During the Informational meeting yesterday, Stehly thanked the Parks Department for doing the Project TRIM experiment. She also brought up other things we subsidize each year. She said that the money could easily be budgeted for the city to trim their own trees in the boulevard.
There was also a discussion about the golf contract with Landscapes Unlimited and how they want to amend the contract so they can possibly provide management for Brandon’s Municipal Course (which I think is a conflict). They cleverly claim that people who will work at the Sioux Falls city courses won’t work at the Brandon course, yet what they fail to mention is that LU is a corporation with multiple management locations all over the United States. Corporate headquarters knows exactly what is going on at both locations simultaneously. They also talked about ‘opportunities’ between the two locations. I’m not sure how people paying to golf at Brandon’s course is an ‘opportunity’ for the taxpayers of Sioux Falls. I have often said we should just have a flat lease for the courses and let the contractor do as they please, and maintain them at their expense. This would be more beneficial to taxpayers, and would eliminate any contract conflicts.
There has also NOT been any determination on how the golf cart shed fire started. During the contract discussion, LU admitted they received $100K from insurance for lost carts, etc. When the Director of Parks, Ding-Dong Don was asked how much the city got from insurance for the destruction of the facility, he responded that they have received nothing yet. When asked why, he said it is because they haven’t figured out yet how they are going to replace the facility (stand alone or along with a new clubhouse). Sorry, but a damaged building value has NOTHING to do with what the new facility will cost. I find this very odd, and wonder if a determination on the cause of the fire will ever be revealed. Of course, this is coming from the same guy who lied about no-mow zones (and various other crap). Can we impeach him?
It is actually pretty common for insurance companies to not pay out until they know what will be done with the rebuild. That can work in your favor sometimes unless you just want to cash out.
A city plow recently nailed a corner street sign in my neighborhood. Thus, labor shortages and quick plow training could then come in handy to save city monies by having snow gates accidentally chop down Ash trees.
The other programs she listed benefit all residents (in theory). Tree trimming benefits only 1.
Big expenditures and none of it is infrastructure. What’s gonna be done with the 5 story parking ramp? How about call it another Zip Mill and blow it tethered for national attention? Lease it for storing soybeans? An indoor Soup Box Derby? An above ground office and pharmacy for Neitzert?
Unless a service benefits all, I am not in favor of it. Its just another vehicle to take money out of my pocket for SOMEONE elses Idea. Here are things we should spend money on
-Roads
-Water
-Sewer
-Police
-Fire
-Ambulance (Yes I have come around on this one)
Things we should NOT spend money on
-Entertainment (Denty, aquatics, Pavilion, etc
-Parks, pools, golf courses (I know this will be controversial but, our government should not entertain us
-Subsidizing businesses
-Subsidizing the poor
If we spend less we have less to fight over and we only need the things EVERYONE uses, not just some. Many items we pay for I NEVER use or will ever use
Landscapes Unlimited managing the Brandon golf course could work to the advantage of Sioux Falls and its residents. While most golfers like to play a variety of courses, almost all have a “home” course where most of their rounds are played. GreatLife tried to get the Brandon contract and was rebuffed. If Landscapes Unlimited were able to offer golf packages that included the SF municipal courses and other courses, it would be better positioned to compete with GreatLife by offering variety while having the SF municipal courses as “home” courses for more people.
I would add residential garbage service onto conservatives list and make it apart of your water bill as many other communities do. That way everyone is forced to pay rather throwing refuse and not paying. If you want water, you’ll have to pay for garbage as well.
I’m now thinking that ambulance service should be left to the hospitals in the metro areas as it was in the old days.
Trim your trees or pick an apartment.
Pools and parks better our young people. Throw away electronic hand held nannies and the parks will fill up again. The Denty, Golf and tennis should support themselves. There must be a few safe guards to protect the short term poor and long term disabled.
If we stopped “Subsidizing the poor,” then more people would actually become unemployed, due to a decline in purchasing power amongst the power, and then you would have even more poor.
Plus, it might cause more to look for a job, which will then mean that everyone’s wages would be even more stagnant or go down.
Every action has a consequence.
Boulevard tree trimming potentially benefits everyone by keeping low hanging branches trimmed. Streets are better maintained to allow ease of parking and unimpeded passage for snow plowing as close as possible to curbs, sidewalks are better maintained to permit walking without having to duck or even be injured by low branches. Trees in the city-owned right-of-way properly maintained by regular trimming, are less likely to be felled by storm winds, necessitating removal entirely at municipal expense. Overall, city aesthetics are improved for everyone who walks, rides or drives throughout the city.
VSG – I am a little taken aback by your statement “Plus it might make them look for a job”. I think that the point, GET A JOB!!! I fail to see the logic in your argument. If we stopped subsidizing people RICH and POOR, that’s fewer taxes we have to pay. If we keep things minimal and stop paying for shit we don’t need it all evens out. I might come out ahead if my Property taxes, sales tax, and Federal all dropped by 50%. The economy after WW2 was booming and that was before Welfare so what gives.
Let’s take Sioux Falls, how much would taxes be reduced if we were not
-Giving out TIFFs
-Building Million dollar schools ever 2 minutes
-building pleasure palaces
-Subsidizing housing, electric, heat, etc for the poor
– I am sure the list is longer of unnecessary items
Bottom Line I don’t think we should take from someone and give it to others. Nothing drives me more nuts than seeing some Fat Cat get taxpayer money for some bullshit they have the money to pay for themselves. The same as I can’t stand watching someone in the Grocery Store in line in front of me breaking out their WIC vouchers to pay for shit, then dropping $250 bucks on Soda and Pizza as the scroll through Instagram on their $1000 iPhone and get themselves into a nice car in the parking lot. Seems like we are gaming the system. It’s all bullshit both ends and I don’t know why as a taxpayer I should be subsidizing your choices and wants. Both ends disgust me and all us in the middle get to do is pay MORE taxes. See the folks in the middle don’t qualify for the freebies of low income but, don’t have enough money to make money.
was walking on the sidwalk and i seen one of them ash bored trees on the boulevard that had its bark all busted off and there was about a 1000 holes in it and i got trypophobia and about had to puke right there
Theresa is right, the city must pay to trim their trees. I don’t have any trees to worry about. The city forced people to plant trees alongside the street in the mistaken belief it added charm without thinking about the damage the root system would do to the utilities hidden below the grass. The root systems do a great deal of damage as the trees grow.
From personal experience driving in cute neighborhoods with curbside trees, even a Suburban or Yukon will have its roof racks ripped off. I have driven delivery trucks and had the mirror damaged because of low hanging branches trimmed too low.
If the town wants trees, it is not just for the poor property owner who happens to have a house alongside a street where it is important to have those trees for our viewing pleasure. The town owns the trees, the town must pay to trim them.
Theresa is right again.