Photo courtesy of Peter Metcalfe via his Facebook post
NOTN- Residents living near the Governor’s Mansion are calling on city officials to address their safety concerns surrounding an “armed encampment” following an incident earlier this month where a young black bear was shot and later euthanized by the Department of Fish and Game due to its fatal injuries.
According to a post on the Juneau Community Collective, concerned residents living above Capital Avenue have sent a letter to the City and Borough of Juneau and nearby property owners saying the July 9 incident has prompted renewed concerns about conditions at the encampment.
The post described the site as an “armed encampment” and said residents are seeking a long-term solution to what they say are ongoing public safety issues and “outrages’ in the neighborhood.
Residents are asking others who have witnessed incidents associated with the encampment to come forward.
Below is the full letter written by Peter Metcalfe with the exclusion of addresses and personal information for resident’s privacy.
To the officials and offices named above:
The encampment on Capital Avenue, a longtime obnoxious nuisance, has become a threat to public safety.
Earlier this month, a person living in that camp shot a young black bear that was up a tree at the edge of the encampment. The animal was grievously wounded, and a Fish and Game officer had to track it down to put the young bear out of its misery.
The shots that wounded the bear were fired upward, likely toward the Fosbee, a 30-unit apartment building directly above the site. The apartment building is in our densely populated Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
We live directly across from the Fosbee Apartments. We ask that the squatter camp on Capital Ave. be removed before someone is seriously hurt.
According to the CBJ Parcel Viewer, this encampment is on city land and shares boundaries with property owned by AEL&P, the Central Council, and a privately owned parcel (701 Capital Ave). All these properties are adversely affected by the encampment and its widely scattered piles of garbage, which are irresistible to bears.
This did not come out of nowhere. For years, the camp has created conditions no neighborhood should have to endure: clouds of toxic smoke, garbage piles measured by the truckload, and human and household waste left directly on the ground. Discarded hypodermic needles litter the area around the camp and have been dragged with other refuse by bears into the surrounding neighborhood, presenting hazards to people, pets, and wildlife.
When one of us stopped by to ask two of the occupants about the toxic smoke, their twitchy behavior was consistent with heavy methamphetamine or similar stimulant use.
Frequently, in the pre-dawn hours, residents are woken by disturbances from the site, where drugs are used openly and what appear to be drug sales occur. Now that we know the people in this camp are armed and willing to fire weapons with no regard for who is nearby, we have reason to fear for our safety.
Since the encampment is on city-owned property, CBJ clearly has the authority and responsibility to act, and its ownership removes any question of deferring to another party. The city’s own guidance calls for intervention once an encampment repeatedly harms the surrounding community, with trash accumulation and open drug use named as the triggers. This camp crossed that line years ago and has now escalated to gunfire toward occupied homes. Recent court decisions have also made clear that CBJ may enforce limits on camping on public land, so this is well within its authority.
Clearing the camp by itself will not fix this. The city has collaborated with AEL&P to remove encampments like this that have crossed the line, and with the Central Council to clean up this site.
We are now asking the city, through the Division of Lands & Resources and the Police Department, to clear the Capital Avenue camp, clean up the site, and then secure the area against re-encampment so that this stops being a recurring hazard, and to coordinate any support services the occupants may need as part of that process.
Photographs documenting current conditions at the site are attached to this letter.
We would appreciate a written response identifying who is handling this matter and what will be done. Thank you for your attention to a serious hazard in the heart of our community.
Respectfully,
Sandra and Peter Metcalfe, and on behalf of the following residents of the Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
Campaign signs for Democrats Matt Schultz and Tom Begich are seen in a Midtown Anchorage yard on July 17, 2026. Schultz mounted his campaign to oust Republican U.S. Rep. Nick Begich. But he endorsed Nick’s uncle, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Begich, a former state senator. Schultz suspended his campaign on July 17 and urged supporters to rally behind independent Bill Hill. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
On July 17, the leading Democratic candidate in Alaska’s U.S. House race suspended his campaign and announced his support for independent House candidate Bill Hill.
In an interview last week, Democrat Matt Schultz said his decision didn’t come from a lack of desire or a lack of support — it was simply a matter of money.
“One of the most disturbing things about the election process is how much … is determined by money, and I did not have a viable financial path forward,” Schultz said on July 17.
Schultz will remain on the ballot for the Aug. 18 statewide primary but is expected to withdraw after the results become final.
Campaign finance reports through June 30 showed Schultz’s campaign with $470,681 in cash on hand. Hill’s campaign had $702,626. Incumbent Republican Rep. Nick Begich’s campaign had more than $3.2 million.
Begich and Hill are also being boosted by third-party groups. In Hill’s case, Wheel Dog PAC is preparing to spend more than $1 million and has already sent mailers to voters across the state. The National Republican Congressional Committee and other groups are spending similarly to back Begich.
While Schultz has lagged in financial support, public opinion polling in the spring found him significantly ahead of Hill in Alaska’s top-four primary, but in head-to-head polling, Hill appeared to perform better against Begich than Schultz did. Neither polled ahead of Begich.
In Alaska’s election system, voters will pick one of the 14 U.S. House candidates during the Aug. 18 statewide primary. The top four vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election.
“If I had made it through the primary, which — I think there’s a real good chance I would have been the the frontrunner — but I would not have had the the financial war chest required to take on Nick Begich, and the priority here is to make sure that Nick Begich does not get back into office,” Schultz said.
As a candidate, Schultz has been a solid progressive. Speaking to the Beacon and writing in a column to the Anchorage Daily News, he said he feels that some Democrats are too motivated to seek a political “middle,” even when it doesn’t make sense.
“I think that shifting to the middle is not inherently virtuous. When we think about history, there are issues like slavery or in World War II when the Nazi Party was on the rise — there’s no value in saying ‘let’s be a moderate and meet them in the middle and compromise,’” he said. “I think this is a time in history right now. The reason I was so motivated to flip the House of Representatives is because the Republican Party is pulling us into fascism. They’re attacking our democracy and handing over our freedom to billionaires and trillionaires. The stakes are so very high, and yet the folks on our side of the playing field here seem to be willing to kneel and beg for our rights instead of standing and demanding them, and I think that happened in my race as well.”
Alaska’s labor unions have backed Hill, as did the Alaska Center, a progressive environmental and pro-democracy group that hasn’t supported an independent for U.S. House since Alyse Galvin in 2020.
The Alaska Democratic Party itself declined to endorse Schultz during its April convention in Cordova, leaving open the possibility that it would support Hill instead of a party member.
The week before Schultz’s decision, the National Republican Campaign Committee signaled that it was preparing to run ads in favor of Schultz to boost his performance and help Begich.
Both Schultz and Hill released statements denouncing the strategy.
Under Alaska’s general-election system, voters are asked to rank their preferred candidates. The candidate with the lowest number of No. 1 votes is eliminated, and that candidate’s supporters have the option to give the vote to a second choice instead.
“Matt Schultz and the Alaska Democrat Party have been outspoken supporters for ranked choice voting, but when given the opportunity to present the public with their own candidate they chose to withdraw,” said Paul Smith, Begich’s campaign manager. “Despite raising nearly $1 million, making the case to progressives and traveling throughout the state, Democrats have proven that they support ranked choice voting only when it advantages them. Regardless, Alaskan voters will reject these political games and re-elect the most productive freshman Congressman on record, Congressman Nick Begich.”
Since 2022, when the system was used for the first time, statistics show that a significant number of voters have chosen to not rank a second or subsequent choice.
Hill and Schultz each said they believe that ads from the NRCC could have engendered bad feelings, reducing the odds that supporters would rank the other candidate.
Schultz said his top priority is ending Republican control of the U.S. House, and that holds whether or not he is elected.
“Once I recognized that I didn’t have a viable path forward, then it didn’t really matter what I’m being asked to sacrifice. I had to sacrifice (my candidacy) to make sure that we prevent that majority,” he said.
Reached by phone last week, Hill thanked Schultz.
“In his statement, he made it clear that it’s not about me or him. It’s about giving Alaskans the best chance to beat Nick Begich this fall,” he said.
“I think we’re both aligned on a lot of things that are not going right for Alaskans,” Hill said. “You look at things like, well, the cost of gas and groceries, the loss of health care to a lot of Alaskans who just can’t afford it with the loss of the (Affordable Care Act) premiums. There’s a lot of things that are going on in the House right now that are not benefiting Alaskans, and we definitely need to make sure that, in the long run, that there’s a change made there.”
One major difference between Hill and Schultz is that while Schultz sought to eliminate Republican control of the House, Hill is willing to join a Republican majority under certain circumstances.
“I am not committing to who I’m going to vote for (Speaker of the House, if elected), but I will tell you right up front that I’m not going to vote for Mike Johnson to be Speaker because he does not represent my values at all, and he has been the lead in doing things that have impacted Alaska negatively,” Hill said.
Asked what he will do to earn the votes of Schultz supporters, Hill said he understands that they may have concerns about his candidacy, “but I will assure them that I am there to make sure that we have a government that’s going to work on providing Alaskans with the opportunities and tools needed to build good lives, and that means things like making sure everybody has health care, to make sure that our school systems are good and solid, and providing the education that our that our children need.”
Democratic U.S. House candidate Matt Schultz is seen in an undated photo published on his campaign website. (Screenshot)
Alaska Beacon government and politics reporter James Brooks spoke with Matt Schultz for 15 minutes about the end of his campaign for Alaska’s sole U.S. House seat. Their conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Q: Well, how are you feeling?
A: For the first time in months, I’m feeling well rested. … There’s an upside to what was a difficult decision, but there’s definitely an upside in terms of that I could take a moment for myself once in a blue moon.
Q: Doing that kind of thing (suspending your campaign) seems like an impossible choice. I mean, I can’t imagine how difficult that is when you’ve spent all this time and effort on something.
A: Thanks for saying so. And it’s — I agree — it’s a difficult decision to make. But a lot of things like this are really — the proof is in retrospect. And looking back on it now, even though it’s just a few days old, I feel confident that it was the correct decision because the priority is to make sure that we prevent the Republican Party from having a House majority. And once I recognized that I didn’t have a viable path forward, then it didn’t really matter what I’m being asked to sacrifice. I had to sacrifice that to make sure that we prevent that majority.
Q: Why before the primary, though? I mean, there’s still a chance you’re the guy.
A: There’s lots of reasons, but honestly, one of the most disturbing things about the election process is how much … is determined by money, and I did not have a viable financial path forward. If I had made it through the primary, which — I think there’s a real good chance I would have been the the frontrunner — but I would not have had the the financial war chest required to take on Nick Begich, and the priority here is to make sure that Nick Begich does not get back into office.
Q: How long have you been thinking about this? This is not something you do on the spur of the moment.
A: Oh, good golly! I honestly don’t know. You’re right. It was not at all in the moment. Even before you jump into the race, you start to put together the financial plan going ahead, and as that slowly weakens, you start to look at different factors. But I wouldn’t even want to venture a guess, other than to say it was a long process with a lot of good guidance from people who know the political world closely.
In the end, though, it was the decision made by my wife and I to really look at it carefully and make sure that we were serving the purposes we got into this for. You know, we got into the race to serve the people of Alaska with love and do our best to create for them the best possible environment, beginning with the next round of people getting into office in Congress, and if it wasn’t going to be us, we had to make sure it was at least not Nick Begich.
And so again, looking back now, that’s why I feel confident that we did the right thing and that I made the right decision, because I want to make sure that I honor the people who gave me this beautiful opportunity to attempt a run by not turning the run into something that causes the wrong outcome by accident.
And while I’m on that topic, while I’m mentioning the people that supported me doing this, I am just so extraordinarily grateful to have had this opportunity to try. It was such an honor and such a joy. I mentioned I was tired, and that’s true. But what a great gift it is to be allowed to tire yourself out doing something that matters on behalf of people that you love.
Q: What do you think you learned about all this? What did we learn?
A: That sounds like the question they ask at the end of an episode of a sitcom.
Q: Exactly — a very special episode.
A: Well, I’ll reiterate what I just said — that it’s a joy. I didn’t necessarily anticipate that it would be as joyful — and that doesn’t mean (it was) fun always. It’s hard work, and it’s challenging, and you get hate mail and all those things. But joy is a deeper sense of a worthwhile purpose toward something that matters. And to have that in a different field — I have that in my ministry life every day. To get to experience it also in the political realm was such a gift: Tons of support from so many corners of the state was just a beautiful thing that’s all on the upside.
On the negative side — I’ll just keep on singing this song till my final days — it was deeply disappointing how much money plays a role. It is so essential that we overturn Citizens United, or else our country will never be repaired.
Q: Why do you think you didn’t raise as much money as other folks?
A: I’m not sure. I think there are very powerful and wealthy people that are connected that work behind the scenes to choose who’s going to get to move forward and who doesn’t. I think if our system were different and there were a more level playing field financially, I think I would have had a much better shot.
Q: Is there any advice you’d give someone running for office?
A: Oh man, let me think for a sec.
Choose an awesome team. I feel like I was privileged to work with the people I worked with.
Be sure you have your family’s support throughout, because it’s going to be a stressor on your entire family. And I never would have done this unless they were with me 100% along the way.
Recognize that win or lose, the campaign is an opportunity to speak an important message. So make sure that you’re in it for the right reasons: not for ego, not for power, not for money, but that you’re in there to communicate something that matters to people. Because if the campaign ends and you can look back on it and say, ‘I was honest and I used my brief time with that megaphone to build the common good and serve the people,’ then you can do so with pride, and I feel pretty proud.
Q: When I read your statement, you had said suspending this campaign does not mean stepping away from the fight. What do you intend to do going forward?
A: I’m going to first and foremost continue what I’ve been doing for more than a decade here in Alaska, which is standing and speaking and marching and writing, and always advocating for the people who need it most.
Generally, that means people who are poor or ostracized by our society. The work of social justice is always ongoing, and I will be continuing to work in those ways via nonprofits and public demonstrations, and preaching from the pulpit, and serving my neighbor with every ounce of my ability.
In terms of what that might mean politically, I’m afraid the best answer I can give you is I’m not sure. Things like this open doors, and I would be foolish to try to predict exactly what that means.
Q: Your statement also said, ‘I am deeply disappointed that the GOP chose to meddle in this race, and that too many institutions within the Democratic Party ecosystem declined to meaningfully support a campaign rooted in service, integrity, and the needs of working Alaskans.’
I understand the first half of that sentence to refer to the National Republican Campaign Committee’s activities, but I didn’t quite understand what the second half of that sentence was referring to. What was that in reference to?
A: I think that nationwide, people on the left of the aisle — and whatever categories and titles you want to put on that — I think there’s too much willingness to pander to the other side instead of trying to persuade them that what we’re saying is correct.
I think that shifting to the middle is not inherently virtuous. When we think about history, there are issues like slavery or in World War II when the Nazi Party was on the rise — there’s no value in saying ‘let’s be a moderate and meet them in the middle and compromise.’
I think this is a time in history right now.
The reason I was so motivated to flip the House of Representatives is because the Republican Party is pulling us into fascism. They’re attacking our democracy and handing over our freedom to billionaires and trillionaires. The stakes are so very high, and yet the folks on our side of the playing field here seem to be willing to kneel and beg for our rights instead of standing and demanding them, and I think that happened in my race as well.
Various people and institutions have decided that they weren’t ready to proclaim some truths that might be less popular initially, but if we all pull together and keep on pushing these messages, I believe they’re going to win out in the end.
Q: Did you talk with Bill (Hill) before making your decision?
A: No. I spoke to him before I announced it, but not before making it. It was a decision that, as I say, the buck stops here. I consulted a lot of people I truly know and truly trust, and called Bill to inform him.
Q: What did you tell him in that call?
A: Oh boy, I’m not — I’m going to say to you what I said to my wife. I’m not good at relaying exactly how a conversation went. So I just told him the decision. I told him I hope that he beats Nick Begich in November, that I will be casting my vote for him.
Q: So that it wasn’t a situation where you said, ‘I will drop out if you do X, Y, and Z?’
A: No. I didn’t feel that that moment was the time for that. He knows what I’m asking of him. I’ve asked him many times, and he was gracious in this phone call. But you know that wasn’t the nature of the call. I did say to him, ‘Here’s what I expect of you.’
Q: What was that?
A: To stand for the oppressed, to be a voice for the unheard, to represent those who are poor and impoverished and outcast. … Bear in mind, please, that these are all paraphrases. I don’t recall them exactly.
Q: One thing I’ve heard from your supporters is a desire to have somebody who definitively says, ‘I will not caucus with Republicans. I will caucus with Democrats.’ Do you have an assurance? Do you have a feeling? Do you feel that Bill Hill, if elected, will not caucus with Republicans?
A: I don’t know the answer to that yet.
Q: Is there anything that I haven’t asked you that you think is important for me to know?
A: That’s a really good question. Hang on, let me give it some thought.
I think that I’ve been spending a lot of time on this campaign trail, listening to younger generations seeking out their opinion, trying to learn from what their priorities are, and understand why they do or don’t join certain movements.
This has been true in my work in the church too, as I’ve been engaged deeply in the work of fighting against Christian nationalism and wondering why young people join that.
And one of the common factors is young people will join a movement that stands up for what it believes in, whether that’s right or whether that’s wrong.
If they feel that someone is going to have a certain level of commitment and conviction, it’s more likely to bring younger generations along to at least give it some time and effort. But if a given institution signals, time and time and time again, that all they’re going to do is compromise before they’ve even reached the bargaining table, they’re going to walk away from that — because why would you stand with a group that doesn’t even stand for itself? And I think that’s a message that we all need to remember heading into this election.
Q: What do you think it says if, when this primary is said and done, you have more votes than Bill Hill, even after suspending your campaign?
A: I don’t know. You know, sometimes I just follow my conscience, do what I think is best, and tell the truth as best as I possibly can, and then I’ll let other people interpret those results. So I apologize — I’m saying again to you, I don’t know, but I don’t know what that would say.
(The Center Square) — It might cost as much as $5 million to prosecute each of about 50 animal rights activists who attempted to take beagles from a now-defunct Wisconsin breeder accused of abusing them, according to an attorney who…
Fans of Norway take part in the “Viking Row,” a cheer created by Norwegian soccer fans which gained popularity during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, on July 10, 2026, in Miami Beach, Florida.
247Bet reports that a survey indicates the 2026 World Cup significantly boosted American interest in soccer, with over 25% watching for the first time.
Ivím Health reports a federal panel has recommended BPC-157, a popular peptide, be available through licensed compounding pharmacies with a prescription.
(The Center Square) – Michigan voters will head to the polls on Aug. 4. to determine the outcome of primary races that could determine the balance of power in Congress in November.
