I am writing in response to several letters I've read lately about progress and development and growth of the Homer area of the Kenai Peninsula. Mostly people who live here in Homer want to keep it a rural unpopulated adventure in the Alaska wilderness, or at least that is what it appears to me, as a new member of the Homer society. I have brought with me several other family members to live here, and we make a big family of eight people all together. We try to contribute to the society, and also we are takers of the society by the very nature of being human. We do like Homer and as long as possible we would like to stay. It is our right in a free society and by virtue of choice.
I believe you cannot stop people or progress of the area. What if 100 years ago when there were only five people (let's say for sample sake a number), they decided that this area was beautiful and they wanted to keep that beauty all to themselves. Suppose they decided between the five of them that they wanted no one else to move into the area and they would do anything to make that happen to protect their home. That means anyone who happened upon this area was tough-out-of-luck for establishing themselves as a legitimate homeowner and resident of the area. Besides, the first five people said no more people or it would be overpopulated and become ugly.
Right, is that not the justification for what the people are writing about against overpopulating the area and making it undesirable for those who already live here and want no intrusion on their lovely home and the countryside? That means anyone who came in after the first five are now intruders on the first five; that means everyone who moves into the area is now trespassing.
What happens if the first five decide to get married and have children? Are they going to knock off the others so there will still only be five people living in Homer? Maybe I'm overly exaggerating things a bit, but think about what you are saying. You are welcome, but no one after you? That's very selfish and not realistic.
I like Homer and so does my family. We like fishing, we like playing ball and we are getting used to rain and also the eagles that soar so freely in the sky. I like to paint and draw, I like Bishop's Beach and my children are doing pretty well in school. But we could also just as easily go back to the Lower 48 and tell them that Alaskans want no more people moving here. There are enough now, no more, sorry.
Maybe that is why Alaska has the worst budget problems in the nation? I'm not too much of a political person, but I do believe we live in the greatest nation on Earth, and Alaska is part of that nation. You all do get benefits from being a state, right? Or do you want to go back to being a territory, or better yet give Alaska back to the Natives who originally lived here undisturbed by Outsiders. That means we all have to get out!
I don't think any of you are willing to do that. I think there is going to be progress in this area of Alaska, and there have to be some freedoms, and there have to be some laws to protect innocent people, animals and the environment. We are responsible for those things.
Also, one thing of note just for information sake: one day while I was with a group of students from school on a field trip to Pratt Museum, there was a discussion about the birds of Alaska and the subject of the puffins came up. One of the students responded that the puffin was a bad bird because he smokes. All those little cute pictures where puffins are smoking and they have that big crossed out sign across them gave this student the idea that that cute little bird who is innocent of any wrongdoing is a shady character.
Maybe you should all reconsider how you use nature, It has influenced this young child and maybe others were thinking the same thing.