By Edward D. Martin Jr.
Alaska did not enter the Union by accident. It entered under a specific design.
When Congress admitted Alaska as a state, it understood something fundamental: Alaska had no private land base, no established property tax system, and no realistic way to support self-government using the same tools as other states. Therefore, Congress chose a different model: instead of funding Alaska through ongoing federal support, statehood was structured around land.
Alaska was given the right to select vast amounts of federal land over time— land meant to support communities, enable local government, and form the economic foundation of a self-governing state. This land was not symbolic. It was intended to function as Alaska’s substitute for the internal improvement grants and revenue mechanisms earlier states had relied upon.
Land was how Alaska was expected to grow up. That design matters because it explains many conflicts Alaskans argue about today.
The Statehood Act does not require the federal government to give up all the land nor does it prohibit federal withdrawals. However, it does repeatedly tie Alaska’s land selections to community development, expansion, and practical use. The Act anticipates towns that did not yet exist. It requires land to be selected in workable, connected areas. It treats land access as a continuing responsibility of state government, not as a one-time gift.
In plain terms, statehood promised that enough land would remain available, accessible, and usable for Alaska to build local authority and long-term fiscal capacity. That promise never fully materialized.
Over time, large portions of land became unavailable or difficult to use. Development clustered unevenly. Local governments formed slowly or not at all. Yet the responsibilities of statehood never changed. Alaska was still expected to educate its children, maintain infrastructure, and govern a vast territory.
Rather than insisting on land access, Alaska adapted to land restrictions. Centralized revenue replaced local tax bases. Bureaucracy substituted for settlement. The Permanent Fund became a stabilizer for the volatility that land was once expected to absorb. Dividends became a stand-in for equity that ownership and local development were supposed to provide.
Although the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act resolved Native (ANCSA) land claims and was both historic and necessary, it did not replace the broader land-based framework statehood promised. Neither ANCSA nor the Permanent Fund was intended to substitute for local self-government. Both became part of a system that managed around an unfinished design instead of completing it.
This issue is a result of policy choices planting certain seeds— the seeds of federal overreach mixed with state avoidance— and over time those seeds produced predictable results: dependency, division, and endless conflict over money instead of responsibility.
Common sense tells us this: a durable self-government cannot be built without a functioning land system. Local responsibility cannot be expected without local authority. And symptoms cannot be managed forever without addressing the root cause.
Alaska was not meant to beg. It was meant to build. Until we realign modern policy with the land-based design embedded in statehood, we will keep arguing over the weeds rather than restoring the ground they grew from.
Edward Martin, Jr. is a retired 50+ year IUOE, General Contractor and long-time Alaskan with a strong belief in the National and State Constitutions and the inherent rights of citizens. He devotes his retirement to investigating Constitutional violation(s) in hopes of protecting the eternal rights of liberty.
COMING SOON: keep an eye out for the coming-soon column addressing what Alaskans and the Legislature can do to begin restoring land-based self-government.