This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-15T18:56:40-07:00 Should Alaska’s Capital Be Moved? 24 plain 2022-06-16T14:35:45-07:00 Peter Barela
  
  First Place
  
  WRTG A111: Writing Across Contexts
  Dr. Annette Hornung
  
  
  Peter Barela has been a Mat-Su College student for one year and will start working toward his Bachelor's in Business Finance at Northern Arizona University this Fall. He will also simultaneously work towards his Commercial Pilot’s License and hopes to one day fly as a commercial pilot. During his off-time from flying throughout the year, Peter plans to rent out homes or storage units in an effort to build his financial portfolio. Peter is a hard worker who has also worked full-time throughout the year as a Vision Therapist for the last year and half.

  ---

  Abstract

  State capitals are of pivotal importance, because they are a central place where state officials converge to discuss and debate. Typically, state capitals are centrally located in conjunction with the greatest portion of a state’s population, so that state residents can participate in state legislature. While this holds true for most states, Alaska’s capital is an exception, residing close to six hundred miles away from Alaska’s population center. Should Alaska’s capital therefore be moved from its current location in Juneau, to an area that is more accessible by state residents? I would argue that the capital should be moved to a place such as the southcentral Alaska, because the capital would be easier and more cost-effective to travel to for both residents and state officials; because the movement of the capital would provide more jobs to Alaskans; because it would decrease the potentiality of corruption between state officials; because there are solutions to the problem that are cheaper than previously proposed by the state; and most importantly, because moving Alaska’s capital would provide more Alaskans with the ability to participate in their natural right to influence state issues, policy proposals, and state decisions. This conclusion can be drawn through the contribution of secondary research that supports this paper’s aforementioned claim.

  ---

  Should Alaska’s Capital Be Moved?

  Within the confines of the U.S. government and its subcategories, a state’s capital is the central focal point where elected state officials congregate to discuss, debate, and decide on things with the well being of their state in mind. While there is no lawful criteria for where to establish a capital, according to the scholars Erik Engstrom, Jesse Hammond, and John Scott (2013), during the first Federal Congress, James Madison gave his opinion about where he thought a capital should be placed. Engstom, Hammond, and Scott quote Madison, who stated, “It is important that every part of the community should have the power of sending, with equal facility, to the seat of government such representatives to take charge of their interest as they are most disposed to confide in” (Capital Mobility, pg. 2). In the case of Alaska, however, the capital is almost a two-hour jet flight from the states’ main point of population. Therefore, the contentious query arises whether Alaska’s capital should be moved from its current location in Juneau, to an area that is more accessible by state residents? I would argue that the capital should be moved to a place such as southcentral Alaska, because the capital would be easier and more cost-effective to travel to, for both residents and state officials; because the movement of the capital would provide more jobs to Alaskans; because it would decrease the potentiality of corruption between state officials; because there are solutions to the problem that are cheaper than previously proposed by the state; and most importantly, because moving Alaska’s capital would provide more Alaskans with the ability to participate in their natural right to influence state issues, policy proposals, and state decisions. 
  
  Alaska’s immense size and spread-out population contribute to the difficulty of pinpointing a sensible place to establish a capital that is equally distanced and accessible by each state resident. However, there are better locations where a state capital would be better, than in Juneau. For instance, according to the United States Census Borough, approximately 400,000 state residents reside in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough (2019). While the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage have more square mileage than the entire state of West Virginia, this small portion of the state accounts for over half of the total population. Not only that, but the Mat-Su Borough resides in the southcentral part of Alaska, which makes it a far more convenient location to travel to for both residents and state officials. Compared to Juneau, which resides in the southeastern part of Alaska, and is almost closer to Seattle, Washington than to Alaska’s own main city of Anchorage. Currently, if a resident would like to go to the capital, more often than not, they would first have to get to the city of Anchorage. Then they would have to purchase a round trip ticket to Juneau, costing approximately $350. Additionally, to stay in Juneau, a room in a hotel could cost up to $275 per night. All told, if a resident would like to participate in state government for even a single weekend, Alaskan’s are expected to spend at least a thousand dollars. 
  
  Furthermore, the expensive nature of traveling to Alaska’s capital applies to both residents, and state officials. According to Bruce Botelho (2018), a four-time elected mayor in Juneau, who also served as the attorney general under two different governors, it is difficult for most Alaskan residents to participate in state government due to the costs of such a trip. While Botelho mentions that there is a constituent fair that is a little less expensive for state representatives, those same representatives must also stay in Juneau for longer stints of time, sometimes lasting for several months. These long stints of time ultimately produce expensive business trips (Alaska New Source). According to article II of the Alaska State Constitution (1959), state officials who travel to or from the state capital have their expenses covered by the state, including the cost of their stay while in session at the capitol. This means that there is tens of thousands of dollars in state money, or rather tax dollars, that is spent on accommodating state officials and their travel expenditures. If a capital were situated in a more accessible location, the money that would be saved could be spent on important state projects that would further benefit the people. 
  
  However, is there really a place available in the Mat-Su Borough that would offer a more convenient location, and would also be worth the time, energy, and resources of the state to develop and move to? The Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage both have an abundance of land, resources, infrastructure, and public support to support the movement of the capital. If building a new capitol was out of the question, another creative solution that would work is leasing a building in Anchorage to hold state meetings and legislature. Both of these options would solve the unnecessary and complicated expense of traveling to the current capital. Additionally, food and housing would be less expensive for representatives and residents alike if the capital was situated more locally. Individuals opposed to moving the capital argue that if an individual has the desire to participate in state legislature, they can watch the meeting live as it is streamed online. However, while this allows Alaskans to listen to what is being discussed at the capitol, it does not provide them with the ability to actually stand up and provide their opinions on the tendentious issue. The ability to actually participate in state government still requires a state resident to make the strenuous, tedious, unrealistic, expensive, time and energy consuming journey across the state.
  
  Yet, it is unlikely that there would only be positive results from moving the capital, so what would the potential drawbacks to moving be? A common argument against the movement of the capital is that moving the capital would severely cripple Juneau’s economy, and put many of Alaskans out of work, due to the government sector being the largest contributor to employment in Juneau. Furthermore, businesses and local communities that survive off of their close proximity to the capitol would effectively have their main source of year round income disappear (Juneau Economic Council). However, according to Mark Neuman, a former state representative who often traveled to Juneau, the positive impacts of moving Alaska’s capital would outweigh the negative. Neuman goes on to elaborate that besides allowing more residents to participate in state government, moving the capital would also result in supporting more jobs to Alaskans in comparison to the currently employed individuals that work in the capital. Neuman shares that with the increase of public participation that the capitol building would have, if it were moved, there would have to be an increase in staff needed to make the predetermined bigger capitol run efficiently too(Alaska News Source, 2007). In addition, if the state were to move the capitol, and had to develop land for the new capitol building, there would be even more Alaskan jobs created throughout the project. Finally, the overall currency circulated into the state economy if the capital were moved would reflect growth as well. 
  
  As stated by the scholars Filipe Campante and Quoc-Anh Do (2014), capitals that are closer to the main source of state population also see an increase in voter participation. Campante and Do further state that, “Isolated capital cities are associated with a greater role for money in state-level elections, as measured by campaign contributions, and that, in states with a relatively isolated capital, firms and individuals who are closer to it contribute disproportionately more” (Isolated Capital Cities, pg. 3). Campante and Do relate that historically, the amount of corruption that is found in state officials increases the further away a capital is from a state’s main source of population (Isolated Capital Cities, pg. 2). The scholars Erik Engstrom, Jesse Hammond, and John Scott (2013), agree with this conclusion with their own evidence that observes that capitals that are in closer proximity to a state’s main population center see a decrease in government corruption, and increase in positive resident participation (Capital Mobility, pg. 3). Could these attributes and proven positive qualities of moving a capital be applicable to the state of Alaska, if the capitol were to be moved? In the past, other states have moved their capitals and seen positive results. For instance, Oklahoma moved its capital in 1910; and Ohio has moved its capital on three separate occasions since its statehood in 1803. 
  
  If there are so many positive qualities to moving the capital, why has it not already happened, then? There have been multiple ballot measures that have asked the conflicting proposal whether the state capital should be moved, and in 1973, one actually succeeded. At the time, Aaskans agreed to move the capital, however, retracted their opinions the following year when given the appalling estimated amount that would have had to have been spent to relocate the capital. Since then, the argument that moving the capital would be too expensive has shown little change. Yet there is new information that would support the idea that moving the capital would not cost more than what the state has already paid in past years to maintain the capital. For example, in 2018, the state office of budget and management released a report that stated moving the legislature meetings could cost as little as three million dollars, and at most forty-five million dollars (Eye on the Arctic, 2019). While that is expensive for simply moving where the legislature meetings are held, as stated by Wayne Jensen, a member of the Alaska Committee (2019), moving the meetings of the legislature has the same impact of moving the capital, because when one moves the meetings of the legislature, which typically only take place in the capitol building, it is like moving the location of the capital itself (KTOO). To further support this idea, according to the Alaska State Legislature (2016), in 2006, a few years after the last ballot measure to move the capital was denied, Alaska’s Legislature started to set money aside for the sole purpose of renovating the almost 80 year old, falling apart capitol building in Juneau. By 2016, roughly thirty-million dollars had been spent to renovate the capitol building. An argument could be made that with the information provided by the state office of management and budget, it would conceivably have been cheaper to move the legislature meetings, and eventually, the entire outdated capitol building from Juneau to a place such as southcentralAlaska. If that were done, then the capital would be easier and more cost effective to maintain, easier to travel to, and be more available for resident participation. 
  
  On January 3, 1959, Alaska became the forty-ninth state to enter the United States of America. Contrary to many other states, Alaska was formed as an owner state, meaning that the people preside over the well being and wealthfare of the state’s natural resources, and the residents within. Such a statement means that the people of Alaska would be in control of how Alaska’s resources will be utilized and excavated for the profit of all included (Alaska State Constitution, Article VIII, 1959). This means that it is an Alaskan’s natural right to participate, and to share their opinions and concerns at the state capitol with their state representatives. These natural rights are particularly applicable to the control of the oil and gas industries stationed in the Northern part of Alaska. According to the Alaska Resource Development Council, the oil industry in Alaska accounts for approximately half of the overall money that is circulated into the state economy, and provides a quarter of Alaska’s complete job corp. Not only that, but once a year Alaskans receive a certain percentage of the overall profit made by the oil and gas industries stationed in Alaska called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) as a shared portion of the wealth being reaped from the state’s resources (Permanent Fund Dividend Division, 2021). However, more recently, the state of Alaska has taken a little bit from every state resident's PFD to help support projects and other goals of the state. For instance, in 2015, every resident in Alaska received a little over $2,000 as their percent profit from what the oil companies had made that year. However, in 2016, the PFD for every resident was just over a thousand dollars, more than a fifty percent decrease in payout per resident, despite the oil companies not mirroring such a deficit in their net earnings, and the amount of residents applying for the dividend actually decreasing in number (Permanent Fund Dividend Division, 2020). Since then, the yearly amount of the PFD has changed depending on the fiscal year of the oil companies, though residents often speak out about the percentage that they are entitled to always being lower than it is supposed to be. Would a closer proximity to the capital provide the voices of Alaskan’s more persuasive power and disallow the solidarity of state representatives to misuse the money set aside and allocated for residents? 
  
  To conclude, in the United States, the people empower elected officials to represent the people’s beliefs, opinions, and agendas. However, the people are also given the natural right to participate in government and to share their concerns with their elected officials in the hope that their opinions will help influence decisions that will benefit their state and country. These guidelines and rights were given to the people by the Founding Fathers, who ran into a similar problem that Alaska has, and used this reasoning as one supporting argument as to why they needed to secede from Great Britain. The Founding Fathers (1776) stated that, “He [King George] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records [the people], for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures” (Declaration of Independence, para. 4). Comparatively, Alaska’s capital, where the people should have the ability to learn, participate, and speak their opinions lies at a distant location that is virtually inaccessible by state residents. Should Alaska’s capital consequently be moved to an area that is more accessible by residents? I would argue that the capital should be moved because it would be easier and more cost effective to travel to for both residents and state officials; because the movement of the capital would provide more jobs to Alaskans, and decrease the potentiality of corruption of state officials; and most importantly, moving Alaska’s capital would provide more Alaskans with the ability to participate in their natural right to influence state issues, policy proposals, and state decisions.

  References

  Alaska Department of Revenue. (2020). Summary of Dividend Applications and Payments. Permanent Fund Dividend Division. https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/summary-of-dividend-applications-payments 
  
  Alaska Humanities Forum. (n.d.). The capital of Alaska. Alaska History and Cultural Studies. http://www.akhistorycourse.org/governing-alaska/the-capital-of-alaska/ 
  
  The Alaska State Legislature. (2016). Capitol building restoration. http://akleg.gov/pages/restoration.php 
  
  Campante, F., & Do, Q. (2014). Isolated capital cities, accountability, and corruption: Evidence from the United States. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2456-2481. file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/isolated_capital_cities%20(2).pdf 
  
  Campbell, M. (2007, March 10). Moving the capital could shift the entire economy. Alaska Journal of Commerce. https://www.alaskajournal.com/community/2007-03-11/moving-capital-could-shift-entire -economy 
  
  Engstrom, E. J., Hammond, J.R., Scott, J.T. (2013). Capital mobility: Madisonian representation and the location and relocation of capitals in the United States. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 225-240. file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/capitol_mobility%20(1).pdf
  
  Hsieh, J. (2019, April 4). Ballot initiative to move Alaska legislature’s meetings clears early hurdle. KTOO. https://www.ktoo.org/2019/04/04/ballot-initiative-to-move-alaska-legislatures-meetings-c lears-early-hurdle/ 
  Juneau Economic Development Council. Working in Juneau. https://www.jedc.org/working-juneau 
  
  Kitchenman, A. (2019, April 19). Moving Alaska’s legislature to Anchorage could cost up to 45 million. Eye on the Arctic. https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/04/19/alaska-legislature-move-juneau-anch orage/ 
  
  Mauer, R. (2018, March 29). Why is Juneau the capital of Alaska? Alaska’s News Source. https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/content/news/Ask-Juneau-Why-is-Juneau-the-capital -of-Alaska-478342433.html
  
  National Archives. (1776, July 4). Declaration of Independence. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript 
  
  Resource and Development Council. Growing Alaska Through Responsible Resource Development. https://www.akrdc.org/oil-and-gas 
  
  State of Alaska Department of Revenue. About Us. Permanent Fund Dividend Division. https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/About-Us 
  
  State of Alaska. (1959, January 3). Alaska State Constitution. https://ltgov.alaska.gov/information/alaskas-constitution/ 
  
  United State Census Bureau. (July 1, 2019). Quickfacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/anchoragemunicipalityalaska/PST045219