December 2012

I guess I am not the only one who thinks handing out all these TIF’s is a bad idea

I have often wondered how the city has gotten away with giving out tax incentives at the detriment of the county and school district. But have no fear, the city is using prudence;

The districts are crucial for economic development, but city officials are conservative about which projects qualify, said Brent O’Neil, the city’s economic development manager.

I guess I would like to know what Brent considers to be conservative? Luxury lofts and big box retailers (that already planned on coming with or without the TIF incentive).

“We end up picking up more work without any means of financing it for a long time,” said Dick Kelly, Minnehaha County Commission chairman, adding that the city benefits from increased sales tax revenue, and schools have other funding during this waiting period. “Long-term thinking, it’s good, but you still gotta get there and demands come right away.”

Yeah, what does the city care, they are not taking any money out of their coffers to enable the TIF’s. It would be like buying a car with a loan that you don’t have to make a payment on until 20 years down the road, but by then you have sold car and the loan becomes someone else’s problem.

The issue will be up for discussion during the Legislative session in Pierre. The South Dakota Association of County Commissioners approved a resolution — Minnehaha County did not support it — seeking a change that would require all taxing entities to approve TIFs in order to use the anticipated property tax increase, said Ken McFarland, the Minnehaha County Commission’s administrative officer. If the city, for example, was the only entity to approve, then only that portion of property tax increment could be used.

Makes sense. Right? Not to Mikey;

Mayor Mike Huether credits TIFs with changing the city.

“When I first started, we were hoping and working to get out of the economic funk, and one of the tools we realized could help stimulate some activity were these TIFs,” he said. “And, oh my, they are making a difference … it not only cleans up a site but also develops the site and it will turn into what I believe will be a retail and sales tax cash cow for the city.”

And while you are taking money away from the county, subsidizing wealthy developers and putting more in the city coffers to spend on pickleball courts (and not snowgates) how is it benefitting me, the lowly tax payer? I have often said if TIF’s are good enough for private development, they are good enough for home owners. It’s funny how Lloyd claims he and his buddy Donny Dunham couldn’t do these projects without TIF’s yet everyday in this fine city, private homeowners pull up their boot straps and figure out how to restore and fixup old homes in the central DT area;

“There’s no way in God’s green earth we could have done CNA (Surety building) and the (downtown Hilton Garden Inn) hotel, no way we could have done Uptown lofts, no way (Don) Dunham could have done some of the buildings downtown without TIF,” Developer Craig Lloyd said. “It’s been pretty site specific, area specific.”

Yes, those projects could have been done without TIF’s, the difference would be that instead of taking away from property tax revenues developers would have to spend their own money to do it. Gee, isn’t capitalism a bitch?

Beninga said commissioners have had informal discussions about TIFs for a few months, and it’s time to bring it to the public table.

“We don’t get a say,” Beninga said. “That’s an issue. It’s a decision we don’t make, but it affects us. We need to have more input, frankly.”

Beninga is right, why doesn’t the county have a say in the matter?

Lloyd, who has been working with the city since last November to create TIF No. 18 for a Phillips Avenue Loft development, said expanding the use of TIFs for economic development is necessary, because South Dakota has few other tools to attract business. Yes, there’s no income tax, and lower workman’s comp, Lloyd said. But those things don’t help in the short term.

What a load of baloney. We have some of the best public saftey, public schools and parks and rec in the nation. We also have high productivity and low salaries in SD, these things DO attract business. Not sure how building luxury lofts using a tax rebate incentive attracts business, but this is coming from the same guy who promised us before the 2nd penny got raised to a full penny that developers would be putting in 50% to the arterial road fund. How did that prediction work out Craig? Seemed to work out pretty good for you, just not the rest of us, and I don’t look at TIF’s any differently. The developers will reap the short term benefits while the regular property tax payer will be left holding the bag when the county has to have another property tax opt-out.

Merry Christmas

My favorite bartender took this while enjoying my favorite Christmas present, a vodka tonic tonight. Stay strong soldiers in 2013, we will conquer all!

Now enjoy (one my favorite) albums;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJIscC8sAE[/youtube]

So now snowgate advocates are lazy?

You never can predict what will come out of the ugly yellow building on 10th & Minnesota;

The Loafer Brigade of Sioux Falls suffered a defeat last week, but loafers never are defeated for long. They rise again to advocate for loafing.

In refusing to call a special election next spring on snowgates, the City Council deflected the issue until spring 2014. About 8,500 people had signed petitions hoping an election would be called sooner.

I guess asking the city to save taxpayers thousands of hours cleaning the iceberms from the end of our driveways classifies us as ‘lazy’. I have never looked at snowgates in that way. As I have said in the past it is about being held hostage to the city when it comes to snow removal. Who cares if the streets are plowed in 24 hours if I cannot get out of my driveway? I look at snowgates in simpler form; I am already paying for the service of snow removal, if it cost an extra 25% to do it properly, I say let’s do it. The plows are already out plowing my street, what’s the harm in taking a little longer and pushing a little button? Lazy? This coming from the rag that created ‘Loafer Journalism’

But the council was within its rights. When it comes to initiated measures, state law allows city governments to call a special election or hold the vote at the next regular election. Our next regular election is spring 2014.

I disagree. The initiative was specifically written so that snowgates would go into affect Nov 1, 2013. The next available election slot (without calling a stand alone special election) is this Spring, 2013 with the school district. I don’t think it gets less complicated then that. A majority of the council doesn’t want snowgates. Period. This had nothing to do with whether they work or their cost. And they know it.

And they suspect that some treacherous lawyers will devise a scheme in which a vote never will take place.

Most definately. Remember what I said about the predictability of our city government? Why wait over a year to have an election? Are we going to have more information? Probably not. The council voted against the 2013 election to give them time to crush the petition drive. I stand by those words.

I’m ambivalent on the subject. Sure, I suppose they would be nice if they work as advertised, but do we really need another government service so able-bodied adults don’t have to shovel out the ends of their driveway?

That’s just it, we are not creating a NEW government service, we are just asking to make one we currently have better. Geeesh.

First, the proponents continually reference this $500,000 water feature being built downtown along the river greenway, a glorified bird bath that certainly will win the appreciation of our resident pigeon population. If the city can spend money on that, it should be fully capable of outfitting plows with snowgates, the Snowgatenistas say.

Regardless of what you think about the bird bath, the money to pay for it comes from a completely different budget and tax source than the budget that pays for snow removal. The budget that pays for snow removal also is the same budget that pays for police officers and firefighters. Thus, we would have less money for public safety.

You can look at this 20 different ways, but whether it is snowgates or birdbaths it is still taxpayer money they are spending. And how are we taking money from public safety? Kind of sounds like we are adding to it. Snowgates are a public safety issue.

The Snowgatenistas also argue that snowgates are a service that would benefit everybody. Really? Because a lot of people in central Sioux Falls don’t even have driveways. And even more live in apartments. How do snowgates benefit them?

Snowgates also have another effective use, clearing intersections. Something the Public Works department never likes to bring up, because they know they are very effective when it comes to this use. So snowgates DO benefit everyone.

If snowgates do hinder progress in clearing roads, you can bet that voters won’t blame themselves for approving the devices. They’ll blame their elected officials.

Well they are the ones responsible for making sure government services work properly, that’s why they get a paycheck compliments of us, the taxpayer.

Last I checked, I live in a Democracy

I just sent off this email to the council and mayor;

Dear Mayor and City Councilors,
Trust me, it pains me to write this email. I would rather be sending off a quick note to all of you thanking you for approving the Spring 2013 election.

I do however want to thank councilors Jamison, Staggers and Anderson Jr. for realizing Tuesday night’s decision to vote YES was an easy decision when you stand up for democratic values and take an oath to uphold the US Constitution. The rest of you failed to recognize your constitutional duties, and just how easy they are. The Spring snowgate election SHOULD have been a slam dunk.

As for those of you who ignored the wishes of over 8,000 petition signers, I have no idea where to begin.

Why don’t we start with your ginned up false arguments and scripted questions to city directors (Karsky). One of your main arguments was hiring contractors in January for the following snow season. You say if we approve snowgates in the Spring of 2013 it would be after the hiring of contractors in January. So how is the timing of a Spring election in 2014 any different?

The difference is, that I don’t expect to see snowgates on the 2014 Spring ballot. Why? I don’t think your NO vote on Tuesday was an attempt to gather more information before the 2014 election, I believe you voted NO so you would have an opportunity to either
1) squash the petition of over 8,000 signers using legal recourse OR
2) writing a snowgate ordinance yourself and implementing them to your limited specifications and uses before the 2014 election. Either way, it was a political trick, but I wouldn’t expect anything less out of the five of you. As I tell friends, Sioux Falls city government is very predictable, they always vote in favor of special interests, and you did not disappoint Tuesday night. You denied 8,000 constituents AN election they asked for then turned around and handed over a $3.8 million dollar TIF (money taken away from public education) so a PRIVATE developer could build luxury lofts.

Your other fine argument against the election was that there was no way that 60 well-informed snowgate volunteers could educate the public on snowgates in 5 months. I was flabbergasted by this statement. The public only got 3 months to decide on the Events Center, one of the largest projects voters have ever approved. Do you think an army of 60 IGNORANT MORONS could collect 8,000 signatures in 10 short weeks? Do you think they did this blindly with no knowledge of how snowgates work? Councilor Erpenbach’s statement was condescending and quite frankly insulting. I have heard councilors and mayors say a lot of things over the past 10 years to constituents in public meetings, but that statement took the cake Michelle, it was over the top and downright mean spirited. You owe us a public apology.

I will direct this last part at council chair Erpenbach and mayor Huether. You can laud transparency all you want but I’m sorry Mike, just saying something doesn’t make it so. Limiting public testimony to 20 minutes and making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors was blatant CENSORSHIP! There is NOTHING transparent about CENSORSHIP. While there is plenty I could say about Michelle’s role in this censorship, Mike had the power to override Michelle’s concocted rule. That is why, since Tuesday I have been doing research on Robert’s Rules, censorship, the 1st Amendment and limiting FREE speech. Stifling public testimony on such an important topic was a disservice to the 8,000 petition signers, and will not be tolerated in the future. I will be using my research and resources to make sure of this.

Your lust for greed, power, control and self interest is what forced you all to vote NO on Tuesday. I feel sorry for all of you. You have only made this city and country weaker by your decisions. A democracy is only successful when it is ran by the people and for the people.

Regretfully,

Scott L. Ehrisman