How can Walmart lose when they have Lloyd going to bat for them;
The Sioux Falls Planning Commission approved a preliminary site plan that includes a new Walmart Supercenter on the southwest corner of 85th Street and South Minnesota Avenue. The five to one vote happened after more than three hours of debate over site plan and commercial property zoning at the proposed site.
Head commercial realtor for Lloyd Companies, Raquel Blount said during public testimoney,
“Some people think a big company like Walmart just comes to town and gets to do what they want.(sic)”
Pretty much, and with the help of your employer, it seems to be a done deal. I hope this neighborhood fights this to the end, no matter how bloody it gets. It is time to not only send a message to Walmart but to Lloyd Companies. You can’t profit anymore from walking all over citizens and neighborhoods and we certainly are not going to subsidize your developments anymore either.
At some point this new commercial building boom will extend past the tornado proof prayer barrier that surrounds Soo Falls. I hope they got enuff spruce 2×4’s for this one.
Yeah, they’re probably going to get rolled in July and that will be that. I don’t know how this can get bloody, since they have no leg to stand on legally and I’d bet my house that the majority of the city wants this. Their arguments, and wildly inaccurate interpretations of law, are like watching a legal car wreck. Last night’s hearing was hilarious. I can’t believe the city attorney can still address these people with a straight face.
Then these rich folks can spend the next eight months trying to convince everyone that Shape Sioux Falls is the worst thing to ever happen to our community, because it allowed for C-4 zoning at the intersection of two major arterial roads and a future multi-lane highway.
They’re just a bunch of clueless suburbanites with fat wallets and big houses who moved as far away from the commoners as they could and don’t pay attention to anything government does until it’s too late, and then think they can ask for a do-over. Suburban privilege at its snotty finest. Frankly, they’re everything you SHOULD hate about citizen involvement. They want nothing to do with our community but want to control everything about it.
They could consider moving to a small town, where the government officials are equally clueless to the law as they are. THEN they could get their ignorant way.
“They want nothing to do with our community but want to control everything about it.”
I’d say this is a town in search of ‘community’.
Walmart & Lloyd can now develop the property without city intervention. Ordinances or codes are unenforceable. Cases are dismissed because Sioux Falls does not comply with state civil procedures.
This really isnt even about zoning or traffic, this is about what are council’s priorities are? Are they supposed to vote to protect corporations or citizens? Think about it. The only taxes Walmart will pay is property, other then that they are simply just a tax collection service for the city and the state. The citizens ultimately are the ones paying the taxes, and ultimately paying to extend the utilities into this development thru user fees. They were in that neighborhood first, and as far as I am concerned, pro-Walmart or not, it doesn’t matter. The council’s job is to defend the rights of citizen taxpayer’s, and if they don’t want a Walmart in that neighborhood, they have a right to fight it, and the council has an obligation to support them. Yes, it may political, but it is the right thing to do. I only know of ONE councilor that does not support Walmart at that location, they do however support some kind of retail development there, but I big box store in the center of a residential area is kinda silly.
I agree that a big box store in the center of a residential area is silly. Except that’s not the center of a residential area. It’s not even close! Your logic is precisely why the 69th and Cliff location was such a mess – it was a too-big building on a too-small parcel that had residential development on three sides and a school directly across the street.
Those people in that Audie Ave. subdivision are on the absolute outer fringe of residential development. Who knows what’ll emerge to the west of the parcel in question? I think tentatively there’s plans to do multi-family at some point but who knows?
My bigger point is that, just like with the urban ag ordinance, there are people in this community who believe that everyone’s property rights are subject to a giant game of “Mother May I?” And that’s precisely what these people are defending in our outdated and planning mechanisms which overuse conditional use permits.
Come up with a clear comprehensive plan like city has done, and if you stick to it, conditional use permits are almost always unnecessary because the ordinances are transparent and so everyone understands up front if a use is allowed or disallowed. That’s precisely what *everyone* should want. Not only does it reduce the amount of bait-and-switch that can occur, but it also makes it a lot clearer when developers are looking for favors.
Instead, what these people are defending is a system that is opaque, arbitrary, capricious, and absolutely ripe for abuse by all kinds of parties. What they believe is public input is nothing more than a passive-aggressive way for neighbors to control what surrounding property owners can do with their land to a degree that’s so onerous as to border on absurd.
I’m not trying to defend Walmart, per se. I don’t really care what goes there. What I’m defending is the right of the individual who owns the property to make an intelligent decision regarding his property that maximizes its value, and unless there’s some egregious lack of compatibility (hardly the case here), he should be allowed to move forward as he wishes.
The land on the east side of Audie, north of 85th for one block is zoned for an office/apartment mix. Are the residents OK with this, or will they oppose that too once someone decides to build? I think somewhere in the testimony, someone stated they wanted a church there.
Once the council votes in July and Walmart gets the go ahead, watch for a petition to vote on overturning the planning board’s decision and the council’s vote.
The council has no obligation to support or defend, or deny ANY individual or group’s self-interested agenda. They do have a SWORN OBLIGATION to uphold the constitutions of the Federal and State governments, and to follow the laws of the same and to uphold and enforce the laws of the city. The are obliged to act in favor of the welfare of the city AS A WHOLE – not piecemeal. Retailers provide an avenue for the city to collect taxes from NON RESIDENTS who would otherwise pay no (property) taxes. Think outside your boundaries.
Slew Foot. What’s your legal source of authority to be able to petition a zoning change? I believe the only recourse is a stay issued by a judge pending a suit in district court. You think those folks are wealthy enough to fight the attorneys from both the city and Walmart? You think the city is making an ACTUAL legal error in the process? (The only way a suit could win – procedural error by city)
rufusx – I do not know the legality or ability to overturn any zoning changes, but a source did tell me a petition or some other avenue will “probably” be attempted. Some of the people opposing this are lawyers so they could do the work pro bono for themselves and the group they represent.
Can they not petition the rezoning of the property itself? I believe there is a provision in the City Charter for this. But that petition may be able to be overridden by just a council vote.
And I am with you for having more ways for people outside the city boundaries to spend more money in SF to help pay for city services and improvements. I know people in the affected neighborhood and they think the fight is pretty silly. They would have liked a stop light intersection at 85th/Audie and look forward to one at 85/Minn.
Slew – maybe we should build a 185,000 square foot retail space to sell polished turds? Because, yah know, it is all about tax collection. That is what Walmart is, a tax collection service. Yet, the residents of that neighborhood are the TAX PAYERS. You know, the ones that elect, pay, benefit from the taxes paid. As for utilities, the city decided a couple of years ago to change that over to enterprise funds, so anytime a pipe is built, it comes out of your utility user fees. If someone buys Daisy Dukes at Walmart and pays there 13 to 45 cents of retail taxes on that, it doesn’t go towards building those utilities. Not everything is about money. Some things are about integrity and honesty. And lets be honest, this is a bad idea all around.
Lewis – Walmart or any big box store generates more tax revenue for the city in a single day than all the boutiques at 57th and Western do in a week, yet the people opposing a big box at that location would much rather have a boutique shopping mall.
It is not a bad idea to have a big box store by a 4 lane divided highway connected to one of the main throughways in the south side of the city. Most of my neighbors did not want Hwy 100, Dawley shopping center or Walmart. The expansions has made it safer for me to get out of my addition. In the old days turning out into Hwy 11 in the fog was a big gamble when the speed limit was 65 on that road.
Oh God, we will have robbers driving through our addition and people speeding on our streets. That has been most IA and MN license plates of dumb people who are lost and obviously can not read the DEAD END sign and when they came back by my house the first year or so I was on the street telling them to STFD. We have no traffic anymore.
What you have is some rich people who do not want a Walmart across the street from them. It “tarnishes” their neighborhood. This is not an integrity or honesty issue at all.
And nothing comes out of my taxes. The city has decided my addition is not worthy of being in the city at this time. I would love to have city sewer that runs within 1000 yards of my house clear to the Sioux River east, instead of nursing a 35 year old septic system.
Expansion will happen — plan ahead before you build a $750,000 house on a busy street.
What would you build at that intersection?
OleSlewFoot, I’m pretty sure that, once again, if they’re talking about a legal challenge after approval that it’s more quasi-legal nonsense. Which is just about all they spout.
SDCL 9-20 allows for petition for municipal referendum on an ordinance that has been passed. It does not allow residents to challenge decisions that have been made as a result of those ordinances.
Also, they can’t petition for rezoning of the property because they don’t own the property. Only the property owner can petition for rezoning.
Slew – There is a difference between ‘generating’ and ‘collecting’ taxes? You know that? Right?
Hornguy – I am amazed that a French Horn player for the SD Symphony knows so much about zoning, or maybe you don’t?
“It does not allow residents to challenge decisions that have been made as a result of those ordinances.”
A citizen can challenge ANY ordinance, ask Dan Daily who not only did that, he proved the city was unconstitutional in applying those ordinances.
DL – enlighten me..
Protesting Out a Rezoning
Owners of equity in property within 250
feet of the property requested for rezoning
can sign a petition to protest a rezoning after
it has been approved by the City Council. If
40 percent of the eligible property owners
sign and fi le the protest petition within 20
days after publication of the City Council’s
approval of your rezoning, the City Council
shall review the granting of the rezoning at its
next regularly scheduled meeting. If a protest is
fi led, the ordinance does not become effective
unless the ordinance is approved by a resolution
by six members of the City Council.
http://www.siouxfalls.org/~/media/Documents/mayor/boards-commissions/planning-comm/F125018_Rezoning_Information.ashx
Simply click on the Dan Daily CASE ad at the bottom and read his case files. Any law can be challenged, that is why we have courtrooms, judges and attorneys. The city’s home rule charter is written like SF is a dictatorship, last I checked the city is within a democracy and must follow the state and US constitution first and foremost.
Oh, the horrors DL. Have I been found out? Yes or no, I’m not sure how my identity is at all relevant unless you’re resorting to ad hominem, which would surprise me since usually you’re better than that. Shall we start talking about your professional expertise as it pertains to land use issues?
As for what this guy knows? Well, he’s hardly perfect, but he spent years in a competent, full-time legislative body developing land use legislation, working with major lobbyists and stakeholders to draft and enact a state’s first comprehensive reform of its Smart Growth laws, and clerking a land use committee for three years.
So no, not perfect. Knows way more than most about this stuff? Yup. In fact, where you thought I was wrong, I was right, referring to the comment in #8 that citizens can’t petition decisions to a referendum. Now, as for that 250 feet, that doesn’t include very many of these deeply aggrieved complainers, does it? By my rough math, it’s three houses, maybe four. But if one believes personal testimony and the media, the guy who owns the land to the north is supportive, and the guy who owns the land to the east is supportive. Don’t know about the guy to the west or the guy to the northeast, but all those landowners get a vote too.
I look forward to seeing how it all unfolds. I’ll guess that the city council approves 6-1 and you’ll complain about it after it happens. What’s your call?
“Shall we start talking about your professional expertise as it pertains to land use issues?”
I may not be an expert about zoning and land use, but I do consider myself very knowledgeable when it comes to how this city’s government works. I haven’t missed a city meeting in over 10 years and followed many of these politicians and city directors from the beginning. I know how they operate, I know when they are lying and I know their games. Why do you think Jeff Schmitt is on KELO two times a day raving about Walmart, they are trying to manipulate public opinion. When you have a salesman as a mayor you are in a constant state of ‘selling’. If the Walmart is such a great idea at this location it would sell itself. Right. Well over 6,000 petition signers didn’t think so, and that is why the city is trying to sell us on this.