Excerpts From Recent South Dakota Editorials
Editors: Please note that The Associated Press welcomes editorial contributions from members for the weekly Editorial Roundup. Three editorials are selected every week. Contributions can be made by email at [email protected].
___
Capital Journal, Pierre, Feb. 22, 2015
Questioning our president’s love for his country is divisive
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and some other Republican politicians are indulging in the fantasy these days that they can read the heart of our president and discern whether he loves America. Giuliani, for one, concludes that he doesn’t.
This is simply bad form, and a grave discourtesy.
What we need here is a generous orthodoxy among these self-appointed priests of democracy — an understanding that we do not all have to think or speak the same on any given policy issue to be true and loyal Americans.
It would make as much sense for liberals in another state to question whether South Dakota Sens. John Thune or Mike Rounds truly love America, or whether Rep. Kristi Noem loves America. Who among us would not bristle at that?
Certainly the people who elected Barack Obama as president, and who re-elected him four years later, believe he loves his country.
So we give Giuliani low marks here for his lack of class. Far better the approach of Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who said he believes the president loves America — he just thinks the president’s ideas are bad. Similarly, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has made it clear in the past that his disagreements with Obama are on policy. That seems to us a fair and better way of playing this hardball game, politics.
Politics will always generate quarrels and that’s as it should be, for there are topics worth quarreling about. But let’s keep the ball in play and have some rules of common courtesy. Questioning one man’s love for America when he’s the man that we, the American people, have chosen to lead America is out of bounds.
___
The Daily Republic, Mitchell, Feb. 19, 2015
Changing minimum wage would be betrayal of voters’ trust
About three months have passed since South Dakota voters decided to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 an hour.
Less than two months have gone by since the increase took effect.
And already some state senators want to adjust the pay wage scale again.
On Wednesday, the Senate agreed to create a new minimum wage of $7.50 for people younger than age 18. The law is called Senate Bill 177, which now heads to the House of Representatives.
We can see both viewpoints on setting this new minimum wage for workers younger than 18, as all 26 Republican senators voted in favor of the law and all seven Democrats opposed it.
We believe there should be equal pay for equal work, no matter the age of an employee.
But we also recognize that the purpose of having a minimum wage is to pay someone a wage they can live off to support the essentials. And, most people younger than 18 are living with their parents. They typically don’t need to support themselves.
While we haven’t fully decided whether we agree with the premise of this law, we think legislators are going against the will of the people in moving forward with it.
Last November, voters decided that the overall minimum wage would be $8.50. The majority decided to pass minimum wage increase by a 55-45 margin.
Sen. Billie Sutton, a Democrat from Burke, argued Wednesday that SB 177 overturns a decision made by voters in November.
Sutton explained there was nothing on the ballot about lower minimum wages for workers who are younger than 18. It was simply for anyone earning minimum wage.
“That vote is a betrayal of the public’s vote to improve the minimum wage,” he said Wednesday.
Well put.
Whether this law would be beneficial logistically is a separate argument. We’re against this bill simply because it was only about three months ago that voters decided the parameters of our state’s minimum wage.
Voters decided the minimum wage for any employee should be $8.50.
That law has been in effect since Jan. 1. Do we really have enough proof that there already needs to be a change?
We don’t think so.
For five years, the minimum wage was set at $7.25 and was finally raised at the beginning of this year. Let’s keep it the way the voters decided, at least for a while longer than a couple months.
___
Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, Feb. 21, 2015
Food truck restrictions downtown unnecessary
Food trucks are becoming a popular option for Sioux Falls residents.
And it makes sense — they’re convenient, and many offer a variety of great selections.
It appears that some downtown Sioux Falls restaurants aren’t happy, however, because they say the food trucks are taking away their business.
As a result, the city is working on proposals that would limit the number of hours food trucks operate, as well as where they can park. One proposal would put a buffer from 100 to 300 feet between food trucks and restaurants, as well as stoppage times of midnight and 3 a.m.
Food trucks should face some restrictions — for noise, exhaust pollution, as well as health codes that any other restaurant would face. Current city ordinances should already handle all of those issues, however.
There seems to be little evidence that the food truck restrictions being discussed are actually necessary. In the afternoons, the two that frequent downtown are parked far away from restaurants. And in the evening, most bars and restaurants have stopped serving food when food trucks get their most business. Clearly, there is a need for late-night food options downtown.
Adam Roach, a neighborhood development coordinator, said restaurants are affected because food trucks can pack up and go wherever they want while brick-and-mortar locations are stuck.
“So what we’re really trying to do is strike a balance by protecting brick-and-mortar within downtown while allowing mobile food vendors to coexist,” Roach told a City Council committee.
But where do you draw the line? Every retailer in the world would love to put restrictions on businesses that are competing against them. Amazon.com is making life difficult for malls and bookstores, for instance. It also isn’t the government’s job to make sure that individual businesses are successful.
The key to staying viable is adapting. Food trucks cater to a different customer than most restaurants downtown. It’s fast, inexpensive food that people can eat as they are walking home for the night or hanging out with friends on the sidewalk.
Some places have adapted, such as Mama’s Phried and Phillys, which added a walk-up window to attract bar patrons to its downtown establishment.
Food trucks also add to the ambiance. We want and need downtown to be a place where people can live, shop, eat and socialize.
The emergence of food trucks is good for the city, providing a new option particularly for downtown residents but also in more remote business locales. As a growing city we should embrace and encourage these street entrepreneurs, not limit them unnecessarily.
For those who might be upset about the noise and increased traffic caused by the food trucks, they should have recognized there would be some urban racket involved in deciding to live downtown.
Still, food trucks need to be responsible and courteous wherever they operate. Don’t park in areas where they are not allowed or where they cause a public safety hazard. While they are free to operate downtown, parking directly in front of a restaurant isn’t a great way to do business long-term.
Roach said the restrictions will also help food truck operators.
“What we are looking to do is legitimize the mobile food industry,” Roach said. “We see there is great benefit to having them downtown. We want to see them thrive. It’s a matter of legitimizing the industry so there is a clear approach. Not only for the city but for the mobile vendors. They find the process isn’t entirely clear.”
Simplifying the process for business owners is good, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of where and when they can operate. Within reason, the free market should be able to dictate that.
