There has been a lot of talk about this on the internets over the past few days. But what does an advisory vote mean?
When the public approves bonds it requires 60 percent to pass. Â Advisory votes only require 50 percent plus one.
In other words when the public votes on the events center, they are NOT approving a spending resolution, or for that matter locking into a certain dollar amount. They are simply being asked if they want a new events center. That’s it. There will be no set pricetag. There may be a really nice, ornate, well orchestrated guessitmate, but that is all we will be getting. Once voters say they want this thing, the city can borrow and spend whatever they want to. The council would be wise to nail the Mayor’s office down on a pricetag, and make this a non-advisory vote (bonding approval).
I think if voters really want the Events Center, the most responsible thing to do is lock in a price tag and have this a bonding vote. We quickly forget the Pavilion costing us twice as much as what was quoted. I think it is time citizens started controlling the purse strings and not a few elected officials. Just look at Lewis & Clark. We have spent $80 million so far and have yet to get a drop of water from it, and when we finally do turn on the tap, it might drip a little, at best, over the next decade. If citizens would have known the details of this project, there would be no Lewis & Clark pipeline, unless L & C wanted to kiss our asses and sell it to us down the road. We basically propped up this sorry second string water source at the advice of a few public officials. The Feds knew it was a waste of money, that is why they didn’t pony up. The same goes for the EC. Are we going to let a former marketing exec from the worst CC in the nation and an in the dark council make a decision on the cost of this project? Gawd help us. Have we not learned from our past spending mistakes?
This is an important decision by tax payers. It shouldn’t be taken lightly, and we should have a say in the economics of it. Afterall, we are the ones paying back the debt.
Think about it in these terms. If you have ever bought a home, isn’t the price agreed upon before the paperwork is signed and the bank gives you the loan? Taxpayers deserve to know the final price tag, up front, before approving this project. And if this mayor and council are not willing to supply that information to us, it’s time we remove them all from office and start from scratch.
The strength of the city council right now is mediocre at best. They either give Huether the green light on everything without asking one question, or they ask a question and in the end, roll over. Time to start shopping from the top down.
I think that, since it’s advisory, even a “No” vote wouldn’t legally stop the Mayor from bonding for it. My guess is:
If it passes: Mike bonds the whole thing for $150M “to allow for cost overruns” or some BS.
If it fails barely: Mike flexes his leadership muscles and bonds it for $120M, cutting out some of the nicer extras he otherwise wanted.
If it fails badly: Maybe he actually drops it? I’m not optimistic of this, though.
You can’t take my Chihuly though.
He would have no part of it . . .
The build it downtown folks need to get the word out about this crooked vote.
It’s not crooked. Let’s be clear about that. It is very deceptive though. And having Litz as county auditor worries me even more. I have a feeling he will approve of any twisted f’d up ballot language thrown his way. I know he is not in charge of that, but he certainly will not put up any resistance. They will try to make this as seamless as possible.
If it’s not crooked – why make it an “advisory” only vote? The Mayor and his cronies get paid by us – the taxpayers. WE should have the final say – not him.
Edmund Burke is the English political theorist on who’s ideas most of this nation’s system was founded. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the two individuals responsible for 90% of the structure and nature of government in the US in fact quoted Burke many times to support their positions. Burke predicted that a government that based its decisions on constituent opinion, would be highly ineffective. The present state of the US Congress is a great example of just how right Burke was.
If there is oposition to the EC vote being “advisory only”, start a petition to refer the bonding authority to public vote – then you’ll have you 60% requirement. And for everyine who laments the abscence of a mid-town, cross-town route (freeway) in SF – tne reason there is none is because of that exact reaqson. It was set to go, engineering etc. all done – and it got referred – and lost – because “only” 58% were in favor.
In other words, of you do go ahead with the referral process – be damn sure that having a MINORITY of the voters control the future of the community is what you want, just like the current ENTIRE US Congress is controlled by/hostage to the Senate minority party, because that is what you’ll get.
Ruf – You make some good points, but let’s make something clear. I think our mayor and council do a good job at determining zoning decisions, handing our malt beverage licenses and making sure Rhinos have heated floors. But when a $120+ million spending decision is being made, the citizens should approve the spending resolution. I think the 60% is a good idea, that’s how schools decided to build new schools, and it usually results in compromises, but hey, nothing wrong with that.
That crosstown freeway that rufusx refers to was indeed planned and ready to go. It would have cut through SF at about 27th or 28th St. Would the total destruction of those neighborhoods have been worth the few minutes (and hundreds of millions of dollars) that the freeway would have offered? I’m glad SF doesn’t have any intrusive freeways cutting off its DT from its central neighborhoods. The “improved” traffic almost never justifies the social impacts.
“When the public approves bonds it requires 60 percent to pass. Advisory votes only require 50 percent plus one.”
So if Huether is bonding the entire amount, how can he get away with an advisory vote?
That’s what a lot of people are asking. Adn he hasn’t gotten away with anything yet. The council still has it in their power to reject the ballot language, the price tag and the whole kit and kaboodle. If they do not reject the advisory vote, the public can have a referendum. Similiar to the Drake Springs Pool vote. As I understood that the city was set at a $4 million dollar pricetag (they couldn’t spend over that amount on the pool, under any circumstances (They of course spent a lot less and scaled the size of the pool down). The same could go for the Events Center. The public can say, “You cannot BOND over $120 million. This of course wouldn’t stop us from spending more, but the city would have to get creative with finding that extra money. Naming rights, private donors even dipping into reserves, but at least the public would know what their debt would be before sticking the shovel in the ground. Right now, we have no clue.
Tom,
Actually, the cross-town freeway would have roughly followed West 12th and then 14th street (starting at Kiwanis) across town. There was an exit scheduled to be built just a couple blocks from my house at 15th and Prairie. It was also designed to be an ELEVATED (up on columns/stilts whatever) freeway through most of the sections traversing already developed neighborhoods. And at the time it was voted down (1962-63 time frame) there was essentially NOTHING West of Kiwanis, or East of DT (along the River/tracks etc. where 14th now runs – toward Cherry Rock.) The actual footprint on the developed parts of the the city would have fairly small. The population of SF at the time was along the order of 60K – essentially 1/3 the size ot is now. Heck – I don’t think I-29 and 12th was even IN the city limits. I KNOW 41st street wasn’t. The issue then was not “destruction of property” – it was as it is with the EC – as it ever is in SF – spending $$$$$ on a BIG IDEA.
Ruf – I just got back from Jazzfest and didn’t see you there! What up? I have a new rule, don’t read my blog while I am having fun. It just makes me feel guilty 🙂
rufusx,
Interesting. I don’t know why I thought it was further south…
I think an elevated freeway through town would be just about the worst possible outcome. In every city that has or had one (San Francisco, Portland, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Seattle), the city is practically unlivable in the area right around it. Can you imagine how undesirable the All Saints neighborhood would be with an elevated freeway cutting it off from DT? It almost makes me sick thinking about it.
Incidentally, is this why the 26th street interchange is so screwy? Was the freeway supposed to come down through Riverdale park and hook up with 229 near Leif Ericsson? I’ve always wondered why there was so much extra land there.
If you know of any links that have information about the freeway, I’d be really interested in learning more about it.
No, there was never a plan for a “future interchange” at 229/26th. That was an afterthought. There wasn’t even a broidge across the tracks, the river or 229 at 26th when it was originally constructed. 26th just ended where the tracks used to go. All of those little houses to the North of 26th – in “Bel Aire” on VanEps, Blauveldt and Wayland were Brand Spanking NEW and way out on the edge of town. The
There was NOTHING on the East side of 229 (originally called – the Logan Avenue By-pass) when it was constructed – aside from a dozen of so houses in Orhard heights and a few houses in the “New Develpment” of “Hilltop Heights” (around 18th and Cleveland).
Once you got past 26th and Cliff, headed South, you were “in the countryside”. I don’t think there was even a Cliff Avenue exit – IIRC – I KNOW there was no Western Ave. exit. Unless you lived in SF in the 60;s – you really have no idea of how much the pace has grown and developed. It’s frankly astounding.
And now THINK. The old Arena – was built back in those days. The EC under consideration – will be in the same situation – in regard to the FUTURE development of this city. Before it gets replaced – this city will probably be substantially larger than Omaha is today. There is a very god likelyhood that a part of Sioux Falls won’t even be in SD – it will be in Iowa. Seriously! And that’s why it’s too important a decision to make a mistake in LOCATION on.
Maps of the original plans for the old cross-town freeway are stored at the DT Central Library. They used to be available just at the map drawers – but I’m thinking you may need to ask a librarian to retrieve them for you now.
Very interesting! That’s great information. Where is Logan St, though? I know that some of the numbered streets in SF used to have different names. Here’s a cool map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/sioux_falls_sd_1920.jpg
I’m not sure I totally agree with you that SF will continue to grow indefinitely (20% growth per decade is AMAZING). I’m sort of a pessimist in that regard though. I’m not nearly old enough to have seen SF in the 60s or earlier, but I wish I had. It sounds like a totally different place.
This doesn’t have anything to do with your posting Scott…but, the Exposition Grounds that are shown on the above map is actually where Riverdale Park is today. In 1920, when this map was created this is where the fairgrounds were located.
Tom – Actually SF has grown 50% since 1990 (50,000 people). I moved here in 1991 and have lived in the DT or Central area most of it. Guess how much has changed in that area besides a more lively Phillips Avenue? Nothing.
Unless you lived in SF in the 60;s – you really have no idea of how much the pace has grown and developed. It’s frankly astounding.
~RufusX
Our family moved here in ’59. Northenders. Population was around 60-65k as I recall. The city had a population spike just before we moved here. I think in the mid ’50s South Sioux Falls and West Sioux Falls were incorporated into the city. The pace was a lot slower back then. Think Ward, June, Wally, and Beaver Cleaver but without the halos. Most every family I knew had dad working, mom at home raising the family…big families. One car, one garage…detached. Yes, one income could, and did, provide for all. In those days there were not many restaurants. I’d guess about 5 to 10 times less per capita than today. Who needed restaurants? Eating was a family affair, cooked by mom, and enjoyed by all in our assigned seats around the dining room table.
A big night out for us was a grocery sack full of popcorn in the family stationwagon at the Starlite Theater.
Remember like it was yesterday watching Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, and North To Alaska.
I suspect Rufus and I crossed paths on many occassions, especially since he is familiar with the area around Strongs Greenhouse, real close to my stomping grounds.
I also remember my first car. A ’55 chevy…my first date I had in that car was with my now wife. She was 16, I was 17. She grew up in Hilltop. When I went to her place I used 26th street. Turned to gravel just east of the Sioux River.
Those were the days my friend…we thought they’d never end.
Tom,
the reason 229 on the East side was called the “Logan Avenue Bypass” is because in order to construct 229 there – they had to REMOVE Logan Avenue and the houses along it. I guess technically, you could still Call I-229 “Logan Avenue”.
Lewis,
It’s too danged hot for me to be at Jazz Fest – during the day. AND……. I had some city business to attend to (still not completely done). May go Sat. Night. depends on how much I get done.