My new favorite local blog
l3wis 
While Kara Dirkson doesn’t post that often, her posts are well worth the read if you are an art fag like me. Kara is South Dakota’s only certified art appraiser. Cool job.
July 2011
Argue Endorser ED Board uses extreme misinformation to endorse public indoor pool
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_I8RCUpe-c[/youtube]
No matter your thoughts on whether you support a public indoor pool or not, let’s at least be honest with voters. Those silly ‘facts’ seem to get in the way of the AL Ed board, and they do a little twisting and shouting of their own;
It’s unfortunate that the idea of an indoor pool has been tangled in such controversy in recent years.
What controversy? This statement puzzles me. So now it is controversial for a group of citizens to petition their government? The only controversy in this discussion is a newspaper that kowtows the city’s agenda to cram shit down our throats that we don’t want.
Two years later, the idea of an indoor pool replacing the old Drake Springs pool also was defeated in large part because of opposition from that central Sioux Falls neighborhood.
Bullshit! Last I checked the ENTIRE CITY got to vote on that issue, not just my neighborhood. There was also opposition from people who didn’t want an indoor pool in that neighborhood, there was even members of swim teams that were opposed to it because they couldn’t hold competitions there.
It seems so basic that a community such as Sioux Falls, in a climate like South Dakota’s where there is way more winter than summer in most years, should provide recreational opportunities year-round. To do that, you build an indoor swimming pool. Other cities have done so. It is not a radical concept.
Yes, other cities have done it, but those cities also lack private facilities. There is over 8 private indoor pools that you can PAY to swim at (just like a public facility) and unlike a public indoor pool, you can also partake in other physical activities at these places. There is also many indoor water parks at different hotels in Sioux Falls. The ED board makes it sound like there is absolutely NO PLACE to swim at in town over the winter.
A recent survey by the Parks Department reveals community interest in an indoor pool. Sixty percent of the respondents said the city needs indoor swimming opportunities.
Another partial fact the ED Board throws out there. If you look at the ratios of that survey, 1 in 7 of that 60% support an indoor pool subsidized by taxpayers, the other 6 want it paid for by user fees. We know how the city operates these facilities, they will NEVER be self-sustaning.
Community support and open lines of communication are essential.
Then why did you write such a misleading editorial? If this is such a crackerjack idea, it would of passed years ago.
Happy 4th, but the real fireworks will be tomorrow night at Carnegie Hall
I started looking through tomorrow’s meeting agendas for the SF City Council and found a mixed bag of interesting items.
Considering Mike got his Arena site picked for the Events Center. I guess now he can move forward on the rail relocation 
During this meeting they will be discussing council approval and notification before the mayor signs contracts. It’s a complicated read, if you have the time to indulge.
This of course is something the mayor has been fighting, but I think is a good thing, and well overdue. This should have been done during the Munson administration so we wouldn’t of had a 100% cost overrun on Phillips to the Falls. They will also be discussing freezing water rates for the old and the poor, but screw the rest of us I guess.
Pawn Shop ordinance (Item #25) This will be an interesting discussion, because as I understand it, it was deferred to allow the 2nd hand goods people to have a say in how it was written. Not sure if they were allowed to or not. This I am sure will come out tomorrow. The original version that was presented was considered unconstitutional to many of the pawn brokers and their attorney.
Due Process and hearing examiners (Item #30 – 1st reading) These changes came about after the city has faced many lawsuits, including Daily vs. City of SF and the red light camera suit. What are the changes? Well what I can see with my NON-Attorney eyes are as follows;
• If you believe you have not violated city ordinance, you can appeal the decision (ironically there is a $50 processing fee, that will be refunded, of course, if you are found not guilty)
• Once you file an appeal the city will stop fining you, nagging you, bugging you and harassing you until a final decision is made.
• The city bears burden of proof
• subpoenas will be allowed
• The hearings will be recorded
I’m not sure what to think, but I still have a problem with a hearing examiner, hired by the city deciding whether or not you have violated city code.
Districting Committee (Item #35) I found the new members interesting
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in the past there has been two Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent. I don’t see that this time, and I am wondering what the RULES are on that topic. Secondly, I found the appointment of Glenski, Knobe and Traub also interesting. Glenski complained about the districting last time around, so that is no surprise she is on board this time. Traub is new to this city government thingy, and is getting involved, which is a good thing. He of course was the voice of Build it Downtown. Knobe has batted around the idea of running for Vernon’s seat next spring (at large city council). Wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest if he intends to run?
Ellis’ weekly column touches on my post about campaign promises
Poor Mike, no matter how hard he tries, he can’t bury the past. Just like a Shakespeare play;
Then out pops an ad from the Huether camp. There’s a picture of a smiling My Man Mike, and he’s promising to save taxpayers $100 million by building an events center that costs $100 million.
How do you save $100 million by spending $100 million? Next to Huether’s picture is a picture of Brown and Costello, looking like ghouls who eat puppies. Below that is a summary of the plan they endorsed, albeit with some exaggeration. The ad says Brown and Costello supported a plan that would cost $202 million and increase sales taxes.
At the time, Huether said he would build the facility using private investment, the existing entertainment tax and user fees.
The irony in all this is actually Vernon Brown, while the mayor has HAD to change his mind based on polls and studies and by already securing the office of mayor, Brown is notorious for flip-flopping like a fish out of water. Maybe that is why he got 3rd place in the mayoral election, TWICE.
But back to campaign promises. There was only one candidate running for mayor that would have given us exactly what he promised. And since he told the truth, he was not selected. What a sad state of affairs we are in now. As I told some commenters the other day, you made the Mike Huether bed, now you can sleep in it.
Here we go again, another rate increase
While the economy, inflation and employee pay stays stagnant, another utility wants more, more more;
Xcel Energy is asking for a 9.3 percent hike in electric rates for its 84,000 customers in Sioux Falls and surrounding areas of southeast South Dakota.
The company said Thursday that the increase would add about $7 to the monthly bill of a typical residential customer and raise $14.6 million in revenue.
Xcel said the money is needed to improve infrastructure, comply with new regulatory requirements, and respond to changes in the economy.
The request for a rate increase will be decided by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
Respond to changes in the economy? If so, shouldn’t you be reducing rates instead of raising them?