UPDATE: The city is following state law, 9-13-28, but as one councilor said to me, apparently we haven’t been following state law for years. I am also under the impression that the city doesn’t always have to follow state law, because of our charter. It Would be an interesting research project.
So if you are going to miss the 4 councilors that are moving on, tomorrow night is the last time to see them in action. For some bizarre reason, the city is claiming they need to inaugurate the new councilors on Friday before the first meeting on Tuesday. This is weird for a lot of reasons, normally the new councilors get sworn in on the Tuesday they have their first meeting. The excuse that is being thrown around is something to do with state law . . . pulled directly from a Fiddle-Faddle box.
I herd marshy pants wnats to high tail it out of there before nasties come complaining.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/9-13-28
The finance officer, within two days after the result of the election is declared, shall notify each person elected to office of the person’s election. If a person does not qualify by filing an oath or affirmation of office in the usual form provided by law within ten days after the first meeting of the month next succeeding the election, the office becomes vacant.
Not weird to follow state law.
Yeah after further research I realized that it is proper, but what is ironic is they haven’t been following state law for years.
So, then all past votes by the “counci”l are null and void, is that right? Oh well, I guess no e-bikes on the trail, huh? 😉
Since this passed I have seen so many more E-Bike riders, and it is great! That was the ultimate goal! With no enforcement (5 years) who cares about the June 1st implementation? Ironically, I was almost plowed over by an acoustic bike rider last week, pushing 20-25 MPH, she of course tried to blame me, and I simply said, “You are going to fast.” She didn’t have much of a comeback to that.
Honestly, I’m seeing fewer e-bikes. In fact, I just got off the bike trail after a hour’s ride and didn’t see a single e-bike, and there were quite a few bikers on the trail. #ItsAFadFAB
As far as the “Lance Armstrong Wannabees”…. Well, they need to be policed better for sure regardless of e-bikes or not…. But, based on testimony by the police before the Action Transportation Board (ATB) meeting in January, they would prefer to leave enforcement to signs. What’s next, an honor system for the Zoo?
And yesterday, Jaunt came before the Bicycle Committee claiming they are going to start renting e-bikes, which can go up to 25 mph, near the bike trail. But they claim they can control the speed from afar, yet they’re proud they can do 25 when used on a bike trail that only allows 15 mph.
Another interesting thing is that Jaunt won’t allow their users to ride on sidewalks, but why not? Maybe the “council” could learn from this, huh?
I beginning to believe that this whole e-bike attitude change by ACT and the Parks Board was because they knew Jaunt was coming to town and less about the SFPD not wanting to bother with enforcement. Maybe we need to check out who the potential local investors in the Sioux Falls Jaunt might be.
( and Woodstock adds: “Say VSG, maybe it’s time for you to polish-up your cowboy boots again, huh?”…. )
E-bike law changed, then Jaunt shows up…… Very interesting, indeed…:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM
#ThankGodItsAFad
are e-bikes like e-cigs?
Charter needs to be redone to allow for a city manager. Period
Actually, e-bikes are just like Mopeds, except Mopeds smoke like e-cigs.