Get Along = Ramming it Through?
Should we be concerned when a politician uses the words "get along"?
I read an opinion piece in the Dakota Scout on July 5 by James Oppenheimer, Sioux Falls City Councilor elect, that is a bit concerning.
In this piece, James was encouraging people to “get along”. In all fairness, James is relatively new to the United States. He became a citizen in 2008. As a result, he may not fully appreciate that dialog and criticism are important parts of what made the United States and South Dakota unique and successful. Just because you openly disagree with someone and publicly speak against their viewpoints doesn’t mean that you dislike the person.
It just means that you are concerned about the direction.
He also may not understand that encouraging people to just “get along” is a modern day way of saying “be quiet, we have an agenda to push through”. That sort of communication rubs people in South Dakota the wrong way.
Many citizens across our state are under financial pressure and are feeling that their communities and personal values are under attack. When you reach a point in history like this it is WISE to LISTEN, PAUSE, and THINK rather than charging forward and doing something you later regret.
There are many cases in South Dakota history where we were told to “get along” and rushed into an expensive mess. The latest is wasting money on a maximum security prison building and doing nothing to address the root cause of the problem. Now we are spending $300 million - $400 million more than necessary for a prison facility and have no money for the parole revisions and rehabilitation that are necessary to get the problems with our corrections system turned around. Both Rapid City and Sioux Falls have F crime ratings, which are not only creating crime and cost issues, but make it difficult to attract companies offering high paying jobs.
It appears that Sioux Falls City Council and the Sioux Falls legislators, helped create the mess by trading crime, cost, and security for handouts to few developers, non-profits, and healthcare providers. Legislative and city council candidates who spent a lot of time going door to door will tell you the citizens know what the problem is and want it addressed.
Then there is the data center blunder.
It’s a bit concerning when you have tech people from Silicon Valley (the center of tech), software engineers with Fortune 500 company experience with data storage, nationally recognized AI experts, and experienced automation engineers suggesting a pause on data centers. And yet, the city council, most of which have zero background in engineering, charge ahead.
It’s especially troubling because standard (and prudent) planning and zoning procedures were not followed. In order to issue a zoning change you need full disclosure on the occupant and the exact use. Right now we have absolutely no idea who will be occupying the space and what type of “data center” is planned. Is it for drones; an out of date, old school hyperscale data center; a control center for the nearby prison; something else?
We have seen a slick real estate operative from Hollywood (yes, the place that is famous for actors) that has zero tech background and Kristi Noem’s son in law, also with no tech background, trying desperately to push something “data center” related through. If that, along with what appears to be a conflict in the mayor’s office, isn’t a red flag, it is hard to know what is.
Rather than encouraging us to “get along”, it might be WISE to encourage some real dialog with knowledgeable citizens rather than listening to those pushing a personal agenda.
The people of Sioux Falls and South Dakota have become WISE to this agenda pushing and expect more representation, more thoughtful discourse, and less crony favors from their elected officials.
James, can we count on you to govern with thoughtful discourse and reasoned policy or will you be a yes vote for special interests?
South Dakota Voices Response: Tom, thank you for sharing your thoughts on a Facebook page we follow. The point of the post is to highlight the disconnect between citizen wishes, common sense, and what is happening in our governments. When people show up in droves to meetings it’s probably not appropriate to tell them to just get along. One way to handle the disconnect might be to change policies and procedures so citizens are aware and can participate from the beginning as Mr. Pay suggests in comments on this post. I’m sure there are other things that would improve the situation. What would you suggest?
Comment on Facebook from TS. “I find [this] blog to be disconcerting. Constructive and spirited dialogue is possible while also "getting along". Politics of old has always allowed for this. It has only been in the last two decades that hate has entered the arena as the norm, rather than the exception. And both sides are guilty of it's existence. This is a very short-sited assessment of Councilor-Elect Oppenheimer's comments and whether he is "relatively" new to this country is irrelevant. I find that to be an attack on someone who has been in and done good things for our community. I look forward to seeing what he can accomplish on the council. Yes, we can all get along. It just takes effort and constructive dialogue.“
And Peter Thiel is in the mix too. So, we're going to go up against Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and we are backing a slickster from Hollywood with no tech background that is pushing the OLD stuff. Is that wise? https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2026/06/15/forget-elons-data-centers-in-space-this-startup-wants-to-float-them-at-sea/