February 7, 2009
By Greg Olson
Most South Dakotans would agree that the intrusion of government in private life is to be avoided. Many South Dakotans would prefer to limit the size of government as well. Unfortunately, there are people of considerable monetary and personal influence that are willing to increase the size and intrusiveness of government in order to serve their own interests. It appears that legislation has been introduced over time that would help specific groups of people to avoid need for future legislative processes and/or avoid public scrutiny of the actions of governmental organizations similar to the Ellsworth Development Authority. It is difficult to view this ongoing effort to promote such legislation as something other than an effort to benefit this influential minority.
Conspiracy does not accurately explain this view of the use of influence and power with regard to government. Nor should anyone infer from this article that there is any nefarious intention associated with the coincidental minority benefit from this type of legislation. Capitalism many times allows each of us a least some opportunity to take advantage of a situation created by legislation that has as its stated intention the promotion of the public good. It is difficult to lobby against the laws that claim to provide jobs, save local tax dollars, or improve the local economy. Most promotions for this type of new legislation include these general beneficial claims. The state of the state addresses we have heard in the past usually include renditions of how well these legislative actions have worked.
Every elected official in our state has probably laid claim to being somehow personally responsible for keeping Ellsworth Air Force Base in operation. Believing these claims is normally relative to whether or not you voted for these officials instead of whether or not you or they can actually prove what they say. A large number of people in our state are convinced of the necessity of continuation of the military presence at Ellsworth AFB. It is not the intention of this article to debate the claims of elected officials or the merit of the continuation of Ellsworth AFB.
The article addresses what is disturbing about HB1301; the language of the bill is broad and somewhat ambiguous. With this type of language, what is at stake with this legislation has everything to do with limiting what it could be used for rather than desire to achieve the good it might produce now. Some of the language included in the proposed bill could be considered alarming if it is referring to actions being considered relating to someone that may be reading this article now; such as in section seven, paragraphs 27 and 28: the Authority may “Exercise such power over property controlled by the authority as is necessary or expedient for the promotion of health and safety; and do any act and execute any instrument which in the authority's judgment is necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers granted by this Act or reasonably implied from it.” Everyone should read the entire bill.
Other language in this bill appears to circumvent the authorities of existing government bodies, such as the county commissions and city governments. Language to ensure oversight and public transparency is not obvious in the bill’s current form. There is no way for the actions of the authority to be referred to a vote of the people. The members of the Authority are appointed, not elected. As another fellow concerned citizen pointed out, if there is no intent to take advantage of this type of language now or in the future why include it?
You can be assured that minority interests that will benefit from this legislation will support it. Government officials that can use certain actions of this Authority to enhance their own images for supporting it will do so. Unfortunately, the average voter in South Dakota would like to believe in the good faith efforts of our elected officials and media reporters. As stated earlier, it is difficult to get past the claims of job creation, money saving, and economic improvement. These claims may be true, but that does not eliminate the need to keep poorly written and ambiguous legislation from becoming law.
A visit to the South Dakota Legislative Research website can be very enlightening. Political bias is non-existent at this site; it’s just the facts. The bills under consideration can be read in their entirety. Search of current and past proposed legislation can be accomplished with relative ease. For example, using the search phrase “eminent domain” can show how statutory laws have been adjusted to satisfy specific requirements. The number of references implies that our legislators have taken the time in the past to be very specific. No doubt this can be or has been a slow and frustrating process. This slow process is one of the reasons our democratic form of government is generally fair.
It can not be in the public interest to abdicate public responsibility by creating an “independent public instrumentality“ with the powers to tax, own property, and condemn property at its discretion without apparent recourse by the public other than by lawsuit. The chamber of commerce, Black Hills Vision, Ellsworth Task Force, the county commissions, two US Senators, one US Representative, the state legislature, and local city government already exist to perform some or all of the functions of this proposed Authority. Ellsworth AFB is here, the entities just listed provide a long list of accomplishments in promoting and preserving the base. What additional purpose is there for this Authority?
In article that appeared in the Feb. 7, 2009 Rapid City Journal a local Rapid City committee recommended that the state should become more involved in promoting “compatible development around the base.” Hasn’t the state been quite active in base promotion in the past? The article quoted the Mayor of Box Elder as saying, “. . . we’re in favor of the governor creating the authority as long as it’s done in friendly manner.” Is it possible to exercise eminent domain in a friendly manner?
In the RCJ article the authority is referred to as “an important mechanism to help deal with growth.” This analogy implies that the authority is another tool to be used to accomplish a task. Tools generally are used to perform specific purposes. The tools already exist to tax, create easements, condemn property, acquire property, zone, and several other powers either listed or implied in this new legislation. What not so obvious new tool feature does this legislation provide?
