Meet the Candidate: Travis Martin
Martin running in one of the state's two split House districts
Travis Martin is seeking election for the first time to the South Dakota state Legislature in District 28B. The district is one of two districts in the state that is split in two, along with District 26. Thus, only one person is elected to represent the district. He is running against local activist Travis Ismay.
The district includes the community of Belle Fourche, and stretches northeast to just above Faith.
The Dakota Scout sent a series of questions to all legislative candidates running in contested races for the state House and Senate in the June 4 primary election. Candidates were asked to limit their responses to each question to 150 words or less.
Age: 48
City of residence: Belle Fourche
Profession: Licensed Abstractor/Title Examiner
Public service/community service experience: Former Vice President of Belle Fourche Economic Development Corporation. Industrial and Rail Park Committee. Chair of the Belle Fourche Housing Committee. Belle Fourche Planning and Zoning Committee. Belle Fourche Strategic Housing Trust board member. TIF (Tax Increment Finance) Committee. Former Belle Fourche Ward 2 City Councilman. Former member of the police, public works, library and recreation center committees. Connection Church Worship Band and member of Church Leadership Team. Current Vice President of the South Dakota Land Title Association and chair of the Association’s Legislative Committee. Also, volunteer work with South Dakota Kids Belong
Family information: My wife, Trivian, and I have been married for 25 years, and have been residents of Belle Fourche for over 20 years. We have one, recently graduated daughter, Morgan. My wife's parents were both teachers in a small community in North Dakota. My father is a retired Sergeant from the Wyoming Highway Patrol.
1) What's the government's role in facilitating economic development in South Dakota?
Generally speaking, one role would be to help provide the required infrastructure needed to support new industry in the state. Tools to support infrastructure are available to local municipalities and should also be utilized. Also state funded projects or programs that would assist in homebuilding can also help develop and grow the economy by providing needed workforce housing. However, bureaucratic red tape must be reduced to allow participants easier access to the funds as the programs can be quite burdensome to navigate. Increases in education and promoting programs focused on the trades, is another way that the government can directly impact economic development by creating an educated and skilled workforce. Providing for the safety and security of our citizens is also critical to attracting new industry to an area. Promoting regional economic development strategies will allow more local control and decision making as one size will not fit all.
2) If you could have dinner with any person, dead or alive, who would it be and why?
Currently, I believe I would enjoy sharing a meal with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. It seems as though he may be one of the last true intellectuals of our time. Watching his mind work as he deliberates on evidence and information to bolster a hypothesis can be mesmerizing. He tackles tough subjects and moral and ethical challenges, and arrives at a well thought out, reasonable and supported conclusion. He can understand the various nuances of a subject, consider the unforeseen circumstances of a position, and still give a concise, definitive answer. That level of mental dedication is rarely seen these days.
3) Does the "Landowner Bill of Rights" -- adopted by the Legislature amid opposition to carbon pipeline companies using eminent domain -- strike the right balance between the interests of property owners, counties and the ag industry - and should voters get a say when they head to the polls in November?
I’ve spoken to legislators on both sides of the bill, from sponsors of the bill to the “nay” votes from in, or near, our district. What I’ve learned is that there was no real consensus. However, what I’ve heard time and time again (including from “nay” votes), is that the bill was a start. It was a compromise bill that is far from perfect, but it is something that can be built upon. Personally, I felt it didn’t accomplish enough in the way of protections, and if it survives the ballot, it will likely continue to be scrutinized and amended in the next session. Voters certainly have the right to bring it to the ballot. That is one of the many beauties of our system. Voters should learn what the bill does, and does not do, and make their decisions based on that. Speaking to both sides can be enlightening.
