Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

[Prairiehaas]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

You certain he isn't a conservative Democrat?

Why is it nearly all issues have to be debated in the light of haves and have nots (in America there are truely so very few have nots)? This appears to be an appropriate roll of government issue. The state has percieved a need in the provate market, identified that the need is not being filled, and is developing a public/private mechanism to address te perceived need.

I can certainly see why certain private entities would have trouble with privatizing residence halls on campus. This puts the State in direct competition with the private parties. With the State having a distinct competetive advantage in terms of housing location, and access to government subsidy. On the other hand I can see that there is limited upscale appratment style housing near campus. I had a son living off campus for a couple of years, there is some real crap out there. And, what is available is a bit over priced.

IMHO the sponsors of the bil did a service by sparking a debate on the issue.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

You certain he isn't a conservative Democrat?

Why is it nearly all issues have to be debated in the light of haves and have nots (in America there are truely so very few have nots)? This appears to be an appropriate roll of government issue. The state has percieved a need in the provate market, identified that the need is not being filled, and is developing a public/private mechanism to address te perceived need.

I can certainly see why certain private entities would have trouble with privatizing residence halls on campus. This puts the State in direct competition with the private parties. With the State having a distinct competetive advantage in terms of housing location, and access to government subsidy. On the other hand I can see that there is limited upscale appratment style housing near campus. I had a son living off campus for a couple of years, there is some real crap out there. And, what is available is a bit over priced.

IMHO the sponsors of the bil did a service by sparking a debate on the issue.

I really dont care what his politcal affliation is or any one else for that matter. The big point everyone is missing here is there were requests for proposals( RFP), of which the local interests did not response and then for them to call foul, is very hypocritcal, and to use legislative measures against SDSU for forming public/private arrangements really takes the cake. If you listen to the hearing at the posted link, President Chicoine said that additional building of housing would put a weight on debt service and the ability to service current debt. The only alternative found through a study was to have a private investor come in and assume all the risk. Dont these guys believe in the private enterprise? I guess not, only when it works in their favor. The mission of the university is to attract research dollars as JackJD said and housing is an important part of this objective as is the providing housing for junior and senior students.

I invite you drive around Brookings and see all the eyesores that pass for student housing, maybe these slum lords dont deserve to be in the game.

[JackJD]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Pie time?

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Pie time?

I believe it is. Going to the PO to see if my missing 1099's arrived.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

You certain he isn't a conservative Democrat?

Why is it nearly all issues have to be debated in the light of haves and have nots (in America there are truely so very few have nots)? This appears to be an appropriate roll of government issue. The state has percieved a need in the provate market, identified that the need is not being filled, and is developing a public/private mechanism to address te perceived need.

I can certainly see why certain private entities would have trouble with privatizing residence halls on campus. This puts the State in direct competition with the private parties. With the State having a distinct competetive advantage in terms of housing location, and access to government subsidy. On the other hand I can see that there is limited upscale appratment style housing near campus. I had a son living off campus for a couple of years, there is some real crap out there. And, what is available is a bit over priced.

IMHO the sponsors of the bil did a service by sparking a debate on the issue.

Thank you, the bold is the point I've been trying to get at.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I really dont care what his politcal affliation is or any one else for that matter. The big point everyone is missing here is there were requests for proposals( RFP), of which the local interests did not response and then for them to call foul, is very hypocritcal, and to use legislative measures against SDSU for forming public/private arrangements really takes the cake. If you listen to the hearing at the posted link, President Chicoine said that additional building of housing would put a weight on debt service and the ability to service current debt. The only alternative found through a study was to have a private investor come in and assume all the risk. Dont these guys believe in the private enterprise? I guess not, only when it works in their favor. The mission of the university is to attract research dollars as JackJD said and housing is an important part of this objective as is the providing housing for junior and senior students.

I invite you drive around Brookings and see all the eyesores that pass for student housing, maybe these slum lords dont deserve to be in the game.

If the local parties truly had a genuine and legitimate problem with the project, would that make a difference?

SDSU - "Hey, local guys, would you like to bid on this project of ours?"
Local Guys - "No thanks. We don't believe it is right for the state to be in competition with private enterprise in this fashion."
SDSU - "Ok, we are going ahead anyway."
Local Guys - "We are going to work with our legislators to introduce legislation to stop this action based on our belief that this type of project is wrong, no matter who is involved."

Who knows if that's how things (generally) went down. But as a person with some familial experience with a local school board, selfish conspiracies are rarely in play in local politics. 9 times out of 10 its just people with different opinions of right and wrong.

This is going to incite rage, but I find it somewhat amusing that people would be put off by local businessman attempting to influence legislation while the University president sits on the board of Monsanto.

I bear no ill will toward SDSU for pushing this project. I also don't bear ill will toward the local people who worked to stop it. Everyone acts in their own self interests.

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

If the local parties truly had a genuine and legitimate problem with the project, would that make a difference?

SDSU - "Hey, local guys, would you like to bid on this project of ours?"
Local Guys - "No thanks. We don't believe it is right for the state to be in competition with private enterprise in this fashion."
SDSU - "Ok, we are going ahead anyway."
Local Guys - "We are going to work with our legislators to introduce legislation to stop this action based on our belief that this type of project is wrong, no matter who is involved."

Who knows if that's how things (generally) went down. But as a person with some familial experience with a local school board, selfish conspiracies are rarely in play in local politics. 9 times out of 10 its just people with different opinions of right and wrong.

This is going to incite rage, but I find it somewhat amusing that people would be put off by local businessman attempting to influence legislation while the University president sits on the board of Monsanto.

I bear no ill will toward SDSU for pushing this project. I also don't bear ill will toward the local people who worked to stop it. Everyone acts in their own self interests.

Its pie time for sure.

[LakeJack]

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.

This.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Hats of to LakeJack for an extremely well written post.

There is another side to this issue in my opinion and that is what is the benefit to the city?

One thing the city has really struggled with over the years is affordable housing for families. There has always been a shortage of this type of housing. It has only gotten worse with the expansion at SDSU. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for growing SDSU! But, the cost has come in a shortage of housing that the medium income family can afford.

You see so many houses that are bought by families that have the means and have kids that are going to be going to SDSU. They rent out rooms to as many friends as allowed (and in many cases more than that) and make these houses cash flow. Once their two, three, or more kids have gone through the university they either sell the house or keep it as a rental.

So, what does that do to the town? It creates a shortage of labor for places like Daktronics, Falcon Plastics, Larson's, and several others. Daktronics has added plants in Sioux Falls and Redwood Falls, MN because there was available manufacturing space and more importantly an available labor force that wasn't available in Brookings. They didn't want to have to do that but when unemployment is well below 3% and there isn't any housing open to attract people to town for thesee open jobs they were forced to look elsewhere. That is very unfortunate. I'm for any way we can continue to grow the university and the city in a way that is beneficial to the majority. Was this proposal perfect? No but I thought it was viable and I really didn't see the threat to Bielfeldt and others as that big of a deal. They are still going to make plenty of money on their rentals.

Someone else mentioned people getting all riled up about somebody making money. Isn't that kind of what our society was built on? At the risk of turning this into a broader political debate, I think it is a benefit to have people thinking outside of the box and coming up with unique ideas. For someone to put their neck out there and risk there hard earned capital to make a project go, well, they ought to be rewarded. Obvously, there can be crooked deals. Lord knows we've seen enough of that lately.

The big thing here is as mentioned above, that the discussions are being had. SDSU and Brookings both need to be progressive to stay ahead of the competition. They've both done an incredible job over the last decade or two but it needs to continue and maybe even accelerate. That is what will continue to make both shining stars.

OFF RANT! Please discuss amongst yourselves.

SUPERBUNNY

[goon]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Hats of to LakeJack for an extremely well written post.

There is another side to this issue in my opinion and that is what is the benefit to the city?

One thing the city has really struggled with over the years is affordable housing for families. There has always been a shortage of this type of housing. It has only gotten worse with the expansion at SDSU. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for growing SDSU! But, the cost has come in a shortage of housing that the medium income family can afford.

You see so many houses that are bought by families that have the means and have kids that are going to be going to SDSU. They rent out rooms to as many friends as allowed (and in many cases more than that) and make these houses cash flow. Once their two, three, or more kids have gone through the university they either sell the house or keep it as a rental.

So, what does that do to the town? It creates a shortage of labor for places like Daktronics, Falcon Plastics, Larson's, and several others. Daktronics has added plants in Sioux Falls and Redwood Falls, MN because there was available manufacturing space and more importantly an available labor force that wasn't available in Brookings. They didn't want to have to do that but when unemployment is well below 3% and there isn't any housing open to attract people to town for thesee open jobs they were forced to look elsewhere. That is very unfortunate. I'm for any way we can continue to grow the university and the city in a way that is beneficial to the majority. Was this proposal perfect? No but I thought it was viable and I really didn't see the threat to Bielfeldt and others as that big of a deal. They are still going to make plenty of money on their rentals.

Someone else mentioned people getting all riled up about somebody making money. Isn't that kind of what our society was built on? At the risk of turning this into a broader political debate, I think it is a benefit to have people thinking outside of the box and coming up with unique ideas. For someone to put their neck out there and risk there hard earned capital to make a project go, well, they ought to be rewarded. Obvously, there can be crooked deals. Lord knows we've seen enough of that lately.

The big thing here is as mentioned above, that the discussions are being had. SDSU and Brookings both need to be progressive to stay ahead of the competition. They've both done an incredible job over the last decade or two but it needs to continue and maybe even accelerate. That is what will continue to make both shining stars.

OFF RANT! Please discuss amongst yourselves.

SUPERBUNNY

That is for sure, good housing or affordable housing is lacking. while in college i was cheap. Stayed at a place run by a slumlord, we had to board up broken windows taht were broke before we moved in. it was us who were moving to damage the place, it was rough, but we lived their because it was like 120 bucks a month in rent. well worth the cheap price IMO. AFter college though while still living in town, I moved into a buddies house with him and his mortgage was unreal for the value of the house. a modest story and a half that needed some major updating but because of demand for housing it was way over priced. Friends who live in a compareable story and a half house in SF about the same age, and size, needing modest updates, was 40K less for the mortgage. I have nkow several people who moved from brookings because good housing was just way to expensive to stay.

[LakeJack]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Hats of to LakeJack for an extremely well written post.

There is another side to this issue in my opinion and that is what is the benefit to the city?

One thing the city has really struggled with over the years is affordable housing for families. There has always been a shortage of this type of housing. It has only gotten worse with the expansion at SDSU. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for growing SDSU! But, the cost has come in a shortage of housing that the medium income family can afford.

You see so many houses that are bought by families that have the means and have kids that are going to be going to SDSU. They rent out rooms to as many friends as allowed (and in many cases more than that) and make these houses cash flow. Once their two, three, or more kids have gone through the university they either sell the house or keep it as a rental.

So, what does that do to the town? It creates a shortage of labor for places like Daktronics, Falcon Plastics, Larson's, and several others. Daktronics has added plants in Sioux Falls and Redwood Falls, MN because there was available manufacturing space and more importantly an available labor force that wasn't available in Brookings. They didn't want to have to do that but when unemployment is well below 3% and there isn't any housing open to attract people to town for thesee open jobs they were forced to look elsewhere. That is very unfortunate. I'm for any way we can continue to grow the university and the city in a way that is beneficial to the majority. Was this proposal perfect? No but I thought it was viable and I really didn't see the threat to Bielfeldt and others as that big of a deal. They are still going to make plenty of money on their rentals.

Someone else mentioned people getting all riled up about somebody making money. Isn't that kind of what our society was built on? At the risk of turning this into a broader political debate, I think it is a benefit to have people thinking outside of the box and coming up with unique ideas. For someone to put their neck out there and risk there hard earned capital to make a project go, well, they ought to be rewarded. Obvously, there can be crooked deals. Lord knows we've seen enough of that lately.

The big thing here is as mentioned above, that the discussions are being had. SDSU and Brookings both need to be progressive to stay ahead of the competition. They've both done an incredible job over the last decade or two but it needs to continue and maybe even accelerate. That is what will continue to make both shining stars.

OFF RANT! Please discuss amongst yourselves.

SUPERBUNNY

You are right, their needs to be more student housing on campus and more affordable housing in Brookings - This is probably the reason that the Brookings Chamber of Commerce and the Brookings Economic Development Corp. oppose the legislation. It bothers me that some are trying to control the supply in an effort to manipulate demand so they can keep prices artificially high.


P.S. that was JD's well written post.

[OldHare]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

I might think that the local developers did not submit any bids since the RFP asked that the developer have some prior experience in the detailed project of this construction of described apartment as defined by RFP. Then the local might try to get a general who has had such experience, but then the answer was that the local developer had not any working experience working with the developer who had the said expericence in 1 or more such RFP projects. All of a sudden the local experience may be found on Minneapolis or further destinations. Do you think the local contractors might have a vocal concern? How about if you were a contractor who is a member of a local chamber? Once again, maybe the devil we are convicting of whining has a "legitimate" concern. If it was only a concern of building an apartment, why is the charter asking for retail, senior residences, and a possible convention center or hotel? No one has complainded about the new dormitories construction. I would guess that if an apartment complex was constructed, there would be little concern. I would also ask that you read the entire proposal for this project before convicting those greedy capitalists.

[LakeJack]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

Old Hare we talked about this before.

The RFP is only a housing project. The University and Board of Regents testified on that exact point on Monday in Pierre. The special interest group has known this for a long time but is still telling everyone that there is more to it to scare people even though it is not true.


In the end, all you really need to know is who is on which side. On one side you have a very broad group from all over the state on the other just a very few big landloards in Brookings.

[LakeJack]

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

And this again

[Nidaros]

Re: Nw quad bill deadlocked in committee

And this again

Its long past pie time and my bedtime. I think everyone has fully expressed their views. Nothing more to be said at least from me, and I am not some kind of bolshevik. I love the way the stock market is going and hope the steam continues. And if your goal in life is to make a lot of money, I will be the last one stop you.