In 2024 election, Republicans are embracing the baggage Trump brings: Your letters

Your letters to the editor for March 3, 2024:

You can't legislate the harm e-bikes bring to trails

State law claims an e-bike is not a motorcycle. It does this after the law defines what a motorcycle is, which an e-bike obviously meets in terms of description, but then through a public policy jester, or caveat, this same state law decides to exclude e-bikes from the motorcycle definition.Now, you can legislate a definition, but you cannot legislate away a harm, which e-bikes are to our bike trail system and sidewalks. E-bikes are motorcycles with speeds up to 28 mph and our current city council is so far planning to approve them on our bike trail system and our sidewalks, but do you approve of this? You should not unless you want 28 mph “motorcycles” to cruise the same sidewalks and bike trail system that our children, grandchildren, our grandparents, and frankly, all of us of use; and also realize that one member of the Council has already publicly advocated for class III to be allowed on our bike trail system and sidewalks, too.Now, some will claim that this ordinance change will only allow class II e-bikes on the trail and sidewalks, with class I already being allowed on our trails, and that class III, which can go up to 28 mph, are still not allowed under this ordinance. But what the advocates of this ordinance ignore is that members of the SFPD have testified before both the city’s Bicycle Committee and the Active Transportation Board asking for this change because they do not want to further deal with the enforcement of the status quo, and would rather rely on signage for speed, and thus allow class II on trails and sidewalks. But if SFPD is washing their hands of this, then who will be left to enforce our new rules and prevent class IIIs from riding our bike trail system and sidewalks as well? Enforcement is really the issue here. Without enforcement, the legalization of class II bikes will also bring the onslaught of class III e-bikes onto our sidewalks and bike trail system too, and with that reality will come a greater harm to our citizenry.Keep in mind, too, that if one is sympathetic to the Police Department's wish to wash their hands of this issue, because they have greater fish to fry, well, one can be sympathetic to that reality, but such a willingness to aid our local police force on this issue does not solve a problem, but merely transfers it to Sioux Falls Fire Rescue. Because this pro-e-bike agenda, that our Council has taken, will only encourage a greater e-bike trend in this town, but unfortunately nationally E-bikes and their chargers have become a increasingly greater problem causing nearly 200 fires in New York City alone last year. So, if you are pro-e-bike on our sidewalks and bike trail system, then your advocacy and its responsibility/burden and potential harm are not eliminated with this new ordinance, but merely transferred from one type of first responder to another type.And, for those who say that e-bikes need to be on our bike system, especially for elderly use and those with medical limitations, well, exceptions can be made for them with proper enforcement . But then again it's all about enforcement, is it not? But let us not allow that issue to be resolved at the expense of our fellow citizens who especially care to walk or run on our sidewalks and the bike trail system safely.On Feb. 20, our city council approved the first reading of a city ordinance that would allow in essence “motorcycles” on our bike trail and sidewalks. I would encourage all fellow citizens to reach out to their council members - before March 5th's second reading - telling them how you do not approve of having “motorcycles” on our sidewalks and bike trail system. Because the bike trail system and our sidewalks were designed for pedestrians, runners, and bicycles, and not motorcycles.− John Claussen, Sioux Falls

MAGA: Embrace the Baggage!

Well, we’ve got the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary and now South Carolina’s behind us. What we’ve learned about where the collective heads of Republicans are at surely has me disheartened. There are absolutely no illusions, at this point, about who Donald Trump is and who he isn’t. The Republican Party that Haley and other alternative-to-Trump candidates were trying to appeal to doesn’t exist anymore. I used to think the whole campaign was more about the race for the Republican soul, either finding it or revealing it. Senators Thune and Rounds’ early endorsement of Tim Scott was an effort to find a competent, decent, conservative voice who could be an acceptable alternative to the Trump megalomania. That fell through when Scott dropped out and ultimately endorsed Trump; and even now, John Thune has finally capitulated. Or is it surrendered? In 2016, voters were willing to look past Trump’s bombast and inflammatory rhetoric because he was perceived as a fighter, a disrupter, a fighter for them. But after his term in office and particularly the events since he left office – Jan 6, the endless denials of the 2020 election legitimacy, classified documents, election interference, 4 indictments – we’ve come to 2024 election cycle and the 13 Republican presidential candidates have been whittled down to virtually one. It’s Trump’s Party and he’s even promoting his daughter-in-law to co-chair the RNC. What seems to be the case now is this: Whereas DeSantis, Haley, Christie, and others tried to paint themselves as alternatives with conservative values without Trump’s distractions, drama, and chaos, that seemingly is exactly what Republicans want! Republicans want the drama; they want a spectacle. As others have noted, the chaos isn’t a distraction; for Trump’s supporters, it’s the point. Presumably, some Republicans think the RNC should cover Trump’s legal bills and most Republican’s support his candidacy even if he is convicted! Seemingly, Republican voters like that Trump is unruly, that he belittles people who don’t “kiss his ring”, that he alienates, polarizes, and demonizes Democrats and any Republican who disagrees with him. Trump supporters will often say, “focus on what he does, not what he says”. That’s convenient! And ultimately dangerous for the country. And incidentally, that’s that same thing that people in Russia and the Ukraine say about Vladimir Putin. The new Republican rallying cry: “MAGA: Embrace the Baggage!”

− Bill Kubat, Sioux Falls

Why has John Thune endorsed Trump?

I see where Senator John Thune just endorsed Donald Trump for president. My question for you, Senator, is what was it that made you decide to endorse him at this time? Was it his being adjudicated to having been a rapist who continued defaming his victim even after being found liable the first time, with awards totaling over $85 million? Or was it the recent New York court decision finding that he, his sons, and his company had committed fraud in his business dealing in a pattern extending over many years, to the tune of $354 million dollars plus interest? Or maybe it was his 91 felony criminal charges that allege everything from attempting to deny voters their rights by fomenting insurrection, to committing campaign finance violations, to asking officials in Georgia to commit voter fraud, to taking and keeping, without authorization, classified and other sensitive government documents in his bathroom at Mar a Lago and refusing to return them, earning an additional obstruction of justice charge. Which one of these was it, Senator Thune? Or was it some combination of all of these that convinced you Donald Trump has the character and is fit to lead our nation, be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, and have his finger on the nuclear trigger? Just asking.

− Bob Wilson, Spearfish

Legislature should do more to help low-income South Dakotans

In South Dakota we like to be good neighbors, helping when we can. We send nice people to the legislature. So I am deeply disappointed their legislation is so hard on our low-income population? Don’t they realize our median hourly wage sits in the bottom ten among the states?

Legislators killed good bills that could help, bills on school meals, food tax, minimum wage, tuition-free attendance for tribal members. They won’t pay the administrative cost to accept the federal $7million summer food for kids. They won’t allow a locality to try a guaranteed-income experiment. They won’t allow a debtor to keep a car.

Expect more homelessness from two of the meanest bills keeping people down. Landlords can now evict renters, even those in good standing, more quickly and easily. Many renters will have less time to re-locate (15 days, not 30) and less chance to fight wrongful evictions or hold unscrupulous landlords accountable.

Further cruel legislation starts us down a path to taking away critical healthcare (Medicaid expansion) from people who don’t get enough work hours, don’t get work reports in, or don’t adequately verify an allowed exemption. Threatening health, and even life, this way is extreme and inhumane punishment that does not fit the crime. Now legislators’ ballot measure wants us to allow that, in this pro-life state.

This year’s idea to remove signatures from petitions would make it harder for us citizens to act when the legislature does not. We needed to use our right to citizen petitions for minimum wage increase, a payday loan limit, and Medicaid expansion. We need it this year to end the state’s portion of food tax.

There are exceptions. A few bills will help. But I was hoping their better angels would have prevailed to help and protect our neighbors who already have too many challenges in life.

− Cathy Brechtelsbauer, Sioux Falls

Giving props to POET

Many months ago, at the very first PUC meeting in Canton, at the very end, commissioner Nelson twice ready, very slowly, with great emphasis one of the criteria the commission uses to decide on an application for permit.

"The PUC will respect and adhere to any regulations or ordinances adopted by local government entitities."

They are telling us they are on our side when it comes to property rights. Talk to your legislators. Don't allow the state to take away from the PUC, from us, this valuable tool.

At the same meeting, there was a representative from Poet. I had the good fortune to talk with him afterward. He was very forthright and accomodating, and his answers were not evasive and made without hesitation.

When asked if his company struggled with their decision; Yes, we did. Did you do a lot of research; Yes, I did.

Is there any significant proof that the whole carbon capture and sequestration concept will have the desired effect on the atmosphere and climate? Without a moment's hesitation, no.

Then where do the scientists, climatologists stand? About 50-50.

Doesn't that place the idea in the category of an experiment? You could say that.

When Broin got to the idea to build the ethonal plants, it too, was an experiment. They knew they could make they product. They had already done that. But would it sell? Could they make it profitable? Would using it as fuel have enough of the right effect to support the renewable fuel standards?

But Broin, Poet, did their job well.

They convinced people to invest in their experiment. They convinced producers to participate by selling them the corn, and eventually to buy all the byproducts to incorporate in their feeding programs. They also managed their plants well, with the investor and producers in mind. Hence, success.

A couple of things they did not do: They never bullied, intimidated or threatened anyone to be part of their enterprise. They never lobbied the government, the PUC or the courts for permission to force anyone to participate.

Not so with Summit. Apparently, their idea of the "South Dakota Way" is to quit talking to the affected people and rather lobby the legislature to take our local control and our property rights away from us. Their idea of a "compromise" is "You do what we tell you, and we'll do what we want to."

I don't know about you, but that doesn't work for me.

Come on, Jeff Broin, be a man and stand up for the property rights of those who made your idea successful.

− Tom Eiesland, Canton

This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Letters to the editor for March 3, 2024: Why has John Thune endorsed Trump?