701-566-9300The Greater North Dakota Chamber held its recent Policy Summit and discussed a variety of issues related to concerns of businesses, legislators, and North Dakota constituents. The topics were interesting and timely in light of ballot measures and the pending legislative session. There were 30 plus legislators in attendance. It was an excellent opportunity to engage with legislators and business leaders.
Governor Kelly Armstrong delivered a very positive message on the great things happening in North Dakota. Then, the first panel of the day addressed an important topic that is front and center in North Dakota and will continue to be prevalent throughout the legislative session starting in January. The panel discussion, “Local Ordinances in a Statewide Economy: Finding the Balance” was moderated by state Senator Dale Patten and it included a wind power company representative, a dairy operation representative and a county commissioner. The panel was not about data centers.
Panel members all seemed to recognize the importance of transparency and community engagement to timely share information when proposing and developing projects. One industry panel member offered a 48-hour rule in which their practice is to provide everyone the same information within 48 hours so that everyone is aware of the same information. We should always be cognizant that these projects, whether a data center, pipeline, or dairy operation, will have a huge impact on private landowner rights, and there must be acknowledgement of and some deference to those rights and citizens’ impacts. It is important to ensure these landowner rights and controls are addressed. Overriding these rights or interests seems to be a point of serious concern or contention.
The panel also recognized the importance of local officials doing their due diligence and research, including, for instance, site visits to other communities. Panel members expressed concerns that all community discussions and debates should be respectful and that highly contentious attacks in-person or on social media or other mediums are not appropriate. It was noted that in at least one instance a local public official had resigned their position due to aggressive controversial conduct in opposition to a project.
The panel raised the issue of the accuracy of some of the information shared or disseminated, for instance, on social media. Dissemination of project information, proposals and area impacts should be factual. This pertains to potential benefits whether, for example, increased property tax revenue, jobs both temporary and permanent, infrastructure investment, a broader tax base, and economic diversification. Likewise, the same factual standard must apply to legitimate concerns for landowners and residents, including electricity demand and who pays, water consumption, noise, loss of agricultural land and rural character, impact on neighboring landowners, and property values.
Regardless of whether one supports or objects to a certain project, we should ensure the process involves the common courtesy of letting the locals know exactly what is happening, taking the time to gather the facts, and then making the decisions in everyone’s best interests based upon all the facts. We should be aware that, while some individuals in the jurisdiction might desire economic investment in the community and area, investors largely will not go where they are not wanted, and that ultimately might drive the fate of the project location.
Most citizens seem to believe these decisions on projects should be local decisions for local officials pursuant to local ordinances. Others, however, might want state oversight or decision-making authority or approval (if not, in fact, a moratorium or complete ban) for projects. This might depend upon whether they support or oppose data centers or other projects. Stay tuned for the upcoming legislative session to determine how the legislature navigates this hugely important issue and whether it finds that balance between local ordinances and a statewide economy.
(The views expressed herein are mine and are not necessarily the views of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association.)