The recession is so bad, even the super rich in Sioux Falls are feeling the brunt of it
I feel the pain of so many people struggling during this recession. And now this;
The easement affects hole Nos. 14, 15 and 16. The levee expansion will take out all three tee boxes and split the holes in half in some areas. The construction also will initiate a domino effect that will require the club to redo seven or eight holes – a project with a seven-figure price tag, Sanford said.
Oh dear, I would hate for your precious golf course to be tampered with for the sake of some silly flood control.
I say we use eminent domain and take the whole damn course so we can build a road through there once and for all.
You realize, of course, that the people you want to use ED against are the ones most able to fight it, right?
By the time the legal battles are over, the project will end up costing double. This town needs another big east/west corridor in that area, but I think you’re barking up the wrong pair of $600 trousers.
What Dude said, and plus you’ll get to fight the Sierra Club and other environmental groups as the Club managed to get the whole course designated as protected habitat for a few species of birds & other critters.
Here’s another salient question for you, what was there first? The CC or the western suburb dwellers who all knowingly purchased property in an area with less than ideal access?
If the Fed’s want to increase levee heights, they would simply offer fair value and condemn the easement areas. The country club will have to go along with their flood prevention plans. There’s no negotiations involved. I hope the taxpayer’s are not paying for some of this circus.
PG is right, and as I have suggested in the past, we don’t have to destroy 90% of the land. We simply build the road and turn the rest of the land into a state park so everyone can enjoy it, not just the fuddy-duddy golfers.
It’s be cheaper to tunnel under it.
Last time the City tried eminent domain, we got a crappy house to burn down to train fire fighters. That whole circus cost us about 10X what the guy was asking for his house in the first place.
The A-Frame.
#1 – laws have changed since then.
#2 – It wasn’t a golf course.
Keep trying to defend your buddies, Sy, you are wrong on this one.
No more tunnels:
1.) The Holland Tunnel under I-229 with stage lighting and 20 fire plugs.
2.) The tunnel under the tracks near Southeastern & 26th. When the city needs 100′ of roadway they build a mile and tunnel deeper/longer than Homesteak.
3.) The tunnel under 26th Street at the new Elementary School. A sidewalk or traffic light was way to simple.
Buy them a sand box or keep them coloring at city hall. Far less taxpayer cost.
Good luck building a tunnel going under the river. Yea that would be cheaper… but only if you really suck at math.
Sy: Here’s another salient question for you, what was there first? The CC or the western suburb dwellers who all knowingly purchased property in an area with less than ideal access?
So we should never improve city infrastructure because people should know better? I guess no need to upgrade that highway over by the new Target…those easterners should know better. No need to widen 57th or 69th – progress is for pussies.
While we are at it, that interchange they added on Madison street and those silly improvements they made to 12th were a waste of money too….people who go over in those areas should have known better in the first place right?
Not that I expect a road to cut through the country club anytime in my lifetime, but the “who is there first” argument is pretty pathetic.
The difference, my dear confused costner, is that all of those projects you mentioned are for improving existing transportation infrastructure.
What L3wis and the rest are clamoring for is for a whole new road & bridge where none has ever existed before.
And one that will most definately lead to a long and expensive court battle before the first shovel of dirt is dug.
and the tunnel idea was a joke, albeit an unfunny one. Surprised you didn’t pick up on that, you being the king of non-humorous & asinine comparisions.
L3wis,
Doesn’t matter, my point remains that the City had a choice to pay what the homeowner wanted (they had a “fair market” appraisal) or to fight it. They could’ve come up to their price and we’d have still been way ahead in both time & money. And that was one crappy A-frame owner with an attorney. Try that same deal with my “buddies” and their friends at the Sierra Club and it will be a million times worse.
Move on from the Country Club pipe dream, it simply ain’t happening no matter who the Mayor is.
The city gave up their eminent domain privelege with home rule and code section 2-60. NEITHER party is allowed appeals, only judicial review. Eminent domain is an appeal seeking court ordered surrender. NEITHER party can be ordered to perform. The country club could keep the city in court 5 years and maybe win over this issue. Because the city is involved with easement negotiations, the fed’s are where they want to be (distant). Probably the only reconcilation is flooding with abandonment. Again, city mouseketeers have done more harm than good.
Sy: The difference, my dear confused costner, is that all of those projects you mentioned are for improving existing transportation infrastructure.
Semantics. I could argue a new exit being placed onto an “existing” interstate highway is no different than a new section of road being added to an “existing” cross-town street. Your argument was weak – stop trying to defend it.
Unless you happen to have a time machine in your back pocket, there is no way to know everything a city will need in 20, 30, or 40 years and I dare say our city planners are doing a much better job of looking towards the future than they were back when putting in such a street would have been possible.