Director Cooper says we have to ‘Start Over’.
Not sure if you watched the SF City Council meeting last night, but you missed a doozy. (FF to 52:00)
Mike Cooper pretty much throws the Shape SF petitioners under the bus. He drags his community development manager up to the podium to cry about how senior low-income housing is being delayed due to going back to the old zoning laws. While the CD Manager admits during his testimony they have been working on funding this project for several years, (Remember, Shape SF just passed the city council last month) When Director Cooper is asked by Councilor Anderson if this project was in the works before Shape SF passed, Cooper says , ‘NO!’ To which Anderson just shakes his head. Then Cooper says, “Ah, we were in a transition period.†Now I am not saying Cooper is lying, but . . . . It seems the planning office ‘just assumed’ Shape SF would pass, so they started using the new ordinance before it was voted on by the council. And I thought I was good at predicting the city council, looks like Cooper has me beat.
It seems the city has started their ‘Hater’ campaign against the petitioners to.
Film Projector, A ‘City Council’ expense?
If you look at ITEM #44, 1st Reading, you will see that the council is appropriating the $1.8 million dollar surplus. Cleverly hidden under a ‘City Council’ expense is $63,000 for a film projector, for THE STATE THEATRE. While I am extremely supportive of the State Theatre and the asset it will be DT, I am a little weary about buying them a projector since the Theatre has established itself already as a non-public entity (not owned by the city). The city has already given a gracious gift to help make repairs to the building. I think the State will do just fine without any more handouts from the city. I do know that councilors Staggers and Anderson plan to amend this expense in the 2nd reading.
No Hotel, No small meeting rooms but lots of excuses
Gotta love the CVB. On the run up to building the EC they were cheerleaders about how we need a larger entertainment facility to bring in bigger conventions. Now that the building is being constructed they are back to more excuses, NO second-site HOTEL, Convention center needs more small meeting rooms, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the deal folks, we don’t need a bigger convention center and we certainly don’t need a 12,000 seat EC. But hey, when the subsidies start piling up we will at least have plenty of excuses.
Good catch – Check out 58:40 or so where someone is going to town on a bag of Doritos! Good grief!
The 63K to the State drives me nuts too! I haven’t pulled all the financials but I know we pretty much lose on the Pavilion every year (when’s the last time they had a decent show), the Orpheum is a loser, and Great Bear ain’t exactly rolling in the dough!
I’m all for the restoration, but lets allow the Henkin’s of the City to throw money at it instead Joe P. Citizen who is never going to be down there watching “Oklahoma” on the big screen for old times sake
Are we really getting our panties in a wad over $63,000 for a group that is actually doing this the right way by renovating as the money comes in? For gosh sakes, there are items to get upset over – but come on.
If you have already decided that you or anyone else will not attend the State Theatre, that is extremely sad. Get off your lazy can and at least go see what has been done on a building that was rotting away in the middle of our DT. It is impressive.
Alice, this is how I look at it. It is one thing to give money to Jr. Football or another special interest club sport, because their intentions are not to make a profit. Maybe I am wrong, but first off the State Theatre is a ‘private entity’ with NO ownership partnership with the city. They DO intend to make money when the doors open, and probably will. Good for them, I support them all the way. But what makes the State asking for a $63,000 handout (after already receiving a generous gift from the city) any different then Minerva’s asking for a handout? Nothing. I think if Community Development wants to give them a 0% or 1% interest loan for a projector, I would be fine with that. But a handout? I am a bit speculative. As Lemming said, let the Henkin’s of this city take care of the State, there is much better things the city could spend that $63,000 on.
Lemming, I noticed the ‘snack time’ to. Well at least she wasn’t watching TV.
Zamby wants to know if projector is like getting free bananas
Dishonesty aside, Shape SF was a technically sound improvement to the planning ordinance which opened up the SF market to modern concepts like mixed-use developments and contained fewer strict-use restrictions. It was an unqualified improvement in my mind. There’s nothing wrong (to me at least) with the planning commissioners assuming that it would go into effect, because it should have.
The Shape SF petitioners have no idea what’s contained in Shape SF. They’re mad that Walmart wants to build near their houses. Period. If you kept the Shape SF document as is, and added one sentence that said “No Walmarts may be built in the area of 85th & Minnesota” they would be happy.
Detroit – That is crap. I have never once read that you are supportive of the city giving money to Jr. Football, Ice Sports, etc. We want all of these entities to make money, because if they don’t, then we now get to read about how they are a bad investment for the city. As I have said before, if entities are willing to go out and pull their own weight and raise a large protion of their project in private dollars, I don’t have a problem with the city kicking in some $$$’s for it to be a community asset. Whether a kid plays football at their new fields, or has acting classes at the State Theatre – it is all for the better of the community. $63,000 projector is chump change. Maybe not to you and me – but in the grand scheme of things – it is chump change.
Alice is correct, what is that a one time shot that equates to .40 cents per citizen?
And BTW, Sylvia has already written a huge check for this phase of the renovation, kinda fuct to go back and say “thanks, but can you buy us a projector now?”
It wouldn’t be “fuct” for the city to say that. It may be “fuct” for the State Theater people, though. And it’s not like there aren’t other donors. Maybe Pepper Entertainment should go crawling to the city for a PA or something for his new live music facility.
These handouts happen so they can later be named ‘Sanford’. Sanford got rich off the backs of the middle class. It’s a no-brainer when you don’t have to invest your own capital. The State Theater is surrounded by the worst Sioux Falls slums. There’s no successful business plan to it or any city sponsored enterprise. There would have been another hotel near the new events center but city planning harrassed a private developer until he gave up. Obviously, nothing new is coming to Sioux Falls unless it’s taxpayer subsidized and later privatized into a Sanford or Huether enterprise. It’s a perfect formula for encouraging new business to build in Brandon or Harrisburg.
Even Huether knows to build his estate outside city limits where taxes are cheaper and the county guarrantees infrastructure on a small budget with no debt. The last one to leave Detroit (or Sioux Falls), please turn off the lights.
Zamby, there will be plenty of bananas when the city returns to nature. Considering the Sioux River is mush from upstream agricultural runoff and after the sewers overrun, they’ll be huge.
Scott is right, this is no different then Pepper asking for a P.A. Not sure how many times I have to say this, the State and the City share ‘NO OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT’ When the Theatre becomes profitable, which I think it will be, will it pay the $63,000 back? Nope. This isn’t about 40 cents per person, this is about principle. If the State can simply ask the city to buy them a projector, what is stopping other non-profits from asking to subsidize there ‘ventures’. I also find it interesting that the person in charge of renovation at the State is married to Rick Weiland who just announced he is running for Senate. I’m sure Rick could find at least 20 people who would cut his wife a check for $63,000 in a heartbeat.
I also think this is something Erpenbach cooked up to look like the big hero for the State.
The State is fundraising to restore a historic building and to re-purpose it. Pepper isn’t = apples and hand grenades.
Which I think is fantastic, but still don’t understand why you think the city should buy them a projector?
Perhaps a better analogy would be the city buying the West Mall 7 a projector.
If they bought West Mall 7 a projector there’d be tax revenue reimbursement from more ticket sales. Buying the State Theater anything is more debt and obligatory future funding into another black hole like the Orfeum & Washington Pavilion.
So the West Mall 7 should get a TIF? 🙂
Scott: “So the West Mall 7 should get a TIF?”
I’m somewhat surprised they didn’t apply for one. Between the expansion of Scheels, the renovations on the old Champps space, parking lot improvements, and the long overdue repairs and improvements needed at the West Mall 7… heck they could probably make a case that they are deserving just as much as many other the other projects that have received one.
I have to wonder about the Empire Mall land too…. they are investing millions on major renovations to the mall itself, there is a new development going where the old Sinclair was, the new entertainment venue from Pepper Entertainment, and the Sioux Falls Ford land will be redeveloped within the next 24 months or so – so I’m curious if they tried to get a TIF of some sort. They probably bring in more tax revenue to this city than any other property – hard to believe they don’t have their hand stretched out asking for something.
Maybe they don’t have their hand out because they know they will be just fine without the TIF money.
Since when does that matter?!?