2 task force members say prison, site must fit needs
Task force member Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff said he doesn't want the state to pursue a project that fits only a few years with a need to address additional issues. 'If we do that, we've failed,' Mehlhaff said.
A prison project is something the state wants to do every 50 to 100 years, he said.
The task force is reviewing a study of the prison and recommendations to replace the existing men's prison in Sioux Falls. Consultant Arrington Watkins has done the study and one its recommendations is to build a 1,500 to 1,700 bed facility as soon as possible. The task force will also evaluate potential sites, narrow down those sites and the consultant will develop a plan based on those potential sites. The potential site includes a location in Lincoln County between Harrisburg and Canton that has received strong opposition.
'The existing prison is a horrible place for staff and inmates,' task force member Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead said.
Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken and Sioux Falls Police Chief Jon Thum both said in a letter obtained by KELOLAND News Wednesday that they did not support possible sites in Sioux Falls. They did support the original site in Lincoln County and another possible site near Worthing.
'The one thing I'd say about sites, clearly, there is strong objection to the Lincoln County site,' Milstead said.
Milstead described it as Not In My Backyard or NIMBY. He understands that those who are opposed may be living in lifetime rural homes or have had farms passed down through generations. And that they were surprised to learn a prison could be built in the area.
Yet, 'If you looked at the sites in Sioux Falls, there are hundreds of not thousands who live in the general area,' Milstead said. He's heard 'significant strong' opposition to several sites in Sioux Falls from neighboring residents and businesses, Milstead said.
Mehlhaff said some of the proposed sites will be easier to eliminate such as in Grant County near Big Stone City. 'That proposal is getting robust push back,' he said. Even so, the site is too far away, Mehlhaff said. For example, it's impractical and too far if inmates are transported from Pennington County, he said. He's also concerned about available workforce and medical services.
Mehlhaff was asked specifically about the former Citibank site in Sioux Falls. Lawmaker and task force member Republican Sen. Chris Karr recently told South Dakota Searchlight that the Citibank property was 'almost turn-key.'
'In my mind there are a lot of hurdles before that becomes a viable option,' Mehlhaff said of the Citibank property.
The property could provide for some prison needs but does not believe the buildings could be used for inmate housing, Mehlhaff said. '…it would not take care of all of our needs,' he said.
The Arrington Watkins report also cited a 2023 law which requires offenders of certain violent crimes to serve 100% of their sentences and others to serve 85% of their sentences as a major factor in increasing the prison population. The report recommended the state build a second 1,700 project because of the expected increase in the prison population because of longer mandatory sentences.
Milstead said it's too soon to estimate the impact of the 2023 law Senate Bill 246 called Truth in Sentencing. Before the 2023 law, judges may have sentenced an offender to 15 years and the offender may have only served two. Because of the 2023 judges may decide to sentence the offender to five years knowing they'd serve the full five or to two years knowing the offender would serve the full two years, Milstead said. Those scenarios would not necessarily increase the prison population, he said.
Still, he said, the law's impact will need to be monitored, Milstead said. But, the task force is not responsible for recommending program changes or additions or to weigh in on policy, he said.
The task force's role is to deal with the need for a prison, select a project and site to recommend to the Legislature, Milstead said.
In a Tuesday KELOLAND News story, task force members Democrat Sen. Jamie Smith and Democrat Rep. Erin Healy said prison policies including the 2023 Senate Bill 246 law need to be studied. A prison may be needed but the state must also find ways to better prevent crime and improve chances at an offender's reentry in to the community, they said. A summer study is planned for prison policies and sentencing.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines
Only a tiny portion of friendships in the US are between a Democrat and a Republican, an eye-opening new study found. Researchers at Wellesley College looked at 971 adult friend pairs and found that most Americans are not willing to agree to disagree. The study, published July 5 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, analyzed two separate friend samples, one in-person and one online. Advertisement 5 Researchers found that in real-life samples from New York and Boston, only 3% of friendships paired a Democrat and a Republican, a sign of deepening political silos. Jacob Lund – One study surveyed 537 friend pairs in deep-blue cities like New York and Boston, plus three liberal campuses — Wellesley, Amherst and Babson — and found just 3% of friendships crossed party lines. Nearly half of participants were Democrats. Only 7% were Republicans. Advertisement The second group, 434 friend pairs surveyed online, was more politically balanced — and the number of cross-party friendships more than doubled. With 42% Democrats and 31% Republicans, 8% of friendships spanned the aisle, hinting conservatives may be more willing to mix than their liberal peers. Even when friendships did cross the aisle, they scored lower on trust, emotional support and mutual understanding, the study found. 5 The study surveyed more than 970 friend pairs and found that almost all shared similar views on hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and immigration. fizkes – But there was one silver lining: the rare few who crossed party lines regarded the other side with less hostility. Advertisement 'Part of what is destroying our social fabric is that we have set an expectation that to be a good Democrat or Republican, you have to unconditionally hate the other party,' said Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. 'There is evidence that this social pressure to hate makes the state of partisan conflict seem worse than it actually is.' That pressure only grows, he added, when people don't have personal ties to someone on the other side. 'If you don't know a Republican or Democrat, it is easier to assume that they are unpatriotic, evil or immoral,' Westwood told The Post. 'Without a personal connection you can get lost in the nonsense coming from social media, cable news and Washington DC.' 5 Even when friendships crossed political lines, participants rated them as less close and less satisfying compared to ideologically aligned relationships. lesslemon – Advertisement Only about a quarter of friend pairs said they disagreed on major issues like abortion, immigration or gun rights, suggesting most people befriend those who already see eye to eye. And when politics entered the chat, things got even rockier — a quarter of those who disagreed said the conversation damaged the friendship. Some simply obliterate the friendship entirely, a 2024 study found One in five adults have cut off a close relative over politics, and half said the break happened in 2024 leading up to the election, a 2024 survey from The Harris Poll found. 5 Despite the tension, those with politically opposite friends showed more tolerance toward outgroups, suggesting some benefits to bipartisan bonds. be free – Among those still in contact, a third said they felt uncomfortable at a family gathering because of someone's political views, and just as many feared future events could turn ugly. 'It is rewarding to be around people who validate your views of the world and of the moral order, and from mildly stressful to absolutely intolerable to be around people who disagree with beliefs and values that are important to us,' Dr. Peter Ditto, a psychology professor at UC Irvine, told The Post. And it's a vicious cycle. Advertisement 'The more people hear about polarization, hostility and how few Democrats and Republicans are friends, the more they become convinced that they should also keep quiet,' said University of Michigan political communications professor Yanna Krupnikov. 5 In a more balanced national sample, 8% of 434 friend pairs crossed party lines — slightly higher than the 3% found in liberal strongholds. – Ditto warned that as politics becomes more central to people's identities, it's taking a toll on their personal lives. 'I worry as I see more and more evidence that politics is getting personal … that the corrosive political polarization in contemporary U.S. politics is seeping into people's everyday lives in ways that impact their well-being,' he said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Spent Millions to Get Back in Donald Trump's Good Graces
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk made donations totaling $15 million to three super PACs supporting Donald Trump and the Republicans after his very public falling out with the president, but all before he announced his plans for the new "America Party." Newsweek reached out to the White House and Musk via X, SpaceX, and Tesla for comment by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday morning. Why It Matters Musk and Trump formed a fast and mutually beneficial friendship in the runup to the 2024 presidential election, with Musk bankrolling Trump's campaign to the tune of at least $250 million and helping him secure victory against then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. Trump then positioned Musk as the point person for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), giving him free rein to look into the federal government to cut back on "waste, fraud, and abuse" and bring down spending across all departments. However, their relationship took a turn as pressure mounted against Musk, with Tesla suffering significantly due to his role in the Trump administration, and ultimately Musk left his post to return to the private sector. Musk, who called himself Trump's "first buddy," also publicly criticized the administration-backed "One Big Beautiful Bill," which aims to extend tax cuts, increase immigration enforcement, and end consumer incentives for electric vehicles. Trump and Musk then started to taking shots at each other—through the press and via their respective social media platforms—culminating in a very public falling out in June. Musk accused Trump of withholding the release of the Epstein files because he was allegedly named in them, and Trump threatened to cut Musk's contracts with the federal government. Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks is seen in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30 in Washington, D.C. Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks is seen in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30 in Washington, To Know Following their public feud, which occurred in the first week of June, Musk appeared to try and make amends with the president by donating $5 million to each of three super PACs related to Trump and the Republicans. The Daily Mail first noted the donations in a report on Friday, but Newsweek verified through Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings that Musk donated $5 million each to MAGA Inc., the Senate Leadership Fund, and the House Leadership Fund. All three donations were made on June 27, which is about a week before he then declared he would create his own political party—the America Party. Musk's last donations were made to the AMERICA PAC, which included a roughly $27 million donation on June 30, according to the filings. He has also donated to the reelection campaign for Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Barry Moore of Alabama, although those were only a few thousand dollars each. This was also around the time that Musk heavily criticized the "One Big Beautiful Bill," which he said was "political suicide" to pass and warned it would add trillions to the national debt. Musk decided to create the America Party after holding a poll on X on July 4, in which he asked users: "Should we create the America Party?" as a way of creating "independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system." The poll received 1.25 million votes, with 65.4 percent saying "Yes," which Musk greeted with enthusiasm, writing: "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waster & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy." As a foreign-born U.S. citizen, Musk cannot run for president, but he could bankroll other candidates, which he could do with a third party. He wrote in a separate X post that if he did make a new party, he would focus on capturing two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 seats in the House of Representatives in order to have impact on legislation. Trump criticized Musk's decision to start a third party, writing on Truth Social at the time, in part: "I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States - The System seems not designed for them. The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump in his last Truth Social post to mention Elon Musk, which was on July 24, wrote: "Everyone is stating that I will destroy Elon's companies by taking away some, if not all, of the large scale subsidies he receives from the U.S. Government. This is not so! I want Elon, and all businesses within our Country, to THRIVE, in fact, THRIVE like never before! The better they do, the better the USA does, and that's good for all of us. We are setting records every day, and I want to keep it that way!" Elon Musk in his last X post to mention Donald Trump, which was on July 8, wrote: "How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won't release the Epstein files?" What Happens Next? It remains unclear if Trump and Musk have had any direct communication following their war-of-words in June. This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
How Trump became the new master of the Senate
But Trump's unique ability to unleash the forces of electoral chaos is what really makes him the single most influential character. No one — not Mitch McConnell, not the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not Majority Leader John Thune nor anyone else — has done as much as Trump to directly shape the Senate GOP Conference over the past decade. Since taking office in 2017, he's hounded a handful of members out of office, been the proximate cause of lost Senate seats in Georgia and blown opportunities elsewhere (just Google McConnell and 'candidate quality'). By elevating JD Vance and Marco Rubio from their Senate seats into his administration, Trump created two more new Republican senators. Most recently, Trump upended the landscape in North Carolina. The traditional presidential play would have been to cut GOP Sen. Thom Tillis some slack, recognizing the complexity of the terrain and the party's need to maximize Tillis' chances of holding his seat. Instead, Trump became the catalyst for his retirement, enhancing Democratic chances of flipping the seat in one of the most competitive states in the nation. So far, Trump has been unusually disciplined when it comes to the Senate — by his standards, at least. Surrounded by the most capable political team he's ever assembled — and tempered by the bracing experience of two unsuccessful midterm elections — the president has judiciously dished out endorsements to incumbents and strategically withheld them. He's also largely avoided trashing wayward Senate Republicans. Until now. Whether it's the pressure from the Jeffrey Epstein saga or a reversion to the mean, the cracks are beginning to show. The gravitational pull toward chaos is overtaking his strategic imperatives. In the last week alone, Trump has publicly whacked three Senate Republicans — Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and 91-year-old Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the longest-serving member of the Senate — for largely minor political offenses. [Here's a thought exercise: Try imagining Barack Obama lighting up Robert Byrd for respecting an informal Senate practice, or George W. Bush torching Strom Thurmond. The missile aimed at Collins, who has consistently vexed the president, was predictable, though not particularly productive. Dragging one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents doesn't advance the goal of holding a Senate majority. The dig at Grassley — especially after the Senate Judiciary chair and champion of whistle-blowers fell in line on the Emil Bove nomination — was simply gratuitous. The Iowan's GOP bona fides date back to the Eisenhower era; his ticket's been punched in the Iowa Legislature, the House and nearly a half-century in the Senate. To suggest Grassley lacks political courage, or is a RINO, or that the president carried him to reelection in 2022, is to play cat's paw with him.
