Todd Epp offers the South Dakota Libertarian Party the most grown-up advice I've seen in the press since they announced their unexpected convention. Dismissing the sham attorney general bid that prompted the convention as a non-starter, Epp says Libertarians should focus on a race that promotes their principles and good policy. The SDLP, says Epp, should run a candidate for Commissioner of School and Public Lands who, consistent with their credo, will abolish the obsolete office:
...the Libertarian school and public lands candidate could campaign that [she or he] would liquidate all of South Dakota’s school and public lands (and mineral and oil) leases as they expired in an orderly fashion. Those funds could either go into an education trust fund for investment and then disbursement to the state’s schools. The state investment board could invest the funds. They seem to do a good job of that, based on their past track record for the state.
Eventually, state government would be smaller and it would be out of the landlord business, with the lands and leases going into private hands to those who paid the highest price on the open market. The invisible hand of the marketplace will take over and those buyers will develop their new properties to, supposedly, their best and highest uses—and pay taxes.
What could be more Libertarian than that? [Todd Epp, "S.D. Libertarian Party Has Opportunity to Get Serious About Its Ideals—Campaign to Eliminate School and Public Lands Commissioner," Northern Plains News, 2014.08.01]
Brilliant, Todd. Absolutely brilliant.
An attorney general is in no position to advance the Libertarian agenda. The state's top lawyer swears an oath to enforce all those intrusive, statist laws. A real Libertarian would hate that job. A fake Libertarian non-lawyer would probably last 12 months in the office before either resigning because of the stress or facing impeachment from an irate Legislature wondering just what the heck he does to earn his paycheck.
But the Commissioner of School and Public Lands can pull out all sorts of big-government wires in perfectly constitutional fashion. A Libertarian in that job would be busy all the time appraising and selling land, handing deeds to smiling ranchers, cash to the smiling state investment council, and glowing fiscal statements to happy school board members. A Libertarian fire sale of the school and public lands would forge a lasting example of Libertarians' ability to put their principles into practice without causing general anarchy or pot-smoking (although a crafty Libertarian CSPL would ensure that 2% of the acres sold go to folks planning to grow industrial hemp—just don't tell the Governor, who can veto sales of school and public lands).
Libertarians, if you're serious about building your party, your throw your heart and soul into the school and public lands race. Or, says Epp,
...South Dakota’s Libertarians can turn their convention into a circus by letting it and their party get hijacked for reasons that have nothing to do with Libertarian policies and ideas [Epp, 2013.08.01].
The South Dakota Libertarian Party will decide what's more important at its convention in Sioux Falls on August 9. On the SDLP website, you can find instructions for watching and participating online.
Didn't George Kane run on the platform in 1986 that he would abolish the office of school and public lands commissioner if he was elected? He was defeated by Tim Amdahl, who lost four years later after a string of awful scandals.
Does anyone know how small town and rural school boards feel about this proposal?
The concept of this is interesting and I suppose possible.
Where would the main opposition to this come from, you there will be some.
Of course we all know that this is Todd's version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal." It perfectly exemplifies the end game of libertarianism.
Now how about part two? The abolition of ANY kind of regulations governing land use. Then, those smiling ranchers could lease space for billboards next to veterans cemeteries, invite fracking operations onto their newly-acquired prairie land which would then be free to dump their wastewater into the water table that our faucets draw from.
Pure libertarianism. Pure heaven. Good start Todd.Let the circus commence.
96, Deb, I clearly have some research to do on the topic!
Toclayco, indeed, carrying Libertarianism to its logical conclusion would be problematic. But I don't think Todd is giving us Swiftian satire. He may have found a sweet spot where we could safely and sensibly implement Libertarian thinking without doing damage to useful public institutions.
I'm curious: do the benefits of holding those lands publicly outweigh the benefits of divesting?
Public lands need to stay public or there won't be any recreation opportunities for any one other than the wealthiest. The surest ways to discriminate against everyone is to privatize once public lands. Public means it belongs to all citizens and should be managed for all citizens forever.
http://www.iww.org/unions/dept100/iu120/lumber/lumber4.shtml
Cory-lessons from the past that we are apparently unlearning.
Mike from Iowa: I agree. Public lands often provide good recreational opportunities. The hook and gun guys will not like this proposal.
School and Public lands are not taken care of by the Office of School and Public Lands. They are taken care of by the people that lease them and pay taxes on them. If you want to see mismanagement at its finest come to NW South Dakota and look at the abandoned oil and gas wells on public lands.....
And by all means we need more hunting and fishing on these lands and public recreation so the sMiling rAnchers can devote more time to garbage patrol...Who the HELL do you think is really taking care of these lands? It aint you...
Exactly, Bret: that the state would do a better job with public lands than the feds is pure bull.
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2014/07/western-watersheds-public-lands.html
So Bret, just to make sure I'm reading you right, you would support a Libertarian CSPL candidate who campaigned on the agenda Epp lays out?
The only people inviting and allowing corporate and private entities to make waste of public and private lands are governmental agencies. But by all means blame the private industry that is trying to feed this nation.....
Mike, does any recreation happen on the lands the CSPL manages? These lands don't include any GF&P land, do they?
I learn from the office's website that the permanent trust fund will pay out $9.97 million to the K-12 schools. That's up 13% from last year, when the fund paid out about $60 per student.
It would not be nearly as simple as Mr. Epp has laid it out and in this state his scenario is merely fiction...
In 1994, we passed a Constitutional amendment (see now Article 8, Section 9) allowing us to require lessees to pay property tax on the public lands they use. Evidently this measure was meant to make up for the big hit to the tax base in areas like Harding, Perkins, Butte, and Meade counties where the state has lots of land.
Dear All:
It is a serious proposal. I understand that the Libertarian (or other candidate) who campaigns on it may not win--this time. But if there's one thing I've learned about the legislative and governing process in South Dakota, the race goes to those who keep bringing forth their ideas, take input from the public and stakeholders, modify their proposals, gather support--then have the Republicans take it as their own and make it happen. ;)
And I'm not the first to propose this idea. Gov. Bill Janklow proposed it back during his first term, I believe. So the idea's been around for a while.
So, rather than talking about marijuana and an attorney-less AG candidate, the Libertarians can propose something that is achievable and measureable, at least over time that is true to their principles. Or they can just have a big ol' crazy train at the Sioux Falls Public Library next Saturday and remain way off on the sidelines of South Dakota politics.
The choice is theirs.
Epp
Cory-they allow some access for recreation,but suggest you contact leaseholders to make sure you aren't trespassing. Doesn't say whether lease holders are free to keep people out.
http://www.sdpubliclands.com/surface/other.shtm
http://www.sdpubliclands.com/facts/index.shtm
Todd: Nice article and worthy of debate. S&PL does not manage, maintain or develop land. It simply leases parcels to farmers and ranchers. They also have their own sizable investment pool separate from the Investment Council, which is a pure duplication of duties within state government that only exists because of laws passed over 100 years ago.
At the price of farmland today, it is a once-in-lifetime chance to maximize the return of the school lands General Beadle saved for us and greatly increase the return to school districts.
All school and public lands are open to walk in hunting and fishing. Acreages accessible by roads are posted as walk-in. Acreages land-locked by private are not. If you have to cross private land to access school lands it would be advisable to talk to the land owner.
To add to this conversation a little research into how all eastern South Dakota schools lands disappeared and then magically reappeared in Harding County would be in order also....
So if these "public lands" are sold to private entities,how much is still open to hunting fishing,etc? How much if any of this land is suitable for actual farming? What about mineral rights. If you want to farm land where someone already has mineral rights,I believe his rights supercede your rights to farm. This land is in a trust. How do you break that trust?
"I'm curious: do the benefits of holding those lands publicly outweigh the benefits of divesting?"
Schools are getting revenue from the land. I don't see the benefits of divesting. With interest rates near zero, how much income would come from another fund sitting ripe for waste by plutocrats?
What a laugher! An "esteemed" member of one of South Dakota's marginal political parties giving a nickel's worth of advice to another marginal party on who to run for a Constitutional office, one of three positions on the fall ballot they themselves failed to fill. The same party who, after the fall election, will mostly likely not have control of an at large office just like the Libertarians. It appears that Mr Epp's GPS is in need of calibration or batteries since he is clueless about who is at a "crossroad".
I find it telling, every time the right wing decides to poke their heads in here, they never have anything constructive to add. Voters here are confused and at points not engaged but they will come to their senses at some point, when they figure out the right has no answers. Then we will see who is at a crossroad.
Don Coyote:
You might be surprised by my voter registration status. I'm just sayin'. Don't be assuming things about me. ;)
Bret, Doug, et al:
I think weighing the social good (i.e., hunting and fishing access) is a good discussion. Might I suggest conservation or some other kind of easements that would be required by the sale so there is continuing or even expanded access for outdoor activities? Or perhaps a portion of the land reverts to the state for state parks, fishing access or game production areas? (That would be a compromise of Libertarian values as I understand them but it might be a practical political and policy consideration.)
Personally, I like state parks, fishing areas and game production areas and would argue that they are basic functions of state government to protect resources and provide recreation.
mhs:
Since the Investment Council is already investing the funds, I don't see a big jump to them investing the proceeds of the sales of the lands and mineral leases.
Anyone:
So, what exactly does CSPL do? Is it literally managing the properties like a building superintendent would? If I go into the office in Pierre Monday, what will I see them doing? I'm not being snarky, I'd really like to know what they do and how they do it. Like most things in life, it is probably more complicated than most of us think it is.
I'm no expert on the CSPL office (and I am learning more from the comments above) but I think the discussion is worth having, regardless of one's party affiliation.
We might also want to look at auditor and treasurer to see if they could either be combined (yes, I know they are different functions) or if they should be appointed offices or a new independent department of oversight be created. I think getting rid of the offices or combining them was another Janklow idea.
Also, I think it's time to go full blown Kneip and do a study then reorganization (and paring) of state government.
But CSPL is enough for the Libertarians to chew on at their convention for now.
Epp
Todd E:
Glad to see you've had a "Come to Jesus Moment" although I can't believe you've switched to (R) or even (L). Independent probably but that just means you've migrated to the mushy middle where your desire for an appearance of open mindedness and even handedness compels you to speak in half-truths and therefore achieve neither.
School and Public Lands actually is quite Libertarian in nature because of it Federalism roots. An idea that came to fruition in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 under the Articles of Confederation, it not only has endured but is truly representative of the Federalism philosophy espoused by the Libertarians of today.
While your proposal might be too clever by half, history does support your assertion that Janklow was involved in an attempt to combine the offices of S&PL and Treasurer. In 1984 Treasurer David Volk was both treasurer and commissioner of S&PL. Because of a vacancy, Janklow appointed Volk to that position. A constitutional amendment was also referred to a vote but narrowly lost 143,276 - 142,985.
Hey, "Don", how about a little less chest-thumping and a little more genuine discussion? I'm having trouble seeing the part where you refuted any of the arguments that Todd made for this policy proposal. Would it not be more Libertarian to reduce the government's land holdings and responsibilities?
[And check your e-mail. I don't talk much with people I don't know.]