By Naomi Klouda
Photo courtesy of the Homer Tribune. Fishing boats ply Kachemak Bay outside of Homer, the halibut capital of Alaska. Even though more halibut passes the Homer docks than anywhere else in the state, it gets less revenue from the Fisheries Business Tax than communities with fish-processing plants.
A redistribution of the Fisheries Business Tax could net the city of Homer $800,000 to $900,000 a year, if amendments to a current law get passed by the Alaska Legislature.
The process has just begun as one of the top tasks assigned to the city’s new lobbyists, Linda Anderson and Yuri Morgan. The first step is to build a coalition of support from towns in coastal areas that would also benefit from the tax restructure, City Manager Walt Wrede said.
As it is now, 50 percent of the raw fish tax goes to the state and 50 percent to towns that have fish-processing plants. But ports where the activity amounts to icing down fish and hauling it out receive no tax.
“This amounts to changing an antiquated law that was written when we had a lot of canneries,” Wrede said. “Now the market is for fresh fish. The law was written at a time when every town had a cannery, with the idea the state keeps 50 percent and 50 percent goes to the municipality. Our problem is that in Homer, we are a huge halibut port but we don’t process halibut here.”
By Zirrus VanDevere, for the Redoubt Reporter
Laurie Marta’s work is bathed in sunlight at Kaladi Brothers on the Sterling Highway in Soldotna.
Fiber works, photography, ink and watercolor abound around town this month.
Brenda Clyde and Sharon Hughes have some quilted pieces lining the walls at the Cottonwood Center on Marydale Avenue. Clyde has designed all of the works (although Chelline Larsen had a hand in one, apparently by allowing the use of her animal motifs), and quilted some smaller pieces, as well as a wearable vest. Continue reading
Filed under art, Art Seen
By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter
Properly stored and protected digital photographs should still be in decent condition after we’re all dust.
In fact, modern digital photography materials may potentially outlive anything produced with film and chemicals, no matter how well processed and stored. Longevity depends on several factors. The inherent shelf life of the material used for a photographic print or negative is an obvious point. How an image is stored, mounted and displayed is also quite important. We’ll consider these technical factors next week.
First, let’s consider the physical safety of digital images in both electronic and printed forms. In many regards, protecting digitally based images is no different than securing any other form of electronic data.
There are many classic and true examples of well-preserved and important images that are no longer with us because they were physically destroyed, either by accident or intentionally. One well-known example has a particular resonance for Alaskans.
I have often enjoyed Ansel Adams’ famous black-and-white image of Mount McKinley from Wonder Lake, but wondered why I did not see more photographs taken by Adams in Alaska. After all, he described Alaska as one of the places that most inspired him, and he did have a yearlong Guggenheim grant that paid his expenses while traveling throughout the state.
The “rest of the story” could have happened to anyone. When returning to Juneau from Glacier Bay by floatplane, the large case containing almost all of his undeveloped Alaska negatives fell into the salt water. Only a very few images, the ones we see today, survived the dunking. This wasn’t his first encounter with disaster. Many of his important earlier negatives were destroyed in a fire at his Yosemite house. Continue reading