Funny how the agenda isn’t on the main agenda page but hidden on something called the mayor’s page. Huh? I guess it was posted on Friday. By the looks of the agenda, looks like they want this to be their last meeting;
UPDATE: A city official reached out for me and got feedback on this project;
The deck is complete. The agreement is for the ancillary project of designing and constructing a wooden four garbage container enclosure on the North side of the building to match the rest of the deck. With the social stairs and sponsor signage on the North side, the garbage containers were out in the open and looked rather unsightly for the area, not to mention they were often overflowing. Koch Hazard (architect on the project) is basically constructing them at the cost of their design fee as part of a community project (plus they have to look across the street at the open garbage containers). We initially asked for quotes to amend this onto the initial deck contract but the quoted cost were a little high.
Even if the construction of a garbage enclosure is included in this price-tag, for that price, the garbage enclosure should be on the National Historic Register!
Remember when I told you the $1 a year rent for SF Startup was gonna cost us? (Consent agenda, Item #7) Looks like they are already in re-design mode on the uneven deck they built this last summer;
Granted, I have no idea what the architectural fee is for, but it seems suspicious considering the deck was finished already, or is it? Not sure it takes $5,800 in consulting fees to tell us we need to rent an industrial planer.
There have been many funny convos with downtowners about this situation. If you haven’t been DTSF for awhile, I will summarize. There is an existing newer apartment building on the corner of 13th and 2nd Avenue (West of of Sunshine GS) called Prescott Place. A developer is building a new building to the North of it, and as you can see, someone is losing their patio view. This should have never been approved to be this close to the existing structure.
UPDATE: I would like to thank all the people who have reached out to me about this park, including some new commenters. I have changed my mind a bit on the topic. While I still maintain there really isn’t a good place for an off leash park in Sioux Falls, I think we could grandfather this park in. I am with these folks when it comes to the ‘Empire Building’ the parks director wants to do, and I would support keeping this park, AS IS.
No matter what your city park recreation looks like, we have to keep in mind, our park system is a socialist system. We all pay into it, and we should all be able to use it for whatever reason, and I defend that stance.
This summer while attending a Parks Board meeting the parks director kind of summed it up, (paraphrasing) ‘. . . yah know, the walkers complain about the bicyclists, the road bikers complain about the strollers or E-Bikes, etc.,’ He basically said that the different interest groups like to think the park system is for their activity only. I don’t think the off-leash folks are saying this, they are just saying let us keep what we already have.
I have long been supportive of making our parks system more natural, and this area is a great example of natural use of land.
But we have to stop having this argument that the park system is only for XYZ and not ABC, it is called a ‘shared use’ trail for a reason. We all get to use the system because we all contribute, and we should find ways to work with the different groups to have a little harmony instead of knocking each other down (and I am certainly guilty of this also).
Part of the issue is the newly formed Parks Foundation. Basically a private non-profit that funnels tax write-offs of rich donors to a fund our parks. While this would technically be a great idea, it is being done for the wrong reasons. I have said any donations to the parks system should go into the general fund, and let the community as a whole decide what our parks look like. Instead, while they are getting tax benefits, they are also deciding what these parks look like. This is wrong. We own the parks as a whole community and we don’t need the advice and consent of the rich city fathers to make our parks great.
I actually think if we banned in ordinance the ability for donors to contribute to ‘specific projects’ we would have more citizen driven parks needs. The donors would walk away because they couldn’t plaster their names across some dog park pickle glice arena and the ownership and direction of the parks would be back in the citizens laps, where it belongs.
Believe it or not, I am on your side, and love dogs, I just think we need a massive community effort to bring all the interest groups together and have something equitable for everyone. But that isn’t how we do things these days. Conquer and divide. The haves and have nots. Our Park System is turning into the Gaza Strip where citizens are fighting for territory, which is ludicrous.*
(for the record, I ride my bike to any destination the shortest distance possible, that can mean the bike trail, a sidewalk, the street, I even ride across open parks if I think it is a shorter distance. You could rip out every single sidewalk and bike trail in this town, and I will continue to ride.)
*Last Sunday I rode the bike trail from Cherry Rock Park to Russell Avenue starting at 9 AM. Guess how many people I saw on the trail in that 10 mile distance? One. It was a lady walking her dog as I got on the trail at Cherry Rock. My point is, there is plenty of room for different users in our parks system, it is NOT overcrowded or overused.
ORIGINAL POST
I have been to the park several times
The city of Sioux Falls has stepped up. They have provided almost every dog park that has come across their desks, and they even plow the bike trail in the winter so people have a place to walk their dogs. When it comes to ‘dog friendly’ in Sioux Falls we have nailed it. The other night not only did I almost trip over a twins stroller but a dog leash at a restaurant. Dogs run this town (and little kids).
Recently a group of dog owners and trainers have been urging the city to keep the off leash park in Family Park. I know, it is a surprise to me that we even allow dogs to run free in the city limits. There are many reasons why a city should promote fenced dog parks, one of those is legal;
When we first wrote this article five years ago, we expected we would be seeing more legislative and judicial activity concerning dog parks than has been the case. Relatively few states have seen the need to assure any specific level of immunity to those who own the land on which a dog park is created. There have been some lawsuits in tort regarding unsafe conditions for visitors to dog parks, but it does not seem to us that the number of such suits is disproportionate to the amount of land involved. Indeed, we suspect that many dog parks, often created by committees of citizens in many rounds of discussions, are well thought out to avoid such problems and the frequency of personal injuries appears to be very low. There is also the goodwill of the dog-owning users, who see the benefits of such parks for their dogs and themselves and who make an extra effort to reduce both human and canine aggression.
The number of legal decisions and orders, either formally reported or published in Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis, that concern disputes that arose between visitors of dog parks has also not been very significant in our opinion. It appears that people with aggressive dogs are not prone to bring them to dog parks. Indeed, one of the values of a dog park is that it provides a place where a dog owner can socialize a dog that might not otherwise be meeting many members of its own species. Encounters on leash, on streets and roads, are often cut short or prevented at all, so that for many busy dog-owners with limited time to enjoy their pets, a dog park may be the best place to assure some frequency of socialization activity.
Can you imagine if the city expanded off-leash parks to all major parks? The liability of the city would be huge. I think this is why the city parks staff have been largely ignoring these folks, they don’t know how to let them down gently.
Dogs are animals after all and we have no idea of how they would react to certain situations. We can’t talk to dogs, so we have no idea if they are feeling anxiety and any dog in an uncomfortable situation will react in an aggressive manner, even if they are well trained.
While listening to the arguments as to why we should keep an off-leash park at Family Park (or even expand it) it seems to come down to one thing; convenience. Every person who has testified so far to keep the off-leash park has mentioned they like having the park close to their homes. There are hundreds and hundreds of acres of state parks circling Sioux Falls where you can take your dog running off leash. One thing I used to do with my dog when he was full of vigor is run him about 2 miles along my bike. Any ambition to get jiggy quickly evaporated.
I have never understood people wanting large dogs in city limits. Dogs are active beasts. Our dogs on the farm sometimes would leave for days and return like nothing happened. They love to run and explore, it’s just part of their nature.
If this is simply about convenience, I can’t feel any sympathy for you. If you have taken it upon yourself to train a large dog within the city limits, that’s on you! It is not my responsibility to make sure your dog has a place to run. You chose to own a large breed dog and now you have to take care of it.
Now let’s get back to building parks for PEOPLE!!!! Remember, the folks that actually fund the parks!
*Another idea proposed for the park is a pump track or possible BMX track. While riding a BMX on a pump track can be dangerous, I prefer it over getting bit by a dog.
PAINT BALL TRASH SITE
Speaking of bizarre parks in Sioux Falls, has anyone rode the bike trail past the paintball man cave? It is in between Madison and Russell avenue to the East of the trail. You can’t miss it. I recently asked a city official if there property leaks over unto city land, and I haven’t heard a response. Even if it is on private property, the city really needs to go in an inspect the property because when you ride past it, it looks like the film set of Deliverance.
Apple Tree Children’s Centers plans to close all four of its Sioux Falls locations in less than one month. Parents were notified late today that the centers will close as of Jan. 11.
One message sent to parents read:
“We are thankful and blessed by the amazing caregivers, managers and support staff that have worked so hard. We want to thank you for entrusting us with the care of your children over the years. We will do our best to keep staff until the end but may become short staffed.”
Official notice from owner Randall Stewart will be received tomorrow, it said.
For full disclosure I worked for the Stewart family over 20 years ago. I remember having a couple of convos with Randall (Randy) Stewart about Apple Tree. I think his parents kept it as a labor of love and not for profits.
It’s unfortunate they are only giving parents a 30 day notice, my guess is they got an offer on the building and said SOLD.
Trust me, my eyes glaze over when people start talking about this topic. I chose to NOT have children early in my life, and I have never regretted it. Listening to my friends talk about their kids and all the BS they have to put up with childcare, school and activities, makes me even more happy I chose not to reproduce.
Having children is a choice, but it is also a sacrifice.
I think we have always had a childcare issue in Sioux Falls, and it has only reared it’s head recently because of inflation. Just imagine living paycheck to paycheck and when all of your other expenses go up how do you cover childcare?
These issues have existed for years in SF;
• Little to no health inspections from the state
• Low wages
• Understaffed and under trained
What often baffles me is that parents want affordable childcare but they also want good care. You can’t have both. You know the old adage, you get what you pay for.
I think the supposed crisis will settle down over the next year when inflation drops.
My best advice to people considering having children in this economy; Wear a condom. It’s way cheaper then childcare.
l3wis