Watertown Chamber Forum – A Clear Contrast in Leadership

Folks, the full video of the May 7 Watertown Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum is now online, and it was good to share the stage. It was a polite evening, but the differences in vision could not have been more obvious.

On Senate Bill 245, some candidates offered the gentle compliment that it was just a good start. I respect their optimism. However, I voted no because the bill bypassed the tax committee, was poorly developed, and pulled new sales tax revenue away from the big 3: K-12 education, Medicaid and health care providers, and state employee compensation. Those priorities deserve serious, disciplined attention rather than being shortchanged for a half-measure. It makes me wonder what else they want to put on the chopping block. Snow removal, law enforcement, state highway funding, or state oversight on our lakes and rivers? This is not a good start at anything. It is a slippery slope toward bad roads, underfunded education, and piling extra costs onto agriculture, local communities already struggling to survive, tenants, and folks buying the necessities.

I was equally direct on data centers. I brought real, pro-growth legislation to the House floor this session to support and incentivize them. While some on stage seemed content with a more cautious get-off-my-lawn posture, I believe South Dakota is missing the next major wave of economic growth. I did not arrive at that conclusion alone. President Trump, Senators Thune & Rounds, and Congressman Johnson, as well as North Dakota’s remarkably successful adaptation of these opportunities, all serve as powerful witnesses to this reality. Our policies, when compared to our neighboring states, are unnecessarily constraining the economic pie. An isolationist approach may sound appealing in theory, but it mirrors the anti-business, heavy-handed regulatory philosophy pushed by Bernie Sanders and AOC. That is the very mindset that drives jobs and young people away from states that embrace it. We are only 0.3 percent of the U.S. population. We cannot afford to marginalize ourselves with a reputation that scares off investment and opportunity.

Here in District 4 we are experiencing what policy experts call rural gentrification, specifically the retirement-driven or amenity-led version of it. South Dakota is an incredibly affordable place to buy a home, which has drawn an influx of upper-middle-class retirees and near-retirees from higher-cost states who have already built their careers and fortunes elsewhere. I welcome these new neighbors and the contributions they bring. Yet many arrive wanting South Dakota to stay cheap and low-profile, and they frequently oppose the economic development and infrastructure we need to create strong career opportunities for our young people. I am not against anyone choosing to retire here, but we must have the courage to attract those same industries and opportunities locally so our children do not have to leave the state for their working years only to return for retirement.

I remain committed to the optimistic, open-door spirit that built our agriculture industry and South Dakota itself. By respecting the contributions new neighbors bring and keeping that welcoming attitude, we can reverse brain drain, slow our aging population trend, and create the kind of vibrant rural communities our kids and grandkids deserve.

My answers throughout the forum on local control, Lake Area Technical College, ethanol, water issues, and more were rooted in my multi-generation farm background, my experience as an appraiser and small business owner, and my record of service in Pierre. District 4 needs forward-looking leadership, not recycled big-government caution dressed up as local protection.

Some candidates have left the House, lost a Senate race, and now want a return to Pierre. Two of my opponents even campaigned together during the last election cycle. I kept the receipts. Now they are back for a second run. Some are focused on national policy and past accomplishments there. Others seem interested only in an isolationist, quasi sovereign citizen libertarian dogma that puts rigid ideology above practical growth. District 4 is made up of six rural counties here in South Dakota. We need to keep our focus on the real issues facing our communities and our state, not national distractions. We do not need recycled politicians wanting a do-over. We do not need a very negative approach aimed solely at isolationist policy. We need state government that provides pathways, not obstruction. We need policy that sees and understands the long-range impact on local and statewide economies of diversification beyond agriculture. Heritage protection is important, but overdoing it risks turning South Dakota into a museum piece if we refuse to accept the future. The best way forward is to actively participate, not split hairs into oblivion.

Returning to old policy ideas is perfectly fine for those who prefer them, but right now District 4 and South Dakota need bold and visionary leadership.

These are today’s issues, and for the last two years these are the things I have worked on and delivered. I am the guy who led on economic development. I am the guy who met with and listened to economic boards and leaders all across District 4. I am the guy who spent hours listening to corn growers and cattlemen concerned with the isolationist policies so proudly touted by my opponents. I am the guy who met with superintendents, teachers, and teacher representatives to understand not only their concerns but the intricacies of the school funding formula and how we can enable our local public schools to survive and flourish, especially in the wake of SB 245. I am the guy who worked with legislation to return wind taxes to the school districts where that revenue is generated. I am the guy who brought the RAIF bill home. I am the guy who worked extensively on rural EMS funding and how to improve and increase that support. I am the guy leading on keeping our kids here instead of watching them leave. I am the guy who takes our responsibilities to the Big 3 seriously and makes bold decisions after hearing from both proponents and opponents. I am not campaigning as the answer to every problem and telling you what you want to hear. I am plain spoken. I am a farm kid who knows that we cannot all get our way. I am a farm kid who knows that life can be less than perfect. I am a farm kid that knows that the only fair is the county fair. I am not even going to begin on the popular trope of competing to determine who the most conservative candidate is. District 4 and South Dakota are overwhelmingly conservative. Let us keep it that way and not let the fringe pigeon-hole us into their most convenient definition of conservatism. A wishy-washy vision will only keep us firmly locked in 46th place in teacher pay and stuck with a myopic economic policy that sells our future short. Instead, let us create policy that opens our doors to the future. If counties want these opportunities they can choose to participate. No one is forcing anything on anyone. Government’s role is not to dictate, but to provide pathways and good policies for all who choose to take advantage of them.

If you haven't watched the forum yet, here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Ham_ceMnc

I welcome your feedback on where you saw the strongest, most practical vision for our future. Reach out, get involved, and let us keep building real momentum together as we head toward June 2nd. I’d appreciate your vote, and I am asking you directly, get out and vote for me on June 2nd. South Dakota needs this leadership now, so make your voice count and vote.

Onward,

Kent Roe

Incumbent Candidate for SD House, District 4