Listen to Paula Johnson’s testimony at the council meeting tonight (FF 29:00) you can also read it here: spellertext (this testimony has been updated)
THE BELOW TESTIMONY WAS SENT TO ME FROM SOMEONE OTHER THEN PAULA:
There are contingencies in the QUITCLAIM DEED between Sioux Falls and the Va regarding the land of Spellerberg Park. We are focusing on the first two contingencies. The third contingencies reads as follows.
c)Â Â Â In the event of a reversion of such land to the United States because of default by the Grantee or for breach of the above covenants by Grantee, the fair market rental value of such land for the period it is held by the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be deducted from the purchase price paid by said City and the balance, if any, shall be repaid to the aforesaid City.
Below are the first two contingencies plus 10 questions to consider after one reads the two contingencies. In my opinion, the city has already breached the contract with the inclusion of flood control detention ponds. I think the city would be extremely irresponsible to place a $20 million dollar taxpayer funded facility on this land in light of these contingencies, and the veteran support that is mounting against placement of such a center at Spellerberg.
I have a copy of the QUITCLAIM DEED if you would like a copy.
CONTINGENCIES of QUITCLAIM DEED
17/TH DAY of NOVEMBER, 1955
between UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and CITY of SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA
a) The premises herein conveyed are to be continuously used only as and for park and recreational purposes in a manner which, in the judgment of the Administration of Veterans’ Affairs or his designate, will not interfere with the care and treatment of patients in the Veterans’ Administration Hospital, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
b) The premises are herein conveyed upon the condition that in the event they are not used for such above stated purpose, all right, title, and interest therein shall immediately revert to and revest in the United States of America, and upon which reversion the title of the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota thereto shall cease and determine and the United States of America shall have the immediate right of possession thereof.
 QUESTIONS of CONSIDERATION
1. Are detention ponds for flood control considered uses for park and recreational purposes only?
2. Could increased parking and traffic issues interfere with the care and treatment of VA patients?
3. Who and only who determines if patient care or treatment is being compromised? Could a present decision of satisfaction from the VA be reversed in the future?
4. In the event that state and area local veterans, unhappy with parking and traffic issues relating to an indoor aquatic center placement within Spellerberg Park, and their perceived ability to access and attain treatment at the Veterans’ Administration Hospital, complain and apply sufficient pressure to the Veterans’ Administration, thus causing the park land known as Spellerberg Park to revert to the United States of America?
5. Does the current overflow parking situation around the Veterans’ Hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota indicate there already is a parking shortage issue and need for more land at said hospital? (Remember, the first Park and Rec maps released for public viewing at the Oyate Center neighborhood meetings, labeled overflow parking usage availability at VA parking lots. This slip is Park and Rec’s accountable acknowledgment of the city’s inability to provide sufficient parking at the proposed indoor aquatic center within Spellerberg Park, and contain all parking within the park, and at the same time retain, without compromise, all the amenities of said park.)
6. Is it wise usage of taxpayer dollars to move beyond the concept of a neighborhood park and neighborhood outdoor pool usage to a large citywide indoor aquatic complex and center, designed to hold and accommodate national swim meets of 1000 people in attendance, considering the location has questionable contingencies in it’s Quick Claim Deed as well as outstanding parking and traffic issues?
7. Does widening surrounding streets eliminate any parking issues or could it actually increase parking issues?
8. Is it not apparent to anyone who visually surveys the VA grounds that those grounds are very congested and definitely reveal a need for additional land for expansion?
9. Is the city of Sioux Falls prepared to control and monitor, on a daily basis, any and all overflow parking issues resulting from a large citywide aquatic center placement at Spellerberg Park?
10. Is the city of Sioux Falls prepared to assume responsibility for any Homeland Security issue that may arise on the grounds of the Veteran’s Hospital as a result of the increase of traffic and population into this quiet hospital zone?
1. The “detention pond” area is still used for recreational purposes.
2. No – parking is not “care and treatment”. I think they were concerned about NOISE.
3. The Admin. of Veterans Affairs (or a designee). That person/position has been eliminated by the fedral Govermment and the duties are now held by the Secretary of Veterans Affiars- a Presidential cabinet posiiton.
4. Doubtful.
5. thru 10. Lot’s of words -little substance. Determination of relevance all lies with answer to #3. HIGHLY doubtful a cabinet level official would get involved with local traffic issues.
Whoever wrote this should head to the gym now… because they have obviously done more than enough stretching.
This is the silliest thing I’ve read in a long time. Each and every one of these questions can be answered in such a manner that nothing changes – they are nothing short of filler and don’t actually result in anything significant being brought forth.
From the pdf…
“His phone is 1-800-827-1000 and no I’m not kidding.”
What?
Rufusx, you apparently do not know the history of the detention pond and its primary purpose and upkeep. In the first years of sledding the city actually tried to keep the sledders out because it was a drainage system first. The city could not keep sending police over there to keep the families away. The overwhelming mass of families just showing up, won the day.
You also apparently never have to go to the VA. Try looking for a parking spot on most days. After having had to spend many days there over the last few years looking for parking, I know this firsthand, parking is scarce. As Mr. Koch said in the broadcasted testimony, the new construction at the VA is going to add to the parking load. If patients and there families cannot get to the door of the VA to attend to their medical appointments for “care and treatment” there is a problem.
The parking lot is bought and paid for by the VA. I know it is a government parking lot but it is there for the use of the VA. Is the city going to take over care and security of the parking lot so the VA has all the spots necessary for their primary use?
It is often stated, the pool and tennis events would usually be after hours. Excuse me, who are any of us to pay for a $20 million complex to limit its use to nights and weekends. Now we really will go broke with it.
Mr Koch also mentioned the new construction commencing this summer at the VA bringing in more patients and families. There is going to be more need for parking, if the city violates the codicils in the quitclaim deed, the city will have to give the park land back to the city. Wouldn’t it be something to turn a $20 million swimming center over to the VA?
Rufusx, the legal designee is now the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He is a very strong advocate of the VA hospital system and would think nothing of getting involved in this mess to protect his staff and troops. He likely would make a few calls on this matter.
SubPrime and his “people” were not happy on Tuesday night. I don’t believe the ‘city’ was planning for this kind of fallout.
JR – I saw that. Hmmm.
Craig, have after it, would love to hear your answers.
I think it is incredibly irresponsible for the city to move forward with an indoor pool at Spellerberg if it is going to affect the care of of veterans. But like I have said in the past, bad location to begin with.
Craig is correct, this is basically a load of monkey spunk thrown at the project by the NIMBY brigade hoping any of it will stick.
First of all, you don’t have 1000 people converging on the place for a swim meet at the same time each in their own car. The famliy/friends show up when their player is competing, they watch the match, they typically head out until the next one which is usually an hour or two later.
Also, like Ruf said they are concerned about noise. For those who’ve been to Spellerberg or any public pool, which do you think emits more “noise” of kids playing, laughing etc. an indoor facility or an outdoor one? Unless they are assuming those crazy swim people all drive 70’s era muscle cars with huge stereos blaring Guns & Roses out their windows at full blast?
Moreover, if you’ve ever been to the VA you know it’s a massive complex of buildings each with their own parking lot or two. I drive by there quite frequently at various times of the day and rarely see any cars in the secondary lots and the main ones I hardly ever see them even half full. It shouldn’t be too difficult to reconfigure their lot(s) so the new facility could utilize the most NE lot on 22nd to pick up 150 or so more spots, while still providing what the VA needs for peak times as well as employees. The hospital itself is like 100 beds, and the facility sits on 30 acres of the 45 +/- acre block of town. By comparison, Brookings’ hospital has 50 beds and sits on about 10 acres and they are a single level facility…if the VA is congested I have to wonder what their definition of “congested” is and why they see it that way…it can’t be due to a cramped site.
Either way, if there’s problem with the Spellerberg plan, than it seems it’s the cost associated with building it and whether or not there’s enough flexibility deisgned into the facility to accomodate enough mixed use, year-round to at least cover the majority of the nut. The rest of this is just recycled propaganda that apparently this blog is all to eager to keep puking out.
Who hasn’t lolled away the afternoon on the beautiful greenway of Detention Pond Park? My take is that if the
Secretary of Vet Affairs says this pool project will not interfere with the care a treatment of his patients, the city is probably OK going forward. The detention pond question is interesting and probably turns on how one would define park and recreational purposes. Even if you can have a multi-purpose type of area, (Pool and a pond) it does say “only” for park and rec purposes. If the city has tried to limit park and rec uses, that would be informative. Do they ever fence off the pond for safety purposes? Doesn’t seem like much of a park if if has a fenced off drowing hazard at the base of the hill within the park. My guess is the City wasn’t even aware of these restrictions when it built the pond. Never really did like that pond much.
BTW, What is fair market rental on the land from 1955 til now?
Wow its hard to believe how little the people on this blog and in the town of Sioux falls understand about the VA. It is not the city’s property to decide how the VA parking is to be used. the VA owns the parking lots and their property. The city changes the park to a commercial endeavor it now becomes open to return to the US Government. Don’t be encouraging the city to ‘condemn’ the northeast parking lot so the poor little rich like SubPrime’s wife can have a parking spot instead of the veteran of their family. Why do you think there are so many cars parked on 22nd street on most days? No available parking on the VA property.
To compare the VA hospital complex to a small town hospital is showing lack of understanding of the VA. There are vets and their families coming in everyday from a 4 state region for medical care. These people are cared for by almost 900 employees and countless volunteers. All of these people need to have their needs taken care of first. The needs of the residents and users of the park are secondary to all discussions. The VA was there first and the quitclaim deed take this into consideration.
In the months of this discussion, there has been much disinformation circulated about the park, pool operations and the VA by those who wish to place the new indoor pool there. Before letting the city jam some more debt on us, for something not needed in this location, potentially pissing off the VA and more, lets all be more rational in this decision.
Currently if you go to the Park Ridge center and there is not enough parking, you go to the Spellerberg Park lot across the street. On real busy Spellerberg days now they try to park in the Park Ridge lot. How happy are the Park Ridge merchants going to be when there are no spots open for their customers when the pool is built?
How many people are going to try to eat at Pickle Barrel or 26th then go across to their pool or tennis events?
Selfishness reigns supreme, as long as none of these issues affect me today, I will not worry about tomorrow.
http://savespellerberg.org/Spellerberg/Welcome.html
Pickle Barrell gives me heartburn 🙂
Sy, I don’t agree with everything they are saying, just allowing them to have a voice. The Argus Leader also did a story about this today.
You could take out all of their arguments against the indoor pool, and it still comes down to being a poor location to begin with. BUILD AN INDOOR POOL NEXT TO A HIGHSCHOOL AND GET MAXIMUM USAGE.
Last three times I went to park ridge over noon hour, ended up having to park on Willow
I’ve brought up the Park Ridge parking before. Trust me, idiots will believe if they buy a $4 sandwich they will think they get to leave their car in the lot all day long. It’s impossible to underestimate the brain level of a good portion of this city.
“so the poor little rich like SubPrime’s wife can have a parking spot instead of the veteran of their family.”
How is this class warfare/personal vendetta against the Mayor adding rationality to this discussion?
And the only thing I was comparing was the footprints of each building & site vs. number of beds. Brookings likely has 300 people or so taking care of their patients/residents and they’ve found a way to make their site work with a one level building and no ramps..it’s not friggin’ rocket science nor should it be a deal breaker to any of the parties involved. Maybe the end result of the City & VA working out a deal on the 22nd street lot is actually improving parking & access for patients and employees so both parties win. Why does it have to portrayed as “end of the Park/VA as we know it!”…again, pure, 100% sewer sauce.
And I can’t speak for the owner of Park Ridge, but if he’s complaining about a full parking lot and spillover from the pool don’t cha think that’s the kind of thing that allows him to charge $10 a sf for rent? Wouldn’t a new indoor facility attract the young families to the neigborhood both as residents and visitors thus improving any retail related business or restaurant’s target demographics? Anyone who’s investing in real estate in this City is doing so precisely because it’s historic & projected growth patterns and that’s not simply pushing the edges of town further out to Tea, Brandon & Hartford.
I eat at both PB and Grille 26 quite a bit. The only times their lots are full is lunch hour during the week. When’s the last swim meet you’ve seen scheduled during those times?
I suspect these issues in the “breaking news” are being worked out as we speak…
How can you charge $10 a sf for space if you cannot make $10 a sf because customers cannot get to your business?
Wouldas, couldas shouldas all the way around in a situation like this. We know right now the problems with this site currently and in the foreseeable future. Why stack more issues on top of it.
How is it not a class issue to bring up the major proponents of the new tennis courts? There are many of the money people of this little town who wish to run the current racket club out of business because it is not up to current standards. There is not enough business to sustain a major remodel of the facility so why should the city subsidize a new facility to satisfy the wants of the mayor’s family and friends?
The other side of the class issue is the constant talk about the ‘poor’ kids who would have a neighborhood indoor pool / rec center close to their homes. What a line of bull. Now we get to play the class card? The NIMBY people of this town do not want it where there is already infrastructure capable of handling the burden so we put it back on the ‘children’. Always the ‘children’. I forgot the additional ‘poor children’ part.
I have to state, I for one would love to have a 50 meter pool in South Dakota. It would be nice to be able to experience it and enjoy it, especially if it did not have a hospital’s name attached. If we keep this up, a Spellerberg pool may have the VA’s name on it when they become the owners.
So lets all think about all the other issues involved.
1. The VA expansion
2. Not enough parking for either facility
3. Park Ridge Center congestion
4. Rebuild of Western Ave to handle additional north-south traffic, currently residential 2 lane from 12th to 41st
5. Rebuild of 22nd Street to handle additional east-west traffic, currently residential / mixed 2 lane from Kiwanis to Minnesota
6. Rebuild of 26th Street to handle additional east-west traffic, currently residential 2 lane from Kiwanis to Minnesota
7. Neighborhood streets not having any parking (already an issue)
8. Legal issues and expenses if VA & US government find fault with quitclaim deed
How many more faults can we list to this location?
Man – if people can reach for the moon on some of this crap – they will. Heads up people – this will not remain a regular outdoor swimming pool – even though petitioners would like to think so. It is either going to be an indoor facility, or a “fat” outdoor splash amusement park – which ladies and gentlemen – will need additional parking either way.
This whole thing regarding parking is mute and Sy is correct, the ONLY time that parking is an issue is lunch time. The VA lot is EMPTY by 4:45 and the lot at Spellerberg is never full unless we get a fresh snow on the weekend or it is summer and even then – it is not full.
The last option is it will be torn down and not be replaced which will really chap my ass as a resident of this neighborhood. It will hurt the vitality of this neighborhood and its value. Be careful what you wish for and what you continually complain about. The end solution may be worse. I would rather have a strong presence of people year around then have a non-thriving neighborhood.
Once again Sy the logic does not stand. Sure the eateries are busy at noon when you are there. When I have tried to park at 3 in the afternoon it still can be hard to park. Just because you do not experience a problem today doesn’t mean there won’t be a problem when you add a daytime swimming or tennis competition to the mix. How shortsighted.
Testor – FYI – my dad spent a lot of time at the VA as a patient. My mom spent a lot of time at the VA as an employee. I’ve done some contruction projects in the “uppity” neighborhood across the street. Good friend of mine worked there in maintenance for many years. I’ve been there plenty.
Why should the VA have to pay out of their budget for a parking lot so you could have a place to park your vehicle? This will shortchange the healthcare of the vets because they will have to pay for parking lots.
Every project or plan in this city seems to come down to PARKING and TRAFFIC. I, for one, hate it. Other cities, near and far, are moving beyond city planning of drivers, by drivers, and for drivers. When will SF catch up? The fact that we have a City department named “Economic Development and Public Parking” sums it all up.
Build walkable, compact, resilient, and sustainable neighborhoods. Build strong towns.
http://www.strongtowns.org
Can I park on your lawn Alice!
So in other words, we cannot build a new indoor swimming hole at Spellerberg and the current deep hole has to go which will cause neighborhood basements to become individual indoor swimming pools…. problem solved for some of us I guess….We will just have too go to our neighbor’s home for a swim….I hope they have a slope in their backyard too.
Tom, it comes down to parking and traffic because those are the two buzzwords the NIMBY/cheapskate brigade constantly use to fearmonger the general public into defeating a project. You’re right, it leads to the only worthwhile project in their view is a big concrete box on the edge of town with some sugar daddy benefactor’s name on it and 5 acres of asphalt around it, or like what I like to call “50 year mistakes.” That’s all they assume John Q can handle and apparently it’s their life’s work to ensure he never has to hunt for a spot or walk more than 20 feet to his destination or obviously he will have to check into his local VA for treatment from that stressful and unneccesary encounter. Shit, you thought Vietnam was tough? Try walking 3 blocks across a 2 lane street in January!
and Testor, you “tried” to park at Park Ridge at 3 and it was hard? My God, did you contact our Senate delegation or perhaps President Obama..surely there’s some type of federal money available to make this right.
Your logic is circular and you’re saying mine doesn’t stand? ROFL. You are asking why we are stacking more problems on the issue when the only real problem is as I mentioned above: Can this facility be designed and built in a manner that maximizes use year round, serves multiple user needs (ie both resident & visitor parents, swim & dive teams, aquatic & fitness programs etc.) and can it be at least partially paid for along it’s lifespan via both direct and indirect economic impact.
Nothing other than the pro-forma it outside the realm of some simple negotiations with the VA and some good design by a qualified architect. You’re the one stacking issues on top of that single one, and you’re doing so for reasons that aren’t in any way clear at the moment. You say you are for a 50 M pool, just at another spot. You do realize that another site large enough to accomodate this project doesn’t exist in the City? Even on the edge of town you’re talking about several million $$ in site acquisition and that still leaves Spellerberg in need of at least a couple million $$ remodel to get it to what it already is. If it’s a $20 million project at Spellerberg you can tack $5M more on if it has to go in the ‘burbs…so it doesn’t sound like you’ve thought through the fiscal impacts of your opposition, unless you have and they don’t matter to you.
Testor15: “Why should the VA have to pay out of their budget for a parking lot so you could have a place to park your vehicle? ”
Please cite to me where anyone has actually proposed this. If you can’t, you owe me a Cheese Steak from Pickle Barrell, don’t worry..we can meet there at 6am so we can each get a front row spot.
It’s funny how society has become so “absolutist”, and this pool debate is a perfect example. For those against the pool, this new issue raises a “see, we can’t do this under any circumstance” attitude. For those in favor of it, this is a trivial diversion that should just be ignored because this thing HAS to be built no matter what. Like almost everything, though, the truth is in the middle. It is an issue that must be resolved for the pool to move forward…just like the other issues regarding parking, streets, etc. Western should have been widened years ago, as it has never been a true residential road. Same with 26th St. When Kiwanis was finally widened years ago, it actually became a much safer street.
Scott, I will propose that widening Western would actually make it less safe, by inducing traffic to speed. Here’s my proposal:
The right-of-way of Western Ave from 22nd to 26th is 66′, as near as I can tell. Of that, about 12′ on each side is sidewalk and grass, leaving 42′ for the roadway. In most places, this is just 2 driving lanes – no parking, no center turn, meaning we have two 20 foot driving lanes here. Ridiculous! Try this instead:
Two 8 foot parking lanes on each side, two 11 foot driving lanes, and a 4 foot median. We can paint the median in for now, and add trees or grass whenever the road is resurfaced in the future. (This saves money by removing ~5000 sq. ft. of asphalt from the roadway.) Close the two driveways from Park Ridge onto Western. Plant trees in the boulevards on either side of the street.
Benefits:
*Saves long-term maintenance by removing roadway surface and replacing with median
*Adds over 100 on-street parking spaces (potential revenue if metered)
*Improves neighborhood safety: slower traffic from narrowing lanes, adding parked cars as a buffer, and adding a tree canopy.
*Improves the quality of the street, encouraging future redevelopment (possibly rezone to C-2 streetcar commercial at 26th & Western, move parking to rear)
Costs:
*Trees: possibly up to a few thousand dollars to purchase and plant boulevard trees.
*Paint: Probably negligible
*Future median: probably a wash – less asphalt cost offset by cost of median
And that’s about it. Think of it as an experiment. The City invests a few thousand dollars to repaint lanes, add parking, and add trees. In the worst case scenario, we spent some cash to plant unnecessary trees, and we can restripe the road back to the way it was. In the best case, property values rise from the improvements (tree-lined boulevards next to parks should be prime real estate), and maybe Park Ridge even gets redeveloped into some mixed-use, walkable building.
This is the kind of low-risk, high-reward experiments that a smart city would invest in.
I agree Scott. My biggest concern with the Spellerberg location is ‘Why hasn’t the city provided us options?’ They talk all the time about being ‘progressive’ and we hired a consultant, why is the Spellerberg location the only option? Why not pick 3 or 4 different sites and study them all?
@Scott – you don’t have to park on my lawn as you can park in front of my house anytime you want. When we bought our house – we knew full-well we would deal with traffic from 26th, 22nd, Western, and Kiwanis Ave. It is part of the package and if residents (or it seems people that do not even live in this neighborhood?!?) did not take this into account OR you are one of those residents that will not even be in this neighborhood in 10 years because of age – that is unfortunate. There is PLENTY of green space within blocks of this park – in fact I don’t know that there is another area of town that has as much green space as this area does.
From what I can tell – Tom has thought this through WAY more than anyone else. Kudos to you. Maybe you could replace some city staffers.
@ Detroit…name another site that is;
A. Centrally located
B. Big enough
C. We (ie the City) already own
Take your time….I’ll donate my Pickel Barrell sub to you if you can come up with one.
@ Tom I like it…there’s several streets in the Core area of town that would benefit from that approach.
@Alice – Actually, I used a great website called StreetMix to brainstorm ideas for traffic calming. I think I’ll email my suggestion to some city council members.
Scott: “It’s funny how society has become so “absolutistâ€, and this pool debate is a perfect example. For those against the pool, this new issue raises a “see, we can’t do this under any circumstance†attitude. For those in favor of it, this is a trivial diversion that should just be ignored because this thing HAS to be built no matter what.”
Scott your comments are based it logic and therefore are irrelevant.
I should note I don’t really care about this pool. I haven’t been a big proponent of indoor aquatic facilities because I’m one of those Staggers-esque types who doesn’t think the city needs to provide all things for all people. Maybe I’m a cheapskate, but I don’t feel that the taxpayer should be required to fund swimming in December any more than they should for ice skating in July. If private organizations wish to raise funds to own and operate such facilities then great – at least then we know the demand exists (and this is how many other cities make it work).
That being said, if we are dead set on building an indoor facility, I can’t really think of a better location than the core of our city. As Sy pointed out, we don’t need another structure on the edge of town surrounded by asphalt which will only serve to spur development of more strip malls full of nail salons and casinos.
So if we are going to build it, Spellerberg is probably as good as anything – unless of course we wish to wait a few more years until another location is in need of a new pool. I’m sure there are plenty more on the list.
My original point is just that these points about a quickclaim deed and what constitutes “park and recreational uses” are just silly. If one wishes to argue semantics, they could try to claim the parking lot for hte park isn’t for recreation either – but it SUPPORTS the park. The arguments about the detention pond are idiotic too because aside from when it is raining people can use that land if they wish. Not a great place for a picnic… but hey – it is green space and is legally part of a park.
The arguments about parking are just nitpicking – those issues are easily addressed by the city working WITH the VA. Nobody is suggested or even condoning stealing parking spaces from veterans. That is fear-mongering at its best.
Thus even though I’m not entrenched in the “pro indoor pool at Spellerberg” camp as so many here are – even I have to call these silly arguments out for a huge overstretch on behalf of whoever thought they were valid.
Moving on – I know people hate to talk about streets and parking, but hey that is the world we live in. We aren’t going to get people to walk more than a few blocks and we don’t have a subway system, so let’s just admit if we want growth it will involve enhancements to our roads.
Scott is right about that too – Western should have been widened years ago. I know those who own property along Western will hate that idea… but honestly it has been a long time coming and we are past due for another North-South road that can handle high volumes of traffic.
Tom – you have some interesting ideas on the streets, and I’m not a traffic engineer, but I don’t think limiting the street to one lane each direction is going to help with traffic. Kiwanis is a far superior road because of the two lanes – it is exponentially better for traffic flow, and with the elimination of parking it is safer in terms of pedestrian reductions and in terms of visibility.
We also need to consider whatever happens probably eventually needs to connect 12th to 41st meaning expansion in phases along the entire stretch. The only true negatives are to people who live along that road -because backing out of a driveway onto a four lane can be a challenge at 7:45am on a Monday. I sympathize with them… I surely wouldn’t want to do it.
Good stuff – I think I’ll just make some popcorn, sit back, and watch the show.
Well Craig – the logic behind smart streets is that there are only a couple hours when they are actually “high volumn”, and that the REASON they are high volumn is that they were designed to accomodate highER volumns in the first place – thus ENCOURAGING same. Being able to handle high volumns of traffic is NOT their primary function – but is their primary design consideration. Why design something to fulfill a purpose that is OTHER to its main one?
Good example of this is the notion that was thoroughly discussed during all the events center debate (at least on-line it was discussed) that grid street structures (like downtown) are capable of handling much higher VOLUMNS of traffic than are Intertstates – which are DESIGNED to handle LOW VOLUMNS of traffic at HIGH SPEEDS.
BTW – building a 4 lane street instead of a 2 lane street isn’t REALLY to accomodate more volumn at all – what it is really about is accomodating higher SPEEDS.
PS – Craig, when you, and other non-engineers use the catch-phrase”help with the traffic” – I assume waht you mean is “make it move faster”. No?
PPS – Last thing a smart retailer (Park Ridge) or health care service provider (VA) wants is a lot of high speed traffic whizzing by their business 🙂
It does not have to be centrally located. Anyplace you put it, people will still have to drive there.
– DT
– Roosevelt HS
– Washington HS
– Sanford sports complex
– Dalley Village
– By the Mall
– Put it where they were going to put Walmart
The land purchase is just pennies for what it is going to cost us.
Craig, calling concern over the granting/reversionary terms of deed, “silly” and “idotic” may be a bit strong. They already dug a steep hole to be periodically flooded on property that was to be used only for park and rec purposes, so my advice to the city going forward is they better make sure they have the VA on board with whatever they are doing.
Tom, that road idea is interesting, but wouldn’t it contribute to bottlenecks at 22nd and 26th?
@Craig – Kiwanis may indeed be safer with 4 lanes, but only because reducing traffic speed was deemed to be unacceptable. If you really wanted to improve traffic safety as your number one priority, you would try to reduce traffic speeds. This is the only way to consistently improve safety. However, our first priority is not safety, it’s traffic speed (as rufusx said above), so we say “how can I make this road safer while not impacting traffic speed?” The only solution in this world is to widen roads and remove all other users (pedestrians, parked cars, bikers) from the equation.
@Anooner – Western is already two lanes at this point anyway, and is rarely busy at all in my experience. If you have to drive 25 instead of 35 on this quarter-mile stretch, that costs you 10 seconds. I’ll trade ten seconds of driving time for a safer and healthier neighborhood every time. This road is right next to a park, after all!
I see a city that brings in 386 million a year in revenue. We need 384 million a year to meet obligations. We also have 435 million in debt. And we’re talking indoor swimming, indoor tennis, and indoor hockey? Spend. Spend. Spend. On pet projects…meanwhile, don’t wonder why your water bills are 225% of what they were six years ago.
AND we don’t even pay for all of our own bills. For instance, because our population is less than 250K, the federal government pays 80% of our transit costs. Think we have a plan for when that spigot gets shut off? Not a chance.
I’m with Craig. I’m not emotionally invested in whether there should be this pool or not. I sort of lean toward it not being needed, but it’s better than a monkey tub. It’s just funny reading some of the reactions. Sy likes to complain about the NIMBY but there are just as many OIMBY types here. One person’s central location is another’s crosstown trip. This pool is about as centrally located to the west as Tuthill is to the south and the penitentiary is to the north. Ok, that’s a slight exaggeration, but let’s not pretend that everybody lives an equal distance from it. But it works perfectly for Alice’s family, so EVERYBODY should be in favor of it! (Just kidding, Alice.)
The primary appeal of a central location is that it’s the shortest average distance for the largest amount of people. If you live inside the “beltway” of 229/29/90 you don’t even have to jump on one of those interstates to get there so as Ruf alluded to, you have multiple paths from A to B regardless of where you live = less need for a single, high speed route. The City is growing fastest outside this beltway (with the exception of DT) so as more suburbs fill in the more critical these decisions become, as we will soon find out with the 26th/229 interchange…fixing them 10 years after the fact gets really, really expensive. Location matters to the success of anything, if it’s a PITA to get there (real or perceived) it will negatively impact the project.
and L3wis, nice try but FAIL. The City doesn’t own any 5 acre sites anywhere near any of those places so again, acquisition costs will not be “pennies”, try at least $2 million = 10% increase in the project’s cost, PLUS you still need to spend the money to fix Spellerberg. Hell, if the City decided it we had enough parks, green space & pools and wanted to sell off Spellerberg, I doubt you could touch it for less than $4 million. So again, the whole “just put it somewhere else” crowd needs to understand exactly what they are advocating.
Your all missing the boat, while you are all having a rather deep and cerebral discussion over the merits of an indoor swimming pool and the Spellerberg location, Stormland is doing a thorough investigative report on the new pink limo which has just arrived in Sioux Falls…. I wonder if they will serve alcohol in that one too?
“Your?” You are….
Another reason I don’t watch Stormland…or any other local TV news. The last time I watched was for Scott’s mean internet fiasco, and I was semi-shocked again how awful of a job they do. I can’t imagine anybody but family members of the minimum wage “reporters” wasting their time watching that crap.
If the city absolutely needs an indoor pool, to compete with all the health clubs that have indoor pools, then why not build it in the area where the railroad tracks are supposed to be removed? Everybody is always talking about improving downtown. At least there it wouldn’t ruin the appearance of a residential neighborhood. When it comes right down to it there are some sports that are meant to be done outside, and that includes tennis, as well as all of the winter type sports that get played in the arena. I also agree that ice skating facilities shouldn’t be needed just for the few that want to skate in the summer. Let the people that actually want and will use these facilities find the funding for them, instead of depending on taxpayers.
The fact is there isn’t a pool on the east side of town around 49th. And good news, the city owns a nice chunk of land over there.
Actually, there is. Just off 49th and Southeastern.
Dave Ramsey basic..want vs need. This is definitely a want on a beans and rice budget. Our leaders are idiots who need to be re-educated or fired. I say fired but that is just my opinion. If the Mission and food pantry are turning away donations and volunteers because they have more than enough…then build the pool in my backyard.
I’ll supply the parking
NPO and Ramsey are right, it is a want versus need. We are heavily in debt and now because of the personal wants of people in this town, we are being subjected to another boondoggle.
There are several in this town and on this thread, who claim to be fiscally conservative but seem to be willing to spend other people’s money. You can’t have it both ways.
Echo on the want vs. need. Our current modus operandi is high-risk, medium-reward, e.g. the Events Center. A $100M+ investment that, at best, could spur a new hotel and a few restaurants. How long will it take increased sales and property tax revenues to recover that $100M investment? Will we “need” a new new events center by then?
My proposal from earlier is a low-risk (couple thousand dollars – whatever trees and paint costs), potentially high-reward project. You can’t have a big ribbon cutting or high-profile special election for it, but its resilient. If we tried 10 little experiments all over the city, we could replicate those that work.
Too simple and too straightforward to work, I suppose.
I’m a disabled vet and member of the VFW and American Legion. I addressed a chapter of the legion regarding Huether corruption. There were cheers then a standing ovation. Vets know he’s guilty of constitutional rights violations and public funds fraud. The city is a North Korea styled government. There will be ‘shock and awe’ when they attack the United States of America. Nothing city on federal land. I’ll be the first to park on the tennis courts when they become a new parking area.
NPO and Testor – the city is on a beans and rice budget? No – SF is GROWING, revenues EXPANDING month after month, year after year, and have been for DECADES – without fail – even in the “hard economic times” that the rest of the nation has experienced. This ain’t Detroit. While you two may be reduced to beans and rice – that’s simply not true for the city over all.
This ain’t Detroit. While you two may be reduced to beans and rice – that’s simply not true for the city over all.
Oh contrar Ruf. You might think yearly revenue of 386 million and yearly bills of 384 million is T bone steak time, but not for me when our debt is 435 million.
Does anybody know what the maturity timeframe is for our municipal debt? Obviously the $110M of the EC is something like 22 years off, but is the remaining ~$300M distributed over a long period, or will some of this start to come off the books in the near future?
rufusx: “Well Craig – the logic behind smart streets is that there are only a couple hours when they are actually “high volumnâ€, and that the REASON they are high volumn is that they were designed to accomodate highER volumns in the first place – thus ENCOURAGING same.”
I realize many streets are overbuilt to accomodate the periods of the day when volume/needs are the highest, but the inverse of that is building roads that are designed for the average only to find out you have significant delays at key time periods.
The volume has to go somewhere doesn’t it? If you create choke points you drive that volume elsewhere – in this case Kiwanis or Minnesota. As the city continues to grow, the need exists for another multi-lane road. I can’t think of a better choice than Western.
“Craig, when you, and other non-engineers use the catch-phraseâ€help with the traffic†– I assume waht you mean is “make it move fasterâ€. No?”
I generally mean control the volume more efficiently. That may mean it moves faster on average, but also that in handles more vehicles during a specific time period. When you add turning lanes it clears driving lanes and improves flow. When you add multiple lanes in each direction it allows people to turn in and out without interrupting or even stopping all other traffic. When you reduce parking along a street, you eliminate people trying to back into spaces and/or pulling out into traffic which in my view is not only a way to increase flow, but also something which improves safety.
“PPS – Last thing a smart retailer (Park Ridge) or health care service provider (VA) wants is a lot of high speed traffic whizzing by their business”
I’d agree, although let’s be honest we aren’t talking about a high speed road here. Marion Road, Kiwanis, Minnesota – all of them are multi lane with moderate speeds which don’t prevent people from pulling in to a business when they desire. There are sections of 12th that hit 45mph but that is very unusual and for a road like Western I can’t imagine anything greater than 30-35mph. I’d be perfectly fine with 25mph too as I don’t think it is all about the speed. I’m more concerned with the intersection activity and the stoplights which can create some issues.
Yes I realize if safety is a number one concern we can all lower speed limits, but we know that isn’t happening and it isn’t realistic. We could lower all the limits in town to 15mph and safety would be greatly improved… but road rage and anger management classes would setting new records. I suppose that is one way to force people to start walking or biking though!
So Poly, back when your annual revenues were in the $20K range – what was your total debt – about the same ratio – I’d wager.
And the city – of course – is a corporate entity – and not subject to the phenomena that we mere mortals call death, and thus has no reason to have a “goal” of being debt free at some point in its “life”, or prior to its “death” in order to be able afford its “elder care”, or to have “something to pass along to the kids.”
How didfferently would you behave/believe about being “in debt” oif you knew that you could NEVER DIE and would ALWAYS have an ever-increasing income?
Craig – when you create straight-through higher capacity road ways – you CREATE CHOKE POINTS in the overall grid. That particular part of the city is MATURE and not growiung any more. Most of the there traffic is LOCAL (not going across town). “Forcing” cross-town – higher speed traffic elsewhere is a GOOD idea.
Face it – when you say “handles more volume” over a specific period of time – what you mean is it moves FASTER.
Yes – more people walking, biking, carpooling, or riding a BUS would reduce PRESSURE on the streets, as well as reduce the need for massive most-of-the-time empty parking all over town. – WASTED SPACE – all of the economic inefficiencies of an auto-centric culture.
This is a law of PHYSICS – you know, math – same volume moved through same space (tube for example – hose) – same time = increased RATE of transport – and the inherent increase of PRESSURE against the edges (pedestrians, parking, businesses).
Tom,
The best answer to your question on the maturity of the various city debt is found in the city financial budget update (the latest which was presented a few weeks back). Here is a URL to it:
http://tinyurl.com/baknpth
Go to page 22 which is the total debt authorized or issued. Look at the column with the “Maturity Date”. You can see the durations of the city debt as well as the amounts.
The short answer is there is a mix of shorter and longer maturities. There are some big boys that will be around for quite a while.
As an aside, you (Tom) pointed out there are also things that aren’t on the radar. The example you pointed out is a good one – the feds do kick in a lot of money yearly for our bus service. We are approaching a population where that will stop and we will have to pay for all of it ourselves (I think we pay about 4 million today and the feds kick in 2 million per year). Perhaps it will happen sooner if the feds actually decide to cut something and this is one of those things they choose.
One thing the consultant mentioned last week at the info meeting regarding the pools was that many/most of our pools were getting towards the end of their life and would need replacement. Now I don’t know what that exactly means (how imminent each is to failure/need of replacement). What I want to know more about is the expected time frame when all of our pools will require major renovation and replacement. We can cash flow a outdoor replacement of Spellerberg. If we do a indoor pool we’re talking 3-4 times the cost, and I just worry no matter where one of these goes, besides the debt, perhaps we’ll significantly delay or prevent the renovation/rebuilding of other pools. The consultant did make mention that its the national trend, supposedly, to do less neighborhood pools and instead doing a major facility everyone goes to via transportation. I’m not sure I buy that entirely, and I’m not sure I’m thrilled with that idea. I’m not sure if the public would be ok with that either. Does that really mean we’d possibly close down some of our existing pools eventually and tell kids to go to the big central facility? I think we ought to discuss that. I don’t know enough details to make a judgement about any of these issues, its just a concern.
Yeah craig – I get it – you’re POV is all about getting as quickly from one place to another as possible. Everything else is just a variable to be considered in order to affect that. “Pedestrians are an impediment to the free flow of traffic.” – Right out of CalTrans’1960’s egnineering design guidelines.
I think the whole “want vs. need” debate sounds great to the “Hell NO” crowd as they like to personalize it down to the household level: “Do we need a 55″ flat screen enough to put it on our Premier Bankcard?” Ironically, enough people nationwide actually made that call so that TDS was able to shell out hundreds of millions of $$ so our little town could actually enjoy some steak once in a while with their beans.
But I digress, want vs. need is as subjective as art in the eye of the beholder. Does anyone “need” art? No, but our gracious host would likely argue those without a collection or at least an appreciation are missing out on life’s bigger picture. Did Sioux Falls actually “need” to clean up the Falls and do the Greenway? No, it would’ve been cheaper & easier to condemn the whole area and turn it into a nice, centrally located landfill for toxic waste and with the rail access the City could’ve made millions of $$ be shipping everyone elses waste from around the region and piling it as high as Great Bear. We could be debt free, but our Core area would also look a lot like the worst parts of (wait for it)…………………………..Detroit!
Back to the household for a second, take a set of zeros off Poly’s numbers and if your average young couple makes $38K a year and can only stick a couple hundred in savings while making payments on their $43K mortgage, are they in serious trouble? Would it be time for a Dave Ramsey intervention? I think not unless their house is only worth $20K & they have a $10K a year chemical habit, but again they don’t live in Detroit (okay, that was a low blow)
Could they afford to put a $2K big screen on their Visa when they have a credit rating of 750? Sure, especially as they’ve shown year in and year out that they get at least of COLA if not an outright 5% raise since they are such outstanding, reliable employees.
Sioux Falls can walk and chew gum at the same time IMHO.
This StrongTowns post from Monday fits perfectly into our discussion, I believe. The question comes down to this: do we want roads – which function primarily to move cars – in our neighborhoods, or do we want streets? Making this distinction is a major problem we have in Sioux Falls.
Oh, but Sy, we do NEED art, but a public indoor pool? Not so much.
Hey, I saw that pink limo today!
I’m thinking ahead. I’m not on beans/rice but I don’t throw money at what’s not needed. Why waste money on an indoor pool? If we have so much cash at our disposal why haven’t they pulled the trigger on snow gates? Why are so many streets still pot holed? Why do I have to trim the trees in the city owned boulevard? Why don’t property taxes go down? How about the city gives back to citizens instead of charging them for things they don’t need or won’t use? Keep spending even if money is coming in we could end up like Detroit if a serious problem comes up.
There are many things the city can use the money on besides an indoor pool in a horrible location. There is no parking, the VA is not an option for parking. High school kids can’t man the pool during school so who are they going to get to work? I guess there is Labor Ready, just get them CPR/lifeguard certs.
I’m not so sure the city can walk and chew gum at the same time. The city council is proof of that.
Hey Sy. Your use of dropping zeros to 38k, etc, is exactly the way I figured it when I learned of these numbers in the city budget. I suppose some people live that way, but no way in hell did I ever, or will I ever, live that way. Some people live paycheck to paycheck because unfortunately they have too. But why live hand to mouth if you don’t have too?
BTW. You still owe me a beer. Last January me and the Tank Commander met up. He bought me the beer he owed me, then my wife and I bought him dinner. We used to keep in contact, but the last I heard (about six months ago) he was starting to date, serious like I suppose, cuz I aint heard from him since. Good for him. He needed to settle down some.
NPO – so you think it would be better if the city gave everyone like – $80 – ONE TIME.
Rather than give everubody a pool – for 50 years.
I’d take $80 over a pool I’d never use. Shoot, I have a wife and 3 kids…that’d net me $400 large, semi big screen TV here I come. What percentage of the good folks who live in this city will use this pool? That will cost the city money for 50 years? That everyone will have to subsidize? Subsidize for 50 long years?
I go to the outdoor pools approx 20 times give or take t/o the summer. Sure there are many people there (because it’s hot out and kids love the water) but I don’t see an indoor pool being a profitable gamble for our city to take. Plus, I don’t want to see fat, stark white South Dakotans in the winter time bathing themselves! Make tanning booths mandatory and I might think about it. Since I’m right about 99.9% of the time…what I say, goes. (that’s of course a healthy dose of sarcasm there, about the being right deal).
Rather than give everubody a pool – for 50 years.
Everybody ruf? Not even close. Once the local swim teams free up the place for the masses to assemble, how much will an afternoon at an indoor pool cost? I say clearly out of the financial reach of those who WILL be paying for it with ever increasing real estate taxes and water and sewer rates, etc, etc.
Speaking of real estate taxes. In the last ten years the Sioux Falls population has increased by 13%. Property taxes in the city coffers during that same time frame have increased by 40%. How many can say their homes have increased in value by those type of numbers in the last ten years? Not many I’d say. In fact, I’d guess most homes do not hold the same resale value today that they did ten years ago. So, as the real value of homes decline, taxes keep spiraling, along with things like Water and sewer bills.
Disgusting.
It’s late. One correction to the above. Real estate taxes in Sioux Falls have increased 40% over the last six years, not the last ten years. So that means the population of Sioux Falls now, (158,800) is only 5% more than it was six years ago, (151,300). So the city increases in size by 5% and during that same time frame real estate taxes in city coffers increase by 40%???
Even more disgusting.
Poly43, with exception of opt outs, which are only temporary, cities collect around 3% of the property tax.. Schools are the driver of property taxes, Not cities..
Lots of response here. Interesting reading and facts. A city of 150K with a 350 mil annual budget and 430 mil in debt. I’m not a financial guru but we need a sequester.
Time to cut up our First Premier credit card and 30% kickbacks.
Poly, I don’t believe real estate tax rates have gone up 40%, your first post reads “property taxes in the City coffers”. So that would indicate a nice, steady surge in activity. I know Downtown, for example, the taxable value has doubled in less than 10 years, based on the large & small projects that are going all over down there. So again, SF is on a roll..and like Ruf pointed out, that will continue into the forseeable future. A portion of that debt will be retired by the time the indoor facility get built, maybe even the $15 to $20 million it will cost to build it.
Also, like pointed out above, there’s several other neighborhood pools that will be in need of repair or replacement. If the indoor facililty is to replace a couple of those, you can put what we would’ve spent on those projects over the next decade back into the kitty and those parks could use the newly acquired space for a ball diamond, playground, parking or simply let it go back to green space.
And yes, I know I still owe you a beer..maybe at the Dacola fest whenever L3wis gets around to scheduling it.
Yeah – you know, I used to fly in and out of FSD all the time – but I haven’t been on a flight for almost 7 years now – so it’s time we tore out the frikkin’n airport – ’cause I don’t need it. And while we’re at it – gimmee a couple large. PS Haven’t been on Waltz avenue for over 20 years – so we don’t ALL need that either. You guys are damned cultural geniuses. the wholeworld ought to be constructed around your personal lifestyle choices. Then all the world’s problems would come to a halt – right?
Tear out the airport? Now you’re getting silly. The airport is used to transport goods and fly out sick patients to other hospitals in fixed wing aircraft. If that’s all you got…sorry. I’d give you a comparison to an indoor pool vs the airport or a road you haven’t traveled on recently but I’m afraid I’d be wasting my time.
P.S. Who wants to go indoors during the summer to swim? Cultural genius, maybe or maybe not. Indoor pool waste of money that will become a money pit, definitely.
NPO, have you been to the Ramada, Ramkota, Brandon Holiday Inn Express or Clubhouse Suites? They all have indoor water parks and 10 years ago none of them existed. If no one wanted to use indoor pools in the summer I doubt those folks would’ve invested the millions of $$ on them.
How many people pay to use those pools if they are not staying at the hotel? I honestly don’t know. Hotels have more than just pools in them, the pool adds a benefit for those who stay thus hopefully bringing more families to stay at the hotel. Will our indoor pool be a “swim at your own risk” kind of place like hotels?
Poly, I don’t believe real estate tax rates have gone up 40%
~Sy
OK, a little misunderstanding in translation. Did not mean to imply YOUR taxes went up 40%. Here’s the deal.
From the 2007 city budget:
Property Tax $35,092,886
From the 2013 mayors proposed budget:
Property Tax $48,700,000
Also from Siouxfalls.org and the 2007 City of Sioux Falls Development Summary
Population Estimate City of Sioux Falls 2007:
151,300
From Siouxfalls.org
The City of Sioux Falls has completed its year-end evaluation of growth and is estimating the December 31, 2012, population for the city of Sioux Falls to be 158,800.
I know Downtown, for example, the taxable value has doubled in less than 10 years, based on the large & small projects that are going all over down there.
~Sy
What exactly merited taxes doubling DT in ten years? I guess that explains why a middle of the road meal and and one glass of wine for 2 cost us $150 the last time we were in Parkers Bistro. I guess I can’t blame them if their taxes are skyrocketing.
Not silly at all NPO – unless of course we’re talking about the garvitas of your “I don’t need it so no one else should” logic. Heck – why don’t we just all stop paytiong any taxes at all – and make it a total free-for-all as far as infrastructure and amenities go. You ever drive on Waltz Ave? How you like them tolls?
Well this topic is getting off on the wrong toll road…
mii brane herts.
The issue of a “taxpayer-funded indoor swimming pool” has GONE DOWN TWICE when put to a public vote.
December 2005 Rec Center Vote
April 2007 Drake Springs Vote
This means that those who are promoting the idea have had SEVEN YEARS to raise private dollars for THEIR CAUSE.
We have NOT heard a word from these supporters (now called the SF Aquatics Association) about their private fundraising efforts.
It’s time to step up to the plate…….let’s hear where you’re at with the actual numbers!!
Thank cr for getting this thread back on track. You are right, if the SF Aquatics Association want this pool and the SF Tennis group wants the new courts do it as a business.
Who is the aquatics group anyway? http://siouxfallsaquatic.org/about_us.php does not even tell us who they are and why the city needs to spend the money for their benefit? We know they are a mix of doctors and other professionals. Not trying to play rich versus poor versus middle class but who is really going to benefit the most from this?
T15, cr, sorry, I guess I was part of the hijacking. Was just trying to say ventures like this always result in regressive taxes in another sector of the city “balancing” it’s books.
The last time this was an issue, what the pool was designed for had an impact. IF, like the last time, the pool is 50 meters long, 8 lanes wide, and 6.5 feet deep, then the thing is being built for the local swim team. IF it’s being built like our last water park built with a dome over it…well, I might actually think it’s being built with Joe Sixpacks family in mind.
rufusx:“Face it – when you say “handles more volume†over a specific period of time – what you mean is it moves FASTER.”
No – read my post again. That isn’t what I mean at all. They don’t have to increase speeds a single MPH, but adding turning lanes and/or additional driving lanes would help move traffic more efficiently during peak periods, and would prevent people from driving out of their way to get to a road like Kiwanis or Minnesota which ends up being a waste of fuel and adds more miles driven (which increases maintenance costs for the roads).
rufusx: “Yeah craig – I get it – you’re POV is all about getting as quickly from one place to another as possible. Everything else is just a variable to be considered in order to affect that. “Pedestrians are an impediment to the free flow of traffic.†– Right out of CalTrans’1960′s egnineering design guidelines.”
I’m not sure why you felt the need to post yet another comment attacking me for a viewpoint I don’t hold, but I think it is uncalled for and a bit childish on your behalf.
Read my original post and you will find I stated “I generally mean control the volume more efficiently. That may mean it moves faster on average, but also that in handles more vehicles during a specific time period.”
You don’t have to agree, but there is no need to be petty. I fully realize there are people who feel the entire city should be nothing but two lanes roads with expansive walking trails and bike lanes and a focus on mass transit and that is fine… but I’m a realist and I know that isn’t going to happen in a part of the nation that has a seven month winter cycle.
I make a regular trip downtown from my house and it takes me about 15 minutes in my car primarily on major roads such as 12th. That isn’t a significant amount of time, but if I were to try to walk it would be over an hour each way (and that is probably being conservative). I don’t care how big of a proponent of walking or biking someone is – for 99.999997% of the population convenience is the determining factor.
I’m sure there are alternatives on what to do with Western, and I’m not really sure we need more lanes, but for safety sake it sure seems that removal of the parking and perhaps adding a turning lane would go a long way towards improving the road (albeit frustrating those who have homes along the road due to parking constraints).
Now as to your comments about removal of the airport et al, again that is just silly. You may not directly use the airport, but it does contribute a lot to your overall satisfaction with your life. If you receive shipments from Amazon via FedEx or UPS you directly benefit, but there are so many indirect ways you benefit. For instance, do you think Sioux Falls could remain the economic hub of South Dakota without an airport? How many companies would relocate here if we didn’t have an airport for them to fly into? How many families would want to live in a city that their distant relatives could only reach by Greyhound? That impacts jobs, that impacts the tax base, that impacts the quality of life.
I know you are just reaching to make an example, but you can’t really draw a fair comparison to an indoor pool. First of all we already have indoor pools – we just don’t have a complete aquatic center paid for by the city. Second, even if we did have it the total impact would likely be minimal as any revenue gained from swim meets etc would be wiped out by the cost of maintenance and finance costs. Third, an indoor pool falls squarely into the “want” category rather than a need.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be nice, but the city as a whole won’t really notice that an indoor pool gets built. It caters to a very specific set of individuals and as we have seen from industry statistics, even though it affords people the ability to swim in the winter, most people don’t utilize it. Which means aside from some formalized swim teams and perhaps a few water aerobics classes it will impact very few lives in any measurable fashion.
So perhaps we need to be honest about it… sure it might be nice, and if you are a swimmer or have kids who are you may very well think it is a need. If you live in the area and think this is the answer to neighborhood revitalization and/or stabilization you may also feel this is a need – but if we are honest about it, this is very much a want.
So can the city justify the expense for a want, or do we have more pressing matters that we should be focusing on? That is for each person to decide for themselves – although I do have to find the humor in how people seem to get so emotional about a pool that they seem to feel this one facility will forever change Sioux Falls in some significant fashion. It won’t – and five years from now (assuming it is built), I honestly doubt most people will even notice one way or another.
So – it seems like you’ve got something against having a nice place to live. What do you fancy yourself some kind of Spartan or something? Stinking mattresses anyhow – who really NEEDS them. Just go cut off some spruce branches for your bed. That’s the problem with this damned country – lollygagging around, WANTING things – sleeping on soft cushy foamy crap. Toughen up – damn it! Oh – and BTW – where’s my $$$? Get off my lawn!!
Seriously
Wow… you really have a way of twisting people’s words into concepts that somehow align with your predetermined viewpoint. Is it really that hard to discuss issues without getting so petty and childish?
Personally I want a nice place to live, but call me crazy if I think Sioux Falls is nice with OR without an indoor pool. I also think we have a nice place to live without indoor tennis courts or indoor pickle ball courts or an indoor snow hill or heated walking trails along the river.
I’ve never really said I’m totally anti-indoor pool by the way – I merely have said this isn’t a need, and the amount of debt the city is accumulating does concern me. Does that mean I’m spartan? I don’t think so… I’m not suggesting the city doesn’t spent a penny on anything and that we shut down city parks to save on lawn mowing expenses. I understand we must spend (invest) in projects that benefit quality of life, but I must admit I’m not completely sold on the idea of an indoor pool. I’d rather have the swim club raise private funds to build their own facility, or perhaps even raise a portion of the funds to show they have some skin in the game rather than the city building it for a special interest group.
Maybe if we only had $80M of city debt it wouldn’t concern me so much, but the rate at which our city has been accumulating debt seems to be unsustainable when you factor in the overwhelming need for water/sewer improvements and street repairs needed for a growing city. Our roads are crumbling, sewers are decades overdue for replacement, and yet we seem to be more concerned with how many parking spaces a new swimming pool will have?
I suppose I’m in the minority here, but it sure seems to me that our priorities are slightly out of whack. I know sewers aren’t nearly as fun to talk about, but I think it is safe to say they impact a much larger percentage of our population than any pool will, and if you are one of the unlucky people in a part of town that often experiences sewer system backups and who has had to replace your carpeting every three years on average, I’m guessing you might have a different outlook on the issue.
(I’m not one of those people by the way so please don’t accuse me of being biased for my own gain. I merely sympathize with those who have had to deal with some of our sewer system issues in the past few years.)