I attended the neighborhood meeting today at 85th & Audie, and I will have to give MMM credit, he was dropped into a hornet’s nest, and of course, patted himself on the back for being one of the few politicians who would do this. The only other city employee in attendance was Planning Director Mike Cooper, who also answered questions. No Walmart representatives, no city councilors and no one from Lloyd companies.
Some memorable moments were when one guy said, ” Why don’t you do a little less talking, and a little more listening.(sic)”
Another resident told the mayor they don’t trust the system and that is why they intervened, and stopped Shape Sioux Falls.
But things really heated up when one citizen said that he was in reelection mode. He didn’t like that too much, and made the guy say it again. He of course said he wasn’t. Go figure.
Mike also said he wishes he could take credit for all the development in town, but thanked the Planning department.
The mood from the crowd was that Walmart didn’t make the concessions they wanted, a smaller store and not 24/7. MMM of course claims the planning department is simply following rules by making recommendations. And here is the stickler with that statement. If Walmart has the legal right to build at that location, why does the council have to approve it? The simple answer is they don’t have to, that is why it is being brought to a vote. They can simply say no, like they did when they wanted to build at 69th.
I have said all along, most of the residents who don’t support the Walmart built their homes BEFORE 2009 when the area was rezoned. They have a right to oppose this and stop the store. I wish them luck, but when the city see’s dollar signs (in the form of retail tax revenue) they have one mission, ignore the citizens and prop up big business.
No city councilors….. !!!!!!!???!!!!
Sue Aguilar represents this district (Southeast).
And, three missing At-Large councilors, Entenman, Rolfing, and Staggers.
Aguilar, Entenman, and Rolfing are all potentially up for re-election in just ten short months.
Mike has publicly stated on multiple occasions that he would like to serve a second term as Mayor. How could he not be working towards re-election when it is less than a year away?!
Given what you write about this topic, I’d be very interested in hearing you write a little bit about what exactly your beliefs are in regard to property rights.
In this instance, for example, it would seem as though you consider the rights of both the property owner and the city at large (whose interests are expressed through their elected officials) to be entirely subordinate to the wishes of a scant handful of people who live across the street.
Is there a radius at which you would consider their influence to end? At what point do the interests of the other 160k people in this city take precedence over what the people across the street want?
For example, should a homeowner on 57th between Sertoma and Tea/Ellis be able to singlehandedly block next year’s arterial expansion there because 20 years ago the city told them the road would never be widened? What if two homeowners were promised? What if it was five? Is there a point at which even you would agree that your “but the neighbors were promised” logic no longer holds water?
Personally looking at the drainage of the current 85th street during the Saturday rain event you could see another real issue on the horizon for the neighborhood and Harrisburg.
The current 85th Street is the future 2 westbound lanes of the planned 4 lane street to Walmart, other commercial development and schools. The neighbors currently watch the speed of the drivers, combined with hydroplaning, to see when the first cars die in the high water. The storm sewer system water has no place to go. Great design… Oh yea, MMM bragged about their planning while speaking Saturday.
The land is so flat and ‘marsh-like’ there is no soaking in or ability to proper drain. The Walmart location is the headwaters (or the starting point) of Schindler Creek. Where are the water drainage studies for this area. Isn’t hard surface drainage a requirement for the conditional use permit?
Where is Lincoln County in this discussion?
There is a reason this area has not had homesteads or commercial development in the 150 year history of the area. Those of us who have had to navigate south Sioux Falls / Hwy 77 / Harrisburg water flows to the Sioux River need to see how the towns, county and state plan to handle the anticipated flooding in the future. The water previously heading for low spots to be soaked in ground or retained for slow flows will now be channeled faster to the downstream property owners.
You know those fancy homes being built in eastern Lincoln county? These homes are miles from 85th and Minnesota. Tell them to get ready. The rest of us should get our lawn chairs on the slightly higher ground or tune into the Stormland crying reports. Watch them mansions and other homes float down the river in the future.
The short sighted nature (combined with the greed of the Sioux Falls developers and city officials) will be destroying much more than 85th and Minnesota in the future with this ill-conceived plan. Sure, let’s trust the officials to make the decisions without repercussions…
Always get a kick out of these folks that “ask” that someone “listen” to them. You know they’re just imitating their own passive aggressive mothers that “asked” them to “listen” to them when they were kids. (honest interpretation – “do what I tell you to do, or get swatted” dictators in waiting.
testor – FWIW – my niece is a licensed professional civil engineer – with her masters in hydrologic systems – and she designs parking lots and drainage systems for WALMART, the US military, and others – works out of Texas – grew up right here in Tea. Do you think that Walmart would REALLY design and build a lot/drainage system that would create major financial liability issues as a result ? And your qualifications as a hydrological designer are?
Hornguy and all who were not at the meeting. A question presented to MMM in this meetup could be summarized:
1. A future property owner / resident performs due diligence before purchase.
2. Buyer contacts a Mike Cooper office weeks / months before big box announcement
3. Mike Cooper / Zoning & Planning (Z&P) office confirms what kind of growth will be allowed in neighborhood.
4. Nothing to worry about, Z&P confirms, only smaller / limited hour businesses will be allowed
5. Buyer buys land and builds a house
6. Before concrete is even completely dry, MMM announces a big box retailer is going to build a 186,000sf building with acres of concrete surrounding it.
7. A big box store does not just drop itself into a neighborhood without someone inside city hall telling them a good spot would be.
8. How can we trust the salesman and his staff to do anything in our best interest?
ruf, I know the drainage issues of the area very well, having been involved in the downstream issues for several decades.
A city official told me yesterday that they heard from a reliable source that the Northside Walmart is a Red Herring Walmart is using to leverage the Southside store gets built. In other words once they get approval for the South store, they will abandon the Northside store or downsize it. Not sure if it is true, but an interesting theory considering Walmart continues to say the Northside store is in jeopardy if they can’t build the southside store? Why?
Fair point, Testor. Let’s assume that the contents of this conversation, as described, are in fact accurate and not subject to people hearing what they want to hear. As someone who used to work in government and dealt with constituents frequently, I can tell you that happens more often than anyone who works in government would like. It’s funny how quickly people can forget phrases like “based on existing zoning,” or “at present.” But let’s put that aside. We’ll assume it’s all true.
The first thing I’d say is that it’s silly, if not outright stupid, for anyone in P&Z to promise anything without making it perfectly clear that there are never any guarantees and things are always subject to change. I think it’s reasonable to say things like “we anticipate such-and-such in terms of development.” But nothing can be guaranteed. A guy who works in P&Z has zero authority to bind the Planning Commission, future legislative bodies, or future executives to a course of action. And someone who works with constituents should always try to avoid the mistake of assuming that a constituent knows anything unless you personally know them to be knowledgable.
Now, to the extent someone feels like they’ve been aggrieved as a result of any development action because of alleged guarantees that may have been made, there are always legal remedies. The employee will most likely be immune, as any guidance provided was provided in a professional capacity. At that point, my guess is that it would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the actual contents of the conversation and that some kind of actual financial harm has resulted.
To the former, I’m guessing would be nearly impossible unless said conversations occurred via email.
To the latter, that would also be nearly impossible because courts are generally unwilling to view modest devaluation of property as a result of surrounding development as a taking. For example, let’s say the Walmart is built and an assessor finds that the value of individual’s parcel has decreased X percent. Is that because of the Walmart? Because of additional traffic? Because of the prospect of additional development that might occur? Because your next-door neighbor painted his house pink and bought pit bulls?
Anyway, if you don’t want to deal with uncertainty (and with undeveloped pieces of land there’s always uncertainty), build in an area that’s completely developed. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and again. That’s the only way to completely avoid issues like this. When it comes to undeveloped land, nothing is certain and everything is subject to change.
As we get closer to April 2014….
it’s going to be very interesting to hear all of the candidates (*four council seats and mayor) position on……
Walmarts….
Shape Places…..
Snowgates….
and, 18.5 million dollar indoor swimming pools……
*Southeast District, Central District, two At-Large seats
I doubt anyone will much care about the first two. If you were to poll the city, I’d bet my house that the Walmarts would do very well and the people on Audie and 85th would be viewed as a bunch of rich, obstructionist, NIMBY cranks. And besides, that issue could be dead and buried as early as this summer. Shape Places, unless someone spends a bunch of money to demagogue the issue, has all the makings of those arcane constitutional amendments that everyone just votes no on because they’re too complicated to understand.
I’m not even sure many people will care about the fourth item. I know I’ll be voting no on the pool referendum, not because I want an indoor pool, but because building another outdoor pool – something usable four months out of the year – to stop it is the height of financial irresponsibility. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’d be like trying to stop the arena by requiring the city to build an amusement park instead.
But everyone will come out in favor of snowgates. There’s just no political advantage to opposing them.
Shape Places may be the hidden issue in next year’s voting. The mayor’s ‘people’ are now awakening to city hall activity and how it can affect them as homeowners. The educated, middle class homeowners are pissed. The mayor’s ass kissing will not bring them back.
Have you been taking scientific polls testor? Or is your rhetoric sourced from a place the mayor hasn’t kissed – yet?
“No Walmart representatives, no city councilors and no one from Lloyd companies.”
Probably because they weren’t invited. It was meant to be a gripe session towards those they felt they could sway… and they knew they weren’t going to have any luck complaining to Lloyd or Walmart.
In fact, they really didn’t want “outsiders” attending, but they failed to acknowledge that by posting your invite on Facebook and the web, you are essentially inviting a whole secondary group of people.
Huether must be reelected. There’s not enough time to investigate and arrest him for public funds fraud. He must be in office or he’ll escape via executive privelege. Entenman must go so his property at the EC can be seized with eminent domain. Give him a motorcycle escort.
Can anyone tell me why we need 2 more Wal-Marts? IMO: Those everyday low prices, really do not translate into low price products.
How many full time people will the employ and how many part time. Will the community have to help those employees with food stamps, housing, medical assistance, etc. because they do not make enough with the low wages and part time hours WM is famous for.
What is the cost to the community for the start up of new small businesses or the continuation of existing small businesses?
This is just more of the same for SD… more low paying jobs. I am hoping Costco makes it in Sioux Falls, at least they are a good employer and take care of their employees with decent wages, bennies and are respectful. I am happy not to work in retail, but my heart goes out to many who do.
Ruf Ruf Ruf, over 40 years of organizing South Dakotans has taught us how to actually work with people without insulting their inteligence.
Let me help you out, Prairie Lady.
“Will the community have to help those employees with food stamps, housing, medical assistance, etc. because they do not make enough with the low wages and part time hours WM is famous for.”
You have the scenario backwards. Simple logic dictates that the individual who applies for a job at Walmart (or *any* company) is doing so because the work opportunity is better for them than whatever their present work situation is. Nobody’s going to be cashing out of their job at Sanford to stock shelves at Walmart. So all of those things you mentioned will actually decrease, not increase.
Now, if you want to complain that Walmart isn’t providing some kind of idealized, full-time, fully-benefitted position, that’s fine but recognize that you’re not comparing what these employees will get to what they have now – you’re comparing it to some kind of fantasy world that doesn’t exist. I agree with you that it’d be great if service-sector jobs paid more. But as it is, there’s high demand for those jobs because there are lots of unskilled and semi-skilled laborers in America and because their other traditional job sector – manufacturing – has offshored many of its jobs and replaced others through productivity gains.
“What is the cost to the community for the start up of new small businesses or the continuation of existing small businesses?”
Not much. And once again, you have the scenario backwards, as though you think that consumers exist to serve producers and retailers, and not the other way around. Nobody is obligated to limit their choices or pay higher prices to keep a “locally-owned” retailer in business. Those who wish to pay the price differential for shopping local, whatever their motivation, will continue to do so, the same way some people pay the differential on their electricity bill to support renewable energy. I personally try my darndest to support local restaurants whenever possible because I think they provide something unique to the community? A bottle of dish soap or a candy bar? That’s the same whether I’m buying it at Walmart or some mom and pop store.
“Can anyone tell me why we need 2 more Wal-Marts?”
Doesn’t matter why you or I think we need anything. Walmart sees demand in the market and wishes to better position itself to capture it. If they’re successful, the new stores will prosper. If not, they’ll close. And that reality will be decided every day by the consumer decisions of 250k people in this area, not by the haughty moralism of a few.
“This is just more of the same for SD… more low paying jobs.”
Because that’s precisely what South Dakota’s education system sets itself up for. If South Dakota was drowning in top-flight universities that produced top-flight college graduates who wanted to stay here and start up high-tech businesses that attracted venture capital, and you had universities located in your major urban areas that could create that kind of economic synergy, you’d have a lot more high-paying jobs that would, as a result, be able to support a lot more unique, vibrant, locally-owned businesses. As it is, you have largely C-rate academic institutions that struggle to maintain that status because people here would rather have low taxes, they’re located in podunk towns where nobody wants to live, and your best high school graduates often leave the state and never come back because there are no opportunities for them here.
So instead, you have a burgeoning service industry that is driven by major employers in this town who largely look out-of-state to fill their top-level positions because they often can’t find what they’re looking for here. Why else would a place like Sanford be paying relocation bonuses to new doctors that I’ve heard are allegedly somewhere in the $200-300k range?
You want an economy that fixes the problems you’re talking about? Then South Dakotans need to fix the problems with education that *I’m* talking about. There are no shortcuts here.
Walmart isn’t actually cheaper, SOME of their products are, but not all. I get crap because I shop at Slumshine downtown. While I could probably get some of the stuff cheaper at Hy-Vee or Walmart (not always the case) the convenience of having a neighborhood store out weighs searching for cheaper crap at Walmart. Same with ACE hardware, may not be the cheapest, but the customer service and the quality and conveniece is well worth it. We seem to have this mentality that local businesses are screwing us, quite the opposite, not only are they providing good jobs, they are providing good products and services. Whether we live by 85th and Audie or DT, we should be fighting another Walmart being built in our community, tooth and nail. They suck everything they can from the taxpayers and give very little back, except headaches. I can get people defending zoning laws, drainage issues, big developer brokerage profits, etc, etc, but I am befuddled we would be defending a company that has done very little for our country or community except exploit it.
I’m mentioned this before in another thread, but hornguy may want to read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
Sure in a vacuum Walmart actually betters the lives of its workers by offering employment – because any employment is better than no employment (at least on paper). But when they manipulate hours and push more people towards government subsidies which actually results in the taxpayers subsidizing the majority of Walmart’s workforce it isn’t so clear.
The biggest problem here is that Walmart is very good at selling their message. Several comparisons have been done which have shown Target has prices that are just as low, and in some cases even lower than Walmart not even taking into consideration those who use the Target Credit Card (which knocks off an additional 5%), yet if you ask the average person they will claim Walmart is cheaper.
So you have customers who vote for Walmart with each and every dollar they spend there… which in turn drives Walmart to build and expand. If these customers actually knew the truth about the total impact to society and what it actually means to their bottom line they might be a tad less likely to treat Walmart as a retail mecca, and they may just opt for alternatives such as Ace or Lewis or Hy-Vee or Sunshine or even Shopko or Target where many of the employees are still full time with full time benefits.
The problem is – when you look at Walmart’s target demographic, attempting to educate them about the societal costs and the burden to the social services safety net is an uphill battle. All they see is another price “rollback” and a catchy slogan about saving money and living better.
Funny part about that is the people they show in their commercials, you certainly won’t see in Walmart, however, you may see people ‘Shipping their Pants’ in Kmart.
To the horndog:
“Will the community have to help those employees with food stamps, housing, medical assistance, etc. because they do not make enough with the low wages and part time hours WM is famous for.â€
You have the scenario backwards. Simple logic dictates that the individual who applies for a job at Walmart (or *any* company) is doing so because the work opportunity is better for them than whatever their present work situation is. Nobody’s going to be cashing out of their job at Sanford to stock shelves at Walmart. So all of those things you mentioned will actually decrease, not increase.
An error in logic, huh? Please tell me what kind of jobs those folks had to think working at WM is a step up? Perhaps you need to use that great education and Google “Wal-Mart employees on welfareâ€. Please inform yourself the cost of having companies who make large profits and pay nothing to their employees.
Sorry, but you need to get in touch with reality. There are many people who take “any†job because it is all they can find. It might not pay all the bills, but there is money coming in or maybe some insurance, which is sometimes better than nothing, but not always. Many of the service industry jobs use to be entry level and a place to start. This is not the case now.
Why do you think so many people are under employed? How many elderly people are working because their social security is not enough to get by? How many of those people worked all their lives and saw their wages stagnate, but the cost of living increase? Many of those folks did not live high off the hog and maybe saved very little or lost it in the recession? The only thing in the paragraph you have right is that someone from Sanford will not leave their jobs….BTW why would they?
Please tell me why people with college degrees and experience are working low paying jobs? Do you suppose for many, the price of a college degree has become something only for the rich? How many of years’ work will it take to pay back student loans?
Oh contraire Horndog! There are companies who do pay a fair wage and bennies and are socially and morally responsible. Costco is one. You have drunk the Kool aid and the corporate welfare taking companies have sucked you in. Believe me…I know, as I have worked for several. Is WM getting any TIFs?
And that reality will be decided every day by the consumer decisions of 250k people in this area, not by the haughty moralism of a few.
Yes, I have “haughty moralism†because I am old and remember a fair wage for a fair day of work. I also remember wage increases for doing a good job and benefits to take care of myself and be healthy so I can go to work. Unfortunately many people do not know about the cost of these companies to the communities, outside they have run many smaller businesses out. Fortunately, people are becoming wiser because they are getting angry and asking why.
“This is just more of the same for SD… more low paying jobs.â€
You want an economy that fixes the problems you’re talking about? Then South Dakotans need to fix the problems with education that *I’m* talking about. There are no shortcuts here.
30 years ago there was nothing wrong with SD education system, including the colleges. People went on to good jobs, but many left the state for better opportunities. I did, and came back to raise a family here because it was safer. Yes, South Dakotans need to get rid of the politicians who do not value education, so cut, cut, cut. Teacher’s pay is squat and funds are continuously cut.
You sure sound like MMM.
I’ve said it before, but it is a myth that Walmart is cheaper. Yes, they have loss leaders to bring in the masses, along with 2nd rate versions of certain products (ala Lewis Drug), but the vast majority of items are sold at the exact same price as everybody else.
Thanks Craig! You are exactly right. Until people realize what has happened in this country, we will continue to accept low paying jobs, poor education and that corporations/businesses who throw crumbs and tell us we should just be thankful we have a job.
Two interesting videos that tie in with the topic.
http://goo.gl/I8OCp
http://goo.gl/weitB
That’s right, Gayle. Everyone but you is an ignorant lemming who doesn’t get what’s going on.
I understand it perfectly well. I also understand that people crying and whining and protesting for higher wages is a lot less effective than working to change the economic paradigm that makes it easy for service industry employers to provide really minimal compensation to their employees.
The reason a front-line employee at Taco John’s in Williston, ND, starts at $15 is because labor demand is high and labor supply is low. The reason many retail establishments (including many of the vaunted “locally owned” retailers) around here pay way less than that is because the supply/demand balance is way different.
Now, moaning about Taco John’s (or Walmart, or any retail business) being a lousy employer isn’t going to be the thing that gets them to pay $15 an hour here. What gets them to raise their wages (absent an oil boom) is creating an education system here that produces high-value employees and a state and local economy that can put those people to good use, thereby elevating median income and making it easier for consumers to support higher prices.
So we’re in agreement that education is ultimately the problem, although I’m pretty sure that if one digs out some old rankings, South Dakota colleges were relatively no better 30 years ago than they are now, which is mediocre at best. The problem for South Dakota is that there are a lot of jobs out there now that require a much higher level of education, and like I said earlier, the residents of this state clearly prefer ridiculously low taxes to an education system that can sustain the state’s economy without a constant influx of out-of-state talent.
I’m not disagreeing with your goal. I agree with it 100 percent. I just don’t think you get there by scolding businesses to do better. Shame’s a pretty good motivator for a six-year-old, but that’s about it.
MMM talking out both sides of his mouth again:
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/huether-talks-about-citizen-backlash-following-walmart-meeting/?id=149518.
So now he’s a “neutral” party? Does he think we all suffer from memory loss? Just 3 months ago he hosted the press conference at City Hall and took credit for bringing two more Wal-Marts to town. Wal-Mart even said at the time that it was the city that brought the 85th & Minnesota location to their attention because of zoning and utilities.
MMM is trying to play both sides. No question he is in full re-election mode!
This thread was not about Walmart the merchant and their policies. The thread was presented to discuss the problems with the location for any big box store. If you had been to the Saturday discussion you would have understood the neighborhoods concerns.
I am glad I was was there for the session. The rain downpour could not have been planned but it was the highlight. People could not use the 85thg Street sidewalk during the rain event.
What seems to be lost in this discussion was the failure of the City of Sioux Falls to plan:
1. proper planning for current heavy traffic
2. current and future concentration of schools on 85th
3. excessive retail growth in a small neighborhood
4. no proper traffic planning for the retail traffic
5. excessive speed both before, during and after the rain event
Now add to the problems with neighborhood topography:
6. proper planning for average moisture
7. drainage for current streets
8. drainage for future hard surface retail
9. downstream issues for current and future Schindler Creek to Sioux River
I don’t care what the two Mike team has dreamed up for the small neighborhood. There have big mistakes made in this process having nothing to do with the brand name of the store being placed there. The two Mikes are carrying a heavy load for the Lloyd Companies and Walmart. You have to wonder why…
If Sioux Falls had worked with Lincoln County at all, SD100 / Minnesota Avenue would not have these problems today. Sioux Falls does not care about our neighbors to the south in Lincoln County. This is the crux of the development block the Lincoln County farmers had against the City of Sioux Falls for southeast Sioux Falls for many many years. Sioux Falls and its developers had to institute court ordered water / drainage plans for all water flowing south from Bahnson Ave & 41st St before they could continue. The upstream owners for once had to protect the downstream property rights.
A good water drainage rights attorney could have a field day with this issue. Its bigger than the brand name of the store. I don’t care if a creative civil engineer can solve the localized issue of 85th and Minnesota. It is a bigger story and case to be made as long as Sioux Falls is continuing the urban sprawl model of growth.
So get over it. Quit worrying about what retailer is building today and work to stop this expansion until Sioux Falls solves the bigger problem. These people have rights. The neighborhood has rights. the upstream owners must control their downstream flows. The upstream owners must not destroy the the homes, businesses and livelihoods of the downstream (current and future).
When you say “Walmart” it looks patrician. It is as if you are looking down your nose at the “rest of us”. This discussion needs to be corrected in the press and minds of the region. Once again it is messaging and the concern for our neighbors which will win.
“That’s right, Gayle. Everyone but you is an ignorant lemming who doesn’t get what’s going on.”
Hey now! I resemble that remark!
It’s not that I, or others, don’t understand their arguments, Testor. I’ve heard them speak before the City Council and the Planning Commission. I’ve read the materials on their website. I get it.
It’s that some of us believe that, relative to other factors, their arguments aren’t as meritorious and shouldn’t prevail. You’re arguing about drainage, for instance, and I agree that’s important. I also think it’s important to create additional retail clusters around the city as the residential footprint of the city grows. I like it when people don’t have to drive so much. I think it’s good to alleviate some congestion on our busier streets so that maybe we don’t need to dump giant piles on money on constantly reconfiguring our roadways. Generally I’m no fan of sprawl but it’s a little late to cram that genie back in the bottle. When land is cheap and plentiful, people build out rather than up. The best we can do is find intelligent ways to try and mitigate the environmental impact.
So I might disagree with you on the big issue, but I’m not going to insult you by suggesting that you don’t understand. I think we just emphasize different priorities in forming our opinions.
I’m not sure that even a perfect PR strategy would win the day for Save Our Neighborhood, but they’ve certainly done themselves no favors. The name of their group is hyperbolic and ridiculous. And as you note, that they can’t resist taking shots at Walmart makes it seem like this is a Walmart-specific issue, which reeks of elitism. And for some of them, I don’t doubt that it is. Many of them have said outright they’d be okay with different types of commercial development that in terms of environmental impact would be no less intense.
60% of Americans shop at Walmart each month. 80% of Americans shop at Walmart at least once a year. And while Americans undoubtedly have a begrudging relationship with Walmart, when a bunch of rich people start lamenting that they’d rather have another retail center filled with overpriced kiddie toys, designer clothing, hair salons, and fancy jewelers like Bridges at 57th, it’s pretty easy for the average Joe to hate those people and support a Walmart just to stick it to them.
It’s just like last year’s tussle at 57th and Cliff, when the neighbors were up in arms about a Walmart but didn’t utter a peep a few years earlier when Hy-Vee went to the planning commission with a nearly-identical proposal. The attitudes of both groups are remarkably similar. I’m convinced the only thing that saved the 57th and Cliff crowd is the fact that Sioux Falls Christian was directly across the street from the development.
And in the public eye, cute little Christian kids are a way easier sell than a bunch of wealthy folks on the outskirts of town. Wrong Message + Bad Messenger = Defeat.
Hornguy,
There are plenty of average Joes living in the area of 85th & Minnesota, just like there is in my neighborhood and just like there is at 69th & Cliff. These people aren’t elitists, they’re South Dakotans. Come on man. Get over yourself.
Do you think someone just gave them their nice homes? They earned them for crying out loud and yet you crucify people and call them elitists for having a nice house. Last I checked that was all part of the American dream.
I usually appreciate your analysis, but am curious why it is you feel the need to defend Walmart so vigorously on every point that is raised against it.
Stop tooting your own horn, you’re starting to hit all the wrong notes with this reader.
The South Cliff Walmart was again an oversized building jammed into a small area, causing it to be defeated. I personally thought if the Arkansas retailer would have planned the smaller store design they have been putting in across the USA, it would have succeeded.
The one thing going for the South Cliff development was the already finished 69th street 4 lane boulevard, ready to handle the east-west traffic. The north-south Cliff Ave has been in need of upgrade for years to handle the Harrisburg traffic. But it still was the wrong spot to place a ‘regional’ storefront, no matter what the name was on building.
Neither of these locations were designed upfront like the Dawley Farm development was. The south development proposals are dropping into established neighborhoods without necessary preparation.
Now if Lloyd Companies wants to build a “Dawley Farms” south development, let them propose and build it where there is space and drainage. Don’t drop acres of hard surface and massive traffic into an established neighborhood without having the resources to handle the consequences.
hornguy,
Our daughter graduated from one of the top universities in the country, I am grateful she does not display the same arrogant, elitist attitudes that you do.
Perhaps you would be happier living on one of the coasts where the people are ‘smarter’ than us Dakota prairie people!
BTW, I followed your opinions over the past year as part of the AL editorial citizen group. You are not quite as well informed as you would like to think.
I’m convinced the north Walmart is meant as a ploy to steer dissent away from the south location. It’s brilliant that Walmart comes in with 2 locations so the mayor gets suckered. Huether does not support mom and pop. He favors that our population becomes corporate owned. That’s why he’s building a coliseum. He’s entertained with peasants being slaughtered by gladiators and eaten by lions. I’m hoping I can live a few more years before I get thumbs down.
Listening & Learning has become Commanding & Enforcing. I miss democracy. It was a time for people when the mayor was leadership with respect for community betterment through managed growth. MBM (mayors before Munson) met this standard. Munson came in with Home Rule Charter (1994). Mayor has become a method to steal from public funds via noncompetitive bids and alignment with corrupt contractors. Post 1994 became greed and power similar to Sadam, Khadafi, & Hitler regimes.
S***, that’s harsh. Unfortunately, it’s true.
But we’re going to have a shiny new building for Nickelback to play for the same 5,000 people that would currently see them at the Arena!
Scott,
We have Pickle Ball too. If Huether is reelected we’ll have an indoor baptismal pool for the ‘Listen & Learn’ cult.
Testor, I’m with you on the size of the proposed 57th and Cliff Walmart vis-a-vis the size of that lot. Whether one agrees with the 85th/Minnesota development or not, it’s certainly better conceived on a number of fronts, not the least of which is that the building actually fits comfortably on the lot and there is sufficient room for peripheral development.
And Carhart, I don’t disagree with any of what you’ve said in terms of people working hard or whatever. I’m absolutely not arguing reality; I’m arguing perception. To see how badly that neighborhood is losing the perception battle, one need only skim through the assorted comments made on stories about the activity of your neighbors. The Save Our Neighborhood group manages to make itself less sympathetic than Walmart, which is a real feat of public relations. It’s a shame they didn’t hire a PR consultant early on to manage their messaging.
Finally, I could care less about whether that Walmart is built, or if it’s a Target or a restaurant or stays as farmland. My concern, first and foremost, is that the property rights of the individual who owns the land be the primary consideration in any discussion of development. Not the only consideration, of course, but the primary consideration. You know, the rights that some members of Save Our Neighborhood seem to think should be allocated to them, right down to picking the type of retail they’ll allow and what hours it should be permitted to operate. Perhaps they’d also like to choose the floor tile, or whether the parking spaces are marked with white or yellow paint?
And anonymous, congratulations to your daughter. But you’re aware that the fact that she was yet another outstanding high school student who fled this state to get a college education actually reinforces my point about this state not being able to provide quality opportunities for its best students, right?
“My concern, first and foremost, is that the property rights of the individual who owns the land be the primary consideration in any discussion of development. Not the only consideration, of course, but the primary consideration.”
I am sorry but I disagree on this. The courts have found the rights of the downstream neighbors a primary consideration. You may be able to build on your property but many state and federal laws say it cannot be developed in a way to cause harm to the “community”. This was the crux of the litigation blocking southeast Sioux Falls development, building permits and construction. Lloyd is just moving the issue to 85th and Minnesota, the headwaters of the Schindler Creek watershed.
Testor there are many ways to address water issues and I’m sure they are taken into account. You make it sound as if this one Walmart will result in massive flooding to any property further South.
Whether it is a Walmart, or a series of strip malls eventually that land will be developed and much of it will be covered by asphalt parking lots. The only alternative is to allow the entire area to remain undeveloped… but that isn’t very realistic now is it.
The time and place for this kind of development was years ago, at least going back to 2005. But the green dot got placed on the map in 2009 and those that placed it on the map have a need to defend and support that position. Some city personnel have their professional reputations on the line. “Skin in the game.†How can they unbiasedly advise the decision makers? Much about Sioux Falls development and planning can be praised, but sometimes mistakes have to be acknowledged. Between Louise and Minnesota, 85th Street has sixty plus homes, inclusive of potential home sites platted years ago. It is not the place for a commercial corridor of traffic.
One drop can start a flood. This is the head water where the problems start. It is not the only place where Sioux Falls city also proves it does not care about what happens to the downstream neighbors.
Study the watershed data and get a good look at how bad a neighbor Sioux Falls has been to the downstream. Heck, a few years ago we thought so much of our downstream friends and neighbors we sent them millions of gallons of brown stinky love…
Jackilope, nice Roseanne reference.
Anon2 – 85th street was identified as a future major arterial street over 20 years before a single house was built on it.
testor – those folks that built out in “Schindler” 25-30 years ago KNOWINGLY – INTENTIOMALLY placed their homes along a creek bed. A creek bed that had been there for CENTURIES before the white fools ever moved into this country.
There is a good freason that Lincoln and Minnehaha counties have instituted a moratorium on rural residential development. They are generally poorly planned and poorly considered “communities” – typically put on land that was “problematic” for farming (i.e., wet, soggy, frequently flooded land). How do I know? – there is a bunch of it southeast of Tea that I used to attempt to farm. That rural residential development ALSO changes downstream drainage and negatively impacts farming.
ruf, ruf, ruf… Just because someone built a home 10, 20, 50 years ago in a downstream spot (which is now considered inconvenient to the upstream builder) we should now allow the destruction of the lower property? South Dakota codified law, US Federal law and common law protect the downstream property from the carelessness and abuses of the upstream.
Shindler Creek is a well known ‘wash’ and the downstream residents have taken care to build accordingly. It is the abuses of the builders in Sioux Falls who have not cared what happened to the water leaving their SF projects. The Ronning Co, Harr-Lemme Co neighborhoods were blocked from expansion for many years because the farmers and residents were being flooded unnaturally by the water flow abuses of their SE Sioux Falls projects. The builders were draining the wetlands to place houses for unsuspecting buyers who now must pump their basements out in order to live.
BTW ruf, 85th street and every mile section line road is deemed to be a potential arterial street because of the nature of the Northwest ordinance division of property. This is why counties and township in South Dakota have them on their plat maps but do not give them up easily when they no longer maintain them. So every mile we have section lines, great! We can put in a road when we need it.
Now back to 85th street problem where we have the ‘expert’ long range city planners who can and do direct what is to be built on these section lines. Based on and knowing what the ‘expert’ Sioux Falls planners at city hall had planned for this corner, people bought into the neighborhood. As pointed out during the Shut-up and Listen session, potential buyers followed the rules, by doing their due diligence only to find out someone with a bigger pocketful of chips got the rules changed for their convenience and profit.
“As pointed out during the Shut-up and Listen session, potential buyers followed the rules, by doing their due diligence only to find out someone with a bigger pocketful of chips got the rules changed for their convenience and profit.”
Well first of all if you honestly believe that everyone in that development performed their due diligence then I have a bridge you may be interested in.
Second, it doesn’t matter what the plan was or how things were zoned because zoning merely tells us what one potential use for a property is. That area along Minnesota has been zoned agricultural for decades – that doesn’t mean we will only allow it to be farmed. As the city reaches the land, the zoning is updated, so even though someone may think it is zoned for one thing doesn’t mean it will always be so.
Anyone with any shred of common sense knew 85th was a major corridor just as Minnesota is. If you build along a major road you should anticipate commercial development nearby.
Now had those residents actually performed their due diligence they would have noticed their entire development was zoned for multi-family. They were in fact the development that was intended to buffer Heather Ridge, but Stencil opted to plat it to be single family homes instead. That was also an option, but anyone who saw a map that said multi-family zoning should have asked questions.
When a developer opts to replace a buffer with single familiy… where does the buffer go? Well in this case it didn’t exist and aside from the retention pond that separates many of those homes from 85th, there isn’t a thing between them and a future high-traffic roadway.
They knew it – they still bought or built the homes. So now everyone else needs to adapt to their wishes merely because they aren’t getting the final say in which one of the many approved uses that property can be used for?
It is really easy to claim they asked all the necessary questions years later, but obviously they didn’t ask the proper questions. Had they done so, they wouldn’t have opted to build on Audie near 85th, because not only was the land to the South an unknown, but the land to the East is an unknown as well.
Think of it this way – even if the land to the East is developed into triple story apartments by Lloyd (an approved use for that particular site)… do you really think Ms. Schwan and her neighbors will approve? Not bloody likely. They want more $400k+ single family homes so they are part of a community. They don’t want to look between the slats of their teak blinds only to see an apartment building, a $145k twinhome, a townhome development with vinyl siding, or *gasp* a Walmart.
They didn’t perform their due diligence, and they surely didn’t use common sense. Now they wish for everyone else to bend to their demands for no other reason than they were there first. Unfortunately for them the real world doesn’t work like that.
Craig, zoning property is a guideline for development. It can be changed with community input. The community input is to be considered in the zoning hearings. People and businesses make long range plans using the guidance the plat zoning maps present. These residents made those plans.
I do drive through the area a lot and get to experience the water issues. They are bad. I ask for the Shindler Creek watershed plan but no seem to exist. Why should the current owners of the land be abused by new developments?
You continue to bring up these water issues as if they won’t be addressed. It doesn’t matter what is built there – whether it be Walmart, a strip mall, or another massive apartment project… there will be a lot of asphalt parking and structures.
The water issue is a moot point – it will be addressed. You seem to be suggesting nobody should build there because of water and that simply isn’t reasonable or realistic. There are many ways to address water issues and I’m quite certain if they do exist, they will be factored into the design via retention ponds, or other drainage methods.
As to community input – nobody has a problem with that, but why do five or six homeowners seem to think they are the only voices that are worth consideration? Hate to break it to them, but the community includes more homes that simply those on Audie or those who have decks overlooking 85th. When we factor in the entire neighborhood and the entire community, support for this Walmart is likely to be overwhelming.
Now I’ll admit some of those homeowners are politically connected and wealthy and they likely will hire lawyers and drag this out for as long as possible, but at the end of the day they are still nothing more than NIMBYS who failed to plan for the future.
Craig, without the topic being raised now the history of these issues in Sioux Falls shows they will never be addressed properly without the courtroom being involved.
It is not 5 or 6 homeowners doing the NIMBY stuff. It is the majority of the homeowners in the area of town. The cross section of community involvement showed by the turnout on the Saturday morning. Most would have no problem with a properly sized building complex on the corners involved. They knew it was going to happen at some level, just not the extreme level being shoved down their throats now.
I started out this process by laughing at the predicament the neighborhood was being put in. After being an interested observer, having previously been involved in other water / property rights cases and generally becoming a city hall skeptic has made me look at this issue and say again its the wrong place for such a big building no matter whose name is on it.