Jodi Schwan hosts today’s ‘100 Eyes,’ which takes a look at development in Sioux Falls’ southwest corridor.
Bring your questions for Jeff Schmitt, chief planning and zoning official for the city of Sioux Falls, at 3 p.m., and watch at ArgusLeader.com/100Eyes.
While the topic is about SW development, this would be a great opportunity to question Jeff about the SE development.
UPDATE: As I watched the show, this comment stood out;
Not sure if this was cynical, or truthful. But first of all, CITIZENS own the government, not Walmart or businesses. As for the ‘friendliness’ question, government should always be a friend of who funds them, and in SD that is citizens, since business does not pay any income taxes.
Harm? Don’t make me crap my pants laughing.
Tried watching 100eyes SDPolitics http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/MULTIMEDIA/100419010&template=livestream but it did not start anywhere near the beginning so this will be as disjointed as the video… Thanks PayWall Leader, do you pedal power the video?
Jeff Schmidt is comparing Walmart to when Charlie’s was torn down. To Ace Hardware on west 41st? What? Goodwill on east side was built. Let’s see, these are small commercial buildings on known busy commercial streets with neighbor buffering.
Sub Regional Employment Center, residents could have been involved in the process in 2008-9 but weren’t. OK, it’s like SIRE not working or not not turned on, then saying you could have watched SIRE to keep in touch. The thousands spent to communicate the Mayor’s latest presser but does not work to open government to people. Another WTF?
Every corner has commercial, then apartments, then single family what about 85th and Audie? It’s all big, busy commercial with 1,000 parking spots kitty-corner to the first house on Audie
The Marion and 26th Hy-Vee is like 85th and Audie? The Hy-Vee is 80,000 Sq Ft in a planned Warren Friessen development. The nearby houses are multi-family housing, small commercial and churches. No single family houses up against the Hy-Vee or Lowes. It was all planned development with commercial first as an extention of mall zone. Schmidt is lying. His “cookie cutter†comment is just that, cookie cutter.
He perpetuated the myth the homeowners cannot sway the zoning decisions. Yes a residential neighborhood with no covenants in effect cannot directly control their neighbors property. This does not mean the neighbor cannot effectively change a new build prior to the ground being broken.
Schmidt was doing a Shape Places crying session, Too bad so sad…
We’ve read it here in the recent past and again, Schmidt saying 60 ‘public’ sessions to discuss Shape Places. OK, sure they may have had meetings about something so large and expansive with no publicity, the average citizen totally missed the meaning of the new project with the cute name. Once the ball started to roll toward competition and the average resident could see how it was going to affect them they rebelled. The steamroller effect was slowed down by a bump on Minnesota Ave at 85th Street.
Schmidt’s statement about their compatibility matrix “We have no Standards†Than why have compatibility standards?
“Only commuter traffic stalls movement” oh, so putting vehicle parking lots for 1,00 vehicles with one full entrance / exit point doesn’t stall traffic?
BS…
BTW, SFguy28’s comment reminds me of the 2012 PUC GOP campaigns of Fiegen and Nelson where they implored the PUC was in place to protect the businesses they regulate. This being in direct conflict with the real PUC mission of protecting the people’s rights and wallets.
This was the same story told by a big business when an small town teenager stopped their rate increase for about three years back in the 1970’s. There was an injustice and it was dealt with.
It is the right of the people to put the brakes on this crap. One teenager with the proper facts should be able to stop a multinational corporation from crushing a neighbor.
So, if society is “owned” by the citizens – as if they each have “stock” – why is it that the persons with the most $$$ – or the most property still ponly have one vote? If the stock-holder anaology were correct, the biggest property owner, or the payer of the most taxes should have a weighted proportional vote. I.E., if I own 75 MM worth of property and you own 75K – my vote should have 1,000 time the influence to yours.
This is the strange logic Citizen’s United lays out for us to believe. If a person owns a corporation or twenty or 100 they get the voice of all they own. This is absolutely wrong on all counts and you should know better than perpetuate the myth ruf.
One person is one vote. Once again I ask you to return to your 8th grade civics book on USA government theory and start studying again. ruf, your analogy is the very thing Lloyd and others believe in order to push the rest of us around. You should try running for office sometime and tell your potential voters your stated belief.
Every person born in the United States is a citizen owner of the government. Most of us were taught to share our government.
If we are fortunate, in these days of Koch / ALEC financed voting restrictions to express our views at the polling booth, we act as shareholders in pointing the government in a direction if our view is the majority. At least this is the theory most of us grew up with.
There are no tests, religions, economic plans or other phony tests to prevent us from voting. The wrongs achieved by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision is allowing rufusx’s view of “weighted proportional vote” to be more important than rufusx’s personal vote or mine.