Ms. Schwan asks the obvious question when it comes to the ballot initiative, ‘What about Smithfield’s?’

Second, my biggest issue with the initiative as written is that it allows Smithfield to continuing expanding downtown.

Not long ago, I stood on the top floor of the new 10-story Bancorp building at Cherapa Place and looked out at Smithfield in the distance. If we’re going to have a conversation about the suitability of certain locations for meat processing, my hope is that we also can talk about how we might persuade Smithfield to build somewhere else – or even partner with Wholestone, as Hormel did. That conversation can and will never happen if Smithfield’s only option is to expand downtown. The company owns enough land to do so, and by passing this initiative, our community will ensure that’s the only place Smithfield’s growth will occur.

This has been my issue with the petition to begin with. If we are going to ban these kind of operations, we need to ban all of them in the city limits.

I wish the community didn’t have to vote on this at all and that those opposed could have worked with Wholestone to ensure the highest possible mitigation of any environmental factors of concern. That’s typically how we do things in this community.

Yes, prior to Shape Places, the council would have been all over this.

This is why local government matters, because if you don’t pay attention to the baby steps you miss Bigfoot stepping on your head.

7 Thoughts on “But what about our original stink?

  1. rufusx on October 10, 2022 at 6:19 pm said:

    Laws – including zoning – do not and constitutionally CANNOT apply retroactively. You can’t pass a zoning ordinance that prohibits a certain type of building (slab foundation?) and then proceed to make the owners of every one of those preexisting buildings either bring it into compliance or tear it down. Dream on.

  2. D@ily Spin on October 10, 2022 at 6:33 pm said:

    Smithfield is grandfathered. There would be major litigation the city would lose if they are restricted or curb operations. Rightfully so. Their employees are a major sales tax base. The population would welcome another major employer but somewhat out of town and with newer environmental standards. They’re coming despite the vote (Strong Mayor imperialism). It’s but a matter of bribing city hall and awarding construction to overpriced insiders.

  3. Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on October 10, 2022 at 10:56 pm said:

    Two pork plants would make Sioux City laugh, while it would make South Sioux City jealous.

  4. Further Fear & Loathing on October 10, 2022 at 11:15 pm said:

    Our original stink is nostalgic. It speaks of the romanticism of who we have been and still are, which is only further evident by the attempt at another pork plant.

    My neighborhood seldom gets the stink, however, but when it does it takes me back to a simpler time when rummage sales started on Thursdays because Morrell workers got paid on Thursdays, and to a time when Sioux Falls had a real union.

    If one stink does justify another though, it’s like saying the two can tango, but if they are not dancing together, then there must be other partners, and who are they? And, do they stink, too?

    #TheAromaOfHistory #RomanticismsAroma #PorkPossibilities #PoliticalPork #TheOtherWhiteMeat #Pork&Beans #Porky’s

  5. Ruf, we found that out with the railroads and the country clubs. My point was when this all came up in the Spring the council could have moved on their own to limit the operations of Wholestone but did nothing. Once they pulled the petition it was too late for the council to act. You are both right it would be impossible for the council to do anything about Smithfields but the state legislature could act based purely on environmental standards.

  6. Anthony Renli on October 11, 2022 at 7:58 am said:

    The problem with the state legislature enacting pretty much any ban on Smithfields within city limits is it would be tied up in court for years and when all was said or done, Smithfields would almost certainly still be there.
    Unless the city or state is willing to pay to have them relocate outside of the city limits(buying them land and building them a new facility), forcing a business to either move or stop their current operations is nearly impossible UNLESS they can show direct environmental impact resulting in illness or death in the surrounding community. As there has been meet processing at that location for over 100 years and we haven’t been seen statistically higher rates of cancer, birth defects, or any other environmental disease proving this is going to be nearly impossible.
    It’s possible to stop new meat processing plants within the city limits, but passing new environmental standards that would blatantly be targeting this one business would never stand up in court.

  7. D@ily Spin on October 11, 2022 at 4:39 pm said:

    Meat packing operations uses lots of fresh water. I’m thinking Wholestone wants here so they can tap the Ogalala Aquafer. It is fresh water for more than 10 states. The pipeline from North Dakota was stopped because of the route through the middle of the underground aquafer. I’m thinking now that Wholestone must find somewhere else. Not only do they use lots of water but they’d release pollution.

Post Navigation