The city of Sioux Falls needs to cool its jets. They have an expanding so rapidly they do not know what they have done to their city, the population, and the state. Growth for the sake of growth is not a good business model. The tax paying citizens who funded all of this should be at the forefront of the cities plans, not the developers and corporations Who take them out to dinner.
That is an interesting point about taxpayers funding things that might not be in their best interest. Are you talking about wealth transfers like Tax Increment Financing (TIFs), higher than necessary taxes, something else?
Anything that brings growth to a town that is already fully employed should not be tax supported. It’s a corrupt scheme to help only special interests in the community. Taxpayer money should only ever go to services that benefit the entire community instead of a specific few. Or even those outside the jurisdiction in the way of corporate interests that import workers from anywhere (not even necessarily foreign workers) to fill factories we give to them.
But but but but....... The state just spent more than 19 million on a shooting range north east of Rapid City that more than 95% of South Dakotan's will never see much less use. Where was the movement to eliminate than white elephant foolishness and give taxpayers a much needed break?
Until the airlines are financially able to expand service to other airports this is not needed now. SW for instance has all expansion plans on hold for now.
South Dakota Voices Response: Tyson, thank you for the note and letting us know some of the content was not clear. We agree better wording would have been helpful. However, when taxpayer money is used by a government or quasi government entity there is a deadweight loss. As as result, public services should not be making "profits" if they use tax dollars, which all public airports do. These higher than necessary fees are part of the tax/fee burden that was described in the linked article (https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/buried-in-taxes-and-fees). When an excess is retained there is an unfair burden on the taxpayer and a skew toward decision making that is not in the best interest of the taxpayer.
Email from TH: "Once again, completely uninformed or deliberately misleading readers. The Sioux Falls airport is completely self funded and doesn't rely on tax money. Those savings you're referring to are completely separate from the County and City general funds. Those funds come from airport parking fees and airport use fees paid by airlines."
I don't know where you get the idea that progressives support airport expansions. In general, progressives have a long history of opposing airport expansions. For one, many airports expand onto farmland and promote urban sprawl, which is something progressive have always opposed. The support of airport expansions generally comes from airlines and the business community, the tourist industry, and city politicians. In South Dakota these folks tend to be Republicans.
If they want to expand or upgrade the airport facilities, they should charge the airport users through ticket prices, parking fees, etc.
This does not appear to be a party issue. Both Democrats an Republicans in the legislature are voting for the spending. And agreed everyone would be making better decisions if no taxpayer money was involved (for the land, the runways, the building, etc.) and everything was covered with airline fees, ticket prices, parking fees, etc. That way the cost would be fairly allocated to those that use it.
Interesting that you bring up crime. Is this related to the prison business? programs that encourage homeless people to migrate from other areas? something else?
I think the expansion has been in the works for awhile. They've been talking for years about needing it for the larger planes to come in. I think it's the build it and they will come thought process. Trying to keep people from flying out of MSP or OMA.
Build with taxpayer money (Federal and state allocations) and fees? Who does that benefit? Based on the numbers, Sioux Falls is above full employment. Where would these workers come from? Foreign workers that depress wages for our citizens and put people into poverty?
Oh I totally agree. Just in visiting with staff & frequent fliers when we're traveling, they've been talking about this expansion for years. I feel like it's been their plan since prior to the parking garage. And maybe it's being driven by the airlines. They want to fill 1 big plane versus 4 small flights to MSP daily?? Shortage of pilots, etc.
Due to the deadweight loss associated with government spending, economics suggests we should only be doing necessary things that cannot be handled by the private sector and only when they are absolutely imperative. The Sioux Falls airport is not even remotely close to operating at full capacity, so a strong economics argument could be made that we should not be spending money there. Otherwise, we start impacting the financial well being of citizens, something that has been accelerating recently. As far as the airport is concerned, fees paid by citizens that are in excess of operations and maintenance costs should not collected as these fees are basically an alternate form of a tax.
The city of Sioux Falls needs to cool its jets. They have an expanding so rapidly they do not know what they have done to their city, the population, and the state. Growth for the sake of growth is not a good business model. The tax paying citizens who funded all of this should be at the forefront of the cities plans, not the developers and corporations Who take them out to dinner.
That is an interesting point about taxpayers funding things that might not be in their best interest. Are you talking about wealth transfers like Tax Increment Financing (TIFs), higher than necessary taxes, something else?
Anything that brings growth to a town that is already fully employed should not be tax supported. It’s a corrupt scheme to help only special interests in the community. Taxpayer money should only ever go to services that benefit the entire community instead of a specific few. Or even those outside the jurisdiction in the way of corporate interests that import workers from anywhere (not even necessarily foreign workers) to fill factories we give to them.
But but but but....... The state just spent more than 19 million on a shooting range north east of Rapid City that more than 95% of South Dakotan's will never see much less use. Where was the movement to eliminate than white elephant foolishness and give taxpayers a much needed break?
Excellent point! We should be working to expose these things. If you have topics, please let us know. We are happy to look into them.
Until the airlines are financially able to expand service to other airports this is not needed now. SW for instance has all expansion plans on hold for now.
South Dakota Voices Response: Tyson, thank you for the note and letting us know some of the content was not clear. We agree better wording would have been helpful. However, when taxpayer money is used by a government or quasi government entity there is a deadweight loss. As as result, public services should not be making "profits" if they use tax dollars, which all public airports do. These higher than necessary fees are part of the tax/fee burden that was described in the linked article (https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/buried-in-taxes-and-fees). When an excess is retained there is an unfair burden on the taxpayer and a skew toward decision making that is not in the best interest of the taxpayer.
Email from TH: "Once again, completely uninformed or deliberately misleading readers. The Sioux Falls airport is completely self funded and doesn't rely on tax money. Those savings you're referring to are completely separate from the County and City general funds. Those funds come from airport parking fees and airport use fees paid by airlines."
This is what "progressives" do.
Even if there is no need for change, and even if change will be very risky, they charge ahead anyway.
They especially like doing this when they're spending someone else's money.
The voters in this state need to wake up and put a stop to it.
You make an interesting point about need.
I don't know where you get the idea that progressives support airport expansions. In general, progressives have a long history of opposing airport expansions. For one, many airports expand onto farmland and promote urban sprawl, which is something progressive have always opposed. The support of airport expansions generally comes from airlines and the business community, the tourist industry, and city politicians. In South Dakota these folks tend to be Republicans.
If they want to expand or upgrade the airport facilities, they should charge the airport users through ticket prices, parking fees, etc.
This does not appear to be a party issue. Both Democrats an Republicans in the legislature are voting for the spending. And agreed everyone would be making better decisions if no taxpayer money was involved (for the land, the runways, the building, etc.) and everything was covered with airline fees, ticket prices, parking fees, etc. That way the cost would be fairly allocated to those that use it.
I agree. STOP the spending. South Dakota is doing nothing to help the impoverished citizens, just dragging us further into debt.
What have you noticed about the Sioux Falls growth? Answer: CRIME.
Interesting that you bring up crime. Is this related to the prison business? programs that encourage homeless people to migrate from other areas? something else?
I think the expansion has been in the works for awhile. They've been talking for years about needing it for the larger planes to come in. I think it's the build it and they will come thought process. Trying to keep people from flying out of MSP or OMA.
Build with taxpayer money (Federal and state allocations) and fees? Who does that benefit? Based on the numbers, Sioux Falls is above full employment. Where would these workers come from? Foreign workers that depress wages for our citizens and put people into poverty?
Oh I totally agree. Just in visiting with staff & frequent fliers when we're traveling, they've been talking about this expansion for years. I feel like it's been their plan since prior to the parking garage. And maybe it's being driven by the airlines. They want to fill 1 big plane versus 4 small flights to MSP daily?? Shortage of pilots, etc.
Interesting. Not sure why that is considered a good thing. Why do we need it? Aren’t we above full employment?
What types of government spending are acceptable?
Due to the deadweight loss associated with government spending, economics suggests we should only be doing necessary things that cannot be handled by the private sector and only when they are absolutely imperative. The Sioux Falls airport is not even remotely close to operating at full capacity, so a strong economics argument could be made that we should not be spending money there. Otherwise, we start impacting the financial well being of citizens, something that has been accelerating recently. As far as the airport is concerned, fees paid by citizens that are in excess of operations and maintenance costs should not collected as these fees are basically an alternate form of a tax.