Well, I think it's a bit more complex than just answering whether or not economic development corporations can be effective. The corporations that were started in Alaska were actually started as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which passed in 1971, and so we all, by default, became part owners in the land, as shareholders. It certainly changed the landscape of Alaska. It took a lot of our resources from being community-driven resources to being a fiduciary responsibility to a smaller portion of our population.
That being said, there are varying degrees of what “success” means. Some people and some corporations do have larger dividends, and they've been able to establish a bunch of infrastructure within their communities. Other ones have not been as successful. In some ways, that measurement of success we're talking about is very arbitrary. For one group, it might be one thing, and for another group, it might be something else.
I think there are ways that this has been good, and I think it's arguable that this isn't the right way. To go back to Mr. Schmale's question, it really depends on who you're talking to and what the goals are. That, really, is something else I brought up before: understanding what the goals of a project are in order to make sure the community buy-in is there and understanding what it does for the people who are going to be affected.
I do think that economic development is important in our communities. We have very few resources outside of our natural resources, and so using them in a way that is culturally appropriate and that also ensures we can remain in our landscape is very important. Striking a balance, I think, is certainly what we should keep in mind.