Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

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...

If Bielfelt and others who have been besmirched by the public sector where to share their profits with the public, I would be okay with that. As I said before Biefelt is making plenty off of SDSU with his garbage and rentals. Without SDSU he would not have some of his resources and the fact that Munsterman and Tidemann introduced the bill on their behalf is selfish to say the least and where do they benefit the public good with this burdenson oversight? In fact if this bill ever becomes law they will be blocking growth of housing at SDSU which this is all about.

They have had their opportunity to give a proposal on this project as indicated by JackJD and choose not to. Some much for the market system, its not perfect is it?

This protecting the private sector is a joke plan and simple. In this case this bill would have protected special, special interests namely, Mills Property Management and Bielfelts company whose name escapes me, but they dont need this protection. They have their own boot straps and in this case they over stepping their authority by requiring extra oversight by the legislature,and that of the admin of SDSU, who knows what they are doing by inviting an investor to come and take all of the risk. Apparently Biefelt and Mills dont have the balls to take this risk as they are standing around and proding sheep like Munsterman in the legislature. The end result is we have Bill 1134.

[goon]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

is their anywhere to actually read this bill? I googled and didnt find anything related to what is discussed here.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

is their anywhere to actually read this bill? I googled and didnt find anything related to what is discussed here.

Here is the link provide by UW and SDSU.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/20...aspx?Bill=1134

Down below is there is a print version.

[goon]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Here is the link provide by UW and SDSU.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/20...aspx?Bill=1134

Down below is there is a print version.

thanks. I guess I am torn on it and see benefits both ways.

[filbert]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

If Bielfelt and others who have been besmirched by the public sector where to share their profits with the public, I would be okay with that. As I said before Biefelt is making plenty off of SDSU with his garbage and rentals. Without SDSU he would not have some of his resources and the fact that Munsterman and Tidemann introduced the bill on their behalf is selfish to say the least and where do they benefit the public good with this burdenson oversight? In fact if this bill ever becomes law they will be blocking growth of housing at SDSU which this is all about.

They have had their opportunity to give a proposal on this project as indicated by JackJD and choose not to. Some much for the market system, its not perfect is it?

This protecting the private sector is a joke plan and simple. In this case this bill would have protected special, special interests namely, Mills Property Management and Bielfelts company whose name escapes me, but they dont need this protection. They have their own boot straps and in this case they over stepping their authority and that of the admin of SDSU, who knows what they are doing by inviting an investor to come and take all of the risk. Apparently Biefelt and Mills dont have the balls to take this risk as they are standing around and with sheep like Munsterman in the legislature we have Bill 1134.

Nidaros, your ideological stance has befuddled me yet again.

I'm having trouble seeing how the (imho of course) sorry spectacle of a bunch of mover-and-shaker-wannabes running to the legislature and doing special-pleading against what is (if I understand things correctly) essentially a proposal to privatize campus residence halls constitutes a failure of the "market system" or of "the private sector."

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

If Bielfelt and others who have been besmirched by the public sector where to share their profits with the public, I would be okay with that. As I said before Biefelt is making plenty off of SDSU with his garbage and rentals. Without SDSU he would not have some of his resources and the fact that Munsterman and Tidemann introduced the bill on their behalf is selfish to say the least and where do they benefit the public good with this burdenson oversight? In fact if this bill ever becomes law they will be blocking growth of housing at SDSU which this is all about.

They have had their opportunity to give a proposal on this project as indicated by JackJD and choose not to. Some much for the market system, its not perfect is it?

This protecting the private sector is a joke plan and simple. In this case this bill would have protected special, special interests namely, Mills Property Management and Bielfelts company whose name escapes me, but they dont need this protection. They have their own boot straps and in this case they over stepping their authority by requiring extra oversight by the legislature,and that of the admin of SDSU, who knows what they are doing by inviting an investor to come and take all of the risk. Apparently Biefelt and Mills dont have the balls to take this risk as they are standing around and proding sheep like Munsterman in the legislature. The end result is we have Bill 1134.

To play devil's advocate, could an influx of additional housing be detrimental to everyone's property values? In other words, yes, Mills and Biefelts have a lot to lose. However, the general population in Brookings would also lose out? Under this scenario, could Biefelt, Mills, and Munsterman be acting in the public's interest?

I don't know what Biefelt makes off of SDSU. Does he not pay sales and property taxes (sharing his profits with the public)? Making money is not a crime, last I checked.

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I don't object to those who think their financial interests are at stake,trying to make a case for changing the law. A lot of bills considered each year start out as one, two or a few people getting personally upset about something. Sometimes the result is a good law. Sometimes the result is a dumb law (also known as lawyers' full employment laws...I can make that joke.) It's a terrible process to watch but, over time, it's usually proves to be the best system humans have be enable to devise.

I think we should always skeptical and willing to ask and consider hard questions when it appears public assets may be used in competition with those who risk their private assets. However, private parties sometimes will not (and sometimes can not) accomplish a goal and meet a need. I resist giving examples because someone will want to debate the example but there are such examples. Think about some of the services our government provides that cannot be provided by the private sector.

In this particular case, the Regents and SDSU are trying to address a need that has not been. It could be argued that the need cannot not be met without some form of public/private partnership. (And, there is no guarantee that the RFP proposal will work in the long run.).

I am convinced the RFP project that HB 1134 attempted to stop or hinder, is worthwhile and can only work as a public/private project.

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

To play devil's advocate, could an influx of additional housing be detrimental to everyone's property values? In other words, yes, Mills and Biefelts have a lot to lose. However, the general population in Brookings would also lose out? Under this scenario, could Biefelt, Mills, and Munsterman be acting in the public's interest?

I don't know what Biefelt makes off of SDSU. Does he not pay sales and property taxes (sharing his profits with the public)? Making money is not a crime, last I checked.

Note that those issues were considered in the community and the following entities support the RFP: BrookingsChamber of Commerce; BrookingsEconomic Development Corporation; and the Brookings County Commission. The Brookings City Council was divided and took no official position.

I see great potential for this type of housing to bring in new students -- grad students --who otherwise would not be at SDSU.

Out of a potential renter pool of 7000 students (juniors, seniors and grad students) the RFP under study will provide a few hundred beds.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

To play devil's advocate, could an influx of additional housing be detrimental to everyone's property values? In other words, yes, Mills and Biefelts have a lot to lose. However, the general population in Brookings would also lose out? Under this scenario, could Biefelt, Mills, and Munsterman be acting in the public's interest?
I don't know what Biefelt makes off of SDSU. Does he not pay sales and property taxes (sharing his profits with the public)? Making money is not a crime, last I checked.

To your first question, they are acting in their own self interest. They are not acting in my self interest. Rep Gibson who represents Dist 22 did represent me in an honorable fashion in that she voted to kill this bill.
Full disclosure, I voted for Gibson last fall.

To your second question, no its not a crime, but its stupid to bite the hand that feeds the mouth. Just saying....without SDSU where would Biefelt be? Preaching some where and starving like all the other Lutheran clergy. Oh that right he inherited a pot full of resources and thats not a crime either.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Nidaros, your ideological stance has befuddled me yet again.

I'm having trouble seeing how the (imho of course) sorry spectacle of a bunch of mover-and-shaker-wannabes running to the legislature and doing special-pleading against what is (if I understand things correctly) essentially a proposal to privatize campus residence halls constitutes a failure of the "market system" or of "the private sector."

If these wannabes had submitted a proposal then they would have demonstrated belief in the private sector or the market system. Since they choose to run to the legistlature, looks like they have abandoned belief in the invisible hand and are seeking help from the public sector. Seems like roles have shifted here from a philosphical point of view. That is what I am saying. If JackJD prognosis of a dead bill is correct by action taken today, all is well at SDSU and my posting on this thread is completed.

With retirement funds invested on Wall Street, I am forced to believe in the market system and damit it must not fail until they lower me in the ground. After that the rest of you youngins will be left to defend the benefits of the market system.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I don't object to those who think their financial interests are at stake,trying to make a case for changing the law. A lot of bills considered each year start out as one, two or a few people getting personally upset about something. Sometimes the result is a good law. Sometimes the result is a dumb law (also known as lawyers' full employment laws...I can make that joke.) It's a terrible process to watch but, over time, it's usually proves to be the best system humans have be enable to devise.

I think we should always skeptical and willing to ask and consider hard questions when it appears public assets may be used in competition with those who risk their private assets. However, private parties sometimes will not (and sometimes can not) accomplish a goal and meet a need. I resist giving examples because someone will want to debate the example but there are such examples. Think about some of the services our government provides that cannot be provided by the private sector.

In this particular case, the Regents and SDSU are trying to address a need that has not been. It could be argued that the need cannot not be met without some form of public/private partnership. (And, there is no guarantee that the RFP proposal will work in the long run.).

I am convinced the RFP project that HB 1134 attempted to stop or hinder, is worthwhile and can only work as a public/private project.

This is very fair, and I appreciate your ability to speak on it without using class warfare rhetoric.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Note that those issues were considered in the community and the following entities support the RFP: BrookingsChamber of Commerce; BrookingsEconomic Development Corporation; and the Brookings County Commission. The Brookings City Council was divided and took no official position.

I see great potential for this type of housing to bring in new students -- grad students --who otherwise would not be at SDSU.

Out of a potential renter pool of 7000 students (juniors, seniors and grad students) the RFP under study will provide a few hundred beds.

I kind of assumed the various entities considered economic impacts, and I mostly trust their informed judgement.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

To your first question, they are acting in their own self interest. They are not acting in my self interest. Rep Gibson who represents Dist 22 did represent me in an honorable fashion in that she voted to kill this bill.
Full disclosure, I voted for Gibson last fall.

To your second question, no its not a crime, but its stupid to bite the hand that feeds the mouth. Just saying....without SDSU where would Biefelt be? Preaching some where and starving like all the other Lutheran clergy. Oh that right he inherited a pot full of resources and thats not a crime either.

Just because someone is acting in their own self interest, does that mean they cannot be simultaneously be acting in the interests of others. Are there people that voted for rep Gibson who feel the opposite on this issue? Did rep gibson represent them dishonorably? As JackJD noted earlier, this is how legislation works. Sometimes you get good stuff, sometimes bad. In this case the bill is going down (likely), and I have no strong opinion on the matter.

Its local politics, not Washington DC. All the parties involved live in the communities they represent, and they make hard decisions that are going to upset some of their district every time they go to Pierre. Why anyone would run for office (school board up to state positions) baffles me.

I asked myself the question early on why Biefelt would oppose SDSU when he works closely with SDSU on other matters... perhaps he genuinely feels this is a bad idea? Perhaps Munsterman, Mills, and the whole lot just genuinely feel like this is a bad idea. Nope, they are the big, bad, rich guys. They will get dirty looks in their own communities, their kids might hear about it on the playground, people might feel like giving them a piece of their mind when walking out of church or at a restaurant while enjoying a meal with their family. Again, why anyone would get involved in politics when there is such blind hatred for anything contrary is astounding to me.

[RowdyRabbit]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

As a admittedly grumpy homeowner within Brookings, over a mile from campus, with a college rental house on one side of me, and another one house away on the other side, neither of which were college rentals when we bought, I'm all for more housing on campus.

Get them the heck away from my house.

Though, to be fair, the ones next door have been decently pleasant, other than they don't mow or shovel the sidewalks. Hobo day weekend the last few years hasn't even been to terrible.

A lot can change when new kids come in though, and I'd much rather there not be college kids next door.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I asked myself the question early on why Biefelt would oppose SDSU when he works closely with SDSU on other matters... perhaps he genuinely feels this is a bad idea? Perhaps Munsterman, Mills, and the whole lot just genuinely feel like this is a bad idea. Nope, they are the big, bad, rich guys. They will get dirty looks in their own communities, their kids might hear about it on the playground, people might feel like giving them a piece of their mind when walking out of church or at a restaurant while enjoying a meal with their family. Again, why anyone would get involved in politics when there is such blind hatred for anything contrary is astounding to me.

You made sense until you got to this paragraph. So what makes me an oger? Because I pointed out certain arrangements that benefit certain parties economically? I never gave any one a dirty look, but I dont mind picking on the rich OR the POOR who act in their self interests. Blind hatred? I dont get it. I dont have to be a conservative Republican to speak my mind or do I?