I don’t agree entirely with this letter writer, but they make some good points;
The city of Sioux Falls has sent a clear message to potential homebuyers. The planning commission and city council have made it clear that you had better not buy or build a house in a newly developing area unless you are a “gambler.â€
It seems that when a developer goes into planning and zoning to change things, the city planning staff goes to work for the developer to help get it done. Planning commission members call the developer by their first name and assure us all that the developer has met all the requirements set out by staff and ordinances.
I have seen attitudes on both the planning commission and City Council that were condescending toward the citizens of Sioux Falls who had done their due diligence and thought they had built in a single-family neighborhood. Now we know that building in these new developments is a gamble. The message from our city government is to build or buy in an established neighborhood or roll the dice. Shame on our city leaders.
I do know that not all developers in Sioux Falls are treated equally. Some don’t even bother building in Sioux Falls because of the multitude of zoning ordinances. I also think that developers do have property rights, and to some extent can build just about any thing they want to within limits and respect of their neighbors. The homeowners must also understand that when you build in a newer part of town, and their is an empty lot next to you. Things may change. But in the case with RMB, this had already happened, and the homeowners had already agreed to zoning changes just a few years ago. But with the change in the economy it seems instead taking a hit (like a lot of homeowners did during the recession) RMB felt they needed the rules changed due to their poor investment. In this case, the neighborhood was handed a raw deal because of the out of options property owner. This is neither fair nor right. The sad part is that this should not have even made it to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning department should have looked at the petition had the city attorney deny it. This is actually done quite frequently. The zoning change had already been made, RMB should have stuck to it.
Looks like the only winner here is the house (City Hall).