My number one investigative reporter (Sodapop) and I went to the ‘steps in the river’ tonight to look at the progress. It really irks me when we blow $5 million dollars on something we don’t need, or will even serve a purpose, then turn around and charge higher water rates because ‘We can’t take money out of the 2nd penny for water pipes’
Oh bullshit.
You have to remember that this project was planned during the Munson administration when there was a good possibility that the EC was going to be built next to Cherapa Place. Building this silly structure now is pointless! When the money for this was allocated by the city council, Mike Cooper was asked what the $5 million was going to be spent on, and he didn’t have a clue, because they were still planning it. Yup, that’s right, he basically was asking for a blank check. While I am all for park and bike trail upgrades, we certainly do not need an amphitheatre that goes into the river and a $700,000 pedestrian bridge (when there is two of them 1/2 block away in both directions).
This is why I question water rate increases.
THE LEWIS & CLARK PIPELINE BOONDOGGLE
And while we are on that subject, I started thinking about this post I made back in 2008 when the L & C boondoggle was approved in 2006 (see cartoon)Â (ignore my rant about watering parks, I found out later that they use unfiltered water from the river to water parks):
The dirty little secret about Lewis & Clark is that it still isn’t a 100% done deal, we are still waiting for Federal funding, and recently Senator Johnson commented that he was not sure when that funding would come.
This is an interesting sticking point, because what we didn’t know then was that we really didn’t need L & C. Maybe that is why the FED’s were reluctant? Cotter confirmed it with me on Monday, that L & C was an emergency water source that would not be used that much. So why would the FED’s pony up? But even a bigger question arises? Why did Munson and the council take the bait, hook, line and sinker?
I remember when the bond vote came up, I told Staggers to vote against it, in fact I think I begged him. He felt he had ‘no choice’ because the Feds were not giving them the money. And guess what. We know why!
looks like a hindu bathing ghat
You would know
I joked that the Baptists in town should contribute a bit, they could use it for Baptisms.
Scott, what time of day did you take that pic? I’ve been around there a few times on some pretty nice days and see no one around. Plus, it has looked like this for a while now. Shouldn’t this thing have been completed by now?
And that bridge to nowhere? Still sitting on city owned property waiting to go work.
I disagree. The two projects (water pipe upgrades vs. river greenway upgrades) have completely different purposes and goals. Water upgrades are an essential service – probably it should take priority, but nobody wants to live in a city that takes care of essential services and nothing else (especially you, as you are always extolling the praises of our FREE parks system).
The greenway project is a strategic improvement of the public realm which seeks not only to improve quality of life, but also increase property values of nearby properties, thus increasing property TAXES paid into city coffers (and school district coffers, for that matter). This is exactly the sort of parks projects we should be demanding – strategically located so as to get a maximal return on investment. I imagine that over the lifetime of this project (30 years, maybe?) it should handily recoup its costs through increases in nearby property taxes.
The kinds of parks projects we should be opposing are those that build massive campus-style facilities (like the new fields on Benson near the airport) which improve quality of life (for those that can drive there, at least) but have no realistic chance at ever recouping their costs through induced revenue increases.
A great not-for-profit called StrongTowns (based in Brainerd, MN) did a nice 5-part blog post about getting return on investment for our public dollars. It’s mostly about roads, but it makes some incredible points (and incidentally, addresses sewer systems as well).
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/16/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-5-finale.html
Steps into the toxic Sioux River are a huge waste. Think about how many homeless and kids will slip in and drown. ‘Turd Races’ would show taxpayer disgust. Back down, squat, then race your turd before it goes over the falls.
Tom – I would be all for the project, if it served a purpose. Like I said above, I am all for bike trail upgrades, that needed to happen in that area, but I question an amphitheatre and pedestrian bridge.
Poly – I took it at 8 PM last night. Ironically the patio at Wild Saige was packed. I wonder how all those people got their w/o a pedestrian bridge? They must have swam across the river.
I’m not sure why you label an outdoor public gathering space as purposeless, when it’s right next to an area (eastbank) that will certainly redevelop and grow into an urban neighborhood whether an events center is built nearby or not.
I agree with you that we need to prioritize between necessities and non-necessities, but I fail to understand why you think riverfront improvements are purposeless.
It’s so nice of the city to create an easy way to commit suicide. You can now just walk down the steps into the river and over the falls!
C’mon Scott, the water there is ONLY moving at 7 knots!
Tom – I agree with you, I just think the amphitheather and bridge is overkill.
And if my memory serves me correctly, that was a deal Munson swung with Cherapa place in a closed door meeting. No public input whatsoever. None.
If anyone wants to see the final master plan for the area (this is only the first phase of the greenway project), it’s available here:
http://www.siouxfallsparks.org/park_planning/greenway/overall_plans/master_plan_overall
We should develop the riverfront, as it is unique to Sioux Falls. I know we aren’t San Antonio, but think about how well know their Riverwalk is and what it’s done for their core area.
When the Mayor’s EC plan goes down, we can try again at Cherapa where it should be. If we were on the ball we’d have worked this part of the GW project into the EC plan and sold off some of the walkways and Plaza as part of the naming rights deal. My guess is you could’ve had this at least half paid for by having an Everist or a Sweetman or somone like that sponsor it.
Sy makes sense but I don’t like steps into the river. It’ll be fenced off the first time someone slips in and drowns causing city liability insurance to skyrocket. Makes no sense to practical people and just another Munson folly.
I have a sneaking suspicion that DL is not complaining about the sports complex at the Airport because he – like 99.9% of the other people who either live in or visit the city never go “out there”, and never will. Out of sight – out of mind.
Ruf – Do you mean having special interests pay for something privately for once? Not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.
PL – You are so right on about the fence off. Look at the beautiful 14 foot fence around Covell Lake.