They have 20 days from filing of the city council decision (today) to collect the needed signatures.
As soon as I have more details on volunteering and where you can sign, I will post them.
I guess city attorney Fiddle-Faddle wanted them to wait until Monday to start collecting signatures. Kinda reminded me of the abortion waiting period. Abortion decisions made on the weekends don’t count, and I guess signing petitions on the weekends doesn’t count either 🙂
This is getting interesting.
MMM is starting to make political mistakes.
Walmart, which he enthusiastically took credit for when in fact all he had to do was keep quiet.
Assistant City Attorney Keith Allenstein, who advises both the police and fire departments, pleads guilty to drunken driving.
Obviously, the Mayor does NOT intend to hold him accountable as illustrated by his direct report’s comments:
City Attorney Dave Pfeifle said Allenstein will continue serving in his current position as legal adviser to both the Sioux Falls police and fire departments.
“Both chiefs in those departments have expressed the utmost confidence in his ability to perform his job,†Pfeifle said.
Pfeifle, Barthel, and Sideras would NOT have made these remarks WITHOUT Mike’s consent.
Promoting bonding for a 20 million dollar swimming pool at the same time he has his minions at the budget hearings pushing for major cuts to Transit.
I’m thinking the list of MMM’s politically incorrect moves will continue to get longer between now and April 2014.
I am really ticked about the stupid things the mayor is pushing, and then making financial cuts to Transit, especially Paratransit. I have thought about contacting an attorney about the fact that my adult mentally handicapped daughter can no longer ride paratransit, but I don’t think I could find one in town that would go against the city, pro bono. Being I don’t have a car, I can’t get out of town.
Joan, if you see the pc that KELO did at 6:00 on Transit cuts, don’t be fooled by the way they tried to minimize what is happening.
If you listen carefully they report the cuts will be minimal in 2014 (which, BTW, if you are one of the citizens it will affect, you will not feel it is minimal).
Whatever happens in 2014 will seem minimal compared to what’s coming in the outlying years. As Mike Cooper reported, if the City continues as is we will be facing a 25 million dollar deficit. He clearly stated the course we are currently on is unsustainable. That means major cuts!!!!
At the same time the Mayor is pushing for cuts in a vital service (Transit) to many SF citizens, he is promoting bonding for a 20 million dollar swimming pool.
Go figure……
Looking forward to that INDOOR PUBLIC pool. (And snowgates). Progess on the prairie!
Will the pool have to be ADA compliant if we don’t have any paratransit anymore?
I’ll be voting No but I’m pretty sure sure the SON group is f#%ked cause this is a redneck charged issue. Yep I said it, rednecks LOVE them some more Walmarts CUS 2 just taint enuff.
THIS IS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSE TO WORK RUFUX. They have the right to oppose what is placed in their neighborhood.
Remember folks in the eyes of a sub-prime liberal credit card banker we have for a mayor, SF is thriving and we just don’t have enough debt yet.
You should have pictures showing the view in the other direction, the view looking West down 85th from MN, and the view towards this housefrom approx. were SD 100 will cross MN – IF you want to give an hoinest representation of the “neighborhood”.
The photo shown is one example of how close the neighborhood is. Some commenters on this issue seem to believe the neighbors have no rights due to faux libertarian or city hall first views they have on such subjects. These commenters seem to think all citizen participation should take a backseat to these anti-citizen rights.
To them, nature be damned, the man will conquer and rule nature. Citizen be damned, the bureaucratic system knows and controls all. Unelected bureaucrats must be right because we were appointed to our positions. The ‘unelecteds’ must be right!
It is necessary in our system to have qualified bureaucrats assisting the ‘electeds’ with facts and options. It is not their job to allow these unelected bureaucrats become so powerful in the system the citizen’s rights are trampled.
We are a social society. We are to work together. We are a society based on the citizen first because the citizen is supposed to own the government. This is the basis of the Declaration and formalized as a government in the Constitutions of the USA and the states.
I wish the petition gatherers the best. It is the right of the citizens of South Dakota to petition their governments. It is also part of the right, when the issue reaches the ballot, for the voters to pass or deny the petition at the scheduled election.
We the people must fight the rule by bureaucrat, they are supposed to be in their positions of responsibility because the are ‘qualified’. They are not supposed to be influenced by outside forces, such as multinational super corporations or local super developers. If the bureaucrat is doing the job they are appointed to do properly, the local citizen shareholder in the government would have equal sway in the logic and law of the discussion.
The multinationals, faux libertarians and pro-bureaucrat rulers reading this really want to run / control us. 85th and Minn residents are primarily educated middle class business owners and professionals. These people are just the voters the above referenced might have underestimated. The riled up compliant might be the force to make real changes Sioux Falls and South Dakota need to see. This is going to continue to be interesting.
I don’t mean to be picky here but your opening and subsequent lines lead me to believe you and SON and the city attorney misunderstand the referendum process. There is NO filing date to start the 20 days from. It’s 20 days from when the minutes are published. If the city attorney honestly suggested a different date, that’s just f*cked..
“9-20-6. Time for filing referendum petition. The required number of voters residing in any municipality may file within twenty days after the publication of any ordinance or resolution subject to referendum a petition with the auditor or clerk, requiring the submission of any such ordinance or resolution to a vote of the voters of the municipality for its rejection or approval. If filed on the twentieth day after publication, such petitions shall be filed no later than normal closing hours of the city hall or city auditor’s office on said twentieth day.”
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=9-20-6
Guest Poster – who elected SON?
Who elected the on-the-cusp of going pro “Let’s refer everything we can” brigade?
Crap – these folks aren’t even appointed – they are “self-appointed”; “guardians of liberty”.
They/you have every right to proceed the ways you are – that’s for sure. What you don’t seem to understand – yet – is that that doesn’t equate to a “right to prevail”.
BTW – the declaration and the constitution do not declare that the citizenry OWNS the government. despite what the facist ideology being foisted on this nation by corporate interests has evidently convinced YOU of – government is NOT a property that can be bought and sold and traded. What they do say is that the government DRAWS ITS POWER from the citizens. What they do outline is a PROCESS – not an outcome. The power of government is something that comes FROM the people – not something that is given TO the people. Individual persons – and sub-groups of persons are SUBJECT TO the government – not superior to the government. And the government is subject to the law – not superior to it. YOU oversimplify.
And Planning Student – you don’t have it quite right either – it’s not from the date of the publication of the MINUTES – it’s the publication of the ORDINANCE.
rufusx on 08.11.13 at 10:12 am
The power of government is something that comes FROM the people-
Then, rufusx, why are you so negative about the democratic processes of the referendum and the initiative?
And, why would you NOT support a public vote on any issue that is important to our community’s citizens?
Planning Student and rufusx
If SON had followed David Pfeifle’s advice they would have lost two very valuable weekend days for collecting signatures!
Obviously, our city attorney does NOT work for SF citizens, but for the current Administration ONLY!
#11 rufusx, you seem to have missed some of your civics classes. The people do not need to be elected to question the decisions of the electeds.
The people do in fact own the USA and not the other way around. Now this does not mean we take our share and go into the corner. The USA was declared a people’s republic in 1776 and affirmed as a form of government when the Constitution was adopted by a majority of the states. When the document said “We the People” it allowed a government to form with us in control, not the special interests or bureaucrats. When we vote, we affirm via ballot a community decision who we trust will handle our collective affairs of city, state and nation.
There are plenty of people who run for office who lose not understanding the people saw through a candidate’s disdain for the messy system and masses. There are also many who run for office in places like South Dakota who win just because they have an certain initial after their name on the ballot, be it ‘R’ or ‘D’.
There is a soft boil of discontent happening in the messy masses. People like Jason Gant are helping the ‘leaders’ maintain a power base. We have elected and appointed officials who have abused their positions to favor their own personal futures or legacies. The SON neighbors are just a tip of a big iceberg.
So rufusx, go back and read your 8th grade civics book, the people do own the government.
GP – I have absolutely nothing against the referendum process. However, there is a social “movement” afoot there in SF that is all about showing off their power through their use of the referendum process and not about engaging in the process up front. Talk about “we were here first” evidently doesn’t apply to elected or appointed officials. If the referendum cabal (and it is the same small group that engages in this over and over and over) REALLY wants to change the power dynamic sat work in local government – you all should be sure to get your nominating petitions in at every opportunity. But I understand – it is much easier to sit back and snipe at government from afar on a set of select issues than it is to deal with the day-to-day routine of actually governing. So – you won’t do it.
Fact of the matter is your little “refer-it-all” crew isn’t interested in GOOD government so much as it is in being a sore thumb.
BTW GP – you do not OWN your citizenship. You cannot sell it. You cannot buy it. You OWE your duty to the nation – you have obligations under the law. Neither you nor anyone else is above the law.
Maybe you need to get your hands on a dictionary.
rufusx, it shows you really know little about Sioux Falls anymore. The most fascinating thing about the SON group who they are. These are people who have just gotten along with the system thinking they would be protected. Now they are faced with something never in their wildest dreams could they think of. This is just their reaction. I can bet 90% of those orchestrating this effort have never been politically active before. Several knew nothing about how the process worked and works. Many thought if they voted and took their kids to soccer practice they were equals in the system. Many found out they were lessers when put up against a multinational corporation and big developer.
I will also correct you on citizenship. The reason you cannot be sent from the USA is you are a citizen owner of the government. A naturalized earns citizenship through a series of steps. All persons born on USA soil after 1868 are automatically a citizen, as confirmed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The civil war got rid of the sticky little problem of citizenship ‘classes’ or the 3/5 rule. So yes you cannot sell your citizenship but by your birth you are an owner in the grand American social experiment called our republican form of government.
The rebellion of the populace comes from citizens being excluded or having their rights trampled by specials. We have now 4 petition drives in the last year, 3 so far being successful. These drives are repercussions to abuse by those in positions of power. Secret meetings and handshakes do not make all equal.
“I can bet 90% of those orchestrating this effort have never been politically active before.”
Absolutely true. They had years to involve themselves in the discussion regarding Shape Places, but instead of being actively involved in shaping their community, they chose to live a sheltered existence in their comfortably upper-middle class enclave and then put on airs of indignation when they found out that nobody personally invited them to the meetings.
As for the referral process, my complaint is that the South Dakota constitution sets the threshold for referral at a ridiculously meager five percent of qualified electors.
So if an elected government does something that one in twenty voters does not like, they can gum the whole process up for months by forcing a vote on the matter.
As I’ve said before, half-trained monkeys standing outside of Hy-Vees could get 6,000 signatures for just about anything over a period of three weeks.
Let’s at least set the threshold at something more reasonable, like 20 or 25 percent. I’d be fine with giving circulators more time to gather signatures in that case. But allowing five percent to hold a decision making process hostage is no way to govern.
Actually, half-brained monkeys or even full on humans can gather signatures outside of HyVee. Not allowed to petition there.
Hornguy, you said “half-trained monkeys standing outside of Hy-Vees could get 6,000 signatures for just about anything over a period of three weeks.” I guess you and your monkey squad should get busy and start collecting for your version. You could win…
In the meantime there is an effort to encourage citizen participation. We should embrace it and encourage them to do it, then stay involved.
My guess, these same people will usually vote just opposite of me on most issues. I learned long ago to not worry about it if the process is fair. My side did not have their act together so we lost or our view prevailed we must have convinced them we were the best. We make the best of the decision.
Referendum and initiative (R&I) should not be a primary means of government but should be available to fix things if the entrenched fight the changes most voters want. How do we know what most want when so many do not vote? We only know what the majority of the voters want on the particular election day. That is our system.
So the system is not perfect but I agree with the process. The reason we have R&I goes back to the RR elites of the late 1800’s ripping off the people by abusing the system. The people had to regain some control over the specials, much like today.
hornguy on 08.11.13 at 3:30 pm
As I’ve said before, half-trained monkeys standing outside of Hy-Vees could get 6,000 signatures for just about anything over a period of three weeks.
Hornguy, have you ever personally been involved in a petition drive?
“GUM THE PROCESS”
The fact of the matter is the referendum is a part of our governing process. Not all decision making in governing is perfect.
“So if an elected government does something that one in twenty voters does not like, they can gum the whole process up for months by forcing a vote on the matter.”
Hornguy: this is just a “bench mark” or “threshold” in the process, and we don’t really know how many voters are going to be liking and not liking until the voting actually goes on. Get yourself some real gum to chew on.
And furthermore, hornguy, what difference does it make if they have never been politically active? Do people that are politically active year after year have a monopoly on political activity? NO.
The referendum is available for just such an individual (and others too). And perhaps it was designed for just such an individual(s)!
I have always felt I was fairly well-informed–trying to keep myself well-informed. And I have been a politically active person.
Could anybody give me a listing of news sources or other publication efforts that demonstrate the City’s efforts to publicize the CONTENT of Shape Places? I don’t ever recall seeing any publication of the proposed Comprehensive 2035 Map anywhere along with the corresponding documentation that supports the “legend” of the map. If anyone can cite that info for me, it would be greatly appreciated.
Shaping Places isn’t some sort of new concept. If anyone had just done a google search of it, it is being adopted all across the globe for future planning of cities not just here in Sioux Falls. I remember quite a few years back that this was posted on the city’s website and also remember seeing it talked about on City16 as well. Whether KELO or the Argus ever picked up on it I am not sure but I do know it is has been published on the city’s website for quite a while already before it was ever voted on. Website for it is http://siouxfalls.org/planning-building/planning/shape.aspx
#24 Anonymous3 is right on point for the city hall defenders. “If anyone had just done a google search of it” Why in most of our lives would we know or understand what this was all about? It is a cute name for a very disruptive change. No where in the discussion of shape places did the matter at hand appear, to drop a big box into and little spot without consideration of the neighborhood consequences.
.
Do some research on the mess called Houston TX and their lack of zoning controls.
Just to be clear, I’m all for citizen involvement. In that regard, I couldn’t agree more with Guest Poster in #20. I’ve been involved with these sorts of processes on both sides of the coin – as a citizen and as someone who worked in politics (and is glad he no longer does!).
Unfortunately, most citizens choose not involve themselves at the time when their involvement is most constructive in terms of effective governance. Typically, that’s early in the process. Keeping up on what city/county/state government is doing in areas of interest to you isn’t hard. It’s not an onerous burden on my life. Our host is certainly well informed. Lots of commenters here are as well. But the vast majority of citizens blow off their citizen responsibility and then want to complain that someone wasn’t holding their hand and spoonfeeding them everything. It’s like the kid in college who loses his syllabus and then complains that he didn’t know there was a test tomorrow.
SON has every right to circulate petitions under the South Dakota constitution. More power to them.
But that said, the overwhelming majority of referenda and initiatives fail. Betting on referenda to fail would be a quick ticket to riches. So to the anonymous poster commenting about a threshold, I ask you what kind of threshold five percent of registered voters is?
While I apparently cannot send my monkeys to Hy-Vee (TY for the heads-up, Jackilope!), the point remains that 1 in 20 registered voters as a threshold to invoke a referendum is absurd. The signatures collected should be at minimum be sufficient evidence that the parties circulating the petition have a *reasonable* chance of being successful.
Just last year, as an example, the state of Wisconsin recalled its governor. The recalling parties obtained signatures from nearly 25% of registered voters – approximately 40% of all people who voted in the previous election – and the end result was an incumbent governor than won by *more* than he did 18 months prior. I think one can argue that 25% isn’t even a reasonable threshold. In the interest of compromise, I’d certainly be willing to go to 20 or even 15 percent of registered voters.
But 5 percent? Come on. That’s absurd. A person could refer just about everything city council does with that threshold. If it weren’t a non-legislative matter, me and my monkeys would try to overturn their approval of last month’s minutes, just for sport.
Also, to the claim that “we don’t really know how many voters are going to be liking and not liking until the voting actually goes on,” this isn’t a direct democracy. It never has been. Americans elect legislators and executives to handle the liking and not liking for them. And if we disapprove of their decisions, we elect new ones. Further, given how poorly informed the average American is about matters of civic importance, if it ever becomes one I’m getting out of Dodge.
While Americans elect a lot of terrible legislators, at least a legislator through no virtue other than being a legislator has to consider how the parts fit together in a broader context. Most citizens have little knowledge and zero context, which is why entities heavy on citizen governance (of which there are countless examples in California alone) are such cesspools of poor management.
Hornguy, we both appear to have been in a few battles over the years. The R&I are out there to give the least amongst us the ability to press an issue and convince a majority. It was never setup to have a substantial number of people agreeing ahead of the discussion before there is a discussion. 5% is sufficient to move an issue to the forefront. It is a lot of work to win a R&I issue.
Until we as a society get rid of Gerrymandering of legislative districts and unlimited cash into campaigns so we can have honest elections, we must keep at least one vehicle available for the people who are out of the mainstream of politics to work with.
I will always support the ability of a group to bring an issue forward to the voters. All the voters have to do is say “thanks but no thanks” on election day.
I’m in agreement with everything you’ve just said, with exception of where we should be setting the bar.
I’m just never going to be convinced that allowing a mere five percent of registered voters to delay the decisions of elected officials for months on end is a competent and effective way to govern. Because what that really says is that if 1-in-20 people doesn’t like an action, their right to throw a Hail Mary should take precedent over the rights of other parties directly involved in the action to have their issues handled by a body elected by the people of their city/county/state.
Give me 1-in-5 or 1-in-4 and I’d feel differently. Just show me some kind of critical mass that serves as reasonable evidence that the dissenting party can succeed at the ballot box. And if this Walmart issue were really that big a deal to residents of the city, they’d have no problems getting 20k names.
“But that said, the overwhelming majority of referenda and initiatives fail.”
Uh, not really. The last one to fail (twice) statewide was abortion and (twice) medical mary jane. Other then that, initiatives and measures were very successful in the state and city. The teacher thingy, airplane use, development funds, Drake Springs pool and I am sure snow gates will all pass with flying colors. So saying a ‘majority’ is a little off. I believe citizens appreciate being able to vote on this stuff. I think they trust their council to make ‘small decisions’ but when it comes to major things, like EC’s for instance, the voters should ultimately make those decisions. To be quite honest with you, I some times feel sorry for the councilors having to vote on these major things. They are part-time afterall. I still think the Lewis & Clark, $70 million dollar bond should have been on the ballot, especially since it really wasn’t for getting us more water (we only use it for emergencies) but to essentially bail L & C’s asses out.
Hornguy,
I don’t know how long you have been a SF resident, but in 2006-2007 the initiative process was used for the first time in the history of Sioux Falls. And it was successful (Drake Springs outdoor pool in Nelson Park).
The second time the initiative process was used is a work in progress. It was the snow gate petition drive in 2012 which will be voted on in April 2014. I would be willing to put money on that also having a successful outcome.
The third time the initiative process was used is also a work in progress. It was the Spellerberg petition drive in 2012-2013 which will also be voted on in April 2014.
I am not familiar with the history of the referendum in our community. Is SON the first group to use this process on a municipal issue?
If so, your post is incorrect, because currently as it stands the use of the R & I processes is 1-0.
FYI
There is a difference between state-wide referendums and initiatives and municipal referendums and initiatives.
The R & I that I referred to in my previous post are strictly municipal.
And indeed, I was referring to the track record of referral and initiative in a broader sense, not something specific to this community, where the sample is extremely small.
“I think they trust their council to make ‘small decisions’ but when it comes to major things, like EC’s for instance, the voters should ultimately make those decisions.
Let’s stipulate to that perspective. But if that’s your view, surely you can’t include rezoning requests as a major thing. Rezones happen hundreds of times a year and they involve no expenditure of taxpayer funds like the other situations that have been mentioned – the EC, L&C, Drake Springs.
And for the record, if you review your own writings from last year, you were all about shoving that Walmart on 69th and Cliff down the neighborhood’s throat, even though it meant getting rid of the only transitional zoning on the parcel and building directly adjacent to housing and across from a school. You more or less showed outright contempt for those neighbors. (I’ll spare your readers the litany of quotes.)
Respectfully and out of sincere curiosity, what’s changed your tune in the last year on this issue? Because if someone compared what you wrote last year to what you’re writing this year, any rational person would probably think we were talking about two different people.
(But in regard to your complaint about L&C, I could absolutely get behind a requirement that says that project expenditures or bond issues over X have to be approved by referendum.)
Hornguy:
Zoning/Rezoning per se may not appear at first blush as a major thing. However, one must look at the broader picture and the impact such a unique zoning “strategy” may have for other situations in the future. Granted, minds differ whether this is a “unique” situation (a big box store being plopped right next to residential/family environment), but then that is why we are at this juncture: minds differ.
What distresses me is how individuals blogging on here can manage to take the issue and make it something other than what it is. For example, the idea that one should not initiate a referendum over a rezoning issue……so now we are not talking about the legitimacy of the SON issue but rather if it is a legitimate issue for a referendum. As if a referendum was only designed for “certain” situations. It appears that if you cannot come up with a logical and factual basis for creating an opposing argument, then try some “muddying up the waters” stuff.
If this issue didn’t fit and wasn’t allowable for this governmental process, then so be it. But that is not the case. Who are you to decide what fits this process and what doesn’t?
Please – drop the LIE that 85th Audie was/is zoned as a “single family neighborhood”. It was zoned RS-2 when those homes were built (and FYI – that means MULTI-FAMILY RESIFDENTIAL). Across Audie to the East was zoned PD (Planned Development – a MIXED USE of commercial and residential.)
http://cityofsfgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=b9ea4e5db9dd47a3bcf408f7ac4ca3c4
If you’re going to make an argument – at least make an honest one – it goes to evidence of your CHARACTER (moral rectitude) whether you are going to be truthful or continue with the dishonesty.
Oh, and BTW “in the middle of” is also an dishonest inaccurate representation. Truth is – the area in question is BESIDE, or NEXT TO – or BETWEEN a residential area and a future FREEWAY – not “in the middle” of one.
Anonymous 2, in regard to your comment about who decides what fits the process, please note that on this thread and others, I have always argued that the standard for referendum and initiative in this state was woefully inadequate. I’m happy to hold *all* issues to a much higher standard. The comment I made about L&C, zoning, the EC, etc. was simply to reference that two of those involve major outlays of taxpayer funds and the third doesn’t and therefore makes for a tenuous comparison at best.
Looks like SON is changing their story once again. First they tell us that commercial development was anticipated but just not to the level of a gigantic big box store. They claim they would be ok with a “Bridges-like development” and that a variety of strip malls or office buildings would be fine by them… just not a big box store.
So now that the city council votes to zone the land to commercial…. guess what? Now SON says the zoning isn’t correct and they want the citizens to vote on the matter.
So I have to ask… what kind of zoning do they actually want? Seems to me that what they really want is the property to be zoned residential, because apparently commercial is off the plate.
Keep in mind SON keeps telling us this isn’t about building and not about Walmart… it is just about zoning. Yep… that’s the line.
Let’s all be honest for a moment – we know if this goes to a public vote Walmart will win. There are anti-Walmart people in town, but unless they live in Twin Eagle they likely won’t even bother to vote. The elderly overwhelming support Walmart, and they vote in every election (which is the primary reason two prior indoor pools failed and why snowgates will overwhelmingly be supported).
The rest of the voting class will lean towards Walmart due in part to a class warfare image between the haves and the have-nots (many people think of Twin Eagle residents as wealthy snobs rather than middle class or upper middle class), and you also have a large sect of our population that simply looks at a major intersection as an ideal place to put commercial development.
So in the end, if we are honest with ourselves we all know SON isn’t doing this to ‘win’ the vote, but rather to delay the project another eight months before they go to their next stall tactic. Their gameplan has always been to delay Walmart long enough that they consider another location.
In the meantime, this gives residents of the area more time to sell their homes and go elsewhere – at which point they will stop caring about Walmart because it will no longer be in their backyard.
If SON was really confident they would ‘win’, then why is it that the following homes are now on the market:
7501 S Audie
901 Golden Eagle
904 W Golden Eagle
917 W Golden Eagle
Meanwhile two different investment companies own numerous properties in the area none of which are currently for sale. Do they know something we don’t? Is there more to the story that SON doesn’t want to reveal?