South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

l3wis

Mayor TenHaken SF City Council Sioux Falls

Puff Piece on Poops

l3wis 6Comments

Even though this interview was more like a grade school softball game, there were some interesting parts;

“We all thought when we got the vaccine in January that COVID was done and we were going to move on and it was going to be 2020 (that was) the year we wanted to forget, and 2021 has been more of the same,” TenHaken said.
“It’s almost like the year of deja vu.”

That’s because in order for the vaccine to work, you have to actually get it. Weird how science and medicine works. And when our fearless leader who promotes everything from gravy, dad jokes and mentorship pushes that job off on the private healthcare providers don’t be surprised when things don’t change.


“They’re not all law-abiding citizens,” TenHaken said. “So we doubled down on public safety initiatives, whether it’s the training center, opening a report-to-work location or adding staffing resources with a behavioral health community resource officer and our first six months of The Link, which indirectly is a public safety initiative because we’re trying to keep people out of jail who don’t need to be in jail but need other kinds of help.

Funny how Poops still can’t say the ‘P’ word (Precinct). He also doesn’t mention what he is doing about our homeless and panhandling issues, let me fill you in; NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And he refuses to ask for the community’s help and engagement.

Downtown also is the site of what the mayor calls “one of my biggest personal disappointments of my first term.”
The unfinished multiuse parking ramp project along 10th Street east of Phillips Avenue has been tangled in a legal dispute between the city and developers since 2019.


The irony is that THIS Mayor and City Council had the power to cancel the project and the bonding (we would have had to pay a fine  . . . which is ironic;

“I want people to know we are laser-focused in trying to get to a resolution,” TenHaken said. “I wish we could talk about it more and talk about it publicly because I think people think we’re sitting on our hands waiting for something to happen, and we’re not. There’s not a week that goes by that we’re not engaged in some kind of activity trying to bring closure. In 2022, I’m confident there’s going to be significant action in that.”

It is ironic, because the rumor going around is that the DEVELOPER (not plural) has been telling people the city will be paying him off to go away, and they want to do it in complete silence without the assistance of the council. So why didn’t we just pay the fine initially on the bonds? Because the bonding companies (we only use basically one in the city and state) have complete control of our elected leaders instead of the other way around. Let’s just say they have many ‘tools in their toolbox’ to use against governments that don’t want to cooperate with the Godfather of Bonds and there was no way in Hell they were going let a $26 million dollar bond be taken off the table.

The ramp itself is cash-flowing, he added.
“We’re not losing money. It’s not costing a red cent to have it sit there like that.


We are actually losing out on property tax revenue, so in essence we are losing money and no doubt when the project gets handed over to another developer (which we all know who that will be) there will likely be tax incentives and a possible TIF, so we will again be losing more money. Besides the Railroad Redevelopment deal (which never got rid of a single train DT) the bunker ramp is a prime example of how poorly negotiated the deal was. Even though the public and other business people threw out multiple red flags over multiple years and administrations and councilors they still went full on. To this day NO elected official or city director involved has apologized for the colossal F’Up. I think they all should have resigned. When I hear certain folks tell me that government should run like a private business, I point to this mess DT and tell them, that is the result of such a foolish philosophy.

Bike Trail SF City Council Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Sioux Falls City Council needs to repeal the E-Bike ordinances on Bike Trail

l3wis 9Comments

As we saw this past year, CountCilor Alex ‘$127K’ Jensen tried to slip by a deal for one of his business friends to allow electric foot scooters on DTSF sidewalks. They are already allowed in our city, but sidewalks, not so much.

I do agree with one aspect of the Count’s attempt, E-vehicles for recreation like skateboards, One-Wheels, bikes and foot scooters are the fastest growing industry in the country and because it is growing so fast, it is constantly changing. But we are being held back.

A few years ago the city council decided to wring their hands over this (they do piss around a lot with stuff that will be obsolete in a few years, you know, like $26 million dollar bunker ramps to no where).

They decided the problem with the bike trail wasn’t strollers going down the middle of the trail, dogs running about off the leash or people training for the Ironman do 30 MPH down the trail they decided it was those evil E-2 bikers. Well they are a problem, but there is a better solution.

Since the passage of only E-1 vs. E-2 (nobody can really tell the difference) the real issue on the trail is SPEED, courteous behavior and awareness and not classification. As I have mentioned in the past, there are all kinds of E-Vehicles on the trail, I am not sure we can control that.

So what is the solution? It can be accomplished by 3 simple changes to the ordinance;

• Repeal the current ordinance in it’s entirety, or at least certain parts;

§ 95.031  BICYCLING.   Bicycle and e-bicycle riders in the parks and upon recreation trails shall abide by the ordinances governing the operation and equipment of bicycles except bicycling and Class I e-bicycling need not be limited to paved areas. Bicyclists and e-bicyclists shall operate their bicycles or e-bicycles in a prudent manner and with due regard for the safety of others and the preservation of park property.(1992 Code, § 27-16.13)  (Ord. 49-99, passed 4-19-1999; Ord. 118-18, passed 12-18-2018; Ord. 66-19, passed 6-18-2019)

§ 95.031.1  WHEELED MOTOR VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON RECREATION TRAIL.   It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motorized or motor driven, wheeled vehicle except a Class I e-bicycle on any of the recreation trails. This section shall not apply to or limit authorized vehicles on the levees for maintenance, patrolling, and flood emergency purposes.

• Create a speed limit on the trail. (I am not sure what that should be, but research would probably suggest 15 MPH. We could also put up speed signs about ever 1-2 miles with a solar detector telling your speed).

• Allow ALL E-Vehicle transportation (prohibiting gas/electric motorcycles, ATVs and scooters)

One of the main reasons to support this is because of what Jensen said, TOURISM!

Also, the bike trail is one of our greatest assets in Sioux Falls. I constantly shake my head with all the money we dump into concrete along the river greenway when we could be spending this money to improve this gem instead like solar lighting, 24/7 commuting, and dual trails for walkers and bikers. We could make this asset even better.

It’s time to start again and simplify our recreation trail rules and regulations.

Media South Dakotans State Legislature

South Dakota Legislative Reporter explains why they are quitting (Pierre)

l3wis 13Comments

While there are many fine points in Dana’s editorial, none of it surprises me one bit. When I started doing editorial cartoons in 2006 the legislature was a very easy target. And while some may argue that target has gotten easier over the years, I just think in Pierre it depends on which way the wind is blowing. Take the transgender bathroom issue;

I just couldn’t take the crazy any longer. I couldn’t take the effort wasted on legislation that’s designed to bully and hurt.

I have always looked at this issue in two ways, 1) Someone’s sexual identity is not your G—— F—— Business and 2) who does it affect? Is this an issue in South Dakota? Are biological boys identifying as girls storming bathrooms and high school gyms across the state? In fact when some journalists and other legislators have asked this question nobody can actually identify more than a handful of transgender youth in our state and only 1 or 2 have made an issue about sports.

It goes along with this argument;

Each year the largely Republican Legislature seems to have its priorities in the wrong place. Bills that pick on the transgendered pass easily while last year members of the GOP said, “There’s nothing to see here” as they killed bills that would have shed light on state airplane usage and the governor’s security costs.

They really don’t want to take on the ‘REAL ISSUES’ this has not changed in the 16 years I have been watching the circus called the legislative session. All and any real reform has come thru the initiative/referendum process which now they are trying to kill in the courts and their own ballot measures. And they are becoming successful.

Often, when lawmakers want to make it safe for the rest of us to go to the bathroom or make abortions impossible to get or guns easier to get, they are getting their marching orders from outside the state.

Which also baffles me. If you do google searches on these three issues, while the poll numbers fluctuate, none drop below 50% (These are nationwide averages based on several polls);

• Support keeping Abortion Legal and Safe: 60% Support

• Federal legalization of Adult use recreational cannabis: 60% Support

• Stricter gun laws and other gun control measures: 53% Support

I kind of scratch my head when the peeps in Pierre act like South Dakota is some island when it comes to how the rest of the country thinks (even though over HALF of our funding comes from Federal taxpayers), I would remind you that when it comes to legal abortion and Rec MJ, voters have supported it in this state.

In journalism circles in South Dakota, we often bemoan the fact that there are fewer and fewer reporters writing about the Legislature. Now there’s one less and I feel bad about that. But not bad enough to force myself back into the press box and try to write objectively about legislation and resolutions that I know are by turns silly, symbolic, wrong-headed and cruel.

. . . and don’t forget destructively moronic.

I also see these same wingnuts taking over our city government (they already have) and the next election probably will only exacerbate the problem since many of the candidates running have NO challengers and were hand picked by the Mayor and his minions.

What can we do? I often tell people to spread the truth about the lies and corruption. Tell anyone you know (especially the 10% who vote in city elections about it).

I know it seems I have been kind of quiet about the upcoming city elections, trust me the silence will be broken soon and my spreadsheet of misdeeds on some of the candidates is filling up fast. I encourage others to run, especially in my Central District which has been given a total overhaul and leans pretty left to center. As of right now the incumbent (who has done nothing for the district) has no challengers or anybody on the horizon. This needs to change.

Downtown Sioux Falls SF City Council Sioux Falls ZEAL

UPDATE II: Is ZEAL planning a partnership with the city?

l3wis 42Comments

UPDATE II: I had a chance to read the contract and a few things stick out. I will first make something very clear, this ‘DEAL’ should have been vetted through the council and it’s staff. The mayor has NO authority on a lease or even selling the building without the consent of the council. Now he could have opposed it and had his staff deny helping with any proposals but that could only drag out for so long. I am still of the opinion that this building could be sold and that the city shouldn’t be investing or hanging onto real estate (unless it contributes to society as a whole like roads, parks and water plants), and we certainly should NOT be leasing for $1 a year a historic building. I still wonder if there is a reason why the city isn’t falling over backwards to sell this property, maybe the answer will come out Tuesday night.

While I certainly support the ZEAL center’s mission and being DTSF is a great idea, it is NOT the responsibility of taxpayers to hold up this stool.

FINDINGS IN THE CONTRACT;

PAGE 3, Section 6, While we are only charging a $1 a year for the building, it seems the city will be leasing the parking from Raven, so we will be losing money on that part of the deal. I also question any contract agreements we may have with Raven since their recent sale has been approved. I would think any agreements we have with Raven before they sold should be renegotiated with the new owners (especially if it has something to do with selling the building.)

PAGE 3, Section 8, ZEAL will have the opportunity to Sub-lease office space while only paying $1 a year in rent (also on PAGE 5 in section 12 they will be able to sell naming rights. A revenue source for ZEAL.)

PAGE 4, Section 10, I question the Mayor’s sole authority of approving or NOT approving alterations. While it is mentioned that rent will be $1 per year there is NO dollar value in the entire contract of what ZEAL will be expected to spend. The number being thrown around is $1 Million to remodel but it just seems to be a handshake deal. I think a commitment of $1 million or more SHOULD be in the contract. What if ZEAL finds out that it will cost a lot more and wants to back out? What are our safeguards?

There is also the glaring conflict of interest the Mayor has because he once sat on the ZEAL board. Oh, nevermind, his COS also used to be an executive for a developer that seems to be getting all the TIFs in town so it all good and ethical.

While I have many more opinions on how this deal was cut I will await the discussion on Tuesday night and the 1st reading.

UPDATE: Item #39 covers the deal at Tuesday’s City Council Meeting;

1st Reading: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS AND ZEAL D/B/A STARTUP SIOUX FALLS.

I haven’t done a serious read into the 17 page lease agreement, but there was some interesting things that stuck out to me like the parking agreement and how easy it will be for them to break the lease. Feel free to read the contract and let me know what you think; HERE.

Some ZEAL members have been telling people they are planning to bring a proposal forward at next weeks’ council meeting in which they will abandon their property by SE Tech (rent it to SE) and plan to rent the old Sioux Falls Parks and Rec building by the intersection of 6th & Phillips for $1 a year for 10 years while investing their own money in remodeling the building (Est. $1 million).

In my opinion the city should just sell the building to ZEAL or whoever. Why hang onto the property? Weren’t we told that we had to build a new administration building for new space? Now that we have it why do we need to keep an old building that the SFPD only uses once a week to train dogs (rumor)? Also, I agree ZEAL should be DTSF and this would be a great investment for them.

We just sold a parking lot that was being used for a rock bottom price of a half-million, why not sell this property and put it to good private use?

Just another handout to a group that doesn’t need it. I would suggest the city council amends this before it hits the agenda and put the building up for sale and give the option to ZEAL to put in the first bid.

While generally I am against most private/public partnerships, this one stinks of high heaven. There is NO reason why the taxpayers need to subsidize this. Local government is simple, and instead of putting ourselves in some stupid complicated contract over 10 years, just make it simple and draw up a bill of sale.

The idiocy and general laziness at Carnegie and City Hall is so immense these days I am surprised our city hasn’t imploded from stupid. Of course that would require someone to show up to light the fuse 🙂

Patrick Starr SF City Council Sioux Falls Zoo

UPDATE: Sioux Falls Zoo announces FREE admission on one of the coldest days of the year!

l3wis 2Comments

UPDATE: I guess there were 192 visitors on Monday with 19 of them with memberships. I believe 2 years ago when they offered a FREE day there was around 14,000 visitors. They need to do a FREE day once a month on a Saturday or Sunday.

While Councilor Pat Starr has been after the ZOO to offer FREE admission at least a couple of days of the year, like they did 2 years ago (you know since we subsidize them with our tax dollars and they will soon be asking to merge with another private non-profit) they decided to do it with very little notice or media coverage on a Monday after Christmas. They made the announcement only 24 hours in advance on Sunday, December 26 on their FB Page the FREE admission lasted all day on Monday from 10 AM-4:30 PM. Not sure who all got the press release, but the Argus made the announcement at 11 AM on Monday and KELO AM made the announcement at 12:30 PM on Monday.

While I will agree that even if it was cold, many of the animals are used to the cold weather and would have been out and active. Would not have Sunday been a better day with family in town and people off of work? And what about announcing it at least 5-10 days in advance? I guess I will have to give the Zoo credit for one thing, they at least keep their doors open all year unlike Great Bear that will close at the drop of the hat and not open until winter is half way over (what is up with this place? Who closes a winter sports facility because of the cold? Dumb.) I wonder if our new $4 million dollar ice ribbon will be closed for cold weather? 🙁

Hopefully Councilor Starr will inquire what the FREE attendance numbers were on Monday. My guess is about 17-23.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

SF City Council Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls City Council Agendas are WHACKED

Downtown Sioux Falls Mayor TenHaken Riverline District SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE: The Riverline ‘RATS’ are looking for a place to hide

Harrisburg School District Open Government Open Meetings

Update: Did the city of Harrisburg violate open meeting laws?

1st Amendment Mayor TenHaken Media SF City Council Sioux Falls

The Empire Strikes back?