We have not heard much for awhile. In fact, even if the City Council has heard anything in executive session, they haven’t said much either.
We know that the developer, has put in a counter action asking to complete the project scaled down, but we know that would be a breach of contract.
City Hall moles and others in the media have told me there hasn’t been any lawsuits filed by the city. The reason? The rumor is the mayor has chosen NOT to sue Lamont based on being a nice guy.
Sadly, this isn’t the mayor’s decision. The breach of contract occurred against the taxpayers of Sioux Falls, not his administration, and the citizens should sue based solely on that.
Not only should Lamont NOT be allowed to finish the project half-ass, the taxpayers of this city deserve some kind of compensation for leaving us a hunk of crap. But of course this would mean several past and current councilors and two mayors admit the mistake and apologize for not pumping the brakes early on. Of course, corrupt, authoritarians don’t do things like that.
The real reason the city is NOT suing is because they don’t want this to look like a major F’up, which it is. I wonder if the developer will walk away with no fines and no deal? Don’t know, we may never know.
And I wonder what developer will be waiting in the wings . . . with a TIF to boot?
This will always be. It’s what Huether can acceptably put his name on. We need a home for pigeons. It’s a bunker defense for demonstrations against the city.
IF the Mayor decided not to sue based on being ‘nice’ – I would not be upset over it, keep in mind, in reality, ‘we’ need someone to come forward to complete this project. You do not make friends by sueing people.
The MAYOR has to look out for the entire “CITY” which is made up of Land Owners, Businesses, Residents, etc.
You do not want a mayor simply going around sueing every Tom, Dick, and Harry, especially when we count on Tom, Dick, and Harry to help develop the Community.
Relax, Enjoy Life, Have Fun,
I once knew a lawyer named Sue, who did all of my sueing for me. 😉
Mike, re-read my post. It is NOT up to Paul whether to sue or not, it is up to taxpayers. It is his duty as our city leader to work on behalf of US not his whims. We got royally screwed on the bunker ramp, someone must pay.
“I once knew a boy named Sue”….
Despite dozens in the city attorney office, they don’t know how to win a case. They have a history of both deceptive and unconstitutional disrespect for the law they don’t want brought out in court. With more history, it’s another Stonehenge. Blame Neanderthals, Aliens, or Huether.
‘Sue’ was the name of the giant dinosaur fossil. Rapid and Wall have dinosaurs. Finally, there’s one here.
Scott, I re-read your column, and I understand what you are saying, I am simply thinking, if the long term goal is to complete the project, the last thing you want is for the Mayor to order a lawsuit against the very people you may or may not need in the future to help build the project. Keep in mind, the same lawsuit you are asking the Mayor to fulfill in the name of the “CITY”, can also work against us as well, as facts, evidence, public testimony, and the law is brought into the court room. And that should be something to consider as well as one ponders to sue or not sue.
The “CITY” is a combination of Land Owners, Developers, Business Owners, Property Holders, Residents, of who all pay ‘taxes’ to help provide our roads, infrastructure, public buildings, services, and programs of the city. So in our collective interest, is a lawsuit really in our best interest?
As a mayor promoting “public-private” partnerships, I do not believe he was to go after the very people he wishes to depend on to help develop the City.
Just My Opinion.
Relax, Enjoy Life, Have Fun.
“collective interest”? Are you a collectivist? JEB! once warned us against them.
If Sioux City sued Sioux Falls with the help of an attorney named Sue due to pollution in the Sioux, would they sue in Sioux Falls or Sioux City? (What about Sioux County?) AND would the sueing ensue or not be pursued due to a jurisdictional issue?