2018

UPDATE: Will the Harrisburg School Bond election results give us some insight on the SF election

UPDATE: The Bond election passed with almost 85% approval (no surprises there) and like the SFSD election a low voter turnout, about 10%. I still wonder how these elections would have turned out if held with the Mid-Terms.

I think it will be very interesting to see the results of the Harrisburg School Bond tonight.

There are many differences. Harrisburg is taking out $40 million (not $190) and they are having NO tax increase attached to it (their levee is already higher than SF).

Another factor is that Harrisburg and other surrounding towns like Brandon and Tea tend to be a little more fiscally conservative when voting.

I still think it will pass, I’m even willing to say by 75%. But what if it is 85% or higher? Does that tell us that Sioux Falls 85% passage is believable? What if it is a lot lower? Or doesn’t pass (60%)?

The voter turnout will also be another factor.

While the results certainly can’t be compared 100% to the SF School Bond election, there will be some areas we can review and do some comparisons.

I also find it curious that the SFSD told voters they had to have the election in September because their budget HAD to be submitted to the state by September 30. So how is it that Harrisburg can have their election after that magical date in the middle of October and still be able to submit it to the state? Oh, that’s right, because the budget can be amended and submitted to the state later. Both Sioux Falls and Harrisburg school districts could have had their bond elections with the mid-term in November. It would have saved taxpayers money by holding it with the midterms. There would have been a larger voter turnout AND it would have been tabulated by a machine by an un-bias county auditor instead of having finance administrators count the votes by hand.

The results will be interesting.

National League of Cities NOT big on 5G

Anytime Republicans, or Republican administrations or dirty rotten rich corporations talk about ‘too much regulation’ that is code for ‘I pay too much in taxes and these environmentalists are getting in the way of me making even more money’. Or something like that.

I will agree, some regulations are silly and weird, but some are put in place to make us live happier lives without letting the corporate wolves control what we eat, see or do.

It seems the 5G Network doesn’t have some fans;

The order will go into effect 90 days after publication of the final version in the Federal Register. As previously reported on CitiesSpeak, the order will:

  • Shorten the time cities have to process applications for small cells to either 60 or 90 days, depending on whether they are being mounted on an existing or new structure;
  • Limit application fees for small cells to $100 per site, and recurring fees to $270 per site, per year, for small cells in the rights-of-way;
  • Prohibit cities from assessing fees that include anything other than a “reasonable approximation” of “reasonable costs” directly related to maintaining the rights-of-way and the small cell facility; and
  • Limit aesthetic review and requirements (including undergrounding and historic/environmental requirements) to those that are reasonable, comparable to requirements for other rights-of-way users, and published in advance.

NLC, along with its local government partners, has fought this preemption order through comments to the FCC and advocacy on Capitol Hill, and will continue the fight in all three branches of the federal government. The final text of the order was released September 27 and is substantially similar to the draft, with one noteworthy change: if cities notify wireless providers that applications are incomplete, they will be able to restart, rather than toll, the shot clock for that specific application.

While I see some benefits to 5G, there is also some drawbacks. And the promoters don’t want to talk about it.

Noem gets bailed out by the stinky rich

As we all suspected, Noem raised gobs of money when Trump came for his (private) visit in which SF taxpayers had to dole out $29K for security;

Kristi Noem’s fundraiser featuring President Donald Trump raked in $518,780, according to a new campaign finance report.

Quite the donor list. Number one donor, a person who has made millions from government subsidies and special exemptions to sell a fuel that takes food out of hungry mouths. A very ‘small investment’ for the returns he has been granted.

The four max contributors were Jeff Broin, of Dell Rapids, who is CEO and founder of Broin LLC; Thomas Everist, of the Everist Co. in Sioux Falls (Everist and Broin actually gave $25,000 and had to be issued $2,000 refunds); Michael Dalsin, of Sioux Falls, owner of Dalsin Inc.; and Eldon Roth, of Dakota Dunes, who is CEO of Beef Products Inc.

Jeff got a refund? LOL. Oh, that’s because of this little rule;

The use of a joint fundraising committee for the event allowed contributors to write one check for up to $23,000, even though state law caps individual contributions to statewide candidates at $4,000.

Poor Kristi, she had to form a PAC so she could get more than $4,000 in individual contributions. The next time you hear Kristi, or any Republican for that matter in this state running for office say they are looking out for you, just read the donor list attached to this story. That is who they are really looking out for.

Drainage Issues? What Drainage Issues?

FF: 1:57:40, as councilor Stehly introduces video of the drainage issues around Item #34;

The neighbors of this potential project have asked that a serious drainage study be done before approval and that the building face the opposite direction. It has all fell on deaf ears so far. This was the 1st reading last night, 2nd reading will have final action.

While I feel for these people, I just don’t see 5 councilors voting against a project headed up Mark Mickelson, Former Head Dude in the House of Lords in Pierre and CAFO King. Peasants be damned!