Family Museum
l3wis This my Great Great Uncle Emil Blachnik’s museum in Tabor, SD. Love when they turn on all the gadgets.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBSJFNuNgXA[/youtube]
July 2014
SF City Council Public Input 7/8/2014
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uiHoaD2BfY[/youtube]
SFPD damages private property and blames fugitive
The hypocrisy of SF city government never ceases to amaze me. Department heads simply lie to the public and media and hope we believe them.
Paying for major damage done through police action isn’t what the public would want, however, Barthel said.
“It’s not the police department we’re talking about here, it’s the taxpayer,” he said. “I don’t think the taxpayers feel they should be liable for the damage done by a criminal.”
The ‘DAMAGE’ was done by your officers, not the criminal. Sure, he broke the door and the landlord should seek restitution on what HE damaged. But blowing out the windows was done by your officers. Also, I will never use the indoor pool, ice hockey center or tennis facilities, why should my taxdollars go towards facilities I will never use? Besides, if it is an insurance claim, that money comes from insurance, not the taxpayer. Do as the county does in these situations;
Some agencies have paid property owners for damage sustained during police action.
“We’ve had some situations where we’ve broken a window, and we’ve paid for the window,” said Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead. “We don’t stand there and immediately write a check, but if there’s an innocent person who suffers some damage, we work with our insurance carrier to cover the damage.”
Milstead cautioned that the standoff situation involved in the Graham case was unique.
“I can’t recall a case where we’ve had a person break into an innocent person’s home,” Milstead said.
The county has liability insurance for mistakes its employees might make, Commission Administrator Ken McFarland said, but he also couldn’t recall a comparable situation, either.
“If we feel there’s some liability on our part, we’d push it through,” McFarland said.
Why not turn in a claim? That’s what we have a risk management for, to handle these kind of situations. What’s the harm in filing the claim and seeing what happens? Once again, the city shows little respect for the little man in town. Plenty of money for TIFs to rich developers, to relocate the railroad (for rich developers) and multi-million dollar river greenway bulkheads (for rich developers) but scrounging up a measly $2,200 for property CITY EMPLOYEES damaged, NO WAY!
Think the Pavilion Cinedome roof replacement was costly?
That’s nothing. While the steel roof is supposed to last for 40-60 years*, what do you think new plumbing should last? Remember, the Pavilion was almost completely gutted, all of this plumbing would/should be new(er). $228K to upgrade 16 year old plumbing? (Sioux Falls City Council Consent Agenda) I wonder if the same contractor boondoggle is going on over at the EC? How many ‘upgrades’ will we need on that site in 16 years?
*A steel roofing specialist told me that it probably wasn’t the roof that needed to be replaced, but the lining underneath was probably not properly installed and that is what caused the leaks. As I told someone the other day about the Cinedome roof and the EC siding, construction problems are kind of like skin cancer, it’s not the little spots on the outside that are visible that should concern you, it is what is underneath.
Does Mayor Huether have a crystal ball?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcqQr862ZI[/youtube]
More like a Magic 8-Ball.
During the last Listening & Learning session (Wednesday, June 25) The mayor was asked by someone who works for the Sports Authority what is up with the siding on the Events Center and if it will rust or seep water. The man said he was asking the question because he has gotten a lot of emails about it. Towards the end of the segment, Huether seemed surprised that the Sports Authority was getting questions about it. He seemed a little annoyed this was getting out to the public and people were asking about it.
Huether first started by saying that they hired a consultant to look at the issue and will await their report. Fair enough, but as usual, he couldn’t resist to put his two-cents worth in. Even though the report wasn’t even in the hands of the city yet he said the siding was just aesthetics and that it wouldn’t leak or rust or hurt the structure. Wait, didn’t you just say you are still awaiting the report? How do you know what the consultant is going to say?
I guess the city does have the report now (according to the mayor in the video he said he would have it in a couple of weeks), so why not release the report until July 22?
What could be going on here?
– Could the consultant be a hired gun by Mortenson to create the results they want? And why is this consultant’s name confidential? There has been NO mention in the media who the city hired to do the report. Why is it such a big secret?
– Could the city be taking the report and ‘editing’ anything in that may not be to their liking? Could they be sending it back to the consultant for those ‘edits’ much like we suspected with the aquatics study?
– So how does a guy (the mayor) who has never worked in construction (or banking for that matter) know what the consultant is going to say weeks before the report is released?