Maybe the SD Democratic Party knows something we don’t
l3wis I’m wondering if they are holding their election party 3 days later because they think it will take that many days to count the votes 🙂
2016
Councilor Erpenbach, you are the ‘Embarrassment’
I watched the city council debate tonight over Wiley’s license;
The Sioux Falls City Council voted to allow the renewal of a liquor license for Wiley’s Tavern in downtown Sioux Falls after more than a half-hour of debate.
City Councilors Greg Neitzert, Theresa Stehly, and Pat Starr visited the popular downtown bar on Friday amid their concerns about the disproportionate calls to Police. They shared their stories, and questioned bar officials about the business and security practices. The Councilors said it was never their intention to pull the bar’s liquor license, but they wanted to use the forum to discuss the bar’s practice of serving patrons alcohol even after they appear intoxicated.
Though councilors Kiley, Erpenbach and Mayor Huether felt the debate wasn’t necessary, I think if a bar has 165 police calls in 9 months, we should be very concerned. Mr. Duncan, the bar’s attorney argued that they get 5x more police calls because they do 5x more business then competing bars. What concerns me more then the obvious over serving is the cost to taxpayers. Let’s say each police call costs us at a minimum $100 a pop, that is $16,500 of tax dollars spent on a bar making loads of money over serving people. How are we making that money back. We are not.
Councilor Michelle Erpenbach called the entire debate an “embarrassment”.
Councilors Stehly, Starr and Neitzert pointed out they were not embarrassed for doing due diligence. Michelle should be embarrassed that while she has been on council she hasn’t done any due diligence.Ă‚Â Greg went on to say it was the duty of the city council to review a bar (which is a public place) that has that volume of calls before approving a license;
“The question is why so many police calls?” asked Neitzert.
Pat Starr was also disappointed that there would be no public input and got into with the mayor after stopping the roll call vote by saying ‘Point of Order’.
After a lengthy debate, the Council voted 7-1 to renew the Wiley’s liquor license. Councilor Pat Starr was the lone “no” vote.
The debate ended on a testy exchange between Mayor Mike Huether and Councilor Pat Starr, who wanted to take public input on the matter, but Mayor Huether called for a roll call vote.
The mayor told Pat he has been doing this for 7 years and doesn’t allow public input. Pat told him he disagreed. The mayor hates it when things get ‘messy’ because it makes him look bad. You look bad ‘High Crimes’ Mike because you are neglecting to address crime in our city. I applaud any city councilor that is trying to get a handle on our ‘high crime’ city.
On a separate note, I am also concerned about taxpayers when it comes to Wiley’s hiring off-duty police to be security. The starting pay for officers in Sioux Falls is $49,000 a year. Do they need a part-time job? And if so, should they be running security? I also question how many of these security officers leave Wiley’s at 3 AM after a stressful night, then report to patrol our streets the next morning. How can they do their #1 job if they may be tired and stressed from their part-time job?Ă‚Â While I don’t take issue with them having a second job or even their own business on the side, it should be prohibited that they work in a high stress security position. Working for the public’s safety should be their #1 priority.
The Two-Faces of the Sioux Falls Planning Department
Augustana Lutheran’s proposed sign on sleepy Prairie Avenue.
Good News Church’s proposed sign on a very busy 4-lane, 26th Street.
I don’t need to tell you about the hypocrisy and irony of city government, it’s the reason I blog. But sometimes things stick out like a sore thumb.
Take for instance the city council’s reconsideration of the sign Augustana Lutheran is proposing (Item #21). The Planning Commission voted it down 7-0, the Planning Department also recommended denial, even though only a couple of people in the neighborhood were against it due to ‘distraction and lighting’ issues, even though the church has vowed to not make the sign animated (static changing messages) and it would shut off at 10Ă‚Â PM at night.
But only a month later, look at the Planning Commission’s agenda (Item #6). A proposed digital sign by a church in a residential area on a very busy street. The Planning Commission recommends approval. While I don’t disagree with them, why is this sign OK by a church, in a residential area on a very busy street, but not the very subtle, historical looking, Augustana sign in a residential area?
While I am all for historical neighborhoods trying to retain historical aspects, I also look at two factors; Does the sign at Augustana take away anything from the historical neighborhood or distract from it? Not at all.
Does the sign harm the traffic flow or the historical nature of the traffic flow? Not even close. While Prairie Avenue is mildly busy, I don’t see anyone distracted by a static sign that gets shut off at 10 PM.
Like the code enforcement office, the planning department seems to make decisions based on the influence of certain people with fat wallets.
Hopefully the city council sends the planning department packing and approves the Augustana AND the Good News sign.
Interesting topics at the Sioux Falls City Council Informational meeting
When you follow this stuff for over a decade, you sometimes get the feeling a broken record is being played;
Today’s informational meeting will cover;
- Foundation Park (and all the taxpayer expenditures with NO tenants)
- Paratransit funding (and how the mayor is still p’ssed that we aren’t charging more for it)
- The National Citizen Survey (and how we are allowing under 1% of citizens tell us how to run this town)
Hope you tune in, buckle up your boots, get your scoop shovels in working order and wear gas masks, it’s going to be tantalizing.