South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

2011

Rex Rolfing SF City Council Sioux Falls

Decorum? Tell Abe Lincoln.

l3wis 15Comments

I was asked to remove my hat tonight while addressing the city council by city councilor Rolfing because of ‘decorum’

– politeness, manners, dignity –

Didn’t know wearing a hat offended anyone? But apparently Mr. Rolfing thought so. I removed my hat and quoted my favorite founding father in reference to independence day:

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

Well, I kinda said that. I wonder if the French asked Franklin to remove his coon skin cap while negoitating, or if Abe Lincoln was asked to remove his hat, because of ‘Decorum’. I think Mr. Rolfing has a bullshit view of what political ‘decorum’ entails. I suggest he does his research. He forgets that ‘I’ elected him, and ‘I’ pay his wages, not the other way around. Now if he was wearing a hat, maybe it would be ‘decorum’ for me to ask him to remove ‘his’ hat, but not the other way around. But to tell you the truth, I don’t give a shit, let’s move on with things that are important to city government, prudence and honesty, not hats. I also ranted about indoor pools, parking ramps and employee listings. I must warn you, I had a beer and a wine at Parkers and a fantastic piece of fish (that tasted like a porkchop) before my onslaught. But hey, I’m not getting paid to toot my horn, so lubrication is good. Right?

Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Argue Endorser ED Board uses extreme misinformation to endorse public indoor pool

l3wis 20Comments

[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.

SF City Council Sioux Falls

Happy 4th, but the real fireworks will be tomorrow night at Carnegie Hall

l3wis 3Comments

I started looking through tomorrow’s meeting agendas for the SF City Council and found a mixed bag of interesting items.

RAIL RELOCATION

Considering Mike got his Arena site picked for the Events Center. I guess now he can move forward on the rail relocation 🙂

FISCAL COMMITTEE MEETING

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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

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?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Audit SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE: Internal audit has a busy schedule

Uncategorized

It’s the little things

South Dakotans State Legislature

What the?

Drinking Liberally

Drinking Liberally Update (8/23/24)