Just Some of the Things that are Still Wrong with SB 163 even after amendments:

It says: (1) "Agricultural development is necessary for the preservation of our rural economy;"

(agricultural development is a codeword for big industrial feedlots)

How could you ever rule against them? The presumption is that they are needed.

It changed the word :guided to "consider." But notice, it still says SHALL.

CHANGED FROM: "In adopting an agricultural zoning plan and related agricultural zoning ordinances, the county shall be GUIDED by the following policies of the State of South Dakota:"

CHANGED TO: "In adopting an agricultural zoning plan and related agricultural zoning ordinances, the county shall CONSIDER the following policies of the State of South Dakota."

Who says big industrial feedlots are essential to South Dakota's economy? Voters don't believe that.

It says: "Existing agricultural development projects and those for which a plan is pending
before the county prior to July 1, 2004, should be approved, if the use meets or
exceeds all county requirements and federal and state environmental regulations.."

(ELIMINATES Discretion and judgment..... or at least tilts the scales towards a presumption)

It says: "County zoning may not be used in any manner to discriminate against any person or
business because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or place of residence"

Huh? so we can't give preference to South Dakotans?

This is an Outrage!

(it means we can't prefer local residents to the big outside interests)

___________________________________

Oddly, couldn't it be used to also argue that there is no distinction can be made between East and West river (wouldn't it make it impossible to make such distinctions?)

___________________________________

Also, note this: if an out of state resident gets a permit for a large industrial farm, then a South Dakota resident would certainly be able to claim they were entitled to have just as large an operation.