Correction Made, Question Remains

In response to "Local Economy Needs More Market, Not Marketing", I received the following e-mail from Commissioner Karen Lembcke:

Corey,
I appreciate your opinion as to the letter to the editor. However when you are quoting people be sure you are getting the right people and comments. The commission is in favor of the marketing campaigne, and I do appreciate your interest. However I need to correct your statement, I did not make the comment about the city becoming stagnant, that would have been Mechelle Nordberg, perhaps you should have read Thursday nights paper, front page, this would let you know who said what.

Karen Lembcke
Prostrollo Auto Mall

Indeed, in my original post, I misattributed a quote by Commissioner Nordberg to Commissioner Lembcke. Commission Lembcke was quoted right before Commissioner Nordberg, and I was reading too quickly while working on my response to the article. I immediately edited the online version, although alas, the Madison Daily Leader published my essay right away in Friday's paper, so the damage has already been done. Following is the response I e-mailed to Commissioner Lembcke:

Dear Karen,

Oops! Thanks for the correction. I am sorry I got the wrong name on the quote. You rightly take me to task, just as I would any of my students who made a similar mistake. I will edit the online version of the text to properly cite Commissioner Nordberg's quote.

So, given that correction, I'm still curious why the city puts so much emphasis on creating an image. Rereading the article (yes, I did read the entire article; I just misread the tag on the quote when working on my response), I find your actual quote telling. "It seems like a lot of money, but we're going to have to find it if we want Madison to grow and prosper." Indeed, I'm all for growth and prosperity (within the framework of a reasonable plan, since bigger isn't inherently better), but I wonder, when we do find money, wouldn't we get a better return on those dollars first fixing our potholes, funding the bike trail, and making other real improvements to our infrastructure?

Keep looking for solutions! I'd run in the next election and come help, but for now, teaching is my calling to civil service. I'll be sure to use my own essay and your correction as an in-class example of how even English teachers need to check and double-check their sources.

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger

Local Economy Needs More Market, not Marketing

Today's Madison Daily Leader (05.11.2006) reports that the City of Madison will throw $500,000 over the next five years into marketing our fair city. Those tax dollars will be transferred to the Lake Area Improvement Corporation, which has big plans to "market Madison through advertising on radio, TV, newspapers and magazines and create new banners, billboards, signs and possibly a new logo." Says LAIC Executive Director Dwaine Chapel, "We're already looking at ads in tourism magazines."

City Commissioner Mechelle Nordberg sounds particularly sanguine about the project. Noting that other communities are ramping up their marketing efforts, she says, "Unless we want to just sit here and be stagnant, we have to compete with those communities as well."

I am underwhelmed at Madison's efforts to make itself South Dakota's next "City on the Go." Remember that slogan? Watertown used that silly line to promote itself a few years ago on billboards and in TV ads. I remember the line only because my wife and I gleefully mocked the absurd tone of Watertown's ads and slogan. "City on the Go? Where's it going? Someone better catch it before it gets too far. Oh, wait, it's Watertown -- let it go!"

Luverne, Minnesota, is running similar ads for our amusement on local TV. As much as we revel in identifying the weak production elements of this montage of various Luverne landmarks on Luverne's apparently sleepy streets, we have yet to see anything in Luverne's marketing campaign that makes us want to leap off the couch, pull up stakes, and move to Luverne (or even go have dinner there).

Has the Lake Area Improvement Corporation seen these ads? Does LAIC think it has some magic formula that will make Madison's marketing campaign chuckle-proof? More importantly, does LAIC have any data that suggests these ads have contributed to any economic growth in these towns? Commissioner Nordberg's comment suggests the only successful marketing going on here is the campaign to market marketing: get a few towns to hire some image consultants and buy a few cheesy billboards and TV ads, and all the other towns will feel like they have to do the same to keep up.

If Madison needs to keep up with the surrounding burgs in anything, it's not marketing. I suspect that any economic growth Watertown has enjoyed in the last ten years has not come from impressionable consumers seeing the ads, crying "City on the Go?! That's the place for us!" and racing up I-29 to shop at the Watertown Mall. Economic growth comes from entrepreneurs taking risks, starting businesses, creating jobs, and providing goods and services that people want. When a town has strong businesses, their goods and services will draw customers by their own merits. Prostrollo's is an excellent example: Prostrollo's doesn't draw people to Madison by saying, "Look how pretty Main Street is"; Prostrollo's draws people by shouting "We've got the cars you want!"

Likewise, towns draw new residents not by packaging themselves in a slick media campaign, but by offering honest and varied opportunities. When my ex-students finish college and look for towns in which to work and raise their families, they look at the job listings, not the clever slogan on the sign outside town.

If the City Commission and LAIC are serious about drawing new businesses and residents, they should direct their money toward something much more lasting and useful than advertising. What could we do with $500,000?

• Create a small business development fund. Offer grants for job creation: any small business, existing or new, could get $5000 for every job it creates. Imagine the boon to the community if that $500,000 fund led to the creation of 100 new jobs in Madison. (Remember, this doesn't apply if Wal-Mart comes to town, since they'll put everyone at Jubilee, Stan's, and Pamida out of work. We want new small businesses that add to the diversity of goods, services, and jobs in Madison.)
• Create a new-resident home loan benefit. When a new resident moves to Madison and buys or builds a house, LAIC pays the closing costs or offers to pay $5000 toward the down payment. Such money would promote genuine long-term investment in Madison.
• Create a small-business advertising fund. If we just can't get away from the idea that advertising will make Madison a boom town, then we could at least give the money to small businesses to advertise their goods and services to a wider market. Give the money to our local entrepreneurs and let them dream up their own ad campaigns. Maria's new Mexican market at Second and Egan is a great addition to the community; an advertising grant could help Maria's buy a big sign to catch drivers' attention on the highway or some radio and TV spots to draw creative cooks from around the area.

If Madison really is a land of opportunity, its businesses can promote themselves. If the City Commission insists on throwing money into the development effort, it can do so in more fruitful ways than trying to brand our city as just another "City on the Go." Savvy consumers chuckle at cheesy marketing campaigns; they spend their money on goods and services of real value. The occasional RV tourist may make a brief detour on the basis of a glossy ad; serious entrepreneurs and investors work and live in communities that create and support healthy, diverse local economies.

Basketball Parents Display March Madness

As western South Dakota digs out from under its biggest snowstorm of the season thus far (now that it's spring, it only seems reasonable to expect bigger snowstorms), I would like to note a travel alert issued by the state Department of Public Safety over the weekend. With the snowstorm bearing down on Rapid City, site of the State AA Boys Basketball Tournament, the Department of Public Safety paid special attention to all the teenage fans traveling to and from the event. The agency urged parents whose children had driven to Rapid City for the tournament to contact their kids and tell them to stay put until the storm had blown over and the roads were clear.

Now understand that I appreciate such concern from our state government for the safety of our youth. But wait a minute: who are these parents who let their kids drive unchaperoned across the state with a big blizzard on the way? Wouldn't a better travel alert have been in order before the tournament, telling parents that letting their kids drive alone 300+ miles into a winter storm watch area (not to mention to a state tournament for 2-3 days without any adult supervision) is a bad idea?

Such a travel alert tells a lot about South Dakota culture. Every year kids at Montrose, the school I teach at, take off for the State B tournaments whether Montrose is playing in them or not (we made the State 9B football tournament last season for the first time since the 1980s). They go not to watch the games but to drink and trash hotel rooms. And parents seem perfectly accepting of behavior. Our school board even schedules the Fridays of the state basketball and football tournaments as days off to facilitate our students' participation in this parentally approved, state-sponsored bacchanalia.

As far as I know, all the kids got home o.k., and the Rapid City economy turned a nice profit on hotels, restaurants, and various consumables. Thank goodness we have the state to remind parents to call their kids with parental advice but not get in the way of a good time.

Abortion Ban? Why Not Free Delivery?

Yesterday Governor Mike Rounds signed South Dakota's abortion ban into law, bringing great joy to all those spoiling for a Supreme Court fight. The law will also bring happiness to those activists eager for the chance to stand on busy street corners and shout their mindless chant "Live baby good, dead baby bad." (Reminds me of the sheep bleating "Four legs good! Two legs bad!" to disrupt the political speeches in Animal Farm.)

Now this abortion ban won't amount to much. It will make various self-righteous evangelicals feel good about their commitment to the moral cause. When the law ges struck down by the Supreme Court, the defeat will reinforce the illusory sense of oppression and martyrhood that evangelicals apparently find so vital to their sense of identity. However, the ban will not save a single baby. Kate Looby of South Dakota Planned Parenthood hass her lawsuit against the ban in her back pocket, and she will file it well before July 1 to block the law from coming into effect. Even if the law somehow does pass Constitutional muster (and South Dakota's lawmakers, along with the anonymous donors kicking in the money to help defray the costs of the impending court battle), it will only drive abortions out of the state. The estimated 800 women who have abortions in South Dakota each year already have to drive all the way to either Sioux Falls or Rapid City for the procedure; it's not a big step for them to drive to the next closest abortion clinic in Minnesota or North Dakota. (Where a young woman out in Faith will have to drive, I hate to think -- Bismarck? Cheyenne? Sheridan? Billings?)

But while we wait for the next shoe (the lawsuit) to drop, it occurs to me that South Dakota could go for the one-two punch in terms of making a stand for live babies. South Dakota could demonstrate its genuine commitment to the value of life by offering free delivery of every baby born in South Dakota. If babies really are the most precious thing in the world, shouldn't we as a state put our money where our mouth is? Consider that somewhere out there some self-righteous Bible-thumper is willing to put up a million dollars to help defend the abortion ban in court. (Funny how people following the word of Jesus, the poor itinerant carpenter, manage to find the time to get so rich.) Instead of throwing that one million dollars at the handful of lawyers who will profit from this fight, the anonymous donor could donate that one million dollars to Sioux Valley Hospital to cover the costs of the next 300 deliveries. That would allow 300 families to save over $3000 each, money they could apply toward their pre-natal and post-natal care; toward buying warm clothes, sturdy car seats, and child gates; and toward generally increasing the health, safety, and comfort of their new child. That step alone would do more for the welfare of real live babies in South Dakota than the abortion ban ever will.

Besides, in pure economic terms, "Free Delivery" would more than make up for the business South Dakota will lose from abortion seekers heading to Minnesota or Wyoming for the procedure. Young parents would flock across the border to Sioux Falls, Yankton, Rapid City, and Aberdeen to have their babies delivered for free. They'd quite likely come here then for their pre- and post-natal care (a boost for the economy). While they were here, the new parents would surely pick up some groceries and lots of baby items (another boost for the economy). Some young parents might be so impressed with the Free Delivery policy and the socially enlightened state government that would pass it that they would choose to relocate here (and the young-parent demographic is exactly the one we need to permanently boost our economy).

Free Delivery would do much more to help real live babies than the abortion ban ever will. But the Christian Right isn't interested in real solvency. They're interested in making statements that make themselves feel good, regardless of the real-world impacts. They don't want to step out of their comfort zone and enter into a genuine Christian relationship of community with the women and poor children who really need help to make it into and through the world.

Laptops -- Absolutely! Teacher Pay -- Well, I Suppose...

Now that Christmas vacation gives me a break from running debate tournaments and early-morning one-act play rehearsals, I have time to comment on Governor Rounds's new education plan. Our fair governor seems to think that the way to improve South Dakota education is to provide laptops to every high school student in the state. Governor Rounds says, "The reality is that if you want to provide a good education, a laptop is going to be part of it."
Of course, while the governor views laptops as essential to education, he's willing to direct the state to fund just $13 million of the projected $39 million required for the statewide laptop outfit.

Of course, the governor's commitment to technology in the classroom (and now in backpacks, backseats, and wherever else the kids will forget those computers) still appears to outweigh his commitment to funding another arguably essential component of education -- teachers. The Argus points out that Governor Rounds has also proposed $3.5 million for a school efficiencies program to boost teacher pay. It works like this: the state would match funds that schools can save by cutting other programs if those funds are then directed toward teacher pay. So if schools find other ways to tighten their budgets -- cutting arts programs, for instance, or eliminating extracurricular opportunities or textbook purchases -- the state will send some money to increase teacher salaries. Total local outlays would remain the same; statewide, education funding would increase by at most the $3.5 dollars, less than a tenth of what the entire laptop program would cost the state and the local districts.

Our governor appears to have made his classroom priorities clear. He believes laptops are ten times more valuable than making it easier for teachers to afford to remain in their chosen profession.

To understand the governor's mistaken priorities, let's run some back-of-the-envelope projections for Montrose High School, my place of employment. We need 77 student laptops. To keep up, the teachers will likely need laptops as well. Let's suppose we strike a reasonably good deal and get decent laptops for $500 a pop (the Aberdeen American News reports that the governor expects costs of "less than $1,000 apiece for computers with three-year leases, software and warranties"). 77 student laptops plus 15 staff laptops = 92 computers @$500 = $46,000. Let's be optimistic and assume that rounding up to an even $50,000 covers the costs of setting up the software, networking, and security for the new machines. $50,000 -- that's equal to the salary of two new teachers... or a raise of $2500 for every teacher. Now, consider that the governor's money is one-time money, so once Montrose gets its laptops, Montrose is on its own for maintenance and replacement costs. A laptop network that size will require at least one dedicated computer support person, who likely will demand a salary greater than that of any teacher in the building. Let's suppose the computer tech person gives us a break and works for $40,000 a year. Suppose we need to replace just 1 out of 20 machines each year -- that's 5 new laptops, another $2500. The school's costs each year for mere maintenance and replacement will be greater than their initial buy-in with the assistance of the state's matching funds. We've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in computers, and we wonder why school budgets are getting tighter every year.

On the merits of laptops in the classroom, see Steve Hemmingsen's December 12 comments. I am also pleased to direct you to comments from some South Dakota lawmakers who think laptops might not warrant such a prominent place in our list of education priorities. Senator Jerry Apa of Lead, a Republican like Governor Rounds, questions the governor's focus on technology:

"Since when did laptops become an entitlement?" Sen. Jerry Apa, R-Lead, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked. "If the schools are in trouble now financially, how are they going to come up with their match? How are the smaller school districts going to afford a support person? What about children whose parents can afford the Internet and those who can't? What are we going to do - subsidize the Internet? It's an interesting offer, but the practicality of it is just not there," Apa said.

I don't know if we can count on the Legislature to increase teacher pay, but let's hope comments like Apa's indicate that the Legislature will at least keep us from sinking our money into another technological boondoggle that will benefit Gateway more than the students of this state.

Opt-Out Compromise: Luxury Property Tax?

Let us suppose that the Madison Central school board lacks the political will to advocate at the state level for an income tax. This summer Superintendent Frank Palleria said as much to me, expressing the oft-cited line that the income tax is a good idea but that South Dakotans will never vote for one. (Again, if everyone says that, who's left to voteagainst it?) Comments from board member Mark Hawkes in the Tuesday Madison Daily Leader indicate that attitude persists: he says that the board does not think the legislature will do anything to change the funding formula to help schools in the coming session, and he expresses no initiative to go to Pierre and push for change. The board is stuck in the same old rut.

If we must have a property tax increase, perhaps the board could still be a bit creative about it. Perhaps the board could still find a way to increase the district's revenue without hitting the lower-income people of this community. There are obviously people in the community who can afford higher taxes: just take a look at the huge houses going up around Lake Madison. Perhaps the board could vote for a property tax increase that would target just those big builders.

Specifically, let's impose a "luxury property tax." We could pick an arbitrary value, say $250,000. Every property valued below that amount would see its property tax levy remain the same. However, we would impose a higher levy for every thousand dollars above that rate. Right now, the residential property tax levy is $14.77 per $1000 value. We could tax the first $250,000 of a house's value at that rate. Above that value, we could levy $24.77 per $1000.

So take a $400,000 house. On the first $250,000 of that value, the owner would pay $14.77x250 = $3692.50. On the remaining $150,000 of the house's value, the owner would pay $24.77x150 = $3715.50. The total assessment: $7408.

My numbers are not set in stone. We can certainly debate just what value constitutes a reasonable starting point for "luxury property" and just how much to increase the levy for those higher values. Perhaps instead of a dollar figure, we could use residence status: perhaps we apply the tax only to second homes and vacation homes and exempt primary residences. Perhaps we could apply the tax strictly to new construction, thus encouraging people to renovate and preventing urban sprawl.

Whatever scheme we would choose, a "luxury property tax" would buffer people with older, smaller homes, like retirees who don't have the energy or time to clean a giant house or lower-income workers who simply can't afford new, sprawling digs, from the increased tax burden the school district wants to impose. The people who can spring for an extra 1000 square feet of living space can likely spring for increased property tax as well. Such a luxury property tax rate still isn't the ideal -- ultimately, we should move toward an income tax that most directly addresses the issue of taxing people according to their ability to pay. But a luxury property tax would provide at least a little breathing room for lower-income property holders until we develop the political will to completely reform the state tax system.

Education Yes, Property Tax No

The Madison Central school board is tooting the opt-out horn again. Three years ago, after losing two opt-out efforts at the public ballot box, the school district engaged in some serious budget cutting. However, with enrollment dropping due to unavoidable demographic factors -- we've passed the baby boomlet, and Madison's population, while stable, is skewing older -- the school will continue to receive less money under the state aid formula. Therefore, just to maintain salaries and programs at current levels, board president Kelly Johnson says the board may need to opt out of the state property tax freeze.

Opt-outs are a tricky issue for me. As a teacher, my livelihood depends on sufficient public funding for education, and determining what is "sufficient" is difficult enough in itself. But whatever constitutes "sufficient" funding, we can't get that funding fairly under South Dakota's current system of taxation. South Dakota, with no personal or corporate income tax, relies primarily on sales and property tax (along with lots of federal welfare) to fund its government functions. Neither tax is based on an individual's ability to pay. The property tax hinders the ability of lower-income workers, retirees, and farmers to obtain and hold onto their property. Property tax also penalizes people for having richer neighbors: if I am content with my small house and limited income, but a wealthy businessman builds a sprawling mansion next door, his construction drives up my property value and tax bill, which forces me to work more hours just to hold on to what I have. I may be able to enjoy increased property balue by selling or borrowing against my property, but if I am interested simply in holding onto and enjoying my land and living within my current means, I'm out of luck.

Three years ago, I voted against both of Madison Central's opt-outs. I participated actively in the campaign against the first one, circulating petitions to put the opt-out to a public vote. I will oppose and will urge my fellow citizens to oppose any future opt-out as well. I love education. I want to see our school sufficiently funded to provide the kids as many educational opportunities as we can manage. I want to see Madison's debate team provided with enough funding for proper coaching and travel to all the tournaments during the debate season. But I will not accept the argument that I have to support these valuable programs by approving an increase in an unjust tax system. It's like saying I have to approve the repair of a major highway by using indentured servants, or that I should support winning debate rounds by cheating. We cannot do the right thing by doing the wrong thing. If Madison voters and others across the state want more funding for their schools, they need to find the political will to fight for a more just tax system.

Conservation, not Production: Letter to SD Congressional Delegation

In the news this week: the "Gasoline for America's Security" Act, passed by the House Republicans 212-210. Evidently, a majority of Republicans believe that giving oil companies money to build oil refineries will ease our energy crunch. They ignore the fact that oil refinery profits have doubled in the past year and that the oil companies could thus afford new construction on their own, if they really wanted to increase supply.

Fortunately, South Dakota's lone representative in the House, Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth, voted with the rest of the Democrats on this one. Perhaps now she will pursue the proposal outlined below, which I e-mailed to her (as well as to our esteemed Senators Johnson and Thune) this morning:

Dear Representative Herseth:

Outraged by the Republicans' "Gasoline for America's Security" Act, I've decided to propose to you a plan for real energy independence. If energy independence is really vital for America's security, then we should approach the problem in the same way we approach wars. When we fought World War II, we ordered the big auto companies to retool and start cranking out tanks and airplanes. Why don't we declare war on energy dependence and order Ford and GM to build hybrids for the federal government?

I'm not suggesting nationalizing the auto industry or passing a bunch of regulations. I'm suggesting a very simple business deal: the federal government offers Ford, GM, and any other willing automaker a giant contract: build enough hybrid, E-85, and/or biodiesel vehicles to replace the entire federal fleet of vehicles by January 1, 2007. The Postal Service alone has 200,000 vehicles*, many of which could easily be replaced with hybrid vehicles, which are perfect for the sort of urban stop-and-go driving that most postal vehicles do. The federal government could lead the way with its revamped alternative-fuel fleet in reducing energy consumption, and the big automakers, having retooled to meet government demand, would seek to maximize their profit by cranking out more such vehicles for the private consumer market.

*I consulted Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, US Department of Energy, /Transportation Energy Data Book, /Edition 24,/ /Chapter 7, "Fleet Vehicles and Characteristics," http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter07.pdf for my numbers on the size of the federal vehicle fleet.

Commission not so fired up about slogans

A somewhat positive development: the city commission is showing some cautious decision-making, if not outright contrition. At their Monday meeting, the commission decided not to decide on the recommendations from Paulsen Marketing on a new positioning line for the city. Commissioner Mark Stadel didn’t offer KJAM news any great insight into the reasons for the commission’s hesitance other than to indicate that the commission wants to take time to get some public input.

Public input? Holy cow—are they really going to ask us what we think of the slogans dreamed up by Paulsen? Perhaps the city should have asked the public to start with, before they spent $2500 on some rather underwhelming results.

The commission’s delay is telling. We’re not talking about a major budgetary decision here; the money has already been spent. Could the commissioners be catching a lot of grief, not just from this writer, but from the morning coffee crowd they meet when they stroll downtown? Madisonites eager not to be branded with silly slogans can only hope (and holler, whenever the commission gets around to asking our opinions). At the very least, the commission apparently feels a need to put a gloss of public input on the matter, so in the future, when visitors to our fair city are greeted by cheesy banners with grossly uncreative declarations on them, the city leaders can say they don’t bear full responsibility but sought public input on such foolishness.

It’s too bad the commission couldn’t have sought public input earlier in this image-tweaking process. They might have saved the city several thousand dollars by seeking and following some homegrown advice. If branding is about creating a unique, authentic image, then the best results will come from our own people. Why let an outside marketer define who we are? An outside marketer will produce similar slogans and other recommendations for community branding to every community he works for, based on his own worldview and principles formed in Advertising 101 at university. Let a town come up with its own ideas, and that town will generate slogans and other such decorations that more truly reflect the character of that town.

One Month at 55 and I Feel Fine

For four weeks now, I have been driving no faster than 55 miles per hour. On my 23-mile commute to work (all on open country roads, two stop signs, virtually no traffic), on trips to town for groceries, even on a drive to and from Sioux Falls, on highways where the posted limit is 65, I have set my cruise control for 55 and let the world zoom by a touch more slowly. I have accepted the four extra minutes it takes to get to work and the eight extra minutes it takes to get to Sioux Falls. I have accepted the occassional driver who creeps up on my bumper and expects me to drive the same speed and burn gasoline at the same accelerated rate he wants to.

This personal Drive-55 campaign started one afternoon on my drive home. I was listening to Viewpoint University on 1140 AM KSOO, program host Rick Knobe suggested that to save energy, we could reinstate the 55-mph speed limit. However, as a good conservative, he asked why we should wait for the government to take the lead in that regard. If we really want to save fuel, we can simply let up on our gas pedals.

Hearkening back to my conservative roots, I decided I couldn't agree more. I let up on the gas right then and there and haven't put the pedal any closer to the metal since. I've even dragged my dad's old motorcycle out of the shed and ridden it to work a few times. (That Kawasaki 250 won't break 55 even if I try.)

What are my results so far? Well, I haven't run dollar figures, but our Ford Focus has gotten around 14% better gas mileage. This improvement fits with an estimate from energy analyst, John Dowd of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, who told a Senate panel this month that

if, as a country, we were to obey speed limits for the next two months, we would probably conserve more fuel than will be lost by the refinery outages. Reducing speeds from 70 m.p.h. to 60 m.p.h., for example, improves fuel efficiency by 15 percent. If Americans want to know what they can do to limit gasoline price inflation, the answer is simple: slow down.
["Driving 55 m.p.h. is looking pretty good," Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 2005]

We have in our own hands -- and feet -- the power to bring down fuel demand and fuel prices. And considering the actions of the South Dakota State Transportation Commission, we can't count on government to help. The September 21 Argus Leader reported that the Transportation Commission voted in August (and received approval from the Legislative Rules Review Committee Tuesday) to raise the speed limit on five stretches of divided four lane highways from 65 to 70. (In case Argus link dies, see also KNBN/MSNBC.)

Now I've driven every one of the roads affected by this ruling, and I know they include some long empty stretches, especially long lonesome stretch of US 83 from I-90 to Fort Pierre. I know that in South Dakota's wide open spaces, often the only things aside from the driver endangered by higher speeds are cows and barbed-wire fences. And as beautiful as the prairie is, I recognize that sometimes people just want to get through that empty country as quickly as they can.

But given South Dakotans' higher-than-average dependence on cars and trucks, we must accept some limitations on our lifestyle in order to preserve that lifestyle. Driving above 55 may save a few minutes, but it also drives up demand and fuel prices for everyone. Perhaps more importantly, every extra drop of gasoline we burn now deprives future generations of the option of burning that gasoline for their own needs. Even if our state government fails to see it, we drivers should recognize that it is in our best interest to slow back down to that optimal speed of 55. Driving faster speeds us to our destinations, but it also speeds us to the days when gasoline will cost $5, $10, $20 a gallon, when working people simply won't be able to obtain gasoline for their personal use, and when small-town South Dakotans will find themselves forced to either use alternative fuels, take drastic measures toward local self-sufficiency, or abandon their unsustainable small towns and move to the big city.

New Slogan: "Madison: You Can Sell Us Anything"

Marketing must be the easiest job in the world. You get paid big money for demonstrating almost no creativity whatsoever.
Yes, it’s another big week for Madison. Paulsen Marketing of Sioux Falls has finished the positioning lines (i.e., slogans) that our city commission has seen fit to pay $2500 for. Our three choices:

• “The Great Little City Between the Lakes.”
• “Two Lakes. One Great Town.”
• “Madison. Your New Favorite Place.”

I am underwhelmed. I expected to be underwhelmed, and I am still underwhelmed. Perhaps I can say I am over-underwhelmed. $2500, and that’s all Paulsen Marketing can come up with? Again, for those kinds of results, why couldn’t the City Commission have just just held a contest for community members to think up slogans? Why couldn’t the City Commission have simply held a one-hour brainstorming session and made up their own slogans? Town slogans are cheesy, if not outright embarrassing, no matter what, but I would find our town slogan less embarrassing if we at least had the chance to make our own. Instead, we prove our business rube-hood by paying big-city outsiders thousands of dollars to label our town with uncreative garbage (which I suppose could boost our economy by drawing lots of outside businesses who realize we are rubes ripe for the picking... though there must be an easier way to foster economic growth).

I am dismayed by the utter blandness of the slogans offered by Paulsen Marketing, especially when I compare their thoroughly researched and focus-grouped offerings with our existing positioning line. Apparently the Chamber of Commerce already has this winner on its letterhead: “Hometown Hospitality. Tomorrow’s Technology.” Again, cheesy as almost any slogan is wont to be, but this slogan at least has some content. It emphasizes two specific aspects of our community that we claim as an advantage over other places. If nothing else, the existing slogan should score points for alliteration.

This existing slogan, though, obviously isn’t good enough for Paulsen Marketing. As explained by Bryan Bjerke, Paulsen Marketing’s PR director, in testimony before the City Commission Monday night, our existing slogan isn’t unique to Madison. (Amazing—someone else thought of our alliterative slogan, but no one has used the milquetoast rah-rah lines Paulsen is offering?) “It’s not a unique positioning of your city,” said Bjerke, “and we thought you might be at a better advantage if you uniquely position yourself with your logo to say something more, something that would be more compelling.”

Bjerke went on to recommend the third slogan — "Madison. Your New Favorite Place" — as his favorite. “I like it because it’s very upbeat... and invitation to discover” Madison.

He says we need something more compelling, and that’s the slogan he recommends, the most contentless of the three? Wow. I guess marketers really can be creative... if not when selling Madison, then certainly when selling their slogan for Madison.

Like hitting the broad side of a barn...

MDL reports that Mayor Hueners has written a letter to the County Commission declaring that the city of Madison cannot afford to increase its funding for 911 service. Evidently the city faces a budget shortfall of $350,000 due to electric rate increases. Along with not being able to find more money for 911 service, the city has had to make significant cuts in street maintenance ($100,000) and support for the library ($17,400), airport, and other areas.

The explanation for the shortfall seems perfectly reasonable. The city ate an electric rate increase in 2004 but cannot afford to keep doing so. When fiscal belts need to be tightened, government officials have to set priorities and make tough choices.

But remember, this is the same city commission that spent thousands of dollars on focus groups and now another $2500 on a town slogan. So the library may have fewer books and shorter operating hours, potholes may go unpatched for another year or two, and in an emergency my 911 call may not get through, but at least when I ride into town, I’ll get to drive by beautiful banners flapping in the breeze and declaring, “Madison Is Marvelous!™”