2009

YIP-PEE! The Sioux Falls City “Fix A Leak Week”

HAPPEE DAY, EVERYONE! THIS kind of wonderful, city-wide event is what makes us love this city and our city leaders so much – Jeepers Creepers PEEpers, anyhew!
http://www.siouxfalls.org/News/2009/March/13/fix_leak_week
 

The City of Sioux Falls along with EPA Launches Its First “Fix a Leak Week” March 16-20, 2009. How long have you been ignoring that constant drip…drip…drip coming from the shower or faucet? How about that running toilet?

Any takers out there (or over at City Hall) up for helping fix my Neice Nellie’s boyfriend, Petey Schwetty’s leaky wiener?

Sincerely,

EggBert & Neice Nellie’s boyfriend, Petey Scwetty’s wild & wooley weiner 

Project TRIM public meeting update

Have a tree trimming party and invite these guys

The longer I follow Sioux Falls city politics and government, the more I am convinced this city is run by ideologues. I got further proof of this last night when I attended an informational and Q & A meeting with the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation forestry manager (Duane) about project TRIM.

City department heads have their own ideas on the city’s appearance and growth, and most citizens have different ideas, and they are not sitting at the table and ironing out those differences. That was quite apparent last night during the meeting.

The SF Parks and Rec wants us to trim our trees to their standards. I’ll give them credit, they do make some good arguments. They have some liability issues with delivery vehicles, fire and rescue and snowplows getting damaged by low hanging branches. They also have stated cases of people getting knocked in the head by a low hanging branch while walking at night (I could go into a tirade about that, but I will keep it to myself). Yes, these things should concern us, but that is what the city has insurance for.

I also agree that trees need to be trimmed and maintained on a regular basis. I trim my boulevard tree all summer long, because water sprouts grow out of it like a weed. But after receiving the project TRIM letter from the city, I will be forced to cut off two gigantic branches from the tree. Fine,  I’m okay with that. But I disagree with how the city is going about project TRIM. I believe there should be a concerted effort between the city and the property owners to get the trees trimmed. But the city sees it differently. Here’s some highlights from last night’s meeting which was attended by about 10-12 citizens, including a very animated school teacher (funny stuff).

 

          Project TRIM was initiated by the forestry manager on his own, Duane. He admitted to it last night. Duane said there was no formal vote by the council to approve the project because the ordinance already existed, which troubles me. I’m certain when the original council approved the ordinance they felt it would be enforced on a complaint basis only. Duane claims that a complaint basis wasn’t working because people felt like they were being picked on. So the solution is to pick on the entire district instead? This should have been thought out better and approved by the council and mayor by an ordinance vote so the citizens could have had some input. Letting one sole individual in a city department who isn’t even elected make this decision is bad public policy but normal operating procedure for Parks and Rec. Remember, their board members are volunteer political appointments by the mayor and not elected, they also have no accountability to the public.

          If the city charges you to trim your trees, it will cost $150 an hour. They justify this cost because you are paying for the P & R person to drive to your house and get his equipment ready. This ignited the school teacher. He basically said that he doesn’t get paid for ‘preparing lessons’ and ‘driving to school’ he gets paid to teach. He makes a good point. We already pay P & R wages, they should be charging us for the trimming only. They (The P & R director, Don, was there to) admitted they charge that much because they don’t want to be forced to do it, and they hope it will persuade people to do it themselves and comply. Makes sense, but it is still highway robbery just the same.

          One citizen complained that the code enforcement/project TRIM letter that is sent out is threatening. P & R admits this was done purposely to intimidate property owners into complying, or as they said “getting to the point.” Many complained this was poor customer service, to say the least. I complained that I don’t approve of ‘blanket code enforcement’ since they cannot be specific about what tree(s) need to be trimmed. In fact that was the biggest complaint from most everyone there. Citizens don’t have a way of measuring and understanding the compliance. I also felt this was forcing some citizens into hiring private contractors to do the work, and I think the city should not be in the business of promoting private contractors with my tax dollars.

          Unlike project NICE they will not come by and pickup your branches after you trim them. I said I don’t have a problem with trimming the branches myself but thought it would be a nice gesture (since I am a taxpayer) to have the city come by and pickup the branches like they do with project NICE. The response was “That’s a different project” Well duh! But why not do the same thing. The reply? “We tried it and it doesn’t work.” So I guess we just give up? I think it didn’t work because it was not done in connection with the letter. I think if they send out the letter with specifics on what tree(s) to trim and give a date they will be in your neighborhood to pick up the branches it would work. I also think they could ‘assist’ with any branches you had trouble trimming on your own. This would also give them an opportunity to inspect. Lots of birds killed with one stone (I know, tough to swallow because beaucracies do not work that way).

          Some asked why the city can’t just trim the trees while they are out inspecting. There excuse was there is not enough ‘Manpower’. I pointed out that they had plenty of ‘Manpower’ to inspect the neighborhoods, write down the addresses, get out and measure, compile the letters and money to mail them out, but not enough to actually trim the trees? No response. I failed to mention they also have the manpower and funds to cut down all the nice birches in Yankton trail park and replant and water all summer, but no time or money for the citizens.

          Some solutions that were offered was reorganizing P & R budget money to project TRIM and trying to get prison trustees to help out the fixed income and elderly. P & R’s solution? We’ll give you an extention.  Woo Hoo! It’s like the IRS giving an extention, at the end of the day, you still have to pay your taxes.

          One guy showed up defending the project. No surprise, I won’t mention his name, but he works for a certain downtown non-profit and often shows up to defend the city at various meetings. He suggested a neighborhood tree trimming party. Yeah, because nothing goes together like BBQ, beer and chainsaws. Hey, you go for it, don’t forget to wear your Jackyl t-shirt. Nobody responded to his idea, and he walked out. That’s usually the reaction when this guy opens his mouth at municipal meetings. He probably had to rush off and make it to another brown nosing session somewhere else.

Towards the end of the meeting though it seemed that the Don and Duane were willing to help out a little and agree to come out and mark trees that needed it if we call, so I haven’t lost hope yet.

What do you think? Should the city work together with the citizens on project TRIM since they are the ones complaining about liability? I think so. Pretty soon they will have us maintaining our own road in front of our house if this keeps up.

It’s OKAY for our mayor to pull a Karl Rove?

Dave Munson’s Hero?

Only the Gargoyle Leader would defend the mayor by saying it is okay to ignore a subpoena;

Meanwhile, Munson decided not to show up for a deposition that was scheduled for Feb. 19.

 

In this case the mayor’s move is justified.

Justified to ignore the law? As we learned in the Sandy Jerstad crash em’ up, bang em’ up, lawmakers should always be following the law and should be held to a higher standard. But not in South Dakota. Run a stop sign and kill a guy? Slap on the wrist and 100 days in jail.

Lawyer William Garry, who’s representing the city, argues that any information the mayor has about the contract can be obtained from other city employees.

 

As a matter of fact, the contract itself should be easily accessible.

DOES NOT MATTER! Munson signed the contract! He is the responsible party. The buck stops here. The big cheese. Commander in chief. If he can’t remember what he is signing, maybe he needs to sit down with those ‘other’ city employess and figure it out before he testifies.

But there’s no indication that the city either is devaluing this case or trying to make it hard for the plaintiff to gain the information he needs.

Nope, just a pathetic local newspaper pandering and apologizing for them.

In lieu of any such development, however, the mayor is within appropriate bounds to make sure that all the pertinent details about the contract are available in other ways.

No he is not. Who made the great Gargoyle Leader Editorial board judge and jury all of sudden? God forbid. A supoena is just that, a supoena. If he doesn’t want to follow it I suggest we cuff him and stuff him for contempt of court. Case closed!

Open Records in South Dakota; The tale of two media outlets

While most people spend their days slamming KSFY for their FOX like news coverage I have often accused KELO of being apologists to government, especially conservative views, this couldn’t be more obvious today when KELO and the Argus both did stories about the open records bill. KELO of course got the governor’s view and his only, which was so damn rosy you thought your were a delivery driver for a florist on Valentine’s Day after reading it;

Governor Mike Rounds said he’s pleased with the compromise opens record bill passed by the Legislature, and is inclined to sign it.

Supporters said the bill strikes a balance between opening public records and protecting the private information that some agencies hold about people.

Ah, yeah, sure. But that is not what the Argus is saying, which received ACTUAL quotes from ACTUAL legislators;

“It’s better than nothing. Unfortunately, it may be close to nothing,” Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem said.

“I can’t help but wondering if that exception doesn’t come close to swallowing up the rule with regard to many things,” Turbak Berry said.

But Turbak Berry worries that South Dakotans now will think the open-records issue is closed.

“The problem is in future years, it is probably going to be much harder to generate widespread support or to put pressure on the governor” to amend the law, she said.

So of course, there really isn’t an open records bill. I sometimes wonder why legislators even bother farting around with this governor? What’s the point in passing a bill that has no teeth? That is one thing we are good at in South Dakota, being extremely vague and wishy-washy.