Aak’w Landing, the long-proposed cruise dock development in downtown Juneau is one step closer to reality.
During an Assembly Committee of the Whole meeting on March 17, Assembly members approved a draft ordinance empowering the city manager to begin negotiations to allow the project to proceed. The ordinance now heads to the full Assembly for a hearing and formal approval at their April 7 meeting.
With few exceptions, discussion remained positive and productive. Most Assembly members clearly realize what an economic boost this project will provide to Juneau’s economy.
The $200-million enterprise includes a cruise dock, welcome center, retail and dining options, a public park, underground parking, and an indigenous knowledge, science, and cultural center. The development will generate significant city property and sales taxes, promote healthy growth, and help staunch our declining population and shrinking tax base.
Project owner Huna Totem Corporation has plowed through a multitude of bureaucratic and legal requirements that delayed the project for years.
However, the Assembly’s predilection for over-regulation and micromanagement was on full display. Leading up to the meeting, Assembly members submitted numerous draft amendments to the proposed enabling ordinance authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a necessary tidelands lease.
While some amendments were fairly innocuous, others revealed a lack of understanding of their possible impact.
Among the more benign proposals were suggestions for HTC to participate in collaborative scheduling of cruise ships, inflation adjustments to lease payments, and a ban on rental car facilities and commercial activities on the seawalk. Most had already been discussed informally or were standard lease provisions.
Some of the more questionable amendments included:
Ships at dock no larger than 4,400 passenger capacity
Lease incentives to encourage clean fuel usage and shore power development
A right-of-first-refusal for CBJ in the event of project sale
US Coast Guard written assurance of dock compatibility with their icebreaker
During Assembly discussion, several members pointed out that these amendments could be problematic, particularly since they only pertain to the Huna Totem dock but not the other four docks in Juneau (two of which are owned by CBJ).
Ultimately, the passenger capacity amendment and the USCG approval amendment passed but the right-of-first-refusal and lease incentive amendments were defeated.
These actions are precedent-breaking, since up to now, cruise activity has been adjusted through mutual negotiation that applies to all docks. Examples include limits on daily cruise passenger numbers, hot berthing, anchoring, and lightering, as well as a 5-ship daily limit which caps additional cruise ships within the borough, regardless of the number of docks.
Apparently, city leaders are comfortable inserting restrictions on a new dock that don’t apply to other docks including their own. In fact, no other Juneau dock has any significant restrictions except borough-wide negotiated limits.
So why disadvantage one dock over another? If a provision is that important, negotiating voluntary restrictions among cruise lines that apply to all docks is a more equitable approach.
Regarding the requirement for written Coast Guard approval that the Huna Totem dock won’t impede docking of the new icebreaker, there is no existing mechanism by which that can be obtained. The USCG has no authority to “approve” someone else’s dock Surely, the city can rely on its own approved simulations or studies, as it has done with the other four docks in Juneau.
Particularly disturbing was a last-minute amendment spearheaded by Alicia Hughes-Skandijs that would arbitrarily charge above market rate for the tidelands lease. The inherent conflict of interest should be obvious since the city’s docks will compete with Aak’w Landing. The idea was tabled but may surface again.
Huna Totem has not only satisfied concerns about the project raised during public meetings, they’ve gone well beyond what’s been required of any other dock in Juneau At their expense, Huna Totem will construct a seawalk and offer shore power, even though similar existing dock improvements have been funded with passenger fees.
It isn’t in anyone’s best interest for city leaders to levy duplicative, overly-restrictive, and self-serving requirements that threaten project financial viability and ultimately could lead to further deterioration in Juneau’s economy along with higher taxes on a shrinking population.
It takes political courage to tell naysayers, “I want this city to grow, because this is the only way it will be affordable to live here.”
Thankfully, the Assembly has taken the first step.
After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.
The Alaska Legislature met in joint session today to debate a resolution that would have denied Gov. Mike Dunleavy the ability to create a Department of Agriculture.
The vote was 32-28.
It takes 31 votes in a joint session of the Alaska Legislature to disapprove or stop a governor’s executive order from becoming effective. The vote must occur within 60 days of the start of a regular legislative session, after which the order takes effect unless it has been disapproved.
A yes vote during the joint session meant the resolution was approved to deny the new department.
A no vote majority would have meant approval of the new department.
Debate was extensive, and the final vote was mainly along Democrat-Republican caucus lines.
Preliminary reports from the NTSB suggest that the plane was overloaded with cargo and baggage by more than 1,000 pounds at takeoff, a critical factor that may have contributed to the crash. Investigators are examining whether the excess weight affected the aircraft’s performance, particularly in light of reported icing conditions.
The aircraft departed Unalakleet at 2:37 pm AST under an instrument flight rules clearance, cruising at 8,000 feet mean sea level. The pilot, an experienced aviator with 2,500 total flight hours — 1,060 of which were in the Cessna 208B — was in communication with Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center throughout the flight.
As the flight neared Nome, controllers temporarily closed the airport’s runway for deicing, instructing the pilot to slow the aircraft. The pilot complied, reducing speed to approximately 110–120 knots and descending to 6,000 feet. At 3:19 pm, the autopilot disengaged, and the aircraft’s airspeed plummeted to 99 knots, then 70 knots. The aircraft continued its descent, reaching just 1,325 feet at 3:20:09 pm. The last satellite reading indicated an altitude of only 200 feet before impact moments later.
Investigators highlight in the report that the aircraft exceeded its maximum takeoff weight by an estimated 1,058 pounds due to cargo and baggage. Overloading can significantly impact an aircraft’s ability to climb, maintain altitude, and handle adverse weather conditions.
Weather reports at the time indicated light snow and potential icing between 2,000 and 8,000 feet. While the plane was equipped with a TKS ice protection system, it remains unclear whether it was fully operational at the time of impact. Wreckage analysis revealed minor ice accumulation, but the exact role of icing in the crash is still under review.
Search teams discovered the wreckage scattered across a floating icepack in Norton Sound. The aircraft sustained significant impact damage but showed no signs of in-flight structural failure. Authorities continue to analyze avionics data, pilot actions, and external factors to determine the primary cause of the crash.
The Alaska Food Policy Council will host the 2025 Alaska Food Festival and Conference in Kodiak on March 28 and 29, with the opportunity to attend virtually if tickets are purchased by March 25.
Everyone is welcome! This gathering is an opportunity for those who value local food production and innovation to collaborate with others who are interested in strengthening Alaska’s food security.
“Community Table: Collaboration for a Sustainable Food Future” is the theme for this year’s event. The 2025 Alaska Food Festival and Conference is all about making Alaska’s food systems stronger by highlighting local, state, and federal food issues, providing resources, training, and networking opportunities, and connecting Alaskans, food businesses, tribal groups, and decision-makers to support economic growth and innovation.
The cost to attend virtually is $100 plus a $7.40 fee. Tickets can be purchased online here.
“We envision a stronger, more self-reliant Alaska where our farmers, fishermen, ranchers, and food businesses are better connected, supported, and equipped to grow our local and regional food systems. Alaskans know the value, and necessity, of working together. This event helps to sustain lasting networks of producers, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and industry leaders who can support each other, create new opportunities, and ensure that more Alaska Grown and harvested food makes it to our tables-strengthening our communities and our future.” – Robbi Mixon, AFPC Executive Director
This is the 8th Alaska Food Festival and Conference and the second hybrid event, with both in-person and virtual attendance options. The festivals are held every 18 months to allow accessibility to farmers, fishermen, and other food producers who may not have the same growing and harvesting seasons.
For more information visit the Alaska food Policy Council website:
That got my attention because whenever someone precedes the words “justice” or “rights” with a qualifier, it usually means that the rights are specific to a particular group of people and trump the rights of others.
One example of this would be legally forcing landlords to accept tenants by default because they are ethnic minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ group while disregarding other factors that may go into a landlord’s decision process. Or taxing white citizens more for the sins of their fathers while using the proceeds to fund programs that are intended to level the playing field for minorities that have traditionally been treated poorly.
In both of these examples (real or hypothetical), the state is attempting to right wrongs by making things worse, and the same could be said of how we approach the homeless situation.
To be clear, homelessness should absolutely not be a crime or a cause for discrimination. Being down and out is no sin and no offense to society. If lack of shelter was all we associated with homelessness, I do not think people would be jaded and cynical about the situation.
That being said, a lot of our trails, parks, and public places have become unsafe and unclean. You are liable to encounter scattered needles, razor blades, garbage, fire hazards, and deranged individuals. There is also always the threat of indecent exposure.
I have nearly stopped taking my kids to most places in Anchorage because I have seen more indecent acts in Anchorage than I have ever seen anywhere else. It is a real problem, but few in office seem to have realistic solutions.
The homelessness crisis has also imposed a heavy burden on local and state medical systems.
The last time I had to go to the emergency room due to a work-related injury, the doctor was barely able to see me because he was being run ragged by having to attend to transients and addicts. I had part of my finger missing, and someone on a gurney not far from me was shouting at the nurses, acting like a maniac, and complaining about how the Narcan made him feel sick!
I know I’m not the only one who has witnessed similar scenes of disorder. There are countless examples if you just have eyes to see and ears to hear.
We have a problem, and the problem is not that homeless people lack rights. If anything, our city and our state are remarkably tolerant of their behavior, which effectively amounts to various forms of lawlessness that we have failed to effectively prosecute. Other than cannabis, most of the drugs they are using are not legal.
On top of that, we still have laws against disorderly conduct, indecent exposure, harassment, intimidation, larceny, theft, reckless endangerment, vandalism, and a whole litany of crimes that many people in our homeless community regularly commit. When we allow them to commit those crimes and do not hold them accountable with adequate consequences, we effectively allow them special immunity to continue committing those crimes because we have a misguided view of “social justice” that does not allow any “oppressed” individual to be held accountable for the problems they cause others.
There is a way out of this, and it’s called sanity. We don’t need to criminalize homelessness, and we don’t need to give them special privileges either. We need to enforce our laws impartially. If average citizens cannot get away with doing some things, the homeless should not be allowed to get away with doing those same things.
I understand that life is hard for these people, but that is not an excuse. No excuse, however legitimate, ever got me out of a traffic ticket or a fishing violation. Why, then, would we want to make the problem worse with a homeless bill of rights?
Nolan Willis is a lifelong Alaskan, a Bristol Bay Commercial Fisherman, a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer, and the current Chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Alaska Section. His work experience spans the worlds of utilities, energy, communications, and naval nuclear propulsion.
President Donald Trump’s directive of March 17 ordered all records previously withheld for classification that are part of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection to be released by the National Archives. They were released Tuesday.
The new JFK files document set is over 63,000 pages long. Must Read Alaska has obviously not read them all. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated that more of the documents will be released soon.
Alaskan John Quick, former host of the Must Read Alaska Show podcast and now producer of a political true crime podcast, took the entire document and ran it through the paid version of ChatGPT (the most sophisticated version) artificial intelligence program. The conclusion by AI says that there were multiple entities colluding in Kennedy’s assassination, including the CIA and organized crime:
As of March 18, 2025, the records are available to access either online at this page or in person, via hard copy or on analog media formats, at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland. As the records continue to be digitized, they will be posted to the archive’s web page.
Alaska was admitted to the Union under the promise of self-governance and control over its vast natural resources. However, federal overreach has continuously eroded the state’s sovereignty, reducing it to a regulatory colony rather than an independent state.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) (ADEC v. EPA) solidified the federal government’s ability to override state regulatory decisions, while the historical expansion of federal power under NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) provided the legal foundation for a bloated administrative state that dictates policies far removed from the constitutional structure of governance.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA (2002), announced the arrival of the major questions doctrine, a substantive canon of construction that bars agencies from resolving questions of “vast economic and political significance” without clear Congressional statutory authorization. West Virginia v. EPA provides a pathway for curtailing these abuses. What will Alaska do to restore its rightful sovereignty over its land and economy?
Adding to this crisis is the fact that the federal government controls over 60% of Alaska’s land, a situation that is not only a direct violation of the promises made at statehood but also an unconstitutional concentration of power. The federal government’s continued dominion over vast swaths of Alaska prevents meaningful resource development, stifles economic growth, and undermines state sovereignty.
A concerted effort must be made to dismantle these unconstitutional regulatory regimes, overturn unjust legal precedents, and demand the transfer of all federal lands not explicitly authorized by the Constitution to the State of Alaska.
The Legal Framework of Federal Overreach: From NLRB v. Jones to ADEC v. EPA
The foundation of federal regulatory expansion was laid in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), where the Supreme Court drastically redefined the scope of the Commerce Clause. Prior to this decision, federal authority was limited to regulating actual interstate commerce, not the operations of individual businesses within state borders. NLRB v. Jones overturned this precedent by ruling that purely intrastate activities, such as labor disputes within a single manufacturing plant, could be federally regulated if they had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce.
This ruling led to the unchecked growth of the administrative state, enabling federal agencies to exert direct control over economic activity that was traditionally under state jurisdiction. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became an unaccountable entity that dictated employment and labor policies across all industries, regardless of whether their operations actually crossed state lines. This set the stage for broader federal interventions, including the disastrous ruling in ADEC v. EPA, where Alaska’s environmental policies were unilaterally overridden by a distant, unelected bureaucracy.
Why pretend Alaska has self-governance when Washington holds the ultimate veto? State agencies exist in name only, their authority a mere illusion—paper tigers against the iron grip of federal control. When over 60% of Alaska remains shackled under federal ownership, every state decision is subject to bureaucratic whim, every ambition throttled by a system designed to keep Alaska dependent. If sovereignty is just a show, why maintain the facade at all?
In ADEC v. EPA, the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s authority to reject the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s decision regarding Best Available Controlling Technology (BACT) for pollution control. This ruling stripped Alaska of its ability to manage its own environmental regulations and imposed an unlawful precedent where state agencies are treated as mere enforcers of federal policy rather than autonomous governing bodies. The logic of NLRB v. Jones—where the federal government dictates state economic policy under the guise of commerce—was here applied to environmental regulation, further entrenching federal control over state matters.
This continuous erosion of Alaska’s sovereignty is exacerbated by the reality that over 60% of the state’s land remains under federal control. This is not just an administrative burden—it is a direct contradiction to the constitutional limits on federal land ownership. The Constitution only permits federal land holdings for specific purposes such as military installations and national defense (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). The vast swaths of Alaskan land controlled by the federal government do not meet these criteria and should rightfully be handed over to state control.
The federal government’s control over 60% of Alaska’s land is unconstitutional yet why hasn’t Alaska developed the legal predicate and aggressively gone to battle?
The federal government’s control over 60% of Alaska’s land exceeds constitutional limits on federal land ownership under the Enclave and Property Clauses. It violates the Tenth Amendment by denying Alaska full sovereignty over its land. It breaches the Alaska Statehood Compact and violates the Equal Footing Doctrine. It ignores constitutional limits on federal retention of land set by prior Supreme Court precedent.
Alaska has the constitutional right to demand the return of these lands, sue for enforcement of the Statehood Compact, and challenge federal overreach in court under these principles.
West Virginia v. EPA: A Pathway for Reclaiming State Sovereignty
A potential turning point in dismantling this federal regulatory colonization came in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s authority to impose sweeping regulatory changes without clear congressional authorization. This case reaffirmed the principle that federal agencies cannot unilaterally expand their power beyond the limits set by Congress and the Constitution.
Key Findings from West Virginia v. EPA:
The EPA exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to regulate carbon emissions in a manner not explicitly authorized by Congress.
The Court reinforced the major questions doctrine, stating that regulatory agencies cannot decide issues of vast economic and political significance without explicit congressional approval.
This decision curbed the ability of unelected federal bureaucrats to impose broad, industry-altering mandates without legislative oversight.
The logic of West Virginia v. EPA provides a direct pathway for overturning ADEC v. EPA. The EPA’s interference in Alaska’s environmental decisions is a textbook example of bureaucratic overreach beyond the agency’s statutory authority. If the EPA’s emissions policies were unlawful under West Virginia v. EPA, then its ability to overrule ADEC’s permitting decisions must also be reevaluated under the same standard.
Furthermore, the case strengthens the argument that NLRB v. Jones was an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause. If federal agencies can no longer claim broad regulatory authority without explicit congressional approval, then the NLRB’s control over purely intrastate labor relations must also be challenged. The Supreme Court’s renewed commitment to limiting administrative overreach presents a unique opportunity for Alaska as well as all states to reclaim control over their labor laws, environmental policies, and land management decisions.
Restoring Alaska’s Sovereignty: A Plan of Action
Alaska must challenge NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Alaska has the legal resources to join legal challenges that seek to redefine the Commerce Clause and overturn the substantial effects test, restoring limits on federal power over intrastate activities. By following the thread of state sovereignty created by the West Virginia v. EPA decision, will this provide a strong precedent for rolling back Commerce Clause overreach in employment, business regulation, and resource development?
The Alaska Department of Law (DOL) must file a constitutional challenge against ADEC v. EPA. With this challenge, DOL files a lawsuit arguing that the EPA’s authority to override state permitting decisions is an unconstitutional delegation of power. By using the major questions doctrine, Alaska should argue that environmental regulatory decisions fall within state authority unless explicitly preempted by Congress. In the same breath with this filing, Alaska now can also demand the transfer of federal lands to the State of Alaska
Alaska’s state legislature must push for legislation that forces the federal government to relinquish all landholdings not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The Alaska Statehood Compact must be enforced, compelling the federal government to honor its agreements and return lands necessary for the state’s economic viability.
Alaska’s most strategic legal doctrine is a combination of Major Questions Doctrine (to limit federal agencies) and Tenth Amendment-Based Compact Enforcement (to reclaim land and state sovereignty). This dual approach leverages Supreme Court precedent while forcing Congress to recognize Alaska’s constitutional right to full statehood.
No better time has ever occurred for Alaska to enlist the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its legal battle. This enlistment can take all of the following forms:
Request a DOJ Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Cases
Direct Negotiation with DOJ to Reverse Federal Land Holdings
Suing the Federal Government WITH DOJ’s Support
Leveraging DOJ’s Role in Environmental and Land Management Policy
Strengthen State-Based Resource Development Laws
Alaska’s legislature can pass constitutional provisions reaffirming exclusive state control over resource development and prohibiting deference to federal regulatory agencies.
The state must actively promote oil, gas, and mining projects without federal approval, setting the stage for a direct confrontation with Washington, D.C.
Conclusion
Alaska’s sovereignty is under assault from both internal and external forces. NLRB v. Jones laid the foundation for unconstitutional federal overreach, ADEC v. EPA solidified Washington’s power to override state authority, and the continued federal control of over 60% of Alaska’s land is a direct affront to Alaska’s status as a state.
Can West Virginia v. EPA serve as a precedent to dismantle these overreaches? Will a shift in leadership at the U.S. Department of Justice create an opening for Alaska to redefine its relationship with the federal government?
The time has come to challenge these unconstitutional precedents, reclaim state land, and assert Alaska’s rightful control over its own destiny. Without decisive action, Alaska will remain a regulatory colony—hemorrhaging millions, if not billions, to its own gelded agencies, which exist only to enforce federal dictates. This gutted regulatory authority serves only Washington bureaucrats.
Are we truly a sovereign state, or have we become nothing more than a province of an overreaching federal government?
Michael Tavoliero is a writer for Must Read Alaska.
Independent journalist James O’Keefe has pioneered the exposing of corruption through the use of undercover recording devices. The list of big stories he’s broken is unparalleled.
But Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is sponsoring a bill that would all but shut down O’Keefe’s ability to conduct his unique investigations in Alaska.
Two years ago in Alaska, O’Keefe’s investigator secretly recorded one of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s campaign staff admitting the senior senator was backing rank choice voting. That was something Murkowski, up to that point, had not admitted.
O’Keefe’s most famous investigation involved secretly recording Planned Parenthood officials bragging about selling for profit body parts of aborted babies in California.
Dunleavy’s bill, SB85, would require “all-party consent” before recording a conversation. Current Alaska law and the law of 36 other states only require one party consent before starting a secret recording. Most of the states that have all-party consent, interestingly, lean heavily Democrat: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
This bill would mean that every individual involved in a private communication must agree before its details can be recorded. The ambiguity of the provision raises concerns for journalists.
Dunleavy’s bill would have different standards for the public and the government. Independent journalists or citizens would not be able to secretly record a conversation with a government official unless all parties agree, but government officials can continue to record with only one-party consent.
Critics say this is a dangerous double standard considering the recent rampant prosecutorial abuse under former Democrat President Joe Biden involving the Department of Justice, the IRS, the FBI, and local district attorneys.
Under Dunleavy’s bill, if a citizen or independent journalist secretly records a government official or politician admitting to taking a bribe or committing a crime, it’s the citizen or journalist that would be in violation of the law.
Dunleavy’s bill also has no exception for a potential whistle blower wanting to expose corruption at a government agency using a secret recording of co-workers to do so.
Since Dunleavy’s bill greatly restricts press freedom, it may face court challenges. Courts have sometimes protected secret recordings under the First Amendment when they serve a compelling public interest (e.g., exposing corruption). However, SB 85’s broad language offers no such safeguard, potentially inviting litigation.
It seems as though independent and often conservative journalists like O’Keefe are the only reporters attempting to expose government corruption. Legacy media outlets like the Anchorage Daily News, KTUU, and Alaska Public Media seem incurious about government waste, fraud, and abuse.
If Dunleavy’s bill passes, it could be a major set back for conservative journalism in Alaska.
Dan Fagan reports and writes columns for Must Read Alaska. He’s covered Alaska politics for close to 30-years. He currently hosts a morning drive radio talk show on 1020 am 92.5 and 104.5 fm on KVNT. For news tips, email Dan at [email protected]
Richard Best, who has been on the Palmer City Council since 2006, resigned Tuesday, effective immediately. He had come under pressure for recent actions that drew criticism from his fellow council members.
At the next full council meeting, Mayor Steve Carrington is expected to accept the resignation formally and begin the process of appointing a replacement. Carrington himself is facing a recall from a citizen who believes he acted improperly in the matter of the recently fired city manager.
Best has had other controversies during his tenure, and most recently faced charges for driving under the influence, charges that were dropped in a plea agreement that included losing his license for three months.
