Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

[goon]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Does this report have anything to do about the campus gateway stuff that had been talked about on the west side of campus? I thought their was something about like a public/private partnership to add non tradition options for good etc. im at work so not able to read the whole thing. basically it sounds like everyone is trying to protect their own self interests.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Exactly. Lots of misinformation about the scope and nature of the project out there. I'm disappointed that there is an effort to deal with this local issue through legislative action. Seems like a bad precedent to me

Do you suppose Senator Munsterman will have a primary challenge the next time around? Between this and guns in the classroom, he seems to be commiting political sucide, IMO. I am having a terrible time sorting through the mis-information. I dont get this private effort that Bielfelt, et al, keep talking about. Apparently it does not included the movers and shakers in Brookings.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I seldom look at the SDSU Colleigian Newspaper, but at today's game, there was a stack of said newspapers as you entered Frost from the west. I picked up a copy and found this article in the last issue. What a contrast with the reporting in The Brookings Register. A much more detailed report in this issue.

Link:
http://www.sdsucollegian.com/2013/01...-sdsu-project/

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

SDSU was ranked 175th in Fiscal Year 2011 among all institutions in research grants according to the National Science Foundation. The amount: $69.68 million in 2011. We have climbed 24 spots in seven fiscal years. In the past two years, we moved ahead of the U of Wyoming (ranked 190) and the U of Montana (ranked 183). Most of the institutions that are ranked ahead of SDSU have medical schools. The growth in research dollars at SDSU are part of the prediction former SDSU Pres. Peggy Gordon Elliott Miller made when announcing that SDSU was going to go to D1 in sports. Here’s the story about the research dollars on SDSU’s website (and you can research this further through the National Science Foundation): http://www.sdstate.edu/research/index.cfm

The SDSU “request for proposals” (RFP) mentioned in an earlier post is the target of HB 1134. The RFP calls for proposals from developers to construct upper-level (juniors and seniors) and graduate-student housing that will be upper-scale with some amenities (compare to apartments known as Berg & Bailey). The construction will be on university land which will be rented to the developer.

It is a proven fact that up-scale housing for juniors and seniors and graduate students located on or very near a university campus is a factor considered by some grad students in selecting a university. Grad students, particularly PhD candidates, drive research. Now, go back and re-read the first paragraph about the growth in research dollars. I want to see continued growth in research dollars. I want to see South Dakota be a leader, through SDSU, in development of its resources, its people and its ideas. Research does that.

In recent years, SDSU has added new graduate degrees including PhD degrees. The addition of those degrees is a significant component for attracting research dollars. PhD candidates using the $69.68 million in 2011, employed people and provided research opportunities to undergrads. The University achieved real results from such research demonstrated by new businesses, products and patents. The prestige of the university is enhanced which, in turn, attracts better students and more students…and more dollars. But it isn’t strictly about money: it is all about development of this State, one of the primary purposes of SDSU.

The RFP is under study by a committee appointed by the Regents (disclosure: I am an observer member of the committee, observing on behalf of the SDSU Alumni Association and the SDSU Foundation). The goal is to have a private entity construct and manage the housing at no cost to the University. The University’s land will be leased to the private entity. The background and information relative to the project has been on the internet and in the public domain for a long time. Don’t take my word for it, do a little research. You can start here:
http://www.sdstate.edu/apartment/

Local developers could have submitted proposals but did not. Typically such projects, many of which have been constructed at other universities in the USA, involve proposals submitted by consortiums or joint ventures. No local developer has offered to build such housing. They only offer, through HB 1134, to thwart SDSU’s and the Regent’s exploration of the potential for having private money (you read that right: NO COST TO THE STATE OR THE UNIVERSITY) provide housing that meets the University’s criteria which will be attractive to upper-level and graduate students.

Brookings Economic Development and Brookings County Commission have both publicly support the RFP. The SDSU Foundation and the SDSU Alumni Association are both on record supporting the RFP and are opposed to HB 1134. The Brookings City Council has officially taken no position.

NOW, HERE IS AN IMPORTANT POINT: The goal of HB 1134 is to mess up the RFP for upper-level housing at SDSU but the sad fact, as is so often the case with legislation, is HB 1134 will impact the entire State and all of its universities. Although the goal of those who prompted the introduction of HB 1134 is to interfere with the SDSU RFP, HB 1134 has the potential to equally impact other projects at other South Dakota campuses. It can be argued that Northern State University has a stronger need for such housing – as was noted in a prior post, the City of Aberdeen and Northern State University testified in opposition to HB 1134.

Personally, I am always sensitive to public entities entering the arena in which private enterprise is already competing. But in this case, the type of housing that the Regents and the University have identified as important and necessary to keep SDSU on purpose, IS NOT BEING PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES. You disagree? Then drive around Brookings and provide me with the addresses.

Everyone familiar with the Research Park to the east of campus (adjacent to the Interstate)? That’s a little precedent. Who do you think owns the land? Who do you think put up the buildings? Who do you think benefits from the public/private partnership? Have you considered how many businesses have been and are being incubated at the Research Park and how many will in the future as the concept continues to grow and mature? Were private developers filling the role now being filled by the public/private partnership in the Research Park? No. South Dakota is only about 10 to 15 or more years behind North Dakota on the concept of business incubation at a research park adjacent to a state university.

Do some research and arrive at you own conclusions. I have concluded HB 1134 is wrong-headed and will be just another example of how South Dakotans have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot from time-to-time. (Remember all the opposition to declaring D1?) Will it be a fatal wound? No. But it just makes advancement a little tougher.

Added later: sorry about the length. The old journalist in me can still type fast BUT I have no editor keeping me in check.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Do some research and arrive at you own conclusions. I have concluded HB 1134 is wrong-headed and will be just another example of how South Dakotans have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot from time-to-time. (Remember all the opposition to declaring D1?) Will it be a fatal wound? No. But it just makes advancement a little tougher.

++++

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

++++

++++++Thanks JackJD for shedding some light here. Certain people in Brookings need to be exposed for who they are and who they represent. Dist 7 repsenstatives of which I am not a voter are representing special interests and not the people of Dist 7. I think both these two co--sponsors of HB 1134 should be voted out of office. Mr Bielfelt owns a garbage service that serves the campus of SDSU and he makes millions off of SDSU. What a jerk!!!. He is not the noble entrepuener that he pretends to be.

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

The Collegian Article (link provided by Nidaros) is good reporting in part because you can read for yourself the statements by the Representatives. Note Munsterman, main proponent of the bill, saying its a community issue. Boy, I throw the BS flag on that! If this is a community issue, then I can tell you right now that Watertown will immediately enter into a bidding war with Yankton, Sioux Falls, ... you name it, in trying to move SDSU.

This is a state issue and every citizen in the state interested in improving higher education in a manner which benefits the entire state, has a say in this one. Most in in Brookings understand that point (as noted before, the Brookings Economic Development Corp. supports the RFP that is the target of HB 1134).

Another very important point: Muntersman said he worked out an amended version of HB 1134 with Regents CEO Warner. DO NOT CONSTRUE Munsterman's words to mean that Dr. Warner or the Regents support HB 1134 as amended. Dr. Warner and the Regents are opposed to HB 1134 as amended. They did the responsible thing in offering to work with the proponents so that HB 1134 is more focused and has fewer unintended consequences. That was responsible action by the Regents but is not an endorsement.

If you are interested in this issue then do some reading and research on your own. I listened to the House State Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday morning -- it was available as a podcast. I haven't researched this evening (Saturday) to locate a link to the hearing. If you can locate the hearing, you can listen to Dr. Warner from the Regents and others speaking against or for the bill.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Personally, I think the NW quadarant would make an excellent park, or some sort of outdoor facilty. Building on this propery is what I would call a nutty idea. Someone is not thinking in proposing this idea. How they got the BOR to sign on is beyond me and its really gotten to be a politcal football to kick around town. If we want town/gown ideas, this is not it. As far as risk taking, I dont think we will have a mad rush for bidding. Mr. Biefelt may be right about being overbuilt right now. Why then go forward with a big project like this? The more I think about this I starting to come down on Mr./Rev Bielfelt's side.

These are my words before reading the Collegian today during the game. The game was not exactly a thriller, and gave me a chance to read the facts and retract these statements which I am doing at this time. I could have deleted this post but thought this would be more of a noble thing to do. And to LakeJack, I think I was kidding myself by making these comments to begin with.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

You have the location wrong. It would go in the parking lot behind the Ag heritage museum.

I no doubt got a lot of things wrong.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

The Collegian Article (link provided by Nidaros) is good reporting in part because you can read for yourself the statements by the Representatives. Note Munsterman, main proponent of the bill, saying its a community issue. Boy, I throw the BS flag on that! If this is a community issue, then I can tell you right now that Watertown will immediately enter into a bidding war with Yankton, Sioux Falls, ... you name it, in trying to move SDSU.

This is a state issue and every citizen in the state interested in improving higher education in a manner which benefits the entire state, has a say in this one. Most in in Brookings understand that point (as noted before, the Brookings Economic Development Corp. supports the RFP that is the target of HB 1134).

Another very important point: Muntersman said he worked out an amended version of HB 1134 with Regents CEO Warner. DO NOT CONSTRUE Munsterman's words to mean that Dr. Warner or the Regents support HB 1134 as amended. Dr. Warner and the Regents are opposed to HB 1134 as amended. They did the responsible thing in offering to work with the proponents so that HB 1134 is more focused and has fewer unintended consequences. That was responsible action by the Regents but is not an endorsement.

If you are interested in this issue then do some reading and research on your own. I listened to the House State Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday morning -- it was available as a podcast. I haven't researched this evening (Saturday) to locate a link to the hearing. If you can locate the hearing, you can listen to Dr. Warner from the Regents and others speaking against or for the bill.

Maybe its my methodolgy in searching, but I dont seem to find the audio's fron the committee on this bill. I seem to keep coming up with the Collegian article and The Brookings Register article and nothing else. I am surprise that some of the other SD daily papers have not done anything on this bill.

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Maybe its my methodolgy in searching, but I dont seem to find the audio's fron the committee on this bill. I seem to keep coming up with the Collegian article and The Brookings Register article and nothing else. I am surprise that some of the other SD daily papers have not done anything on this bill.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/20...aspx?Bill=1134
Click on the SDPTV logo under the Audio Column.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/20...aspx?Bill=1134
Click on the SDPTV logo under the Audio Column.

Thanks I was just about to post this same link. I been listening and have gotten a ear full. Looks like they made a SL field trip to see similar projects, at IUPIU, IPFWU, UMKC and OU.

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

HB 1134 was deferred to the 41st day by the House State Affairs Committee this morning (2/4/13), essentially killing the bill [there are occassions when a bill deferred to the 41st day gets resurrected but I think that is unlikely].

The SDSU RFP project now under consideration by the Regents continues to move forward. The housing project is not locked in -- but at least the Regents can continue to work on the project and see if it will work in South Dakota for not only SDSU, but other campuses too.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

HB 1134 was deferred to the 41st day by the House State Affairs Committee this morning (2/4/13), essentially killing the bill [there are occassions when a bill deferred to the 41st day gets resurrected but I think that is unlikely].

The SDSU RFP project now under consideration by the Regents continues to move forward. The housing project is not locked in -- but at least the Regents can continue to work on the project and see if it will work in South Dakota for not only SDSU, but other campuses too.

This is good news. Listening to the hearing testimony, President Chicoine mentioned that the convention center and retired housing were not part of the immediate plan, but were those of a test committee, testing ideas that had been proposed. I hope Mr Bielfelt and others learned their lesson from this.

I am also thinking that the fact that Marriot backing out of the Swiftel Center as mentioned by OldHare in a earlier post, would also make any campus movement towards a convention center/hotel and retirement housing rethink their steps. Its just not feasible at this time. Brookings/SDSU has a long ways to go in terms of economic development. There is still lots of money to be made by Mr. Bielfelt and others. Why fight city hall(SDSU Admin) on this issue?

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

++++++Thanks JackJD for shedding some light here. Certain people in Brookings need to be exposed for who they are and who they represent. Dist 7 repsenstatives of which I am not a voter are representing special interests and not the people of Dist 7. I think both these two co--sponsors of HB 1134 should be voted out of office. Mr Bielfelt owns a garbage service that serves the campus of SDSU and he makes millions off of SDSU. What a jerk!!!. He is not the noble entrepuener that he pretends to be.

I have no strong opinions on this project as it is unlikely to directly impact me. However, I am a bit concerned whenever state entities begin to crowd into private territory...

Not specifically directed at you Nidaros, as we have butted heads on political matters before, but several on this thread have referred to special interests and those representing them in a negative light.

I am no legislative historian, but special interests have a role and deserve a right to be heard and even legislated for. The modern definition of a special interest group has come to be any group with beliefs contrary to one's own opinion. Some special interest groups of the last century include those who fought for women's suffrage, civil rights, gays in the military, gay marriage, etc...

My point is only that special interests are not inherently bad.

A rule of thumb I use when pondering politics is that if a politician is acting contrary to their self interests (getting reelected), there could be some validity to their position. The same could be said for a businessman who profits from a relationship with the University but strongly opposes University expansion in this way...