it, it comes out to a cost of over $43 per trip, most of it to be subsidized by federal taxpayers. That's compared to $4-6 for a trip by ferry. I cannot see that that is a reasonable use of federal tax dollars, especially not when we have far more heavily trafficked bridges collapsing or in danger of collapse in other parts of the country.

JD wrote on September 27, 2007 4:54 PM:

Cindrella Ferret, YOU are a genius.

mr.ed wrote on September 27, 2007 5:00 PM:

I think it would be nice to name the outhouse next to the ferry after the esteemed Senator. He certainly has earned the honor.

Anonymous wrote on September 27, 2007 5:41 PM:

Listen to the FBI tapes in the Kott trial b/c Bill Allen talks about buying off Ketchikan Reps w/ bridge project
this is insight into the depth of the Old Boy network that Ted's RICO racket runs for Oil companies in Alaska

bribery was systematic and very much thought out. Wait until Sen. Cowdery goes on trial. The real dirt will come out about Ben Stevens and Cowdery's capital projects buying off rural Alaska Reps for pro VECO/BP/Conoco/Exxcon 20%PPT

Bill Allen names the all in the recordings

freshwrestler wrote on September 27, 2007 5:42 PM:

You want us to build a new road and then an airport? We will need more money. Anyhow our Gov, who is said to be looking at Stevens' seat, has cancelled the project, http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9322220p-9237358c.html and will spend the money fixing potholes.
Roads are tough up here, especially in SE, but the glaciers will be gone soon enough and we are shipping all the timber south, get that peasky brush out of the way, knock down and mine the mountains and look like the rest of the lower 48. I would prefer that the bridge not be built, but the Canadian timber and mining companies, the British Oil companies, those Norwegian Cruiseship and those Seattle Fishing Corps are pushing the economy and politics up here.

kerryinalaska wrote on September 27, 2007 5:49 PM:

I've actually been on the ferry, number of times. I don't live there but spent many years traveling by boat in Southeast AK and had many occasions to use the airport in Ketchikan requiring using the ferry. I loved it but I'm a boat person. It works well and what does it take to drive a truck on and off? Whats so difficult about that? Weather on one of my trips across was gusting fifty knots and three foot waves running through the channel and while it was a chore for the crew it was not any trouble. I don't believe a bridge was ever anything but a convenience. This is all about self agrandizement of teddy. He already has the Anchorage International Airport under his name. And a large lab building in Juneau bears this criminals name. Uggh. What is it about AK politics that breeds these self serving spit wads.

AKguy wrote on September 27, 2007 6:00 PM:

Per Cinderella F's comment:

AK has a Permanent Fund (started out as oil money) which is providing every man, woman and child up here with $1654 this October. That's $999,264,700 / 604,149 residents. Next year's dividend will be higher.

The fund's capital is now upwards of $38BILLION. We get over $2 back from the Feds for every $1 sent to Washington. We have a reverse state income tax. And yet we cry poor mouth to the Feds? Gimme a break.

kuvasz wrote on September 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

the only reason i wished i lived in china is that i would get to see the public execution of politicians like this slimy c*&ksucker stevens who steals from the rest of us.

Chuck Feney wrote on September 27, 2007 6:22 PM:

following up on slb's comment, wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity for a privatized toll bridge project? We know how enamored the Repubs are of 'free enterprise.'

jack buster wrote on September 27, 2007 6:38 PM:

The above commentators are clear-eyed. They know how powerful pols seize and disguise the spoils in Alaska. Sen. Stevens wants his quid pro quo for his sleazy earmarks, all the way from Alaska to Florida's Coconut Alley. Here Sen. Stevens expects all Americans to spend $329,000,000 for his bridge to benefit 50 islanders!

In a democracy, what's the definition of "profligate" or recklessly extravagant? Why waste time answering the question? Let's just give $6,500,000 to each islander instead.

AnnieW wrote on September 27, 2007 6:39 PM:

A bridge would be convenient no doubt, but truly necessary?

If I heard that the ferry only ran twice a day I would be more sympathetic...to having the ferry schedule increased.

kingmob wrote on September 27, 2007 7:28 PM:

Yeah, I hadn't heard that it was the airport, but a 30 minute wait for a 7 minute ride doesn't sound bad at all. The stupid subway thing at Sea-Tac that gets you out of the terminal can take longer than that.

bemused wrote on September 28, 2007 8:29 AM:

I'm so glad to live where they film The Sopranos in northeastern NJ where the politicians are so much cleaner and more honest.

bemused wrote on September 28, 2007 8:30 AM:

I'm so glad to live where they film The Sopranos in northeastern NJ where the politicians are so much cleaner and more honest.

kelly wrote on September 28, 2007 11:42 AM:

HOW ALASKA FERRY PROJECT FLOATED; SEN. STEVENS PUSHED PRICEY MILITARY TEST: Sen. Ted Stevens, who championed $452 million in federal funding for Alaska's notorious "bridges to nowhere," has directed the Navy to build an experimental ferry it once rejected to serve a little-used port in a remote area of his home state. The high-speed ferry will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $84 million. The project follows the same route as one of the two "bridges to nowhere," which the non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense and others spotlighted in 2005 as examples of wasteful projects promoted by members of Congress that benefit few people. The 3-mile ferry route will turn a 2½-hour drive into a 15-minute trip to Port MacKenzie, which has two businesses that employ about 40 people combined. The borough, known as Mat-Su, will own and operate the passenger-vehicle ferry and give the Navy data on its operation as a possible ship-to-shore transport vessel. In an e-mail to USA TODAY, the Office of Naval Research said it did not request the funding. The Navy said it rejected Lockheed Martin's proposal for a similar prototype to transport military personnel and equipment, saying the project was not a high priority. Stevens declined to be interviewed. His spokesman, Aaron Saunders, said the deal benefits taxpayers by providing a use for a Navy prototype that otherwise might be scrapped after a year. Saunders said the ferry will bring jobs and revenue to the borough, which has about 80,000 residents. The ferry alone is now expected to cost $58 million, the Navy statement said. That's nearly double the Navy's original $29.9 million agreement with the shipbuilder. The "biggest cost driver" has been its unique design, the Navy said. The ferry's design came from the world's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which also has ties to Stevens. Lockheed pitched the design to the Mat-Su Borough in 2002 after the Navy rejected its proposal. With funds secured by Stevens, the borough paid Lockheed $2 million in 2003 to design the ship. Lockheed's lobbyists include Stevens' brother-in-law, William Bittner. Lockheed paid Bittner and his law firm $420,000 to lobby on defense spending issues from 2002 through 2006, the firm's disclosure reports say. Bittner said he never lobbied for Lockheed on the ferry. "Until you called, I had no idea Lockheed was involved in this project," Bittner told USA TODAY in an e-mail. Campaign finance reports show Lockheed's political action committee, executives and lobbyists gave Stevens' political committees $63,650 during 2002 through 2005, when the first legislative-directed funding, known as earmarks, were awarded for the ferry project. Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky said, "Lockheed Martin did not initiate any congressional support or lobbying efforts to secure funding for the program." Once Stevens' earmarks directed the Navy to build the ferry, the ONR hired Alaska Ship & Drydock under an obscure type of agreement called "other transaction authority." Those agreements are not formal contracts and therefore are exempt from many federal contracting rules, such as those requiring detailed cost justifications. The Navy said it used the arrangement because the ferry is a prototype and the shipyard hadn't done military work. Former Senate staffer Winslow Wheeler, who handled defense spending issues for three Republicans and one Democrat and is now with the non-partisan Center for Defense Information, said the ferry is an example of earmarks siphoning money from worthier defense projects. "He's loaded up defense bills" with projects that have "no direct usefulness for national security," Wheeler said of Stevens. (USA Today)

Anonymous wrote on September 28, 2007 12:22 PM:

Ben Stevens has not been arrested for this reason

Big Defense firms will pay for his lawyers. Just think of the number of lawyers Ted will get from the military industrial complex when the FBI indicts him

ex: JL Properties & Elmendorf housing

Or Boeing's indicted Air Refueling Scam
http://child-adoption.freakerz.net/thread.aspx?id=1934

Can't get rid of Craig or Ted

Hudson wrote on September 28, 2007 3:20 PM:

I've lived on an island with about 400 people. No airport. A half-hour ferry ride about five times daily. It was no problem.

For a fraction of the cost, the government could buy all 50 residents of this Alaskan island their very own boat plus an extra car to keep on the mainland!

AlaskaGambit wrote on October 3, 2007 3:53 PM:

Heaven knows I have no desire to defend the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan. However, there are a few relevent details to point out here.
The airport is on Gravina Island because it's the only flat space available. Ketchikan is an old town (relatively speaking for Alaska) and was founded on the coast and serviced by ships. 20th century technology needed flat land and landing area for an airport - hence, Gravina Island. Yes, Ketchikan is a small town, population wise, but it is important to the regional economy. There may be good reasons for a bridge. I personally haven't looked into it. While the island has only 50 residents, the town of Ketchikan is sizeable, for its location. It strikes me that the plans presented for the bridge are a bit grandiose relative to the actual need. The bridge connecting Juneau (state capital) to Douglas is modest, but it seems to do the job.