The people of Homer and the surrounding area need to think of themselves as investors in their community, somewhat similar to the way a group of people invest their money in a stock mutual fund. The citizens of the area also need to recognize that the people who are charged with managing the government in Homer are, in effect, the managers of our mutual fund in which we are all invested. If Homer is being managed well, the mill rate charged on assets in Homer should be ever decreasing, and the market value of the assets in Homer should be increasing. If the mill rate on property goes up, what the government is telling you is that we failed in our job to maintain the value of your assets, but we want the taxpayers of Homer to give us a pay raise anyway.

When one looks to create an economic plan for a city like Homer, one needs to look at the things that differentiate it, or could differentiate it, from other areas that are nearby. Also, it needs to look at ways to maintain and enhance its economic base without losing its uniqueness or damaging the quality of life that its citizens enjoy.

The city of Homer gets most of its revenue (excluding state revenue sharing) from two basic sources: sales taxes and property taxes. Any economic plan should be designed to increase these two sources of income without putting an unneeded financial strain on its citizens. Homer is about to fail on both of these accounts if it is not careful.

Franchises and box stores, owned by large outside financial interests, should not be allowed in Homer. While I do support the efforts of many in our community to limit the size of these large box stores, it is not the square footage of these stores that matters most. It is the large amounts of money and credit that these stores have that will destroy our current economic base by running large numbers of locally owned businesses out of business. If local businesses are forced to close, unemployment will rise, revenue to Homer in the form of sales taxes and property taxes will decrease and government services will decline. It is true that over the short run, people in our community may benefit from lower costs on items they consume, but after these mega stores run the local businesses out of town, prices in the long run will be much higher. People in Homer will tell you we can't put such a ban on these box stores and franchises. I would encourage people to look at the town of Hanover, N.H. If they can do it, why not Homer?

Homer also needs to protect its residential property tax base. This is best done by putting policies in place that restrict development. Homer needs to recognize that a great deal of the value of its tax base occurs because of its natural setting and its enviromental assets. Policies that have been used in the past are such things as placing a cap on the number of kitchens allowed in your city. Such a policy is used now in the city of Mendocino, Calif. In the Lake Tahoe area, they restrict the number of bathrooms built. The reasons these policies work is a simple one. People who like less development will pay premium prices to live in such a community, which means less city services need be provided to fewer people and your property tax base becomes much stronger.

In the end, the city of Homer needs to recognize that the homeowners and local business owners have made a substantial personal investment in this community. It is best for Homer as a community to see that these businesses prosper. It is also very important to recognize the value of all our natural assets, and put policies in place to protect them. The alternative is to clear-cut trees and put in large outside-owned stores that provide little economic benefit to our society, then watch our quality of life go down the tube. That is not why I live in this area, and I am sure there are many others in this area who feel the same way I do.

Larsen Klingel, lifelong Alaskan, entrepreneur and 14-year Homer area resident.*