“2010 Initiative” Data Released

Today, the state released the final data on Rounds’ 2010 Initiative.

The 2010 Initiative set out 5 goals:

  1. Double Visitor Spending
  2. Increase the State’s Gross Domestic Product
  3. Become a Recognized Leader in Research and Technology Development
  4. Brand and Develop South Dakota’s Quality of Life as the Best in America
  5. Uphold the Commitment to the 2010 Initiative

For the most part, these goals have been successfully met.

Double Visitor Spending
The goal was to increase spending to $1.2 billion.  Even with the depressed economy, the state did see an increase to $962 million, just short of its goal.

Increase Gross Domestic Product
The goal was to increase the GDP by $10 billion.  This goal was met 2 years early and the GDP actually grew by $14 billion.

Become a Recognized Leader in Research and Technology Development
Lots of good stuff here – NSF picks Homestake for the Deep underground lab, Sanford Initiative to cure Diabetes, and state universities added ten research centers adding to their advanced degree programs as well as bringing in $154 milling in research dollars.

Brand and Develop South Dakota’s Quality of Life as the Best in America
Lots of money invested in improving hunting opportunities,  improving the state parks, increasing the availability of affordable housing, and exposing our students to the arts.

Uphold the Commitment to the 2010 Initiative
Just because 2010 is almost over and the initiative was successful doesn’t mean the investment it created wont continue to benefit the state for years to come.

20 Replies to ““2010 Initiative” Data Released”

  1. caheidelberger

    #1 and #2 are the big timber: what specifically did the current administration do to make those things happen?
    […and where did the post author names go? Don’t tell me DWC is going to turn into some nameless, faceless blog now. That’s what you get when you do things by committee. Sigh.]

  2. MikeH

    No worries, Cory,
    We aren’t trying to hide anything. The theme doesn’t show the author’s name. It is something I noticed today, too. Will see if it can be restored.

  3. Troy Jones

    Double visitor spending: Most of this is driven by the Tourism’s internal and external marketing effort.

    Increase GDP: Maintain healthy business environment.

  4. anon

    Did I just read somewhere that rounds said he is following the example of George Washington, very Labronish, taking his talents back to the insurance industry. Good Grief.

      1. DDC

        Larry’s kind of right on this. The SD Highway Patrol’s overzealous pursuit of drug busts has resulted in a lot of people being pulled over and harassed for no reason.

        Here’s the story of someone that has such a bad taste in his mouth from his experience with a notorious SD Highway Patrolman that he won’t ever visit SD again. I’m sure there are countless other stories just like his.

        http://decorumforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/so-dak-businesses-should-thank-trooper.html

  5. mhs

    Jeez, Troy, I would’a thought we’d get a didatic math lesson on how $962 million is in no way “just short” of the $1.2B goal. Looks like about a 40% miss to me. Not that either of us have every believed the tourism spending number to begin with.

  6. Beer is better

    I am not a fan of ip but I am also not a fan of calling something a success just because the governor is from your party. Face it, the tourism goal fell significantly short. On the GDP front, this has been driven by increases in commodity prices, corns, soybeans, etc. and monetary policy. Rounds had nothing to do with the world increase in commodity prices and the dollar devaluation. On the lab, Janklow started it and Rounds has kept it on life support. With the rejection of recent funding, someone else has to bring it home. I do not know how you objectively measure “branding quality of life”.

  7. Jack Sparrow

    How does this fit in with his initiative?
    From the SF Business Journal
    Boyd Co. Inc., a New Jersey-based location consulting firm, recently reported on comparative operating costs for medical device manufacturers in 55 locations throughout North America, including Sioux Falls. The analysis found Southern California sites were the most expensive, averaging $30 million a year for a plant employing 325 workers. Sioux Falls was the least expensive location, at a cost of $22.5 million, pricier than only two sites in Mexico and Costa Rica.