On March 4, I read Spearfish mayoral candidate Dana Boke's website and asked where the specifics were. (I also noted that the man she wants to fire, Mayor Jerry Krambeck, didn't have any online presence... and by the end of that business day, he'd hired me to whip up a campaign website for him. Go figure.)
Various citizens took to Boke's Facebook campaign page to ask similar questions about specific action plans (March 8) and specific Mayor Krambeck policies that a Mayor Boke would do differently (March 11). Those questions went unanswered for days...
...until March 16, when Boke, disproving the South Dakota Legislature's contention that women can't think on weekends, directed her Facebook followers to check out her new blog, wherein she promises to discuss specifics.
In "Perspective," Boke declares that "Spearfish has functioned as an oligarchy for too long." She insists that she will listen where others (we can assume she means Mayor Krambeck, although she mentions no specific city official) have not. But she still lays out no specific policy actions needed by the city. The "Perspective" seems to inch toward the bothersome position that having specific policy positions is really just a sign of dictating or forcing one's "personal opinions" on others.
In "Chamber Presentation," Boke comes a little closer to specifics. She says the city needs to "increase collaboration and communication with the business community"... and then cites an example of the current city government seeking to involve neighborhoods in decisions. She says the City of Spearfish needs to do more to partner with Black Hills State University... but she offers to details of how current collaboration is lacking or what specific actions the city could take to increase the town-gown partnership. She says the city must do more to encourage BHSU graduates to stay and work here... but she does not identify specific actions the city can take to make that happen more than it already does.
What actions does Boke want the city to take? Does she want Spearfish to give her business a subsidy or tax break for each of the three BHSU interns her business has hired? Does she want the city to increase funding for BHSU programs or create a seat on the city council specifically for a BHSU student? Does she want to create a business planning committee to advise the city council on zoning and incentives?
Mayor Krambeck's Priorities page doesn't get much more specific than Boke's two blog posts. But he talks about listening and promoting business, just like Boke. He also talks about land stewardship and public safety. And on his Facebook page, he offers what may be the only specific policy idea I've heard yet in the mayoral race: public toilets on Main Street! (I'm feeling a new slogan coming on: "Give a s#*@ downtown!")
There is an argument to be made that 13 years in office is plenty for any mayor. If Dana Boke wants to run on a simple, "I'm not Jerry; it's time for change" platform, that's fine. In Spearfish, that line may tap enough frustration to get her elected.
But it would be nice to get beyond the typical reformulations of the "Change for change's sake" line and hear specifically what's wrong with Spearfish and how we can free Spearfish from the oligarchic oppression under which Dana Boke says we currently suffer.
Having a seat at the city council for the president of the student senate of BHSU sounds like a great idea to me. After all they have a pretty good proportion of the money spenders going to school there that live in Spearfish.
The Blindman
I wonder if Ms. Boke agrees with the legislature that women can't think on weekends. Not that it really matters what a mayoral candidate thinks on that issue, but it would shed some insight into whether she is against oligarchies in general, or just what she deems to be the present oligarchy.
"shed some insight". I think I meant shed some light. Insight shouldn't be shed.
Cory, One issue I've heard of in Spearfish that both candidates should address specifically is the annexation of land Southwest of the city. This area is currently being used by some great local food producers and appropriate growth for Spearfish should be addressed by both candidates.
Frank, excellent point. I'll bring that up at any upcoming candidate forum, if the local growers don't beat me to it.
On that topic: On March 11, Chris Hills asked Mrs. Boke "Are you for or against Lower Valley annexation?" On March 16, Mrs. Boke responded thus:
"Chris - the annexation is a huge issue facing Spearfish, and the many people that I have talked to feel that they cannot even voice their frustrations with the current process. I feel it is an inevitable step for our city, but one that must be addressed respectfully and responsibly. Do you feel this is the way it is being handled?"
That's not exactly support... but note the use of the word inevitable. And note the marketing technique: turn a question about any other issue to focus on the one issue the candidate thinks is her strength.
It's ludicrous that the southwest annexation is an issue. People actually live and work there - as opposed to the Exit 17 annexation where virtually no one lives and few work. The developersters have Spearfish by the throat.
John: do you mean northwest?
Whether or not the city annexes the Lower Valley, both mayoral candidates and the Council in general need to address the question Frank raises. Both candidates say they are about jobs and business. Boke mentions something in her Chamber speech about diversifying the economy. If annexation forces agriculture out of the Lower Valley, the city will have eliminated an important component of local economic diversity. If annexation is inevitable (and I reject that term: it is an excuse that a mayor would use to avoid taking heat for an unpopular action), will either mayoral candidate protect the ag sector of the economy that provides income and jobs for independent entrepreneurs?
Admittedly, I very much liked Boke's description of oligarchy. Perhaps she isn't going into any more detail because the oligarchy that exists in this city is an open secret!!! (smile) But yes, I still want and need to hear more SPECIFICS from Ms Boke. And I guess she shouldn't assume that every single resident has been impacted by this oligarchy. She and Mr Moe are very much keeping their cards close to their vest. The election is getting closer and we need to hear more specifics from them.
Annexation. Yep, you are spot on, Cory. (I hope everybody got to read the story about the Cycle Farm in the Black Hills Pioneer today - I really hope that Ms Noem read it!!) There is alot of diversity in "the valley" that is very important in so many ways.
And on top of that, the annexation will be extremely expensive for all of the residents. What would we get for those extra taxes? Is the city adding more police? fire? waste haulers? road workers? Right now, I pay a road district fee to have my road plowed in the winter time. If annexed, my road would NOT be on a priority on the city's list to be plowed. They would get to my road when they could/bottom of the list. So more than likely, our neighborhood would still pay to have our road plowed immediately - and this would be on top of the additional $575-ish plus taxes I would have to pay if I am annexed. I'm getting very weary of the city targeting "the valley" to get our taxes to help pay their bills, when there are so many folks in this city not paying a lick of taxes that are in the city right now. (TIF'S, many residential parcels in McGuigan Ranch Sub Division, etc) By the way, did everyone catch that the city will be conducting ANOTHER study in reference to annexation? They sure seem to find money for study after study after study.
John is right. The developers have Spearfish by the throat. WITH the blessing of the current leadership.
But it looks like "we" as a community will have the chance to remove this social media roadblock and ask these candidates in person for some more details. Next Wednesday, March 27th at 6:30pm at the Matthews Opera House, is a public forum with Mr Krambeck, Ms Boke, Mr. Young, and Mr. Moe.
And nope, I didn't care for Ms. Boke's response on annexation. It was sorta like, "well, yes, this is going to happen, but I promise you a kiss before it does!!"