Alaska Politics

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier may never have been more interesting than right now -- the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, a popular governor, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.


Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins writes about Anchorage city government and politics. He covered last year's campaign for governor, and has blogged extensively about Alaska politics for the past year. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the Daily News before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune two years ago to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Now he's back in Anchorage. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau this summer, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Palin spokeswoman: Kopp never told governor about reprimand (Updated with comments from lawmakers) - 7/24/2008 4:03 pm

Legislative Council to meet; Monegan on agenda? - 7/24/2008 2:40 pm

Metcalfe on the air - 7/24/2008 11:06 am

TransCanada still looking for federal help - 7/24/2008 10:52 am

Wall Street Journal on Stevens, Young - 7/24/2008 4:40 am

Rep. Meyer – TransCanada supporter? - 7/23/2008 11:57 pm

$1,200 rebate clears first committee - 7/23/2008 11:36 pm

Smile! - 7/23/2008 2:00 pm

National Dems like Begich's chances - 7/23/2008 1:33 pm

House passes TransCanada license – again - 7/23/2008 1:03 pm

What Kopp said - 7/22/2008 8:19 pm

Palin responds to "Latest round of falsehoods" - 7/22/2008 4:59 pm

Kopp: "I am not a sex harasser" - 7/22/2008 3:50 pm

Kopp to talk about Kenai years - 7/22/2008 2:53 pm

Cowdery resigns as Legislative Council chair - 7/22/2008 2:33 pm

T. Boone Pickens on ANWR - 7/22/2008 2:28 pm

How far would those $1,200 checks go in covering increased fuel prices? - 7/22/2008 11:47 am

Show and tell on ANWR - 7/22/2008 10:34 am

Poll chatter - 7/22/2008 8:48 am

Monegan speaks - 7/21/2008 6:05 pm

Palin investigator expected - 7/21/2008 1:36 pm

Pipeline issue marches on - 7/21/2008 1:23 pm

A snowmaking gun with your name on it

Kincaid: Earth moving equipment with Roger Hickel Contracting, Inc., level the ground today, as work continues on the $10 million project to build eight soccer fields a Kincaid Park. (Bill Roth/ADN)Kincaid: Earth moving equipment with Roger Hickel Contracting, Inc., level the ground today, as work continues on the $10 million project to build eight soccer fields a Kincaid Park. (Bill Roth/ADN)

From Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage --

A question on next week's Assembly agenda: Should the city name a new soccer stadium at Kincaid Park after Conoco Phillips?

The oil giant donated more than $500,000 toward a $10 million package of recreation and sports upgrades at the park. (A non-profit called Kincaid Project Group is pushing the plan.)

Conoco's donation could buy the company naming rights to a 2,000-seat, artificial turf stadium, but that's ultimately the Assembly's call. Look for a public hearing in June, while the Kincaid non-profit searches for more donors.

Sponsoring an old Nike missile bunker at the park costs about $100,000, for example. Write a $7,500 check and you might get a "snowmaking gun" named after you.

There's a little tension here over whether the stadium should be named after Conoco forever, or just until it starts to fall apart and it's time for someone to kick in more money to rehabilitate it. Also - if the Assembly doesn't vote for the name, what's that mean for future fund-raising efforts?

The biggest donor may be the Rasmuson Foundation, which is giving $2 million to the project through a grant to the Anchorage Park Foundation.

The Rasmuson Foundation donates about $30 million a year and isn't looking for naming rights.

"They're not interested in having things named after them," said Jeff Clarke, vice president for the Foundation. "If they were, everything would be named Rasmuson, and that wouldn't be healthy."


login or register to post comments

  9     May 16, 2008 - 9:37pm | akmooster

call it the coliseum...

it would go well with the Los Anchorage motif begich has built. Tearing up Kinkaid to build a yard. nice.
It kind of fits with the Point Waronzof deal. I read in another anchorage paper that that area was protected 'for ever' as parkland only 14 years ago and now they are going to tear it down to build a runway. Guess that is how long forever is in begich-time. He only went to school for 12 years, so everything above that IS forever to him. I wonder how many hours of CITY work he did today for his money.

  8     May 16, 2008 - 1:40pm | psychoblogger

Let everything be named: "I hate Alaska"

Buying into this scam and getting your name on something at this generic urban recreational facility, formerly the Alaskan Kincaid Park, will help people realize the true you. By putting your name on something at Kincaid you will proclaim: “I, --your name here--, am happy to fund the vision of a small, rabid group of people that like to collude with corrupt bureaucrats to destroy unique Alaskan public park land and morph it into faceless and generic recreational facilities just like anyplace else in American. My donation hereby proves that I place no value on anything that is Alaskan, I hate Alaska, and I should be living in some large generic city in California or Texas.” Once the plaque with your name is posted at Kincaid, you can go and admire it as you brace yourself against 60 mph Turnagain Arm winds and horizontal rain, dodge errant rifle shots (should you be there during the 3 or 4 days per year the new biathlon range is in use) and choke on jet exhaust fumes from the world’s busiest cargo airport right next door.

  7     May 15, 2008 - 4:06pm | jerrydfuller

Conoco

The true meaning of giving is to give without wanting something in return or putting conditions of your giving. Conoco wants their name on the field. That is their payback plus the tax write-off. That probably has been the condition on which they donated.
True giving is the person that paid for the turf on the football field at Dimond. Whoever did this stayed anonymous and wanted nothing in return. Only to give kids a good area to play football. That was the true meaning of giving.

  6     May 15, 2008 - 3:12pm | fasterskier

Kincaid

This is just another of the Jeff Dillon/LDN schemes that pads both of their pockets. Remember Dillon was a principal at LDN pervious to become Park Director.

People in Anchorage are so myopic. They think we have the best of everything just becuase some self proclaimed would be expert said so. Kincaid is a nice park to be sure, but the ski trails, and biathlon trails and range, are certainly all they have been suggested to be. The are dozen of venues in the lower 48 that are even better.

I hope they make lead lined soccer balls to use at Kincaid. It is the only way the balls will stay in play with the prevailing winds in the park! Oh yea and now with the build out of the soccer fields it will be even windier and colder at the stadium this winter. Lets remember the reason the moved the biathlon range was becuase of wind.....wind affects the firing of rifles, imagine what it will do to soccer balls.

To suggest that there was good public process around this project is another scam. KPG and Conoco came in with a plan, public desires be dammed. Issue like sanitation, water, traiffic and parking have all been ignored.

  5     May 15, 2008 - 7:58am | leowassilie

Donations

for Corporations are tax deductible with limitations such as dollar size, amounts to related parties, the type of organization receiving the funds, etc.

They are getting the tax break, and want the naming rights too?

Good grief. Scenario: "We give you $500,000 at the same time we take out $1,000,000,000 out of your pockets. You'd better be gracious."

Although, I would like to see their name associated with the destruction of Kencaid.

And under what philosophy of reasoning can the State of Alaska average the highest price per gallon of gasoline?

Well, a few answers.

The biggest one nationally is our president. He sits on the stategic petroleum reserve. Not only that, it is accumulating more!

Department of Energy

To prevent further disruptions of our oil "supply" [sic].

All it's done is increase the gas prices for Americans more, and again, this president uses "security" as the excuse. No president in the history of the US has ever used scare tactics more that this guy.

He is squeezing every last bit out of Americans before he leaves office, make no doubt about it.

  May 15, 2008 - 10:46am | TheSdog

Leo

At the current price of oil the state is getting more than 50% of the money under ACES alone. That does not include royalties or other state taxes. It also does not include federal taxes.

Corporations are encouraged to make charitible contributions just like individuals are with tax deductions. Many businesses support youth sports and other activities around town. Their role is invaluable and far more appropriate then wanting the government to do everything.

There is a problem when they get deductions for the money they pour into professional sporting events and other advertising IMO. It can get to be cloudy on some issues like paying money to help build a sports arena where their name goes or a bowl sponsership. There are clear economic advantages to both parties in those circumstances. It is usually a company with a connection to the area and it is generally an action that should be encouraged so many things should be allowed.

As for the strategic reserve. Unlike when Clinton released oil from it when he should have let things cool down appropriately in the economy, we are at the point now where we need the action. It does not make sense to keep dumping expensive oil in the reserve.

The amazing thing is how the same lefties who say ANWR will not change a thing with oil prices think the strategic reserve will make a huge difference. It tells you their motives are all grandstanding on both issues. Congress does not care about you or me but only the power we give them much like the president. It is naive to think otherwise.

Both ANWR and the strategic reserve would make a difference but not because of the volume of oil. ANWR would not produce for a decade but the market would immediately react somewhat. Anybody who watches the market knows anticipation and patterns instead of actual commodity levels often change prices. The reason is a psychological one. That is a point made on here more than once and it was interesting to see it come out of our US delegation recently.

  4     May 15, 2008 - 7:01am | Stags_Leap

How about 'Palin's Pasture'

the psycho fundamentalist obstructionist who surround her would love to stick it to Big Oil again.

Way to go Sarah.

  3     May 15, 2008 - 12:46am | chilcoot

Of Course Not

Charity does not entail an expectation of reward.

Here, Conoco Phillips gave this money out of the pure sweetness of its heart, with no thought for itself. Heck, I bet it even won't take the huge tax break normally afforded companies that make charitable contributions. They're that nice of a multinational energy conglomorate!

Let's not insult Conoco Phillips and make it appear as if it wanted something in return for its kind donation.

  May 15, 2008 - 6:06am | erak

I have some bad news for your about Santa Claus

Last time I checked multi-national corporations didn't have hearts, real or otherwise, and they don't engage in charity. Donations are image advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not charity.

Communities have needs, or wants, that require money.

Oil companies have images that are in constant need of repair, or at least maintenance.

Seems like a deal to me. The only problem is if people perceive it as charity that came out of the goodness of an oil company's heart.

  May 15, 2008 - 8:05am | leowassilie

Corporations don't have pulses

yet they are granted constitutional rights.

Companies like Exxon want coporate legal protection, yet claim they have rights granted to them under the constitution that allow them to make a mockery of the supreme court.

But yeah, corporate donations and charity are feel goody masks.

A Conoco sign would sure make a great site for dogs to lift their legs on.

  1     May 14, 2008 - 7:13pm | erak

Of course

Why not do so in order to encourage more firms to follow suit? What we have to offer them of tangible value in return for their donation is great publicity.