Remember when they bought this parking lot, they said they would have some workforce housing available;
The One2 is scheduled to open in early 2025 and will start pre-leasing later this year. Apartments will range between $1,300 and $2,500 a month.
In order for a single person to rent a $1,300 a month apartment they would need to make $56K per year or $27 dollars an hour.
Many employers are not even getting close to this wage in Sioux Falls. So once again a developer tells the city council one thing when they want to get their grubby hands on some prime DT property and do something different in the end.
On top of that, what is with all these cheap finishes on the new dwellings DTSF? Nothing fits in with the historical buildings, they are just gigantic concrete boxes, no creativity whatsoever.
So the mayor is going to give his two cents on why we have so much infrastructure growth in Sioux Falls. Everyone knows the reason. It’s not because we have some secret sauce in Sioux Falls. We have so much growth because we continue to pour gasoline on a fire in the form of TIFs and tax rebates. Enough!
We could reign in a lot of this and focus on building density and cleaning up neighborhoods, and stop handing out tax breaks to the big boys.
Maybe he will bring his dunk tank;
I have been telling peeps, no matter who you vote today, you will get a good candidate. I think both have impressed me over the last couple of months. While I did vote for Jordan, twice, I will say, no matter who wins tonight, we will get a solid public servant. While Jordan’s vision aligns more with mine, Richard has some great ideas and would be an asset to the council. I think for once we finally have a council race worth paying attention to.
And not to sound like the mayor, but get out and vote, or he’ll dunk you!
I think if they set up dunk tanks at all the polls more people would show up! I hope Poops can find time to vote in between the dunking, jumping jacks and proselytizing from his driver’s seat!
I would think state law would have something to say about a candidate’s PAC raising money for themself as a candidate. But like most campaign and election laws lately, peeps just ignore them and hope they don’t get caught, and if so who cares? There have been several rumors circulating that the SOS is refusing to work with many county auditors and city clerks.
• Marshall Selberg has been illegally serving on the city council since at least February when he changed his voter registration, but could have lived in the property in NW district since he purchased it in October of 2022.
• A school board candidate filled out a form incorrectly, TWICE, and the School District was complicit in the act.
• Agendas get posted incorrectly or are hidden from our city clerk setting up a scenario where the city attorney is blocking the door of a public building preventing councilors from coming in.
So what are we going to do about this? Likely nothing. I still think if City Hall had it’s own food truck the media would cover this stuff better. At least they are not shooting dogs in gravel pits.
UPDATE: This is what State Law says about it;
SD 12-27-1 Definitions
(17) “Political action committee,” any person or entity that raises, collects or disburses contributions to influence the outcome of an election and who is not a candidate, public officer holder, candidate campaign committee, ballot question committee, or a political party. Its at least in spirit not good when you have a PAC that is holding a fundraiser for a candidate in an elction, and the candidate is the same person who controls the PAC. You can donate $1,000 as an individual to a local candidate. But you can contribute $10,000 to a PAC. If a PAC independently gives a bunch of money to a candidate, that’s perfectly legal. But when you overtly seem to advertise that donating to the PAC is a donation to a specific candidate/campaign, it would appear you are just using the PAC as an end run around the campaign finance limits. Whenever I’ve discussed this with people, the interpretation always seemed to be it would be a big no-no if there was an explicit deal of donate to this PAC and they will send the donation over to a specific campaign, because then its just disguising the true donors, and its getting around the campaign finance limits. I suspect though based on the law, it would be a close call. In spirit, it definitely seems like a problem. Legally? Maybe. I think you could argue if there is an explicit agreement that the donation to a given PAC at a fundraiser WILL be given to a specific campaign/candidate, it violates this:
No person or entity (e.g. the PAC) may make a contribution in the name of another person or entity, make a contribution disguised as a gift, make a contribution in a fictitious name, make a contribution on behalf of another person or entity, or knowingly permit another to use that person’s or entity’s name to make a contribution. No candidate may knowingly accept a contribution disguised as a gift. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor. A subsequent offense within a calendar year is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
In this case, it would be my opinion that overtly its being stated that you are donating to a PAC, and it would “make a contribution on behalf of another person”. Meaning, if I donate to this PAC, with a explicit agreement/understanding it is going to one of those campaigns, the PAC is violating the law by making the donation to the local county campaign, and its doing it on behalf of the person who donated to the PAC, because there was a overt agreement that any donation to the PAC at this event is going to a candidate. It has the effect of disguising the true contributors to the local campaigns, which is not supposed to be done, and again it circumvents the limits. Now, again, PACs can be used to donate larger sums, but there really should never be an explicit earmarking. In the real world does it happen behind the scenes – yes? Its usually not so overt though. I wouldn’t do it. I suspect it could violate the above, or at least creates a strong question that it will be.
This is not the picture you probably see in the ads for condos down by the district on the river.
Nothing more glimmering and beautiful then the stink rolling off this gem downtown.
It amazes me that you could sell a $1 million condo next to this, and the train sirens.
The packing plant is going nowhere and the trains are likely going nowhere.
They do plan to build some quiet zones on 6th street and 8th street, but to be effective, the entire DTSF area needs to be a quiet zone. You will still hear the train whistles from the switching yards and from Cliff and 14th street. In order for the quiet zones to work, it would have to encompass the entire downtown area. Likely not going to happen because of pushback from the Fed DOT and railroads and the cost.
As for the packing plant, that is likely not going anywhere and the smell is getting worse. I have heard rumors that several downtown dwellers have left renting down by Phillips to the Falls due to the smell. Can you imagine investing that much money only to smell burning flesh, urine and manure almost anytime you open your patio door?
It cracks me up to read about all these ‘luxurious’ options in these developments, but every time you walk out the door you smell death and poop.
Downtown has great developmental potential, but not until you get rid of the trains and the stink will it be worthwhile . . . and what about all the places quietly closing downtown? Something developers don’t like to talk about.
l3wis 
