The frontiersman., 1962-05-31
Palmer, Alaska May 28, 1862

May 28, 1862
 Dear Editor:
 It appears that, thru editor ialS in the Anchorage Times and other means, we are being subjected to a rather intensive propaganda effort which aims to promote the large borough concept. l do not intend to dis cuss whether the Times might better serve its readers by pre- senting both sides of the ques- ton fairly. However, it does appear to me there is definite need that someone question some of the arguments of the large burough advocates lest they become accepted as facts by default. The large burough advocated generally included the area from Mt. Mckinley to Seward or some major portion thereof.
 Generally the arguments ad- vanced assume a tWo-fold na- ture First; we are told that a larger area could plan better, and second; we are told that operation of the functions of a large bureau would be more economical. Let us consider these briefly to see if they hold up.
 Some of the arguments ad- vaneed, apparently in all ser iousnesS, are ridiculous and such is apparant to almost all. For example, certain gentle man has advocated the large borough because 1t could raise and equip it's own army in time of emergency. The absurdity of such arguments is so apparant that nothing need be said to refute them. However, they are typical of the reasoning these large burough advocates em- ploy. Actually, it is readily ap- parant that the Knik forms a natural boundary between us and the area to the south. There will never be any but state roads connecting the two areas. This doesn't mean we are going to fued or fight with them. It does mean that local planning for the two areas can best be done separately. The wider planning can be done at a state level.
 The idea apparently is being promoted that by banding to- gether we can dominate the re- mainder of the state and thus gain more advantages. l sub init that regardless of the size of any burroughs we may be in that in the future, as in the past, we will work together when our interests coincide and will not work together when they do not. This is illustrated today by the electric power sit uation.
 l think it is wrong on prin- ciple to advocate a large bur ough because it would domin- ate the rest of the state even if such were true.
 The functions of the bur oughs will be schools, planning, tax assessment and collection with secondary roads perhaps thrown in. Some burroughs may select additional responsibilit- ies. Let us consider these func- tions from the standpoint of economy. Take schools first. I doubt that anyone advocates closing the Palmer and Wasilla schools and transporting the pupils to Anchorage. Will hav- ing a burough seat in Anchor age make it cheaper to operate the schools in Palmer? There are going to be certain incon- veniences if the superintendent is moved to Anchorage and no one left here in charge. We would have to drive to Anchor age to see him. If he remains here, then where's the saving Would having officials from Anchorage make periodic su- pervisory trips cut down ex- penses? Now, naturally there are situations where increasing the size of the Ditrict reduces per pupil cost. This is where
 Legal Notice