Those of you who know me well, know that I am not particularly political. I can pretty easily look at a political issue or candidate and see both sides. Perhaps it is from years of editorial writing–who knows? At any rate, there is a lot of controversy right now over a local zoning issue that some people say is going to impact economic development in Douglas County. Of course, there are two perspectives on what the economic development impact will be like.
The Douglas County Commissioners are proposing a change to the setback distance required for animal confinements built in the county. Currently, the setback distance for animal confinements of more than 1,000 head of cattle or 2,500 head of hogs is one-mile. In essence, this means that you can’t build a confinement unit larger than this closer than one mile to the nearest home, church or school without obtaining a special permit. To obtain the permit, the effected neighbors have to sign a waiver. Oh, one thing I should add is this: units smaller than 1,000 cattle or 2,500 hogs aren’t regulated under the current zoning ordinance. It is my understanding they can be built almost anywhere.The proposed change to the zoning ordinance would reduce the setback distance from one mile to one-half mile. That means that a confinement unit of any size could be built as close as one-half mile to a house, church or school without needing a special permit. A special permit would still be needed to build closer than a half mile.
Those in favor of the change say that it is necessary for economic development. They say large animal confinement units are more efficient, they will bring jobs to the area, grow our schools and may save our struggling rural economy. While large animal confinement facilities may provide some short-term economic benefits, based on everything I have studied since we began the Horizons project last year, I cannot find any research that show there are any sustainable benefits to local economic development.
During the past year, I have had several opportunities to hear economic development professionals from both inside and outside South Dakota speak about rural economic development. Almost every speaker said that rural communities that have invested a majority of their financial and human resources into “smokestack chasing” (or trying to attract outside industries, investors or corporations to bring in a larger number of jobs all at once) have failed. Each expert cited different reasons for the failures, such attracting blue-collar vs. white-collar industries, lack of infrastructure in communities, lack of housing, insufficient support services such as public transportation, tax incentives cost other taxpayers more, etc. While there are too many reasons to list them all here, I do want to mention the one they all agreed on: a town or a county can’t expect some outside investor, corporation or industry to “save it.” Sustainable growth must build from within a community. Small businesses owned by someone with a vested interest in the community (where they live and their kids attend school) are always more likely to be successful and are a better investment.
I read an excellent article on this subject by John Ikerd, an Agricultural Economist at the University of Missouri at Columbia. The article is long (10 pages, small type), but it details why some people have concerns about large-scale animal confinements, why some people support them and what rural communities must consider as they make their choice whether to invite them into their area. The article reminds people that sustainable economic development must be built on three cornerstones: ecological soundness, economic viability and social justice. These three cornerstones must ALL be present for long-term sustainability, not just one or two of them. The article also reminds us that we must consider the well being of the community as a whole.
If you live in Douglas County and are going to have an opportunity to vote on this issue, I would encourage you to do your own research before the March 4 election. Like we have learned through the Horizons’ project, we need to work together to plan for future development in our community. Ikerd says, ”Rural people must become activitely involved in shaping the destiny of their communities.” I think he’s right. It’s up to those of us who live here to make choices for our community based on research, reason and concern for the long-term well being of our community. We can’t base out decisions on emotion or because short term solutions are often easier.
If you are interested, here is the link to the article by Ikerd. I’m know there are many others, but I like this one because Ikerd is an academic who can afford to be a “neutral party.” So many of the articles I read are by groups or individuals directly involved in the issue, who of course, have bias toward one side or another. I also like the fact that Ikred’s article is written in layman’s terms: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/16/15444.htm
I’ll be interested to hear what others think.
