December 2016

Sioux Falls City Councilors Neitzert, Stehly and Starr featured on Jon Michael’s forum

index_header_02

City Council members Greg Neitzert, Pat Starr, and Theresa Stehly talk with Public Affairs Director, Jon Michaels, about snow plowing, the no-smoke proposals, and many ideas they brought back from a national convention of city officials in Pittsburgh.  Theresa Stehly liked some cool traffic speed indicator signs, budget ideas and an interesting public checkbook on-line.

It was refreshing to hear councilors talk about transparency in government, especially when it comes to the city’s budget and bank account. For a moment, I wondered if these were Sioux Falls city councilors 🙂

Stu Whitney nails it on the outrage over IM22

headupass

The pure unbridled arrogance of our ONE-party morons in Pierre is disgusting, and further proof that the one-party rule system is NOT working for our state, in fact it is putting us DEAD last for ethics and corruption;

Never mind that South Dakota was the only state in the union without such restrictions and one of only eight without an ethics commission, leading the Pulitzer Prize-winning Center for Public Integrity to give the Mount Rushmore State a national rank of 47th in deterring government corruption.

The SD GOP seems to take pride in being last. Whether that is pay for teachers, or quite frankly many professions, like nursing, or for rating as the most corrupt, or the defiance of green energy, they are more worried about protecting their free meals and benefits to their businesses then doing the work of the people, because it seems the people are an annoyance to them;

Even more intriguing is the reaction of the state’s Republican establishment to this development.

When citizens express concern about government transparency and the response is to question their intelligence for passing a law that addresses it, what does that make the people in charge of running our state?

Misinformed, to put it mildly.

Well, when your head is up your ass 99% of the time, it’s hard to be informed about most things.

Listen to Weiland talk about the measure on public radio today.

Indoor Pool Numbers are lower than expected

pool-party

I guess I was a little surprised by the numbers being low at first, but then I started looking at the reality of the pool;

The pool was sold to us on a pack of lies from the beginning. Just go back and watch the advocational videos. I mildly believe in something called ‘Karma’ and I think when you sell something to people based on one lie after another, that karma will kick in.

The pool was built at a horrible location, lack of parking, poor access and no room for expansion. I suggested that city team up with Sanford and build it at the sports complex, or with the school district and build it at one of the high schools. I even think a location near the mall would have been better.

There was no public vote on the pool and it incurred debt. As much as the mayor says that is not true, it goes back to lying to the public. The mayor alone decided to build this pool. It wasn’t based on any study (only a site study) that there was a true need for the facility. As I have argued for years, there are tons of indoor pools in town, and a lot of them come with fitness centers. Is there really a need? Did the public truly support THIS PLAN or did they vote against the outdoor pool because they wanted to see options? We will never know, because the public never weighed in on an actual election.

The hours of operation are not reasonable. I think the pool should be opened later at night on the weekdays, closed on Mondays and opened longer on Saturday and Sundays, you know, when families actually spend time with each other.

When you build a facility based solely on the wants of one person, problems arise.

As for blaming the media . . .

It seems whenever the mayor gets caught standing in his own pile of BS he is quick to blame the media. Both Stormland TV and the AL did stories about the parent who was upset. It was newsworthy. This wasn’t just any parent, this was a parent who donated $10,000 of his own money towards a public facility. Why? Because he helped purchase equipment to assist in swim meets. He had a right to be pissed. The Parks Department could have easily told him that they plan on doing/scheduling swim meets after the first of the year once they evaluate numbers, but instead, as I understand the situation, he was totally ignored when asking about swim meets.

I was glad to see Joe Sneve calling mayor Huether out on his BS yesterday day with an online video.

Would you support an outdoor public smoking ban if there was no fine?

The Sioux Falls city council is set to vote on a ban next week. There was talk of several different amendments being proposed (like exceptions from golf courses and the Events Center).

I think several city councilors realized that the amendments would quickly sour the ban, and for the most part I think they do agree on a up or down vote AS is. In other words, it would apply to public parks, golf courses and the Events Center.

But there seems to be a split on whether or not it will get the 5 votes to pass. One of the arguments against the ban is that tobacco is a legal product (to those over 18). One of the ideas that is being floated in order to get a majority of the council on board with the ban is to eliminate the fine. In other words, if you are caught smoking in the banned areas, you would simply be asked to put it out and get a warning (unless you are underage).

Would you support it if there was no fine?

I think a lot of councilors are struggling with this ban, not because of the language and fine alone but how they were handed this ordinance by the administration. It is NOT the job of the executive branch and his minions to write ordinances, that is the responsibility of the council, the legislative branch.

I think if it does pass, it will be without a fine, otherwise, I think it will go down in flames.