Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson is on the radio today noting that future state aid to counties may be tied to how much they’re looking forward to help themselves:
Future state aid to counties may be tied to what those counties are doing for themselves.
South Dakota House Speaker Mark Mickelson of Sioux Falls says he would like to see counties come up with economic development plans.
In the audio portion, Mickelson notes that State Government grant programs are going to start considering as a criteria – with mostly transportation grants – whether or not a formal economic development plan is in place.
I’m not familiar with any specific counties that don’t, but that seems to be a pretty strong statement to counties that with harder economic times, State Government will be more apt to help counties who are willing to help themselves.
What are your thoughts?
I agree that the counties should have some skin in the game. Paying attention to Brookings we see lots of instances where they want the state or the feds to pay for something, not that they need it, or even really want it, but that it’s “free money”.
Like the airport fiasco a few years ago. There’s not a problem (other than Brookings violating the terms from the previous fed grant), but if we can spend somebody else’s money lets go for it!
I think the above proposal shows good stewardship of the state’s money, especially in these lean times.
Under Mickelson’s proposal, state government would be wasting our money bribing county government into wasting more of our money.
The Mickelson legacy is in race relations. Government-coerced “economic development” is a farce. The costs always outweigh the benefits.
A bill along the same lines as the Speaker’s comments was introduced last session. The concept is planning helps you use resources wisely. It did get out of house committee but failed on the floor. I was surprised to find out that many if not most counties don’t even have a land use plan. The argument against the bill was counties can’t afford to do the planning.
The planning process is how a community determines its goals and determines how to get there. A community without goals is one which is likely to waste whatever assistance they get.
Tim, a collection of volunteers from various parts of the community can develop a plan with hardly any money.
I didn’t agree with the reasoning to defeat the bill. I was just stating one of the reasons for defeat. I spoke for the bill on the floor and voted for it. What ever the cost, setting goals and a plan to achieve them is worth it. And will save money in the long run.
Headline should be: “Mickelson wants to withhold state money until counties tell him where he can put a CAFO”
The point raised in the news piece is that counties are standing in the way of real economic development in the name of zoning and other restrictions while simultaneously demanding state and federal funding to pay for transportation needs and improvements. The counties make it hard for livestock production facilities to be built and then complain as the population and economic base stagnates or shrinks. Don’t tell me that increased livestock production hurts surrounding real estate values or causes too much wear and tear on roads – do the math and look at the counties which have authorized big dairies and livestock production. The state enforces federal environmental laws and counties can tie in road agreements for the producers to help townships, with these operations contributing to substantial local economic improvements. And a properly developed plan should consider allowing aggregation of facilities in Ag districts to allow consideration of methane digesters and other ways of mitigating climate change concerns. Instead, the counties with the best open spaces seem to insist on pushing operations as far apart as possible. Wind power is another issue where the “Not In My Back Yard” sentiments of a determined block of voters can weaponize zoning against economic development. Whether you believe in climate change or not, we should all agree that people can reasonably do what they want with their own property so long as it does not materially harm others. Lack of planning or overzealous “protections” of others makes it very hard to get anything of substance approved any more, plus our appeal system keeps even the well-designed projects on hold for months if not years. Planning is not just laying out a document and paying someone to promote commercial opportunities or locate the best spots for new construction. The local control given to counties for zoning should come with local responsibility to grow their way toward the things they want grants and loans for. A well-planned livestock production or wind power increase could help grow the tax base plus increase economic activity locally, getting us on our way back to budget surpluses without harming those who want to see the country stay open and beautiful. It makes a lot of sense if we all just get past the prejudices or misinformation about such projects. Doing nothing will only keep holding us back. Mickelson is spot on.
Wind farms are linked to causing health issues for people living close to them: constant headaches, dizziness and nausea. Dr. Nina Pierpoint, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center discuss these issues in length.
Have you seen pictures of when a blade breaks off, could there be cattle close to these turbines or a home that could be hit from flying debris? Would these instances be considered materially harming others?
Just saying…
Leave environmental and health issues to professionals in state agencies or the Legislature. If there is a legitimate risk, that is a uniform concern that should apply state-wide with no need for local regulation. Ad hoc decisions without logic or restrictions based on mob mentality come up too often in SD. I can document where one SD county required a longer setback from cemeteries than for residences for wind turbines. The dead have no health issues but get greater protection?
Just saying….
Seriously? You’re saying Legislatures and state agencies have more knowledge and skill in the environmental and health fields than credible health/environmental professionals? You know professionals, people who study things for their entire career. Did you notice I listed two health professionals in the point I made, that’s what we call evidence to back up claims we make.
Logic: Wind farms cause health issues for residents in the surrounding area, evidence is documented in case studies and research done by environmental and health professionals. (see above).
Your logic: No research. No discussion. You are wrong.
There is legitimate risks, see Dr. Nina Pierpoint and Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum for further insight.
You are right about dead people in cemeteries and that’s all you’re right about. People who maintain and visit cemeteries are…you guessed it, alive. Another fine example of your “logic” process, well done.
Um, no, I’m saying all that evidence needs to be presented to one body for uniform laws, and not presented to various zoning boards for decision-making on an ad hoc basis. Have all the hearings at the state level (legislative and agency) and actually set standards that apply to the entire state. Otherwise, you end up with patchwork approvals depending on emotions, not evidence. If your “experts” are correct, they can persuade the legislators or agencies. People on local zoning boards are not judges and often are not even elected. They do not want to make judgment calls on science or health issues. And if you are correct on these concerns, why would you not want to have a state-wide restriction to prevent those harms?
Mark Mickelson is one Guy stuffed full of Integrity. His passion for doing anything around him involved in his environment right is well documented and appreciated by his peers. From keeping the House factions together to rounding up a mixed up GOP Caucus on point. Our local counties need to step up our game.
6:16……..??????????????????????????????
Mark’s viewpoint makes perfect sense. He’s a good legislator and I am not sure why he would even want to put himself through the meanness of what is today’s political environment. I do hope he runs for higher office.
Hahahaha.