These developers are starting to sound like broken records more and more everyday;
Scherschligt said he doesn’t think the plan is “the highest and best use for that land.â€
“Sioux Falls has been successful because the businesspeople and leaders of this community did not always think about themselves, but they thought about what was better for everybody,†he said. “We have these master plans. We create these master plans. And we buy into it. It wasn’t just one person. It was task forces of people.â€
Former city planning director Steve Metli, who worked closely with several city master plans for the riverfront, said he’s disappointed in the development plan for the Kilian property.
“It’s a two-block stretch of the river walk that connects the falls to downtown, so it would be excellent for housing or major office, commercial – retail, restaurant-type use, and I was hoping that’s what it could be,†he said. “As much as the community has supported and still supports Lutheran Social Services, I think they could have put more thought in their decision to go there on behalf of the community.â€
Sure, it ‘could’ be used for that, but what is wrong with having higher education and immigration services downtown also? I commend Kilian for their partnership and keeping downtown diverse.
And BTW, I have been in some of these new ‘housing’ units built downtown by Steve’s buddy, talk about cheap slap together sloppy workmanship. I guess nobody takes pride in their work anymore, as long as they can get a tax break while charging high priced rents. These places will be ram shackle within the decade. I can’t believe we hand out TIF’s for these projects.
Interesting that Scherschligt’s Cherpa I and future Cherpa II are right across the street from Kilan Community College. Perhaps he is one of the developers who wanted that property?
Why does Steve Metli’s opinion have any relevance in 2015? He retired from city planning well over a decade ago!
Downtown is a grab for federal low income subsidies. Low income here is middle class. Once the new wears off, it will become a bankrupt crack neighborhood. Along the river is along one of the worst polluted tributaries in the country. Retail like food and gas will not locate there. They see the future and realize the pain of having to deal with city government. Some may build there but they’ll need a big TIF and will enter with an exit plan. The future for downtown is a few specialty restaurants, a poor artists community, marijuana retail, and met labs or dens.
I agree with Metli & Scherschligt. That is a prime, nearly irreplaceable piece of property that should’ve been developed as multi-story, mixed use and sold to someone who would’ve invested the $50 million or so to do it. The City should be working to encourage that as the potential tax base (even with a TIF) is much better over the long haul vs. this project where we will get a minor facelift instead. The Riverfront in San Antonio is world famous and that didn’t happen by accident.
As for Killian, will people pay higher tuition since they are on the river and you can walk to Falls Park? Is being in that prime spot an advantage for LSS vs. being a few blocks away? I applaud both organizations for working together, but if the timing were different they could’ve likely sold that building for enough $$ to build somewhere else and have some left over for the endowment or future expansion.
The city should be investing in cleaning up the shit creek that runs through this town instead of sparkly buildings on it’s banks.
DL – just want to point out, the SFT (Sioux Falls Tomorrow) project, which you decried as a bunch of outsiders in this blog, set as one of it’s primary goals; the cleaning up of the Big Sioux River – starting UPSTREAM, with the inflow of ag run-off. BTW, both Metli and Paulsen (whom you attack here) were part of the local government group in the SFT process that set that priority. See Goal 3a on page 11 ( http://media.wix.com/ugd/a81a17_74214a1fb0e645e88ad90684e90c2c22.pdf ) Just sayin’.
rufusx – SFT referenced cleaning up the Big Sioux River in it’s report under LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, goal #3, by inserting a sentence that included “…identify sources of contamination…” and another sentence that states “…create a set of policies to begin mitigation…”.
With cattle standing in the river doing their business, drain tile dumping thousands of gallons of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides directly into the BSR, feedlots draining into the river, crops planted right up to the edge of the riverbanks, we all know where most of the pollution originates. Will SFT have the balls to say or do anything? We all know the answer to that question. We can’t piss off farmers, too much political clout!
I have often recommended a filtration damn. Of course it will cost millions, but we have already dumped millions in the river greenway project spent on concrete, not actual cleanup.
I doubt it can be cleaned up. If it is, a permanent filtration plant just after the diversion canal would be required and cost prohibitive. Anyway, keep it polluted or there will be kids swimming in it who can’t afford the pools and mass baptisms for new Sanford Cult groupies.
As I have heard other developers and downtown business people state, if there were certain people that wanted that property for their vision, they should have made legitimate offers. Via the article in the SFBJ – it sounds like that did not happen. Property downtown is not sold for pennies on the dollar anymore, especially on the riverfront.
The MSA of San Antonio is 2.3 million residents.
We are not San Antonio.
And, I’m guessing many SF taxpayers do not aspire to be San Antonio.
There is a state created program that provides mitigation by establishing easements along not just the Big Sioux, but some of its tributaries. That was it in place since SFT was written. In addition, the following legislative session established watershed projects. Follow this link. Meanwhile, what have you done? http://www.sdconservation.org/index.asp?SEC=CE8C3A8F-A28C-4544-AE25-444B3FD9A6FC&Type=B_PRGSRV
killian has been at that location for years, so I doubt that tuition will go up now. It might even go down considering the money they made on the LSS deal. I don’t think people know how deep LSS’s pockets are.