• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Argument in Billings/Powell?

Mike

Well-known member
(0)


Meat plant debate highlights talk

By RUFFIN PREVOST
Gazette Wyoming Bureau

POWELL - Powell Mayor Scott Mangold met with residents Wednesday to discuss an array of proposed projects, including a meat-processing plant, a fiber optic network, a municipal pool and a city park.

Part of an ongoing series of midday public meetings originated by Mangold, the hourlong "brown-bag lunches" are aimed at updating the public about city projects in the works.

Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts President Rod Morrison spoke about his company's plan to create a vertically integrated, producer-owned processing and marketing company for organic and natural beef.

The city has applied for a $1.5 million business-ready community grant to renovate a former Air Force building for use by Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts as a USDA-inspected meat-processing facility. Morrison's presentation touted the potential benefits of the project, including creating a dozen jobs and offering regional beef producers an option for earning more money for cattle by marketing organic and natural beef to customers nationwide.

Questions were limited until the end of the presentation, allowing 10 minutes for queries. That included a heated exchange between Morrison and rancher Sean Birky, a vocal critic of the city's grant request.

Birky questioned whether Morrison was truthful with the public about details of the project, making reference to a recent dispute between Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts and the U.S. Department of Agriculture about a $100,000 planning grant awarded to the company.

Along with other corrective actions, Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts voluntarily agreed to return $720 in grant funds to USDA to settle the matter.

"I don't appreciate being called a liar, and if you're going to bring that up, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave," Morrison said in response to Birky's reference to the dispute with USDA.

Morrison approached Birky, who was seated, but was called on by Mangold to return to the podium.

Birky said Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts representatives showed a "lack of consistent information" in answering questions about the project, citing changing numbers for jobs the plant would offer.

Alan Lohman, vice president of Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts, said the differing numbers were the result of ongoing development of the company's business plan.

Roger Beslanowitch, owner of a Powell meat-processing company, said he was concerned about competition, particularly in processing natural beef, rather than organic.

"Organic, I didn't have a problem with," he said. "But now, natural is everybody. If that's true, then you're starting to take all my customers."

Custom Cuts Communications Director Sandy Snider said the company planned to process only natural beef that had been inspected according to strict protocols and would not be likely to compete with Beslanowitch for most of his clients.

Rancher Tim Latham said he was skeptical of the project based on past promises of economic development that had not panned out.

"When people such as myself are skeptical, it's because we've watched Powell Valley Economic Development and the city put money into what they thought were good ideas, only to take it in the shorts," Latham said.

He said the best thing the city could do to support local ranchers would be to back a proposed federal bill allowing producers from states with stricter beef inspection guidelines than those imposed by USDA to ship products nationwide.

Morrison said the bill had been proposed before and failed, and that it was unlikely to pass because of entrenched corporate interests in the beef industry.

Others asked whether producers who were not investors in the venture would be able to have beef processed by the plant.

Morrison said that when the plant was operating below capacity during start-up, it would work with any producers. Member producers who had invested in the venture would receive priority during peak production, he said.

In other business covered during the meeting, Mangold outlined plans for a city park to be developed by 2009, the city's centennial.

Mangold said Centennial Park would include more than 9 acres of land on the west side of town. Conceptual drawings include a miniature golf course, disc golf, and a "splash park where kids can squirt each other with water cannons," he said.

"We're trying to develop it as an active park, a destination for people all over the county, where they'll want to come for parties and celebrations," Mangold said.

He said the city would seek grants and sponsorships to fund the park's development.

City Administrator Zane Logan said efforts were progressing with Utah technology company U.S. MetroNets in seeking private financing for a proposed municipal fiber optic network.

The company had submitted an investment proposal to a private securities firm based in Seattle, Logan said, and U.S. MetroNets representatives would travel there to brief interested investors on technical details of the system.

"Our hope is to have funding ready by April," Logan said.

He said construction on the project would take about five months.

Mangold said architects would present plans for the pool at a coming City Council meeting and that the pool committee would be reorganized.

Rising construction costs are an incentive to move quickly on the project, he said.

"Time is of the essence to getting this done," he said. "The longer we delay or wait, the smaller the pool will be because the less money we'll have."

Contact Ruffin Prevost at [email protected] or 307-527-7250.


Published on Thursday, December 14, 2006.
Last modified on 12/14/2006 at 12:27 am
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jason said:
Where is this plant proposed for?

The by-line is Powell (Wy?), but Mike's heading is Billings.

It was in the Billings Gazette. Heck I don't know. It could be in Hawaii. :???: Does it really matter?
 

Jason

Well-known member
It doesn't matter where the plant will be. Just the by-line suggests Wyoming. The Billings paper must have just picked up the story because it is fairly close.

I wonder why ranchers are so dead set against new plants opening? Is it just the gov't money involved? Without it there wouldn't be a chance for a small independant plant. Talk about keeping barriers to entry.
 

mrj

Well-known member
It sounds interesting.......but......there have been problems with development previously in the area, if the story is accurate.

One of the things that really troubles me about such government funded 'development grants' is that the finances don't seem to be crystal clear.

Some projects in SD which failed, have spent a lot of money, both government and private investment. There hasn't been clear, published accounting of who got the money, and what it was used for.

Maybe everything is fine......but how are we to know? How can we assure future projects do not make the same mistakes if we don't find out what went wrong with needed, reasonable sounding projects in the past?

MRJ
 

MBMeats

New member
To those concerned with Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts:

My name is Michael Belliston. I received a link to this post from my father-in-law who lives in Missouri.

To shed some light from my own personal perspective, I did some initial work with RMCC in late 2005 & early 2006. Through personal dealings with RMCC I feel that all squabbling and resistance to the start-up of this facility is due, in part, to people's personal issues aimed at the people who are behind this project.

This plant would be a good thing for the area. (By the way, Powell, WY is in the northwest corner of the state for anyone who cares to know). It is too bad that what I feel are people's personal issues are holding back the progress of this project & wasting valuable time. I feel that these type of value-added operations in the ag industry are what is needed for us as farmers & ranchers to survive. Most farmers & ranchers are still paid the same type of prices they were receiving in the 1970's for their products. If we are going to survive in agriculture, these type of value-added operations need to be in existence so that farmers & ranchers have an avenue to make a decent living.

I have been involved in the meat industry for the last 25+ years and own a small farm here in Powell, so I do understand the struggles that can come with making a living in agriculture.

If anyone has any questions regarding the meat industry & my perspectives on agriculture you can email me directly at [email protected]

For anyone who has questions for or an interest in gathering more information on Rocky Mountain Custom Cuts, they can be contacted through their website at www.rockymtncuts.com.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Thanks for joining us Michael.

I agree a value added facility would be great for any area. It is a shame when some will try to stop it because they aren't the ones controlling it.

R-calf says it supports more facilities to kill cattle, but this plant is right in the heart of R-calf territory and it obviously isn't helping you.

If you'd like to stick around and share your observations on costs associated with processing beef we would welcome them.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
Thanks for joining us Michael.

I agree a value added facility would be great for any area. It is a shame when some will try to stop it because they aren't the ones controlling it.

R-calf says it supports more facilities to kill cattle, but this plant is right in the heart of R-calf territory and it obviously isn't helping you.

If you'd like to stick around and share your observations on costs associated with processing beef we would welcome them.

Is R-CALF supposed to be a self-appointed mediator?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
There is a real question about competition here. Should a company get funded and a private company have to compete with them? If most of the customers from the business already going are going to be lost to the new outfit, should the government fund one project over another? Shouldn't all of the small businesses get that type of funding? If they do, do we still have free markets? I have no problem with a program that takes from a company that has shown anti competitive activities and giving to companies who play by the rules. I don't know that subsidizing agriculture to the point of profitability will do us any good in the long run. In the long run it is about supply and demand and playing by the rules. We have had a big problem trying to make companies play by the rules and making them pay for the economic costs when they don't.

Jason, you wouldn't understand the reasons for these kind of questions as you seem to be a "get a government handout if you can" kind of person.
 

Jason

Well-known member
This is the second small processor in R-calf country that is being hasseled and fought. R-calf says they support new packers but the actions of their members shows otherwise.

Only an idiot can defend that they want new packers, and that it is almost impossible to get into the packing business because of the big guys, then sit back and fight any new venture because of a tax concession or grant to establish a viable business.

Be honest, if you fight these new ventures you are just anti business unless it is yours.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
This is the second small processor in R-calf country that is being hasseled and fought. R-calf says they support new packers but the actions of their members shows otherwise.

Only an idiot can defend that they want new packers, and that it is almost impossible to get into the packing business because of the big guys, then sit back and fight any new venture because of a tax concession or grant to establish a viable business.

Be honest, if you fight these new ventures you are just anti business unless it is yours.

Show me where it says that R-CALF is opposed to this plant-- or where any R-CALF member is opposed to this plant... :???:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
This is the second small processor in R-calf country that is being hasseled and fought. R-calf says they support new packers but the actions of their members shows otherwise.

Only an idiot can defend that they want new packers, and that it is almost impossible to get into the packing business because of the big guys, then sit back and fight any new venture because of a tax concession or grant to establish a viable business.

Be honest, if you fight these new ventures you are just anti business unless it is yours.

Jason, you are obviously not a free market advocate. I am all for this plant or any other. Let them come up with a viable business plan and get a loan and operate it. You are the one for a government handout. It figures. When governments decide who will and who will not make it depending on taxpayer handouts, it is centralized planning. After going through the Tyson bailout in Canada and continually supporting it on this forum, I could see why you are such a socialist when it comes to your mindset. Please keep it in Canada.

There are some exceptions to me saying to give them money. One of those would be a form of restitution for wrongdoing in the market by the big market players. Big companies get comparative advantages in that way and end up winning in the competition game. Restitution could be one form of getting more competition and helping a smaller comapany get started.

All of the money redistributed should be for real reasons, not something just made up. Unfortunately there are a lot of little reasons that are not getting rectified in our current system. That would be another reason.

I don't think rewarding lawbreakers is the answer and neither do I think that taxpayers should get in the business of subsidizing businesses.

Haley Barbour, gov. of Miss. got in a little trouble doing that IN THE MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY
:

GCN Readers Say Taxpayers Are Being Shortchanged Over Economic Development Programs

GCN Editor...

Readers of GulfCoastNews.com are following economic development issues with great interest and with an eye for making improvements. For months, the GCN Message Board on this site has been filled with commentary and opinions from Coast residents over economic development issues on the Gulf Coast and the Harrison County Development Commission. Posters to the Message Board believe with good reason that development programs at both the local and state level appear to be huge wastes of public money and do little to create jobs, which is the stated purpose of such programs.

A growing number of news report indicate that taxpayer-supported economic development programs routinely fail to live up to the promises of politicians and the businesses that receive the money. At a time when state and local finances are being squeezed from every direction, the public has a right to demand that such programs be reconsidered.

Here is some of the most recent comments to the GCN Message Board....

______________________________________________

Posted by: Still Doing My Homework () 01/04/2005 15:48
The Sun Herald has finally carried an article by Arthur E. Foulkes, which fairly discussed Economic Development in the 1/2/05 issue. The article was aptly titled, "Economic-development programs rarely have lasting benefits." The article stated the goals of economic development are:(1)To attract new businesses and industries to communities; (2) or to keep existing businesses from emigrating. The article states, "In pursuit of these goals they offer a variety of inducements, including direct subsidies, tax breaks, grants, loans, and infrastructure improvements."

The article goes on to say, "Economic-development programs enjoy wide popularity. Yet the sad truth is: Government economic development programs rarely have lasting benefits-for the simple reason that they run counter to good business practices."

The article goes on to say, "The most glaring flaw in these programs is that they increase a behavior known to economists as 'rent seeking,' a euphemism for business efforts to secure government favors. Businesses pay lobbyists, lawyers and consultants large sums of money to help them obtain economic-development funds. Unfortunately, this makes less money available for higher priorities, such as capital investment."

Perhaps the most important point the article makes is that incentives undermine capital investment. The article states, "Besides, when a business succeeds in gaining government favor, the recipient firm gains an unfair advantage over other businesses, both direct competitors and those competing indirectly for capital and workers."

The above points are exactly the same as some of the points that the critics of HCDC, such as Commissioners Paige Gutierrez, Richard Bennett, Supervisors Marlin Ladner and Connie Rocko, joined by other Supervisors, citizens, Henry Kinney, Dr. Frank Schmidt, Royce Hignight (see Mississippi Wound article on this website), GCN and others have tried to make.

There are examples other than HCDC, which illustrates some of the points made above in government economic-development programs. One of the most notable was the big legislative fight that took place over the bonds that were authorized in the "special legislature session," called by Governor Haley Barbour. One of the local recipients of taxpayer funded bond proceeds is Northrop-Grumman which is going to receive $120 million for 2000 jobs that Northrop-Grumman is supposed to create. Now think back how this relates to the Foulkes article-lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, etc.

Also think about how the information in the Sun Herald article dated 1/4/05, titled, "Defense trims Navy funds for destroyers," bylined, "Northrop Grumman not optimistic," may impact those 2000 jobs. Has the state of Mississippi just bought a $120 million "pig in the poke?" In any case these bonds and the other expenditures authorized pursuant to the "special session," have set the stage for, potentially, one of the most contentious sessions ever, by a legislature, in the forth coming legislative session, because of the cash starved state of affairs of the State partially due to these bonds.

The Sun Herald carried an article in the 1/3/05 issue titled, "State-backed plant now deeper in debt," by-lined, "Newly disclosed expenses push tab to $51.4 million. This article details how the state through the Mississippi Development Authority guaranteed loans to the meat packing plant that was supposed to create jobs, but has now quit making payments on its debts leaving the taxpayers on the hook. (Ed: Related Clarion Ledger Story)

The Foulkes article flat out states, "Government economic-development programs, no matter how well intended, operate counter to fundamental economic principles.

Foulkes rendered an opinion on what leads to real economic development that he admitted the proponents of economic development programs would not like, and that advice is that, "government can best promote economic growth and prosperity by sticking to the basics: (1)Protect private-property rights: (2)Enforce the law;(3)Provide basic services;(4)Keep taxes and regulations to a minimum;(5)Government should get out of the way and let the economy work.

The following of Foulkes advice will not only lead to economic growth and prosperity, but will also be a gigantic step in the taking of favoritism, cronyism, and corruption out of government, which will, in turn, attract the kind of economic development that contributes to the community rather than just taking from the community. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK???
[/quote]
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Jason said:
This is the second small processor in R-calf country that is being hasseled and fought. R-calf says they support new packers but the actions of their members shows otherwise.

Only an idiot can defend that they want new packers, and that it is almost impossible to get into the packing business because of the big guys, then sit back and fight any new venture because of a tax concession or grant to establish a viable business.

Be honest, if you fight these new ventures you are just anti business unless it is yours.

Show me where it says that R-CALF is opposed to this plant-- or where any R-CALF member is opposed to this plant... :???:

Just one more entry into the "Blame R-CALF for Everything Book". There's a winter storm coming tonight. Since R-CALF is in favor of good weather, I wonder why they're not doing anything about it.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Jason said:
This is the second small processor in R-calf country that is being hasseled and fought. R-calf says they support new packers but the actions of their members shows otherwise.

Only an idiot can defend that they want new packers, and that it is almost impossible to get into the packing business because of the big guys, then sit back and fight any new venture because of a tax concession or grant to establish a viable business.

Be honest, if you fight these new ventures you are just anti business unless it is yours.

Show me where it says that R-CALF is opposed to this plant-- or where any R-CALF member is opposed to this plant... :???:

Jason needs to go back and read the story. He said previously that ranchers were opposed to the plant. Neither the story, nor any other source, says such a thing. The rancher quoted said he was skeptical about this development. His skepticism was directed at the Powell city people, not RMCC. Read carefully, Jason. You have gone off track here.
 

Jason

Well-known member
With this plant and the one in N.Dakota (or was it S.Dakota?) self proclaimed r-calfers had negative comments. I said r-calf members have opposed these plants. I didn't say the mother ship was on record as opposed to them.

The proof is the negative comments right here on Ranchers.

As for not wanting any gov't support for a new business, let the low population areas of the country shrivel up and die for "want of a bucket".

If you don't get that comment maybe it's time you did some reading.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
With this plant and the one in N.Dakota (or was it S.Dakota?) self proclaimed r-calfers had negative comments. I said r-calf members have opposed these plants. I didn't say the mother ship was on record as opposed to them.

The proof is the negative comments right here on Ranchers.

As for not wanting any gov't support for a new business, let the low population areas of the country shrivel up and die for "want of a bucket".

If you don't get that comment maybe it's time you did some reading.

So in your itty bitty mind that thinks the same as Miss Tam and Stupor Hero, its all R-CALF members and R-CALF that are against it.... :roll: :gag:
 

Jason

Well-known member
I didn't say that OT.

I said these are supposed R-calf hot beds where we are supposed to believe the vast majority of cattle people are r-calfers. If there isn't any support for these plants from local ranchers, it would be safe to assume some r-calfers are included in the ones opposing them.

That is unless there aren't as many r-calf members as some claim.

In that case it is just a case of NIMBY syndrome.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
I didn't say that OT.

I said these are supposed R-calf hot beds where we are supposed to believe the vast majority of cattle people are r-calfers. If there isn't any support for these plants from local ranchers, it would be safe to assume some r-calfers are included in the ones opposing them.

That is unless there aren't as many r-calf members as some claim.

In that case it is just a case of NIMBY syndrome.

Jason, you're just so intent on laying blame on R-CALF that you're going to rediculous lengths. Maybe some R-CALF members were opposed to a certain plant. Does that mean they're opposed to local plants in general? What a huge jump you're making. Did you just once consider they may of been opposed to a certain plant because of location, financing, management, business plan, etc....? There's a whole list of reasons ANYBODY might be opposed to a certain venture.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
I didn't say that OT.

I said these are supposed R-calf hot beds where we are supposed to believe the vast majority of cattle people are r-calfers. If there isn't any support for these plants from local ranchers, it would be safe to assume some r-calfers are included in the ones opposing them.

That is unless there aren't as many r-calf members as some claim.

In that case it is just a case of NIMBY syndrome.

I just read in the Canadian News how Canada voted for a new Liberal leader and passed laws allowing gay marriages and legalizing marijuana-- so by your line of thinking you and all Canadian ranchers must be flaming gay pot smoking Liberals- eh :???: :wink: :lol:

Its comical how scared of R-CALF you and the Tams of the world are :lol: :lol:

In actuallity you could take all the R-CALF members and all the NCBA members and not have 10% of the cattle producers in the US... In my area the predominent organization is Farmers Union, followed by R-CALF, and then NCBA and Farm Bureau which both are quite small, especially since many left both because of their Flip flop and national stand opposing M-COOL...
But Farmers Union is the predominent group in my area- so it must be them that is opposing all the plants then :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

ocm

Well-known member
Jason said:
I didn't say that OT.

I said these are supposed R-calf hot beds where we are supposed to believe the vast majority of cattle people are r-calfers. If there isn't any support for these plants from local ranchers, it would be safe to assume some r-calfers are included in the ones opposing them.

That is unless there aren't as many r-calf members as some claim.

In that case it is just a case of NIMBY syndrome.

As to the plant in Powell, please provide a SINGLE quote showing any rancher against it!! Much less an r-calfer.
 
Top