• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

understanding the bridge to nowhere

Steve

Well-known member
it seems either Oldtimer is either unaware or ignoring facts. as is half of America..

The bridge to nowhere actually had a good intention.. and it wasn't for the half dozen residences on the island.. it became expensive because of environmental concerns, the height required to allow cruise ships under it, and politics..

he Gravina Island Bridge (also known as The Bridge to Nowhere) was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that currently connects Ketchikan, Alaska, to the Ketchikan International Airport on Gravina Island.

if you have ever been to Alaska,. you would notice not only how beautiful it is, but how rugged it is as wall.. in Ketchikan like many small towns the mountain is to the left, and the Tongass Narrows, part of the Alaska's Inside Passage, is to the right.. and a small strip of land has houses and business cut into the cliffs.. if your heading south,. just reverse the sides..

nowhere is available for an international airport.. except on the large islands such as Gravina Island..

the need for the "international airport" is to provide people easy access to the area for tourism.. Alaska which brings in About 1.7 million visitors that brought with them.. $1.8 billion just this summer..

Ketchikan's airport is the second largest in Southeast Alaska after Juneau International Airport, while the ferry shuttles approximately a half million people in the same time period, a ferry service, that is costly in it self.. and would have been replaced by the bridge from Ketchikan clinging to a cliff on the edge of the inside passage.. and to the island of Gravina,

on the spending an economy of 1.8 billion Alaskans pay on that spending taxes. fed taxes... so a project was planned to expand the existing airport, an airport to support the tourism.. and part of that entire project was a bridge..


but if you have never been to Alaska or Ketchikan you would have to learn your facts from OT or the media..


The project was canceled in 2007 by the state government.

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.
# State of Alaska (2007-09-21). Governor's office press release. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20071214143302/http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1.
# ^ AK Gov. Palin regretfully cancels Bridge project
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve-- Who's right then-- Sarah Palin that supported it and got upset when it was called a "Bridge to Nowhere"-- or John McCain and some other Senators that raised a stink about it and slammed Uncle Teddy Stevens for "pork barrel spending".... :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve-- Who's right then-- Sarah Palin that supported it and got upset when it was called a "Bridge to Nowhere"-- or John McCain and some other Senators that raised a stink about it and slammed Uncle Teddy Stevens for "pork barrel spending".... :???:

her comment says alot..

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

the support for the bridge isn't gone.. but reality in the costs after every one added some pet project to it or moved it for a tree frog or turtle.. or be able to get a bigger ship under it sank the project..

let me put it this way..

I think welfare is a great idea.. but when I see the results..and the costs, I am against it..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
How about line item veto??????

We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
How about line item veto??????

We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....

The Republicans Got It Ruled Unconstitutional? :roll:

Aren't you getting a little tired of being caught in lies, day in and day out?

___________________________________________________________

Strict constitutionalists praise decision

But lawmakers who had fought against the line-item veto legislation three years ago were thrilled with the Supreme Court's ruling that the statute is unconstitutional.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) called it " a great day for the U.S. Constitution."

"We feel that the liberties of the American people have been assured," said Byrd. "Without adequate control by the citizens represented in Congress, liberty is threatened."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the law of the land -- the Constitution -- applies to all, including the president.


"Congress, in this particular line-item veto bill struck down today, tried to bend the Constitution. The court said it will not allow that to happen. Thank God it did, because this particular line-item bill would have given the president the power to repeal the law of the land without Congress participating," said Levin.

The law let the president sign a bill and within five days go back to reject specific spending items or tax breaks in it. Congress could then reinstate the item by passing a separate bill.

Nearly every president in the past century has sought the line-item veto as a tool for controlling "pork barrel" programs added by lawmakers. Most governors have similar authority over state spending.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
How about line item veto??????

We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....
You're partially right...1996. The lead challenger...Sen. Robert Byrd.
Did you notice the co-sponsor of the bill....THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!

Edit: Darn, Mike, you beat me to it!!!!! :? :lol: :lol: 8)
 

Mike

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
How about line item veto??????

We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....
You're partially right...1996. The lead challenger...Sen. Robert Byrd.
Did you notice the co-sponsor of the bill....THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!

Edit: Darn, Mike, you beat me to it!!!!! :? :lol: :lol: 8)

The point is.........the Republicans did not defeat it as the Old Fool stated.

Even Scalia dissented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It used to be that most every post here could be counted on as the halfway truth. Old Fool has told so may lies lately that he's beginning to see them as the truth. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
RobertMac said:
Oldtimer said:
We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....
You're partially right...1996. The lead challenger...Sen. Robert Byrd.
Did you notice the co-sponsor of the bill....THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!

Edit: Darn, Mike, you beat me to it!!!!! :? :lol: :lol: 8)

The point is.........the Republicans did not defeat it as the Old Fool stated.

Even Scalia dissented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It used to be that most every post here could be counted on as the halfway truth. Old Fool has told so may lies lately that he's beginning to see them as the truth. :roll:

Well a lot of Repubs blamed it on Guiliani (a Repub)- for filing the action and getting it fasttracked to the SCOTUS...
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Mike said:
RobertMac said:
Oldtimer said:
We had that remember-- Republicans got it ruled unconstitutional when Mayor Guiliani took it to the Supreme Court over a line item "pork project" veto Clinton did....
You're partially right...1996. The lead challenger...Sen. Robert Byrd.
Did you notice the co-sponsor of the bill....THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!

Edit: Darn, Mike, you beat me to it!!!!! :? :lol: :lol: 8)

The point is.........the Republicans did not defeat it as the Old Fool stated.

Even Scalia dissented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It used to be that most every post here could be counted on as the halfway truth. Old Fool has told so may lies lately that he's beginning to see them as the truth. :roll:
What do you expect when he gets his news from the Daly show?!?! :lol: :lol:
 
Top