Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, June 7
Arena vote shows confidence in the city’s future
Rapid City voters sent a clear message Tuesday when they overwhelmingly endorsed a plan to build a new arena at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center.
It’s doubtful, however, that anyone expected the margin of victory - 64 percent, or 10,968 votes, for it versus 36 percent, or 6,066 votes, against it - would be so convincing. Once Mayor Steve Allender unveiled the plan to build the $130 million arena without raising taxes, a campaign to defeat it was launched with vigor and rancor.
Whether it was the Citizens for Liberty misrepresenting project costs while collecting signatures to put the city council-approved project on the ballot, or four former mayors emerging from the shadows with an $80 million proposal to repurpose the 41-year-old Barnett Arena, the city’s plan was under a relentless attack from the start.
The mayor, who did around 60 public presentations on the plan and posted it on the city’s website, was specifically targeted by some who claimed his sole motivation was to see his name on the new arena. It was part of a series of complaints and accusations launched to chip away at the plan and his credibility and character.
The most discouraging attempt to persuade others to reject the plan came from those who apparently have a dim view of Rapid City. They claimed the city couldn’t afford a new arena, locals wouldn’t be able to afford tickets to events there, and the city’s economy was in a tailspin - complaints that amounted to a vote of no confidence in the community.
Fortunately, nearly 11,000 voters have a better view of Rapid City and at the same time understand that a city can’t move forward unless it is willing to invest - or believe - in itself.
None of this would have happened, however, if it weren’t for the leadership of Mayor Allender and his determination to fight for a new arena that can help this community grow and prosper. He took on his opponents, shook off the personal attacks, and explained over and over again the benefits of building a new arena instead of patching up an old one.
The linchpin of the plan is that it won’t raise taxes or drain the Vision Fund while helping pump millions of dollars into the economy and making Rapid City more attractive to youth, visitors, industry and prospective new businesses. A modern venue that can accommodate big-name concerts and large trade shows and conventions will be a significant addition to a community with a vast parks system, is a neighbor to Black Hills National Forest and is just a short drive from Mount Rushmore.
It’s comforting to know that so many Rapid City residents were not swayed by the arguments against a new arena when the benefits are many and the drawbacks nonexistent if one can take a step back and be objective.
As this project moves forward, the city will be working to solidify its status as a regional hub while capitalizing on its natural beauty and the grit and vision of those who understand the need to grow. Now is the time for everyone to set aside the differences the arena debate exposed and work together to see what we can do for our community - one that still has much potential to realize.
___
Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Yankton, June 4
The rise of the independent voter
One of the curious developments within our entrenched and institutionalized two-party democratic process is the growth being seen outside of the two parties.
In South Dakota, at least, the growth has been substantial.
Reporter Bob Mercer offered his views on the matter in a column printed in Monday’s Press & Dakotan. He noted that, in the past 10 years, Republican registration has grown while Democratic affiliation has shrunk, but the biggest growth has been seen in those filing independent. In 11 South Dakota counties, independents are now the No. 2 “party” in terms of registration.
This reflects a national trend that has been in place for a while now. It was notable again this past weekend when it was reported that registered independents now outnumber registered Republicans in California.
So, there is a dissatisfaction blooming, and it’s not an isolated matter.
It could be argued that independents really want nothing to do with the two “mainstream” parties, although that may be overstating things. After all, a lot of these people will likely wind up voting for Republican or Democratic candidates in most cases, anyway.
A more likely argument might be that an increasing number of people aren’t really thrilled with what they are seeing from the two parties in general and are preferring instead to keep their views open.
To be sure, as Mercer pointed out, the rise in negative political campaigns in recent years has turned off more voters, who are in turn removing themselves from defining party labels, perhaps as a show of passive-aggressive disapproval.
Another factor might be that the two parties are veering to even greater extremes in their ideologies. We have seen that for years with the Republican Party, which has lurched further right. Now, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is gaining more muscle and becoming influential in guiding the party’s philosophies. So, what’s a centrist to do? Apparently, stake out the unaffiliated or independent middle ground between the two poles.
Still another factor might be the entrenched warring that now goes on between Republicans and Democrats, particularly at the national level. This us-versus-them mentality has generally paralyzed Washington. However, as much as we complain about this attitude, it does seem to reflect the mood in much of the country - a division spurred along by partisan media outlets and social media rantings.
No matter the reason, the fact is that a growing number of people aren’t willing to affiliate themselves within the two-party system, and that figures to be a problem for those two major parties sooner or later.
How the two major parties respond to this situation - that is, if they’re able to respond to it at all - will likely tell us if this is a short-term blip or the first step in a long-term political correction that will lead to the two parties becoming more responsive to a diverse cross-section of voters rather than to donors and lobbyists with specific agendas of their own.
More voters are making a statement by moving to an independent status. Let’s see how well the two parties listen.
___
Madison Daily Leader, Madison, June 6
We’re very concerned about plant expansion
A Lake Norden cheese manufacturer is expanding its operations and plans to dump two million gallons of wastewater per day into the Big Sioux River watershed. It could directly affect drinking water in Madison.
The expansion by Wisconsin-based Agropur would increase milk processing capacity by six million pounds per day. The on-site wastewater treatment facility is also being upgraded.
Supporters of the project cite positive economic impact for the region, including dairy farmers. Critics are mostly environmentalists and others who depend on the Big Sioux River.
Most of us aren’t experts in the field of water quality, but all levels of government have established regulatory agencies that do employ experts. We need to rely on them, but citizens also should express concerns.
During the 30-day public comment period, which ended on May 11, Al Spangler, surface water discharge specialist with the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, told the Argus Leader his office received 14 letters opposed to Agropur’s permit application, including all four rural water systems between Sioux Falls and Lake Norden.
One of those rural water systems is Big Sioux Rural Water, which draws water from the Big Sioux River. The system provides water to the city of Madison and nearby rural areas, including Lake Madison.
The city of Sioux Falls has made the health of the Big Sioux River a priority, not only from a water supply standpoint but also from a recreation and aesthetic point of view.
The biggest concern is what will be in the water discharged from the plant into the watershed. Critics have argued that it will be high in nitrates, which at certain levels are a pollutant. If true, that would be a dealbreaker in our mind.
It’s possible that the discharged water would be clean and acceptable. We’ve read about municipal water systems that draw water from rivers, use it, clean it and return water that is actually cleaner than what they took out.
We aren’t the experts. But we must ask those who are experts to use their judgment and political will to insist that any new discharge into South Dakota’s lakes or rivers is free from any contaminants.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.