$30M incentive for large North Dakota ag facilities receives 'do-pass' recommendation from Senate committee
Mar. 21—GRAND FORKS — The $30 million incentive program for large agricultural developments in North Dakota received a unanimous "do-pass" recommendation from the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee Thursday morning.
It was the first hearing for the bill following legislative crossover, when both houses of the Legislature began considering the others' session bills. The bill was designed with the proposed Agristo potato processing facility in Grand Forks in mind. The Belgian potato processor announced its $450 million plan for its first American facility earlier this year
and this incentive being considered is just one of several planned.
"This really is an important project for us," Grand Forks City Administrator Todd Feland said. "We don't want to let all the regional growers down since they've done so much work. ... (And) we couldn't do these projects without the state of North Dakota."
The proposal being considered by the Legislature would allow Agristo to apply for an up to $30 million state grant, paid in two parts. The first half would be given when a certificate of occupancy is issued and the rest when the facility has reached 50% of production capacity. The grant works on a reimbursement model and can be used for capital expenditures, infrastructure and site acquisition.
To fund the grant, the Bank of North Dakota will be able to extend a line of credit to the agriculture commissioner for grant awards from the Agricultural Diversification and Development Fund. The appropriation measure would
only be valid for the biennium that ends in June 2029.
The city of Grand Forks also is providing a tax incentive, allowing the company to have a reduction to its property tax bill for
20 years, if approved by the other taxing entities in Grand Forks
.
During the Thursday hearing, Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, asked Grand Forks Region Economic Development President and CEO Keith Lund about potential workforce shortages the Agristo development may cause. Lund said the development would attract job-seekers.
"(Agristo's) report shows that it is very doable in North Dakota," Lund said.
He said the state's business and tax climate is an attractant.
While boosters feel the facility, if built, would be an economic asset for the region, some also said that it will bring back an agricultural crop that has lost market share in the last few decades. The project could be a great thing for all aspects of the potato industry, according to North Dakota Seed Commissioner Ken Bertsch.
"The announcement of the Agristo project means that our seed potato industry will potentially benefit in the same manner as the commercial production sector," Bertsch said. "North Dakota's seed potato industry could grow 20% to 30% from today in acres produced."
Bertsch estimates that the Agristo project would be a $10 million to $20 million boon for seed potato growers and even more to the state's agriculture industry and communities.
"This is the most positive development in the seed potato sector in years," Bertsch said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag
Protesters in Los Angeles were filmed burning and spitting on American flags as they chanted anti-Trump slogans over the weekend. Footage from the incident shows a circle of dozens of people, many wearing masks, surrounding an American flag burning on the ground. Several of the individuals then spit on the flag or sprayed flammable liquid to continue the blaze before a second flag was added to the fire. A number of the protesters held high the flags of South American countries like Mexico as the U.S. flag burned on the ground. They also chanted "F-Trump." The footage from this weekend's riots also shows officers with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department moving in to disperse the crowds, shooting flash bangs as they went. California Republicans Slam Newsom, Bass For Letting La Burn With Riots Amid Trump Immigration Blitz The Los Angeles Police Department declared an "unlawful assembly" Sunday night as protesters failed to disperse in the downtown area. Read On The Fox News App "Agitators have splintered into and through out the Downtown Area," the LAPD's Central Division wrote on X. "Residents, businesses and visitors to the Downtown Area should be alert and report any criminal activity. Officers are responding to several different locations to disperse crowds." "An UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY has been declared for the Downtown Los Angeles area," the department added. Trump Bans Travel To Us From Several Countries To Block 'Dangerous Foreign Actors' Protesters marched into the L.A. Live area, an entertainment complex in the heart of downtown Los Angeles that sits adjacent to Arena and the Los Angeles Convention Center, and were blocking lanes on Figueroa and 11th streets, police said. President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard this weekend after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were reportedly attacked on the streets of L.A. as they conducted raids to catch and deport illegal immigrants. Seeing that neither California Gov. Gavin Newsom nor L.A. Mayor Karen Bass were moving aggressively enough to stop the attacks, Trump signed a presidential memorandum to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to "address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester," the White House said in a statement. Newsom objected immediately even as the riots spiraled. "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X on Sunday alongside his letter to President Trump. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." Fox News' Louis Casiano contributed to this article source: Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one
Contrary to what you may have read, there were two victims this week when a 5-year-old Phoenix girl was shot and killed in her south Phoenix home. Layla Ramos is dead, but she is not the only victim here. Her 9-year-old brother, who Phoenix police say fired the bullet that killed her, also is a victim — one who will have to live with this week's tragedy for the rest of his life. Of course, it wasn't his fault. It was the fault of his father, Irvin Ramos-Jimenez, 33, who shouldn't have even had a rifle, much less stored it in his son's bedroom. It was the fault — though not legally — of whomever sold him the AR-15-style rifle. In Arizona, you can sell your gun privately to any Tom, Dick or dirty Harry, no questions asked. And it's the fault of the Arizona Legislature, which refuses to pass a bill requiring universal background checks. Had the previous gun owner been required to check, he presumably would have learned that he was selling his rifle to a man who can't legally possess one. According to court records, Ramos-Jimenez, 33, told police he has a prior felony drug conviction for narcotics and can't legally possess a firearm. So, he bought one anyway through a private sale, for 'personal protection.' Then he stored it in his 9-year-old son's bedroom closet. Court records say he also had a handgun in his truck. Ramos-Jiminez was arrested after the June 3 death of his daughter, on suspicion of possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Let me count the ways our leaders could at least attempt to avoid such tragedy in the future. They could pass a bill requiring that every gun sale in Arizona be preceded by a background check, to determine whether the purchaser is legally allowed to own a firearm. They could pass a bill holding a seller liable if he or she doesn't do that background check and a little girl dies. They could pass a bill requiring gun owners to store their weapons responsibly, so that 9-year-old boys can't gain easy access and kill their sisters. So, what will the Arizona Legislature do to try to avoid the tragedy of another 5-year-old being put into a far-too-early grave? Or a 9-year-old put into what likely will be a self-imposed lifelong purgatory? Absolutely nothing. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Subscribe to today. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix shooting is no fault of the boy with the gun | Opinion
