I am a young farmer with a family who has deep roots in the land that has seen both the potential for a C02 pipeline and a state penitentiary, I was born, raised, and even married on this piece of land that has been targeted.
This takes NIMBYism to a new level. Now it is NIMC (not in my county) or NIMS (not in my state).
To the young farmer: The state owns the land, and like any land-owner, can use the land in a pretty wide manner. I think having a new prison is a good idea.
In this country, the voices of mostly uneducated people who have no idea of the actual issues are elevated. In the 1950s, led by DD Eisenhower, we in the US built a huge network of interstate highways. Local concerns were ignored because the highway system was desperately needed. Today, it would be completely impossible to do this again. Environmental impact statements, lawyers representing NIMBY locals, etc would stop it dead. This is what happened in CA with the high-speed rail project - local interests stopped this good idea.
We need a new prison. Rural Lincoln Ct is a great place to put it. Let's ignore NIMBY locals and break ground.
Your response takes snobbish ignorant sneering "to a new level." Your characterization of people who do not agree with you as "mostly uneducated people who have no idea of the actual issues are" is off-base. The state-owned land in the middle of a place with no infrastructure to support the project was assessed by the state at twice the value per acre as the surrounding farms and the inflated funds are being transferred to a different state agency. If the state owns that property and can somehow get twice its value in such a scheme, it also can sell that property for agricultural use and seek a location along the Interstate where water, sewer, electricity, and all other utilities are more likely to exist. Or maybe in YOUR back yard.
N.B.: "state-owned" is actually "citizen-owned" and dismissing the concerns of citizens and hiding the whole development scheme behind closed doors until it is presented as a fait accompli is what politboros do. They rarely impose their top-down shut-up-and-obey schemes in their own neighborhoods.
Israel financially rewards their settlers living near the Gaza border. Not really comparable, but might not a similar reward system f(i.e. reduced property taxes) or similar be appropriate for those landowners living near "unwanted" facilities like penitentiaries, landfills, sewer treatment plants, etc...
How about having the whole penitentiary issue discussed out in the open and subject to citizen input from the beginning instead of cooked up behind closed doors and presented as a finished fact?
There are some nice golf courses near Sioux Falls with lots of good infrastructure and open land near where the penitentiary staff would live. Why not there instead of on farmland with no infrastructure? Obviously that's not a realistic suggestion.
Or how about Yankton on the site of the old State Hospital? There's already a Federal Prison in the middle of the town, so it wouldn't be a cultural shock.
Instead of trying to "use" state-owned land in farming country, how about selling it and finding a more appropriate site along the interstate near where infrastructure already exists?
Is the land this man is farming state owned land? Is it rented from the state? Or is it private land that he is farming? Seems to be a different problem. I'm not sure I understand the whole picture.
The problem is, the penitentiary has to go somewhere. Currently, there's a whole residential neighborhood within 3 blocks of the penitentiary where it is, and it's barely a mile from downtown Sioux Falls. For a number of reasons, the powers that be are going to put it someplace that is far more rural. No matter where, there are going to be neighbors. But they're trying to ensure that there will no longer be thousands within walking / running distance of a major escape.
Perhaps some of them were. It's hard to say, because there's been so much change and reconstruction in Sioux Falls since its beginning. I do know that the original, much smaller Hill building was built in 1881, and at that time the Queen Bee mill down the hill was already up and running. The Morrell meat packing Plant was built in 1909. And there have always been workers who lived between the penitentiary and those two operations.
This takes NIMBYism to a new level. Now it is NIMC (not in my county) or NIMS (not in my state).
To the young farmer: The state owns the land, and like any land-owner, can use the land in a pretty wide manner. I think having a new prison is a good idea.
In this country, the voices of mostly uneducated people who have no idea of the actual issues are elevated. In the 1950s, led by DD Eisenhower, we in the US built a huge network of interstate highways. Local concerns were ignored because the highway system was desperately needed. Today, it would be completely impossible to do this again. Environmental impact statements, lawyers representing NIMBY locals, etc would stop it dead. This is what happened in CA with the high-speed rail project - local interests stopped this good idea.
We need a new prison. Rural Lincoln Ct is a great place to put it. Let's ignore NIMBY locals and break ground.
Your response takes snobbish ignorant sneering "to a new level." Your characterization of people who do not agree with you as "mostly uneducated people who have no idea of the actual issues are" is off-base. The state-owned land in the middle of a place with no infrastructure to support the project was assessed by the state at twice the value per acre as the surrounding farms and the inflated funds are being transferred to a different state agency. If the state owns that property and can somehow get twice its value in such a scheme, it also can sell that property for agricultural use and seek a location along the Interstate where water, sewer, electricity, and all other utilities are more likely to exist. Or maybe in YOUR back yard.
N.B.: "state-owned" is actually "citizen-owned" and dismissing the concerns of citizens and hiding the whole development scheme behind closed doors until it is presented as a fait accompli is what politboros do. They rarely impose their top-down shut-up-and-obey schemes in their own neighborhoods.
Israel financially rewards their settlers living near the Gaza border. Not really comparable, but might not a similar reward system f(i.e. reduced property taxes) or similar be appropriate for those landowners living near "unwanted" facilities like penitentiaries, landfills, sewer treatment plants, etc...
How about having the whole penitentiary issue discussed out in the open and subject to citizen input from the beginning instead of cooked up behind closed doors and presented as a finished fact?
There are some nice golf courses near Sioux Falls with lots of good infrastructure and open land near where the penitentiary staff would live. Why not there instead of on farmland with no infrastructure? Obviously that's not a realistic suggestion.
Or how about Yankton on the site of the old State Hospital? There's already a Federal Prison in the middle of the town, so it wouldn't be a cultural shock.
Instead of trying to "use" state-owned land in farming country, how about selling it and finding a more appropriate site along the interstate near where infrastructure already exists?
Is the land this man is farming state owned land? Is it rented from the state? Or is it private land that he is farming? Seems to be a different problem. I'm not sure I understand the whole picture.
The problem is, the penitentiary has to go somewhere. Currently, there's a whole residential neighborhood within 3 blocks of the penitentiary where it is, and it's barely a mile from downtown Sioux Falls. For a number of reasons, the powers that be are going to put it someplace that is far more rural. No matter where, there are going to be neighbors. But they're trying to ensure that there will no longer be thousands within walking / running distance of a major escape.
Were those houses there before the penitentiary?
Perhaps some of them were. It's hard to say, because there's been so much change and reconstruction in Sioux Falls since its beginning. I do know that the original, much smaller Hill building was built in 1881, and at that time the Queen Bee mill down the hill was already up and running. The Morrell meat packing Plant was built in 1909. And there have always been workers who lived between the penitentiary and those two operations.