Your editorial in the Jan. 7 Clarion about ACT was way off the mark! ACT filed a civil suit against the borough because they violated not only the intent of Prop 5, but also possible state law. If this claim by ACT proves to be true, does this mean the Clarion supports our government breaking the law?

You listed all the wonderful borough projects that would have failed if we actually followed ACT’s 60 percent taxpayer approval requirement. You failed to mention the ones that would have passed. If voters do not like the 60 percent requirement, they can always change that part.

Your assumption is that, “because we want it, we cannot survive without it.” I have a giant revelation for the Clarion: Alaska was not built on the presumption that we must have every little thing we want. Most homesteaders got along without “things” and survived just fine.

I trust ACT and like the fact they put issues on the ballot. More people should do that. I also trust the people to vote in favor of capital projects that are really needed or new taxes that are justified. I trust the average citizen much more than politicians, bureaucrats or their lackeys in the media.

Cathy Marshall

Kenai