Someone pointed this out to me today, that Walmart is being mentioned on the ballot language for Referred Law 4. Not sure if this will get on the ballot this way (because the city attorney and city clerk are not allowing anyone from the public to view the ballots before they are printed). You have to remember, this is a zoning issue NOT a Walmart issue. In fact, as far as I know, Walmart doesn’t even own the property yet, the Homan family does (Springdale development). And even if it gets rezoned by the vote of the people, it doesn’t mean a Walmart has to be built there. Kinda reminds me of providing the public with indoor pool drawings when an indoor pool isn’t even on the ballot.
Isn’t that the city promoting a private business?
This issue should be pressed. You have a good point here.
Yes, you have an excellent point!! Thank you for pointing this out.
The Walmart was already approved for the site by the planning commission prior to the petition being validated. So I really do not see how this is the city promoting a business. With all the Walmart haters in town, they would have been better off leaving that sentence out of the referred law language.
Look on SIRE, 8/26/13. The documents provided to the council listed the purpose of the rezoning as “To construct a Sub-Regional Commercial Development”, and the maps provided clearly identified Walmart as the proposed SRCD. It’s the City Attorney’s job to tell voters what the effect of their vote should be, and the city council approved the zoning so a Walmart could be built at that location. No way is this “not a Walmart issue”.
I know this has been a sticking point for you before, but you should probably make a greater effort to understand the distinction between permissive and prescriptive language in a legal and/or legislative context. Would and could – which are used here – are permissive. A yes vote *would* allow a Walmart and means a Walmart *could* be built there. It would or could allow other uses as well. The city attorney never states that a Walmart *shall* be built or that it *will* go there.
The city’s attorney has an obligation to provide a plain language interpretation of the issue and its outcomes to voters. As this is the currently proposed use, the city attorney is doing his job by making the issue as clear to voters as possible.
The language doesn’t say a Walmart must be built there, merely that it could be built there if the voters approve. What part of that statement isn’t factual?
I know SON continually tells us this isn’t about Walmart specifically and that is fine, but this IS about not wanting a large retail store at that location, and Walmart is the store who has the option to purchase the property. Everyone who is aware of city events know Walmart is the store at question, we all know Walmart is the only store wanting that land at the current time, and we know this entire ballot issue is specifically because Walmart wants to build there.
The city has a duty to inform voters as to what they are specifically voting for, and if they didn’t mention Walmart and merely mentioned a C4 planned commercial district the average voter would have no clue what this is about because zoning is a vague subject. Better to add details so people understand the issue.
The truth is, if they didn’t mention Walmart, I’m sure there would be several here complaining because they were showing bias by not mentioning them, and as OSF has already stated with all the hatred drummed up against Walmart you would think you would be happy they are mentioning them to ensure the citizens know exactly what it is they are being asked to vote on.
An interesting note for comparison. Lincoln, NE, which is approximately twice the size of Sioux Falls, has only two Walmart Stores.
The nature of the issue is the C-4 zoning which in essence means the most intense commercial zoning. That IS at the heart of this matter. And what makes that even possible, allowable, or available for that spot is so sweetly described as being “in compliance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Sioux Falls.” Isn’t that special. A comprehensive plan that has enough flaws that one can drive a Mack truck through it and down 85th Street.
Another “special” thing–let’s tell the voters that this rezoning is based on this wonderful comprehensive city plan that public representatives in their superior minds and thoroughly, studied review voted on. I want to gag.
I believe there are 4 Wal-Marts in Lincoln and 3 more within 30-40 miles of Lincoln. Not sure how this is relevant though.
If you really want an interesting comparison, New York City has zero Walmarts.
Then again on a per capita basis, Pierre has a lot more Walmarts than Sioux Falls.
Pierre has less than 14,000 residents and a Walmart (and it is even a SuperCenter).
Sioux Falls has 162,000 residents and only two Walmarts. Even if we add in two more it still leaves us with over 40,000 residents per store. If we used the same calculation as Pierre we would need a total of 12.
So maybe the question is…. where will they build the next one? If there is room for an Events Center downtown you can bet there is room for a Walmart!
Not that it matters, but a proper statistical analysis of the number of Walmarts in a population area is to find a city with similar demographics and regional buying population that Sioux Falls has. You will find we are substantially underWalmarted. :>)