Hey, Bjorklund, 9-12ers! Get Real, Shift Focus to Lake County Politics

Consider this post an open letter to the local Glenn Beck club, the 9-12 Project. Their candidates for public office, Jason Bjorklund here in Madison and Steve Sibson down in Mitchell, both came in last in their respective races. I am mildly alarmed that two know-nothing conservative talk-radio karaoke speechifiers can get one in five of my neighbors to vote for them... but one in five still doesn't make me feel surrounded.

Now that I've thoroughly insulted the Glenn Beck club, I want to invite them to practical political action. Instead of being a rather harsh caricature of Toastmasters with a topic list limited to guns, the President's birth certificate, full-reserve banking, and Marxism, Jason Bjorklund and his snarling pack of poli-sci-yenas have a golden opportunity to reverse their general election failure and re-assert their relevance to real politics by getting involved in local issues.

Lake County is fertile ground for a group of citizens interested in graduating from mere talk to practical civic action. We have a range of big issues just waiting for local citizens to get up and holler:

1. On Tuesday, November 9, at 7 p.m., the Lake County Commission will hold its first public hearing on the proposed revision of the county zoning ordinance. The proposed changes raised a number of sparky questions at last week's candidates' forum. The proposed changes will also lay the roadmap for the work of the new zoning and environmental inspector the county will hire in the coming months. The county contends that the zoning revision is meant to make the ordinance more user-friendly. The Winfred freedom fighters and other folks I talk to see the zoning ordinance creating all sorts of local government intrusion into our lives. 9-12ers, you should be meeting and hosting open educational sessions to analyze the zoning ordinance for signs of tyranny that you can fight right here in our backyards.
2. The Madison Central School District is pushing a colossal waste of local tax dollars on a multi-million-dollar luxury gym to satisfy the interests of a few elite basketball players and sports fans. There are practical alternatives to this boondoggle that would save the taxpayers millions. Jason Bjorklund has declared himself a "victim" of Madison's public education system. Here's a perfect chance for him to lead his fellow citizens in focusing our dollars on real educational improvements, not more play space for varsity athletes.
3. The Lake Area Improvement Corporation continues to receive and spend thousands of local tax dollars without any real accountability to the public. The LAIC pays its director over $100,000 to bestow favors on the powers that be and shut out broad public participation while failing to meet its own anemic job creation goals. The 9-12 Project is the perfect group to catalyze public dissatisfaction with this star chamber of crony capitalism to advocate for real change to more open and participatory economic development.
   

The local Glenn Beck club showed signs of civic usefulness last spring when it brought more statewide candidates to visit with Madison voters than did any other civic organization, my benighted Democratic Party included. They slid back during Mr. Bjorklund's largely irrelevant campaign. Real Lake County politics offers a chance for redemption. Drop the talk of guns and Obama and tyranny in Washington. Turn your attention to regulation, taxation, government waste and cronyism right here on Washington Avenue and throughout Madison and Lake County.

Toward that end, I offer my services. Mr. Bjorklund, I am willing to be the featured speaker at your next 9-12 Project meeting. If you will invite me, I will come lead a conversation with your members about applying your Nine Principles and Twelve Values to local politics.

And don't forget, Glenn Beckers: there are elections for city commission and school board coming up in the spring. Let Kristi Noem carry your water against President Obama: think about making a difference for your neighbors right here in Lake County.

Winfred Woes: Edicks See Unfair Zoning Rules Against Scholl

Maybe Winfred needs its own blog... Winfred Waler? Winfred Whopper?

First Republican candidate for District 8 House Patricia Stricherz, who now calls Winfred home, fires her missive missile at Independent opponent Jason Bjorklund. (It still sounds weird to say opponent there, since Stricherz and Bjorklund are logical allies in the battle to unseat incumbents Mitch Fargen and Gerry Lange. But unless there's some serious kiss-and-make-up in the coming weeks, Stricherz, at least, appears to see the race in those terms.)

Now another Winfred denizen, Ken Emick, has some grumbling to air. His wife Sue brings me a hand-written letter to the editor which they said the Madison Daily Leader would not print. The Emicks are unhappy with the treatment their friend and neighbor Charles Scholl has received in his dealings with the Lake County Commission. (For some background, see these MDL articles on Scholl's permit requests, nuisance complaints, and county acquisition and auction of his Winfred property.)

In his letter, Ken Edick says some negative things concerning people I like and trust—States Attorney Ken Meyer, zoning officer Deb Reinicke, and local salvage and gravel guru Lee Yager (heck, I just bought a good load of gravel from Lee and his son Rick to fix my rain-rutted driveway). I don't agree with everything Edick says, and I'm editing out a few words, since some of Edick's complaints are more personal gripes than direct critique of local government.

But Edick is a citizen, and he has some questions about the fairness with which our local government applies its laws. The Edicks also don't have Internet at home (what? you mean the rest of the world doesn't revolve around the Web the way it does here at Madville Times world headquarters? inconceivable!), so it can't hurt to extend the convenience of instant and interactive global griping to some non-digitized Lake County neighbors.

Here for your consideration and comment is what Edick has to say, followed by some Madville commentary:

First of all I would like to thank Paul Nordaune for his letter of support to the editor of the local paper for Charles Scholl. I know there are many others who support him out there who need to come forward. I totally agree with him that we need to elect new people for our County Commissioners' board and States Attorney's Office.

I would never have voted for Ken Meyer for States Attorney if I had known what he was like. He and others in Winfred ran Charles out of town. Then those people benefited by getting his land cheap when the county auctioned it off. The County Commissioners said it cost in excess of $100,000 to clean the land up. So why would they sell the land so cheap? We taxpayers paid to have the land leveled and new dirt hauled in and put down that Charles Scholl would have done at no cost. So the taxpayers get cheated again and the ones with the money are laughing all the way to the bank. Now Ken Meyer is trying to stop Charles from running his business elsewhere. He should not be allowed to be involved in the meetings with the board of Commissioners and Charles Scholl for his permits. Does Ken Meyer control the County Commissioners and why is he rewriting the zoning rules? Has the county given him that much power?

Is it proper for the zoning officer, Deb Reinicke, to refuse to even give Charles Scholl an application for a permit to operate a repair shop without restrictions as are being issued for others? I've heard rumours that Deb was assuring them that they would not be required to comply with the same restrictions placed on Charles Scholl and that they would just be given a permit. She told them the restrictions will only be enforced on Scholl. Evidently this is true given the fact that she ignored the violations I complained about Yager's junkyard (The Can Pit). She ignored the violations and gave Yager a permit without restrictions. Yager's Junkyard (The Can Pit) is prohibited use of that building on that site. The Can Pit per zoning rule definition section 2-39 is larger than 1000 square feet and is being used to buy, sell, and store scrap metals. Further this junkyard does not meet the 200' setback from the road right-of-way for storage of salvage and etc.

I live in Winfred, just up the road from a large open pit sewer. I believe that the awful stench from this sewer pit combined with the potential for small children or pets falling into it creates a public health and safety hazard as set out in state and county nuisance laws. I have filed complaints with the county board and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources with no response. Is this something that Ken Meyer has used his position to block or cover up?

...Greg Pulford has his own junkyard in the country and it's not fenced in. It is well weeded up and clearly visible from the road.

Ken Edick
Winfred, SD

Neighbors, your observations on Edick's letter and the matter of fair enforcement of zoning in Lake County are welcome. I feel compelled to weigh on a couple issues myself.

I am always sympathetic to calls for fair enforcement of the law. However, I have difficulty accepting accusations of unfairness from States Attorney Ken Meyer. He may be the straightest-shooting lawyer I know. The suggestion that he should not be involved in county commission zoning deliberations is, to put it gently, unworkable. Meyer earns his pay by providing legal expertise to our part-time commissioners. If I were on the commission, I'd certainly want Meyer at every meeting helping me understand what local and state law requires and allows.

I also visited with our zoning officer Deb Reinicke before publishing this letter. She flatly contradicts the claims of this letter. She says Mr. Scholl delayed even coming to her office to pick up the permit, and that when Scholl complained to her, she told him the application was waiting for him right on her desk. The zoning officer has no authority to deny anyone a permit application. She exercises no decision-making power over permits: she only processes the paperwork and transmits it to the county commission, which has the final say.

And of course, I have little truck with arguments that begin with, "I've heard rumors that...." I could throw that introductory phrase at the beginning of any number of political statements that I want to believe and persuade others of, but that wouldn't make them any more true. If you've got sources for the claim of favoritism, say so. If you have other people who will come forward and say, "Yup, that's what happened to me," then bring them on. If the county is doing anything wrong, people should step forward and say so, not whisper that other unnamed people are saying so.

I take no position on the nature of the permits received by Lee Yager, Greg Pulford, or any other businessmen in the county. I am all for landowners being able to use their land as they see fit, within the limits of reasonable regulations and public safety. Edick's letter shows there is at least a perception that the county is enforcing those limits with less than an even hand. And our candidates (there is no election for states attorney this year, but we do have four people vying for two county commission seats) should be aware that the Edicks' perception is shared with significant fervor by at least a few voters in Winfred and around Madison. Those who share that perception would do well to approach our county commission candidates and ask them what they know and where they stand on zoning and enforcement.

Green Notes: Bikes, Solar, Good Sense Challenged

Buried in browser tabs! Time to clear the queue!

Colorado is seeing a weird outbreak of velophobia. Some folks have a Sibby-Ellis-tinged idea that promoting Denver as a bicycle city is part of the United Nations' sinister agenda to enslave us all. The tiny casino town of Black Hawk, Colorado has banned bicycles: a new Colorado law requires motorists to give bicycles at least three feet when passing, and Black Hawk reasons that complying with that law would be just too hard for the big tour buses bringing gamblers to town. Riding your bike through town now gets you a $68 fine (to make up for cyclists not spending as much on booze, I guess).

Green power is ugly. Or so goes the thinking, apparently, in Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Township supervisors there have imposed restrictions on solar panels: tucking panels away beside or behind the house is fine, but if you happen to have a south-facing abode and want to place your panel out front where it will do the most good, you need to get a conditional permit, which will take $800, two months, and all sorts of paperwork. Says a state township association official, "A lot of people have a problem with placing solar panels on the front of their homes for the simple reason...solar panels are distracting and take away from the value of [their] house.... Elected officials are hearing that and they're taking that into consideration." Once again, obsession with appearance trumps environmental sense and property rights.

Solar power is making progress in California. Regulators there have approved the first solar thermal plant in the U.S. in two decades. Ah, good old American innovation... maybe we'll catch up with Portugal after all.

But not if boneheads like Don Kopp stay in office. One of South Dakota's most embarassing legislators provides a teabaggers' splinter group in Rapid City with a slideshow assortment of decontextualized quotes—prooftexting at its finest (and a popular pastime among the non-thinkers in the Tea "Party"). The slides flog the U.N.-evil meme and insisting environmentalists are out to lynch America (yes, slide #10 includes a noose). I'm sure Kopp et al. consider this Kansas City artist's work on sustainable buildings an effort to destroy America, too.
------------------------------
But think positive: Lester R. Brown sees renewable energy booming worldwide and thinks we can "replace all coal- and oil-fired electricity generation with renewable sources." There is life after oil and coal, people. The sooner we get serious about making it happen, the easier it will be... unless of course you think living like Mad Max would be cool.

West River More Accepting of Keystone XL Pipeline

As that Sioux Falls paper revisits South Dakota's East-West divide, Public Utilities Commissioner Gary Hanson says TransCanada had an easier time getting West River landowners to submit to easements for the Keystone XL pipeline that the company had in East River along its Keystone route:

"East River, there were far more challenges regarding acquisitions of easements. That went much more smoothly West River," Hanson says. "West River, there was a pragmatic discussion and concerned questions, not the generally excitable atmosphere we had East River" [Peter Harriman, "East-West River: The Great Divide," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.08.22].

Hmph. West River landowners must be more inclined to swallow the corporate line that oil leaks are just a normal part of business.

Speaking of which:

A small break in a BP pipeline that has leaked at least 1,700 gallons of petroleum into sewers in the northwestern Indiana city of Hammond could take days or weeks to pinpoint and fix, officials said Wednesday.

"We're at the point now where BP is literally trying to locate what could be a pinhole-sized leak," Hammond Mayor Tom McDermott said [Tom Coyne, "Officials: BP Fuel Leak Could Last Days, Weeks," AP via Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2010.08.19].

Sure, 1700 gallons is a small spill... until it happens on your land, or pollutes your well. And that's from a pinhole flaw. How much oil will spill out of a similar defect in a Keystone pipeline pumping hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil under high pressure each day? And West River landowners are o.k. with this?

Actually, it might make sense that TransCanada could snap up pipeline easements more easily in West River. Here in East River, the Keystone pipeline runs under cropland where owners run lots of heavy plows and combines that I might be nervous about dragging across a thin metal tube filled with toxic combustible material. Out in West River, the heaviest thing a rancher might run across the pipeline is his pickup or a really big bull.

Five Years after Kelo v. New London: Fight the Capitalist Dogs!

Mr. Woodring at Constant Conservative reminds us of the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision. I agree with my conservative blog colleague that Kelo was an abominable decision, foisted upon us by my fellow liberals on the court who got property rights and eminent domain dead wrong. I am proud that South Dakota was the first state to pass legislation in response to Kelo to outlaw exactly the sort of private-private eminent domain transfer that Kelo upheld. (HB 1080 passed the 2006 Legislature with near unanimity.)

But I suggest that repudiating Kelo v. New London is not strictly Ron Paul libertarianism (a philosophy for which I still harbor sympathies). The City of New London forced homeowners to sell to Pfizer on the promise that Pfizer would build an extravagant research park that would raise property values and swell the city coffers. (Pfizer's promise fell through, and the land transfer was for naught.) In Kelo, the court narrowly held the taxable dollar value of land to supersede other values, like the sense of place, of home, of neighborhood. The court said that if you don't want to act like a capitalist and generate as much wealth as possible with your property, the government should take your property and hand it to a more avid exploiter.

As a homeowner who was able to build a fine lake house for a humble $100,000, amidst more extravagant lakeside temples to consumption worth triple and triple again as much, I found Kelo terrifying. I could easily see the Lake County Commission looking at my cheapskatery and saying, "Heidelberger's house is only generating $1700 in property tax. We know a Sioux Falls developer who can subdivide Heidelberger's land, build two McMansions, and generate ten times the property tax. Evict Heidelberger: we've got roads to fix."

Forcing a property owner to sell that property to another private party who can make more money on that property is akin to forcing construction workers and custodians to move out of town because we want our community to be populated by doctors and lawyers and other wealthy folks who can buy more stuff and generate more sales tax (Vail is like that). Rights should not depend on your economic output. Kelo and the slim liberal majority got that point dead wrong.

Mr. Woodring is right to lament the Kelo decision. I lament it with him. But remember: a rejection of Kelo is a rejection of the capitalist imperative. Some things, like having your home on your terms, are more important than money.

------------------
Update 2010.06.25 09:20 CDT: Mr. Woodring continues the discussion! Worth reading!

Sunshine Sign Will Fall on Your Car Before Amerts' Wind Turbines

This afternoon's Madison Daily Leader covers the Madison City Commission's first reading of its proposed wind turbine ordinances. The online version of the story omits what was surely the sharpest comment of last night's commission meeting.

Don Amert attended last night's meeting. He and his brother would like to put up a couple wind turbines out by their Ready-Mix cement plant on the southeast edge of Madison (where those turbines would look fantabulous to all the wayfaring travelers on Highway 34... if only they wouldn't distract from our beautiful Madison sign and artificial waterfall). Don questioned the setback ordinances, which require turbines be placed at least 1.1 times their hieght back from property lines, utility lines, electrical substations, roads and homes.

My friend Don suggested such setbacks seem a bit "onerous," especially when you consider that Madison retailers are allowed to situate their tall signs well within toppling distance of roads, property lines, public roads, your parked car, and my bike.

An interesting point! Anyone care to mark off the fall zone of, say, the big Sunshine sign in the middle of town? Or the big flag pole? Or all the lightpoles in the parking lot?

The paper reports city engineer Chad Comes responded by saying such setbacks are standard for wind turbine regulations. In other words, everyone else does it, so don't ask the city complicated questions.

Wind turbines do occasionally tip over... just like signs, cranes, trees, and people. If the city is really worried about tall things falling into the road, we're going to be clearing a long, ugly swath through the center of Madison.

But I'll say this: if Amerts build a wind turbine, it will not, not, NOT fall over. Ever.

Twelve More Candidates for Lake County Commission? If Only!

We have four filed candidates so far for Lake County Commission. If Ken Edick's monkey-wrenching works, he could provoke a dozen more.

Here's the story: Wednesday's print MDL headlines the 12 nuisance complaints that Edick filed against various Lake County landowners for allegedly conducting businesses in violation of zoming and conditinoal use permits. Zoning Officer Deb Reinicke is surely having whopper headaches mudding about the county checking out these properties, including Lee Yager's operation west of town, Todd Johnson's towing yard, and Doug Peters's used machinery sales yard east on Highway 34.

We all know Edick is just doing some "good for the goose, good for the gander" politicking for his Winfred friend Charlie Scholl, who's been catching hell from the county lately for his salvage operation. The barely-sub-text of Edick's complaint: if the county throw all these conditions and roadblocks in front of Charlie's effort to run a business on his property, why doesn't the county get after the numerous other folks with arguable nuisances on their property?

(By the way, Ken, thanks for not coming after my dad for the scrap metal pile he has next to his shed. Dad needs something to work on during his coming retirement!)

The county is thus busy looking into the dozen nuisances. Deb couldn't make it to one place, Eric and Lisa Lindholm's, due to muddy roads (if you have a nuisance, pray for more rain). She found some places, like Cox's repair shop west of town, are properly permitted and not a problem. Some others require further investigation.

Rules are rules, and if Deb finds violations, the county will have to enforce. I offer no opinion on whether Yagers or Johnsons or anyone else are violating the law, but I wonder if—no, actually, I hope these visits from county government will inspire a few more people to run for the County Commission.

HB 1153 Tabled: Lange, Verchio Protect Property Rights

Last week I asked whether the Republicans sponsoring HB 1153 were taking their party platform seriously. HB 1153 removes barriers to eminent domain, making it easier for railroad companies to take your land. Weakening property rights doesn't seem to fit with plank 11 of the SDGOP's 2008 platform.

Maybe my neighbor Gerry Lange helped remind his colleagues of their principles. Rep. Lange joined some conscience-stricken Republicans in tabling HB 1153 this morning. Helping Gerry block this bill on a 7–5 vote were some Republicans I've taken a poke or two at on this blog, including Rep. Mike Verchio from Hill City.

But don't count a bill out until you hear the magic words "41st day."

Open Fields? HB 1067 Requires Landowner Permission for Conservation Officers to Do Their Job

Representative Mike Verchio from Hill City has lobbed a handful of bills and resolutions onto the South Dakota state legislature's agenda. Among them, House Bill 1067 seeks to restrict conservation officers' access to private land. Verchio's bill would require the game warden to get landowner or lessee permission to enter private land. The bill does make reasonable suspicion and hot-pursuit exceptions, but it creates a barrier to compliance checks, where the conservation officer approaches hunters and fishers to check licenses and limits.

South Dakota Game Fish & Parks offers this defense of compliance checks:

Since the earliest days of statehood, conservation officers have carried out their enforcement responsibilities through the use of compliance checks here in South Dakota. These informal contacts with hunters and anglers in the field provide the public with assurance that laws and regulations established by the South Dakota Legislature and Game, Fish and Parks Commission are being followed. By Game, Fish and Parks Policy, conservation officers are allowed to go onto private land to conduct compliance checks in “open fields” only when they have visible evidence that hunting or fishing is actually occurring. Compliance checks provide a critically important deterrent to anyone who might consider violating the wildlife laws of the state. Without the ability to make personal contact with a hunter or angler in the field, it would be all but impossible for a conservation officer to know if that person had the proper license, was abiding by the bag limits, or was adhering to the numerous other restrictions enacted to protect and manage wildlife for the citizens of our state [Emmett J. Keyser, Asst. Director, Field Operations, "Compliance Checks Critical to Wildlife Conservation," South Dakota Game Fish & Parks].

So if we require conservation officers to get landowner permission, will we reduce the effectiveness of compliance checks? Some landowners would surely deny game wardens entry, and their land could then become free-fire zones for those (few, I hope) unlicensed, unscrupulous hunters.

I wonder if there's an analogy to sobriety checkpoints. I'm not fond of checkpoints, but I understand the argument that we're on public roads, driving's a privilege, etc. In enforcing hunting laws and protecting wildlife, game wardens have a tougher job than the highway patrol. The activity the HP is monitoring takes place on public roads (if you want to drive drunk and back into a tree in your own yard, well, I guess that's your business). The public resources GF&P is charged to protect are distributed across private land.

HB 1067 will bring up some useful discussion of private property rights and the Open Fields Doctrine. What do you think? Does the need to manage wildlife for the benefit of all who enjoy hunting and fishing outweigh private property rights? Weigh in here and with your legislators!

Madden Report Misses Distress Among Keystone Pipeline Neighbors

Report Also Finds Going Rate for Land Rights:
$40,000 per Mile

The South Dakota Public Utility Commission begins its hearing today on the Keystone XL pipeline permit. A public input session tomorrow (Tuesday) evening at 6 p.m. will be part of a week-long process in Room 414 of the State Capitol Building in Pierre.

The state appears ready to propagate the illusion that another strip of sovereign Canadian territory across South Dakota is hunky-dory. SD Tar Sands Pipelines highlights a report submitted to the Keystone XL docket by economist Michael Madden on behalf of the state. Dr. Madden assesses the socioeconomic impacts of the Keystone I pipeline TransCanada is currently completing in eastern South Dakota. Somewhat maddeningly, Dr. Madden finds that among farmers he interviewed near the pipeline route he didn't get to have the project on their land, "it was sensed that there was feeling of lack of good fortune on their part." He finds "no major worry road rehabilitation would not be performed by the company" [p. 13].

Dr. Madden evidently avoided speaking to Mike and Sue Sibson—"pipeline shoved up my..." doesn't strike me as an expression of "good fortune." Dr. Madden also apparently didn't catch the KDLT story (now deleted—evidently KDLT can't afford the server space to archive a few kilobytes of text each week) about TransCanada tearing up roads and dragging its feet on repairs in Beadle County. (For more on road concerns, see the Beadle County Commission minutes from July 30.)

But let's back up. Where did that "lack of good fortune" comment come from? Dr. Madden appears to have discovered how much money it took to keep landowners quiet and perhaps make other neighbors wish they could have cashed in on black gold and perpetual environmental disruption. While landowners were bound to secrecy by confidentiality agreements with TransCanada, Dr. Madden appears to have wheedled from at least a few of his interviewees some numbers.

Although exact numbers were not easily acquired from those interviewed, it appears that in the area where these interviews were conducted a typical access easement involved a payment of approximately $40,000 per mile of land. In addition ample mitigation has been arranged for loss ofcrop or grassland production for the interruption in production caused by construction activity and post-construction restoration. No one interviewed indicated that the amounts involved were unfair. In talking to other farm operators who lived near the project, but had no land on the corridor, it was sensed that there was feeling of lack of good fortune on their part [Madden report to PUC, p. 13].

$40,000 per mile. Given a 150-foot construction easement, that's $2,200 per acre. Compare that to $1,863–$2,634 ag land values, depending on the neighborhood.

But here's the real kicker: $40K per mile, across about 220 miles through eastern South Dakota. Total TransCanada would be shelling out to our landowners by Dr. Madden's estimate: $8.8 million... the current price of the amount of oil that will shoot through the Keystone pipeline every four and a half hours.

Looks to me like TransCanada bought its way across our state with payments hardly bigger than rounding error on their final balance sheet.

Why am I not feeling good fortune?

A Bike Trail Is Not a Pipeline: Where I Don't Stand on Eminent Domain

Sibby cuts to to the heart of an issue that I've been grappling with myself on the proposed Lake Herman bike trail:

During the TransCanada pipeline issue, you took what I thought was a pro-property rights position. But now it is obvious that you are not for property rights. So your TransCanada position must have been based soley on your radical environmental ideological worldview [Steve Sibson, comment, Madville Times, 2009.10.25].

Steve isn't the only Sibson whom I expected to brand me as an ideological traitor, and I've been mighty nervous about that very prospect. I have been very vocal in my opposition to the use of eminent domain and my defense of personal property rights for everyone from the farmers and ranchers along the Keystone pipeline and DM&E rail routes to Madison's own Dick Wiedenman. Yet I have characterized farmer David Pitts's language in defense of his property rights against encroachment by a bike trail as "selfish, inconsistent, and at least unneighborly if not insulting."

Sibby and Jason Bjorklund both rightly ask, What gives?

Review the record: at no point have I said I support taking David Pitts's land or anyone else's by eminent domain for the proposed bike trail. I've said previously that I oppose using eminent domain to build a bike trail. When I heard folks talking about the prospect of resorting to eminent domain for this project, my heart sank.

But let's get clear on one thing: TransCanada's use of eminent domain to build the Keystone pipeline is very different from the potential use of eminent domain to build the bike trail to Lake Herman.

1. The TransCanada land grab transferred land rights from various private parties to another private party. Eminent domain for this bike trail would transfer private land rights to the general public.
2. TransCanada took land under the flimsy claim that its pipeline is a "common carrier," a notion I find laughable, since TransCanada is the only party making direct use of the pipeline. The Lake Herman bike trail would be open to use by all residents and visitors alike.
3. TransCanada's Keystone pipeline provides no direct benefit to any landowner whose land has been taken for the pipeline easement or to any adjoining community. A much stronger case can be made that the bike trail provides direct benefits to the community: increased tourism, increased sales tax revenue, more recreational activities, and safer bike and pedestrain travel in town and to and from Lake Herman State Park (and I'm not even working hard to think up those advantages). Even the landowner stands to benefit—I will posit that direct access to a bike trail increases the sale value of the land for residential and commercial development. (Real estate agents, feel free to chime in with your perspective!)
   

It is also important to note that we aren't even at the eminent domain stage yet. David Pitts sure makes it sound like he won't sell, no way, no how... but his position may be nothing more than hardball negotiation to squeeze from the city every penny he can get. I have no problem with driving a hard bargain to get the best market price possible, and from the sounds of it, the city will likely offer a price significantly better than market value to make this project happen.

As I said to Jason, I don't stand to benefit much personally from the bike trail. The shortest route for me to ride to town will still be Highway 34... and contrary to Mr. Pitts's opinion that I have all the time in the world, when it's 0°F, I want my ride to be as quick as possible.

I don't need a bike trail. I don't need David Pitts's land to get to class or the park or anywhere else I ride.

However, I can look beyond myself. I can recognize that a lot of casual cyclists don't feel comfortable going pedal-to-gas-pedal with texting teen drivers and rumbling semis. I can recognize that plenty of campers feel a bit uneasy taking their kids on a bike ride to town on a county road with no shoulder. And I can recognize that bicycle tourists won't make an extra trip to Madison just ride on the shoulder of a highway.

I hope Mr. Pitts will look at both his self-interest and the public interest and realize that expanding the right-of-way easement on his land can serve both. He can make a guaranteed pot of money up front and still sell his land for development, quite possibly at a better price. He can also pave the way for increased recreational opportunities and tourism that will benefit everyone in the county. The Lake Herman bike trail is a win-win situation. We shouldn't need eminent domain to make it happen.

But if Mr. Pitts can't see that, if he fails to see how he himself comes out ahead on this deal, the city will have to make a very clear and evidenced case that the public benefits of the bike trail outweigh the personal property rights of Mr. Pitts and the other landowners along the proposed route. I await the making of that case.

Prissy Neighborhood Rules Foul Snob Hill Construction Plans

Local building codes and property rights bring out my inner conservative.

Madison residents (and my former students!) Jerae and Kendra Wire appear before the Madison City Commission tonight to request a variance to the building code. According to their appeal letter (2009.08.17 meeting agenda packet, pp. 13–14), the Wires bought their house on 939 Maplewood Drive last February "after renting it for two years and falling in love with the neighborhood."

These youngsters have already accumulated lots of toys, including a boat. The Wires would like to spare their neighbors the "eyesore" of parking that boat on the street, not to mention storage fees at a rent-a-shed facility elsewhere. Alas, their neighborhood, the Muggly Addition, has a covenant that forbids any outbuildings or sheds. Therefore, the Wires' only remaining option on their land is to build a third storage stall on their garage that would bring the total width of their garage to 42 feet, two feet wider than sideyard rules allow. (There is some dispute on that point: city regs say the sideyard must be at least 7.5 feet, but the Wires say their legal description says the sideyard can be 5.5 feet, like other homes in the neighborhood.)

I consider a 42-foot garage an architectural monstrosity. That's just two feet shy of the length of my house. A 42-foot garage symbolizes the absurd consumerism of our society.

But if Jerae and Kendra have the money and inclination to acquire lots of boats and mowers and other outdoor equipment, then they should be able to store that equipment on their property however they see fit. As long as that garage doesn't pose a hazard to neighbors' life and limb (and the eight neighbors signing the Wires' application don't think it does), then build away!

While we're at it, let's rescind the silly covenant forbidding sheds on their lawn. Neighbors who think a shed in the neighbor's yard is an eyesore need to spend less time looking in their neighbor's yard. We buy our own land so we can do what we want with it. If Jerae and Kendra could save money and grief by building a simple single garage for the boat in the backyard, I'd say let them. A ban on sheds is an artifact of the misguided pretentiousness that earned the northeast part of town its "Snob Hill" moniker.

Some neighborhoods in Madison need to get over themselves and let people make their own reasonable decisions about how to use their property.

Wiken Covers TransCanada Keystone XL Winner Meeting

Winner's own Doug Wiken offers good coverage on Dakota Today of the Keystone XL pipeline meetings out West River. I highly recommend his firsthand report from the public meeting with the PUC.

TransCanada's second pipeline across our fair state will need a lot more power and a lot more land easements. If they're really as good for South Dakota and for America as their fancy TV ads claim, TransCanada will show more respect for landowner rights than they did here in East River. They'll also agree to be good neighbors, use thicker pipe, and maybe even pay their fair share to the general welfare through an enhanced pipeline tax. One can hope....

SB 115: Boost for Resident Landowner Rights?

An eager reader alerts me to SB 115, which passed the House yesterday and now heads for the Governor's desk. The bill, whose prime sponsors are Senator Gary Hanson (D-1/Sisseton) and Representative Kristi Noem (R-6/Castlewood), amends rules on county comprehensive plans to require a petition for changes to said plans to have signatures from 30% of landowners registered to vote within the affected jurisdiction.

My casual read suggests that this change would give local residents a little more clout to battle zoning changes that would allow mega-feedlots and other noxious corporate developments. Seems fair: focus the decision-making power on the folks who have to live with the externalities of such operations every day rather than on the outside corporate buyers whose only connection with the consequences is the balance sheet. Perhaps the folks in Grant County, who've already staved off one such ag-industrial invasion, will welcome this additional legal protection of their local interests.

---------------------
Permit me to note one other loose metric of whether a bill has merit: I see our Senator Olson voted against SB 115, while our Representatives Fargen and Lange voted for it. With a record like that, this bill must be good! ;-)

Sioux Falls Neighbors Hide Anti-Islam Fear Behind Property Values

Don't be fooled by all the positive 'We are one country" sentiment of the Obama Inauguration: we still have a long way to go to accepting all colors and creeds and full partners in the American dream.

Case in point: As Islam expands in Sioux Falls, the faithful see the need for a second place of worship in the big city. But one man in the Garfield Elementary neighborhood, a couple blocks east of Kiwanis Avenue and Sherman Park, doesn't want their kind saying their prayers near his house.

Of course, Mr. Clinton Stickle doesn't express any outright racism or religious discrimination. Oh no, it's not that, really. He's just an upstanding citizen concerned about all the increased traffic and parking those Muslims will bring every Friday afternoon. Even worse, says Stickle, a Muslim house of worship will "flatten property values around here just like that."

Property values. Didn't folks use to say the same thing about blacks moving into the neighborhood? (Oh, darn, some people still do say it.) Even if Mr. Stickle has an economic point, lower property values due to an Islamic prayer center or some other outcropping of ethnic diversity only demonstrates the vile discriminatory attitudes the neighborhood and the broader society still harbor. The only reason an Islamic house of worship would lower property values is that the land-buying yahoos among us would say, "Eeewww, Muslims. I won't pay to live near them."

You know, it never occurred to me that the extra traffic and parking at the St. Thomas Catholic recreation center a half mile down the road from me here on Lake Herman was lowering my property values. And those darn Catholics are taking up good land that the county should condemn and sell to some good secular materialists like me who would build big houses and raise all of our property values.

Now I have a separate beef with discrimination in the name of Allah (check out the main Sioux Falls Islamic Center's blueprints for a new worship center, complete with separate and unequal worship spaces for men and women). But as Sioux Falls city planner Jeff Schmitt points out in the KELO report, Muslims "have a right to worship here."

President Barack Hussein Obama reminded us yesterday that Muslims are Americans, too. Guess we need more reminding.

It may sound impractical, but I'll make this suggestion: Muslim friends, if your Sioux Falls neighbors won't welcome you, come pray out here at Lake Herman. Heck, buy the lot next to me and build a big old mosque. Drive my property value down all you want and keep those Sioux Falls people from buying land near me. I think hearing the muezzin's call echo across the prairie and looking east to Mecca across Lake Herman to pray would be rather inspiring.

Lean on Rounds to Sign Sodsaver

The Feds passed the buck on the Sodsaver program. Senator Thune had hoped Sodsaver would give nationwide protection to grasslands by prohibiting crop insurance coverage for native grasslands that farmers plow into production. Unfortunately, the farm bill conference committee limited Sodsaver only to the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. That's us, but that also includes only 5% of the remaining native grasslands in the U.S. Congress also wimped out and left participation in the program to the discretion of the governors or the affected areas.

Now Governor Rounds and his colleagues in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana have to decide whether they should impose on their farmers a restriction that competing farmers elsewhere with craftier Senators will not face. I understand why Governor Rounds might lean against signing on to Sodsaver (especially when he's speaking to the South Dakota Corn Growers, who are urging members to send this form letter to the Governor to protect their land rights.

I would note that, flawed as it is in its limited geographical scope, Sodsaver is not taking away land rights. Sodsaver simply declines to subsidize with federal crop insurance dollars those landowners who use their rights to tear up native sod.

Perhaps Governor Rounds needs the same reminder that Dan Bohl offered Linda Hilde last week: sometimes there are better uses for land than making money. Even limited just to our Prairie Pothole region, Sodsaver will protect important habitat for ducks and songbirds, preserve environmental buffers for wetlands, and provide greater economic diversity and stability than we would get panting everything between the Missouri and the Mississippi to corn (see Ducks Unlimited for a fuller explanation).

Sodsaver isn't perfect, but it's still the right thing to do. Governor Rounds, give it your support.

Citizen Activism Wins Amendment to Madison Fence Ordinance

Cross-posted from RealMadison.org!

Citizen activism doesn't mean you have to hug trees, join the ACLU, or wear Birks and dreads. Sometimes activism is just calling your city commissioner or going to the meeting with some neighbors to make sure government does the right thing.

Monday night, a little citizen activism got that job done. MDL's Elisa Sand reports that about 20 people showed up at the Madison City Commission meeting to keep an eye on the final reading and passage of the now infamous Ordinance #1468, the fence ordinance. Evidently the watchful eyes of folks at the meeting, as well as some concerns expressed to commissioners since the first reading a couple weeks ago, encouraged Commissioner Dan Bohl to propose amending the ordinance to remove one word: maintain. The commission was o.k. with that, so now, you cannot construct or erect a fence that encloses your city electric meter, but if you already have a fence that encloses your meter, the city won't make you rip it out. (Now, if the city could explain to me the difference between construct and erect....)

See? Citizens can get government to listen. Be the squeaky wheel, show up at the meeting, and you just might get the grease.

Now, about that Mundt Tournament....

Citizen Activism Afoot! Dog Lovers Rallying on Fence Ordinance

..oh, those darn community organizers...

Promoted from the comment section at the Madville Times:

Julie Lavin, of Almost Home Canine Rescue is coordinating a group to attend Monday night's meeting on November 10th at 5:30. If you are concerned or have a fence that would be affected, please contact Julie at jlavin6@sio.midco.net and make sure you contact your City Commissioners, Dick Ericsson, Karen Lembcke, Dan Bohl, Scott Delzer and Mayor Gene Hexom to express your thoughts prior to Monday night's meeting at City Hall.

Now that's the kind of citizen participation I like to see! Remember, the squeaky wheels get the grease (or is it the squeaky pups that get the Alpo?). But please, leash up your pooches outside the City Commission room....

...submit your comments at RealMadison.org!