I often chuckle when Erickson accuses Stehly of being the crazy one on the council. Kettle meet black. Tonight at the city council regular meeting when councilor Starr pulled the consent agenda item about the potential $7,500 legal fee for Neitzert’s ethics complaint for outside counsel defense Erickson accused Starr of releasing confidential information.
I about died laughing.
Starr encouraged her to read the Argus Leader. It is all there in black and white.
Once again, I was laughing.
Christine seems to think that since the public already knows there was an ethics complaint against Neitzert that was thrown out on a technicality that the public doesn’t know the 2nd time around it is also against him. Who did she think the 2nd complaint was against with the proper legal reference this time around? Bugs Bunny?
While none of us have seen it in writing it is against him, isn’t the writing on the freaking wall?! Duh!
But I guess we are all conspiracy theorists. Nope. We are realists.
The Neitzert Ethics issue #2. What’s it about? For that matter, ethics issue # 1?
He got paid to attend a partisan event and speak in his official capacity as a non-partisan city councilor in his official capacity. The complaintant cited the wrong section of law, so I would assume he refiled with the correct citation, which would bring us to the obvious conclusion.
Sioux Falls government has become housewives of TV. There’s more importance on who’s catty this week and who violated the social circle. Let Neitzert cheat. It’s how we’ll keep him from elected as mayor. One strike then two. Third and you’re out. Third is coming.
“Say, is the Fargo bus running on time?”
What happens if the “Ethics complaint” is found legit? Reason I ask is it seems to appear EVERYWHERE in govt that Ethics complaints really don’t have any teeth. I have seen numerous times some law maker is “censured” but, it appears to have no real impact on anything, am I missing something?
If it’s “legit.” Greg will be forced to stand at 41st and Minnesota during busy traffic times for an entire week with a sandwich board, which reads: I VOTED FOR THE BUNKER RAMP. #Someday
If he is found to have done something unethical, he’ll have the other members of RS5 giving him hugs of support to help him thru this traumatic event. Maybe newcomer Alex will take him to DQ for a blizzard as well.
Looks a lot to me like the city wants back in with LaMont on the parking ramp deal. No one else wants in now that Lloyd has moved there sites to the Falls.
Regarding the Lloyd Developments at the Falls – How is that coming since people raised the questions considering “land patent rights” to the land in question. Pretty quiet there lately, did the CITY over step it’s boundaries again on land that may or may not be ‘protected’ by a land claim?
This happened before as well … Remember back in, was it 2009 or 2010 the CITY tried to re-zone and develop the Lyon Family Property (a.k.a Fairgrounds), then later found out the ‘claim’ to the land was such, no develop could ever change the zoning, the use of, nor could commercial development ever be done on the land. “WE” lost a nice race track cause then Mayor Gary Hanson (First Mayor of New Government) decided that Racing had to go and a parking lot replaced the track, then under the Dave Munson adminstration the CITY tried to re-zone, re-develop the land into commercial real-estate. The STATE shut down that plan very fast.
Now we come to the Sioux Steel Property and land claim issue, and now another problem…..Why does the City continuesly involve itself in questional land deals?
Do we really want another Parking Lot to replace God’s Gift to the People?
Mike Zitterich (605) 376-0527
“Say, am I the only one who keeps waking up in a cold sweat involving a quitclaim nightmare?”