EDITORIAL: Defending the legacy of an Alaska titan

The proposal to rename the Port of Alaska after former Rep. Don Young that came before the Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday was as close to a slam-dunk as political matters get. A multipartisan panel formed to make a recommendation on the issue returned with unanimous approval of the renaming, and all three members of Alaska’s congressional delegation penned a letter in support.

So how did the Assembly manage to fumble the matter so completely, devolving into disparagement of Young and his legacy before ultimately tabling it indefinitely? Simply put, they let their out-of-touch ideology outweigh Young’s legacy, simultaneously diminishing his contributions to Alaska and giving outsize consideration to the congressman’s penchant for coarse and sometimes regrettable language. To watch it was to witness a pack of political lightweights biting at the ankles of a departed giant.

The case for the renaming is clear: Young, who in his pre-Congress life had been a tugboat captain and barge operator on the Yukon River, spent decades helping develop Alaska’s transportation infrastructure. Because of his background serving villages along the river, he was particularly invested in modernizing public facilities in communities off the road system. It was Young’s commitment to rural Alaska that figured largely in panel member Aaron Leggett (president of the Native Village of Eklutna) recommending the port be renamed after him.

The Assembly’s intransigence on the port renaming can’t be explained simply by party differences — Rep. Mary Peltola, herself a Democrat who succeeded Young in Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat, cosigned the letter from Alaska’s congressional delegation. That letter underscored Young’s willingness to work across the aisle for the betterment of Alaska: “Understanding that major investments in infrastructure are needed in Alaska, including at the Port of Alaska,” the letter reads, “Congressman Young rallied key support in the House to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, securing billions of dollars to provide critical support to big and small ports throughout Alaska.” It was maddening to see the Assembly at times be not just dismissive, but even openly hostile toward our congressional delegation, who will be critical in securing federal funds to complete the port reconstruction.

Unmoved by the exhortations of Alaska’s leaders and the panel convened specifically for the port-renaming task, Assembly members reduced Young’s contributions to our state to a reductive dichotomy. “Don Young had his day for Alaska, but he aged into someone who was insensitive, a bully and disrespected women,” said Assembly member Karen Bronga. “Rewarding a public figure for this bad behavior because he brought the state money is not in the best interest of our city.” Bronga even suggested naming a volcano after Don Young was sufficient rather than the port. It was a petty and embarrassing statement about a man who did more to uplift Alaskans than any of the Assembly members would in 10 lifetimes.

Other members found esoteric reasons to reject the name, quibbling about the bureaucratic process involved and even managing, in an act of political gymnastics, to somehow blame the mayor for the predicament they found themselves in. Assembly members have only themselves to blame here. Particularly sad was a sense of apathy from members, including Chair Christopher Constant, who declared he didn’t care what they named it. Honoring the legacy of the former Dean of the House clearly didn’t rise to the level of being worth his interest. The only person on the dais that day who rose to make a full-throated endorsement of our former congressman was the mayor’s chief of staff Mario Bird, who was unequivocal in defense of Young’s legacy.

The more justifications Assembly members gave for their desire to ignore the naming panel’s recommendation and shunt the issue to yet another commission in hopes of a different result, the clearer it became that their true motivation is based on personal enmity, not high-minded principles. In minimizing what he did, the members of the Assembly didn’t manage to make him any smaller — but they proved themselves positively Lilliputian in comparison, grasping at straws to delay or deny Alaska’s longest-serving member of Congress anything that could be seen as a feather in his cap.

Outside of the insular circles that Assembly members inhabit, they may be surprised to discover between now and Jan. 9 (when the issue will be back before the body after the Assembly decided to reconsider its action) how far out of step they are with the sentiments of the public at large on this issue. Regardless of their feelings about Don Young, Assembly members should cut their losses and abide by the recommendation of the port naming panel and Alaska’s congressional delegation. It’s too late to walk back their trivializing comments, but if they respect their roles as representatives of the public’s will on the matter, they should make the easiest votes of their careers and proceed with renaming the port after Young.