From the Wall Street Journal:
The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
Comments
And when I look at the front page of the LA Times, the Republicans are now leading.
Facts don't matter to most people.
Posted by: Phil | September 10, 2008 1:05 PM
The LA times is wrong. The most current data shows that the Obama is just edging out McCain.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 10, 2008 1:55 PM
I understand that when she came into office the town had little if any debt outstanding. When she left it was over $18 million in the red. A substantial burden for a town, at the, time, of only 5000 people. A debt of over $3600 per person.
In addition to servicing this debt the town is further burdened with having to heat, light and maintain this white elephant. A building that I understand stands unused for much of the time.
It would also be interesting to track down how the building of this monstrosity was financed and contracted out to see how these people were selected, who made money on the deal ,and what relationships were forged by it being built.
What do you suppose the odds are that Palin earned political contributions and long-term connections by steering the contracts that put the town she was in charge of into debt.
Posted by: Art | September 10, 2008 3:50 PM
For more than two decades Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, has maintained an index of "institutional powers" in state offices. He rates governorships on potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors. Mr. Beyle's findings for 2008 rate Alaska at 4.1 on a scale of 5. The national average is 3.5.
Only four other states -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia -- concentrate as much power in the Governor's office as Alaska does, and only one state (Massachusetts) concentrates more. California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record. The lowest rating goes to Vermont (2.5), where the Governor (remember Howard Dean) is a figurehead compared to Mrs. Palin.
In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarters majority of the Legislature. In 1992, the year Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant.
Posted by: Dan Good | September 10, 2008 4:16 PM
Unless you meant: "Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant[?]" your clearly confusing the power of the office with her personal power and effectiveness as an executive. Palin was indeed given a lot of power when she took office. Power she failed to use effectively to benefit the long-term interests of her state. Something that should have been child's play given all the power vested in the office she held.
Her main accomplishment was she got a slightly less sweet, and somewhat less corrupt, sweetheart deal for some of the oil companies and she took the difference and bolstered the the the direct cash payments to Alaskans. In effect cash for being an Alaskan and the real reason she is popular. (Handing out cash is always a short-term way of being popular. It has also worked in Iraq) But she allowed the Alaskan infrastructure to further deteriorate. A victory for short-term feel good politics over long-term investment.
On the other hand, while Alaska watches its infrastructure deteriorate she was quite effective in parlaying this great power you describe into personal political gain.
Given time , and a minimal level of awareness, Alaska will soon enough regret Palin's short-term thinking and self-serving policy priorities. The roads and bridges are falling apart and this time, unlike when she was for the 'bridge to nowhere' and then against it, but got the $225 million anyway, federal earmarks may not come to Alaska. The Alaskans are looking at a big bill to correct for the neglect and short-term, feel-good, thinking of Palin's term.
Posted by: Art | September 10, 2008 4:56 PM
It would seem 65% of Alaskans disagree with you as well as a majority of the American Public. But delusional thoughts can be soothing in light of the panic and meltdown.
Posted by: Dan Good | September 10, 2008 10:00 PM
Dan, Art wasn't arguing that Palin isn't popular in Alaska. He was addressing why. It worked to get Pawlenty re-elected in Minnesota, too--right before the 35W bridge fell down.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | September 10, 2008 10:27 PM