2024

Does the City of Sioux Falls even have a code enforcement department anymore?

l3wis January 3, 2024 20Comments

I have been complaining about the property at 15th and Cliff for well over a decade with ZERO results. I have implored the city’s code enforcement department, the county and city councilors with ZERO results. ZERO!

Just look at this dump I have been living next door to for 20 years.

A collapsed roof, a house that has been gutted for over a decade, two abandoned rentals with severe water damage, unlicensed vehicles, random junk, weeds, debris, fire hazards, homeless encampment and to top it all off, behind on their taxes.

What does it take for the city to take action? Really? Or even the county? Anybody? While the city chased after an almost completed mansion they let this property rot.

Do I think it is political? Kind of. I wouldn’t say the city is ignoring this because of me, but they have given up on code enforcement in many middle class neighborhoods like mine. The C-Store supposedly closed on 14th and Cliff because they were getting robbed so much, doesn’t help you have a salvage yard next to you.

If the property owner doesn’t want to sell (he has had many generous offers) fine, but please, get a bulldozer and some grass seed so I don’t have to look at your toilet anymore!

And as for the city, do your freaking job! Does the property have to go into nuclear meltdown before you will act?

Yeah, What Lalley said

l3wis January 3, 2024 4Comments

I figured if I waited a few days into 2024 someone would do the heavy lifting for me. Pat Lalley with Siouxfallslive.com beat me to the punch when it comes for my hopes for this city and especially a mayor who seems to be oblivious to the benefits of open and transparent government;

Either way, the path to good government is not paved with insularity. Rather, it’s openness.

There have been too many instances when the administration appears askew, prone to done deals rather than public oversight.

The original parking lot mural, the botched sustainability plan, the secret contract to operate The Link, the Delbridge taxidermy collection, all these controversies boiled up in 2023 and all share a common thread, which is an effort to keep all the information from getting out, or doing deals in the dark.

That’s unfortunate because behind each project is something good, or at least solvable, in the light of day and with the benefit of public discourse.

It’s a painful process but necessary.

This metropolitan area faces several large challenges in the coming years from transportation to housing to economic segregation.

The leader of the largest government entity in the metro has a huge responsibility, not just to the financiers of growth, but to working class parents, new citizens and old, business owners large and small, clergy and unchurched, families of all shapes, shades and composition.

That really is the problem, this mayor and the past two have never been a mayor ‘of the people’. This is about special deals for special people, and the public can’t be privy to it. Over the past year I have needled several folks in the local media to pursue a suspicious real estate deal between a high ranking city official (privately held real estate) and one of the largest developers in the state. It wasn’t the sale of the property that was suspicious or even unethical, that was normal, it was the price tag. All of this is public records, but you can’t get even one of them to lift a finger to expose these folks.

While I do appreciate Lalley calling out the mayor, it will take a concerted effort by everyone in the local media to push back on this lack of transparency. You heard nothing from them when the SFPD turned off the scanners. Why?

We can’t hold government accountable if we don’t have a 4th estate that is willing to do it. So I applaud Lalley and other independent reporters like Megan Reposa who are willing to ask the hard questions and push the administration on answers.

Mysterious City of Sioux Falls Election contract and Conditional Use WTF?

l3wis January 2, 2024 1Comments

During the city council meeting tonight they discussed the ordinance for Minnehaha County to provide election services for the Spring city election (Item #32).

Councilor Starr asked if the tabulation machines were going to be used, and the city clerk, Mr. Washington assured Starr they would be used, but seemed nervous about the details.

I guess the auditor of Lincoln and Minnehaha County had a meeting with our city clerk and whoever is in charge of elections for the unconstitutional school district to discuss the details. Little is known of what was discussed or decided. Hopefully by 2nd reading we will see just how the crazy train will run our next election.

WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT!

Item #25 was an appeal of a dog kennel permit in which Councilor Neitzert added conditional uses that would be ‘ENFORCEABLE’ if not followed. After further discussion by councilor Starr it was discovered that the city has no legal process to revoke a conditional use permit. In other words if you tell Bob’s Casino to put up a 6 foot fence and it falls down after 2 weeks and it is never put back up, there is NO process for the city to revoke the permit. Seems strange? Oh that’s right, we are only business friendly in Sioux Falls, not neighbor friendly.

Business Interests now rule the SD Supreme Court

l3wis January 2, 2024 5Comments

Cameraman Bruce contributed to this post

South Dakota Supreme Court has made it official, unethical behavior is acceptable in South Dakota. This case had half of the Wall City Council making decisions on zoning a new business out of the fine “city”. Of course it is a silly thing to expect ethics to be considered because we learned a few years ago when the legislature threw out the weak ethics initiative passed by the voters, their reasoning was South Dakota doesn’t need ethics laws because we have the most ethical elected officials in the country.

I also look at all the individuals who have pleaded with the state for their individual rights (the prison and CO2 pipeline come to mind) with no response. Now the courts are in bed with business. You would literally have to be a rotting wooden fence post not to see that the ENTIRE council was unethical in their ruling against LOVE’s.

On top of that, why would an entire city council vote against economic development and jobs!?

I have felt our courts in South Dakota are questionable (you know, like if legalizing MJ meant legalizing all forms of it) and now the highest court in our state sides with the politically connected, even those who have a dust mite invested bump in the road tourist attraction.

FULL RULING DOCUMENT

Factual and Procedural Background

“[¶3.] Loves is a privately owned corporation that operates 24-hour truck stops across the United States. One Shot, L.L.C. (One Shot), a South Dakota limited liability company, owns real property located in the southwest corner of the City. Loves entered into an agreement to purchase a 13-acre parcel of land (the Property) from One Shot, conditioned upon obtaining City zoning and permitting approvals to develop and construct a new travel stop on the Property. At the time, the Property was located within the City, but had not been platted or designated to one of the four established zoning districts in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

“The City Council is comprised of a six-member panel. At the outset of this case, Rick Hustead, Jerry Morgan, Stan Anderson, Mike Anderson, Dar Haerer, and Dan Hauk all served on the City Council. 2 Hustead is the owner of Wall Drug Store, Inc., a popular rest stop and tourist attraction located within the City. Hustead also owns the Wall Auto Livery gas station and convenience store. Mike Anderson is the owner of a Dairy Queen franchise in the City, and Welsh owns a local motel.”

[¶15.] The City appeals and raises two issues:

1. Whether the court erred in holding the City in contempt of its mandamus order.

2. Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering the City to issue Loves a building permit as a remedy for its finding of civil contempt.

[¶17.] A party seeking civil contempt must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of an order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply with the order; and (4) willful or contumacious disobedience of the order.” Id. ¶ 20 (quoting Keller v. Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 9, 660 N.W.2d 619, 622). “The purpose of the civil contempt is ‘to force a party “to comply with orders and decrees issued by a court in a civil action[.]”’” Taylor, 2019 S.D. 27, ¶ 39, 928 N.W.2d at 470-71 (quoting Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 2007 S.D. 17, ¶ 23, 729 N.W.2d 335, 344). [¶18.] The City does not contest the first three elements. Thus, the only issue is whether the City “willfully or contumaciously disobeyed” the circuit court’s order. To make a finding of a “willful or contumacious disobedience” of an order, the order “must state the details of compliance in such clear, specific and unambiguous terms that the person to whom it is directed will know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon [him].” Id. (quoting Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 10, 660 N.W.2d at 622).

[¶24.] The City Council scheduled a separate meeting to identify any conflicts of interest prior to considering Loves’ application. The minutes from the meeting show that the City Council discussed whether any member had a direct pecuniary interest. The City attorney also advised each member to conduct a “self-analysis” for any conflict of interest they may possess.