Talk:Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2008.

You need to back up "The resulting drop in funding led to a severe effect on the provision of mental health care in Alaska".[edit]

Go look at the state budgets for the years before 1978 and the years after. You won't see a great fall off. The mental health lands were in state hands, there was no separate Mental Health Trust then - which means the income from them went through the state budgeting process - capital and operating. In Alaska in 1978 well over ninety-five percent of the land was government-owned, (with the exception of native land claims lands transfered to village and regional corporations with was much like government lands.) And back in the late fifties, early sixties, when the Mental Health lands selections were made, just about all land was owned by the federal government. (There was a little bit of homesteaded, or mining claim land, a few other kinds of grants, but in comparison to the size of the state, those were negligible. Soviet Russia had something like twice the percentage of private land ownership that Alaska had.) When Alaska had the opportunity to select lands for the Mental Health trust, they selected the choicest, best land available, most of it close to cities and some of it in quarter-acre city lots. Thereafter the trust lands sort of sat there, not really used for much of anything. Alaska has always lacked privately owned land and particularly felt it around that tie. Federal land was completely tied up (still is, really, unavailable except for wilderness use and some legacy oil leasing) and the federal government refused to let the State land selections go forward (still does.) So the Mental Health lands represented a pretty substantial part of land which the state could transfer to municipalities or otherwise bring into productive use. If those lands has been put to productive use - if it has actually been producing a stream of income to fund mental health activities - it would not have been such an attractive target. It was not. The statement that "The resulting drop in funding led to a severe effect on the provision of mental health care in Alaska." is completely false from my observation. If you want to include it, you need to include some citations - to the Alaska operating and capital budgets for the years before and after 1978. The law transfering the land out of Mental Health designation was stupid, but was not venal, as you suggest. Hypercallipygian (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from the lead and asked for a citation in the body for this claim. I didn't read your entire comment, however. Thanks for raising the issue. Biosthmors (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)