Bunker Ramp mural project becomes controversial

by

Just ask Mikey A. after he reluctantly accepted the Sistine Chapel ‘ceiling’ project. His ideas and timeline for the project got him into a lot of trouble with the Pope. It has been a mis-understood piece of art for centuries.

Fast forward to an attempt to put lipstick on a concrete pig downtown and all of a sudden a temporary mural (to only last about 18 months) has been blown way out of proportion.

The Sioux Falls Arts Council in coordination with the Visual Arts Commission and City Planning Staff put in motion a plan to have an opportunity to decorate the Bunker Ramp. As far as I can tell the planning was going smoothly. the SFAC had private funding in place and the VAC had a jurying process.

Where it hit a snag was the mayor’s office or representatives from the planning office made the decision to pull the selected winner and recommend 2nd place.

Two pieces of the puzzle that I am missing is a supposed letter sent from the VAC/SFAC to the mayor’s office offering their dissatisfaction and the image of the rejected mural concept. I doubt I will get either, especially the image which is on complete lockdown.

From what was described to me, the image was chocked full of Native American symbolism and some shirtless males. Let’s just say certain folks were worried certain folks would be offended by such imagery.

It is still hard for me to make a judgement call without seeing the image, but my guess is there is absolutely nothing offensive about it.

Just think you can walk less then a block from this location and see a statue of a dude with his shmeckel hanging out.

After the pissing match went back and forth the mural seemed to be in jeopardy, but now, the rumor is, a temporary painting will be installed at the location. Not sure what that will be or who will be paying for it.

As I said from the beginning, all this could have been avoided by simply selling advertising to DTSF businesses to advertise on a building wrap to cover the wall. It would have been paid for and we would have avoided all the controversy over shirtless native men.

As a local journalist said to me today, “This all could have been avoided with transparency.”

I think we have a winner! Maybe that is what we should paint on the side of the ramp?

UPDATE: Did Mayor TenHaken overrule the Visual Arts Commission?

by

UPDATE: Mural Gate is getting interesting. While I am still waiting for more details it seems the funding source for the mural may be in jeopardy. I am assuming that NO announcements will be made until this is smoothed out. The mural was to be privately funded.

Not only is PTH busy forcing the city council to do his dirty work, but apparently he also has been throwing his weight around with the VAC (Visual Arts Commission).

The commission is tasked with making recommendations to the city council and mayor when it comes to public art. They probably haven’t had this much drama since they had to determine if the Munson plaque at Phillips to the Falls was art (I wish I still had audio from that city council meeting, I think the Quen Be started crying).

At their December 20, 2022 meeting the commission picked a winner for the Bunker Ramp mural. There were 3 entries and they voted on two of them;

Jurying for the 10th Street Parking Ramp
Commissioner Boice presented the numeric rankings for the three submittals. The Commission reviewed and discussed the rankings and Commissioner Schaeffer made a motion for the Commission to select between Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette and Eric Vozzola. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Jamison and Hoesing voted in favor of Eric Vozzola. Commissioners Schaeffer, Lum, Dickson, and Zaijcek voted in favor of Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette.
Commissioner Jamison made a motion that all members of the Commission are in unanimous support of Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoesing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Boice will update the Commission once a final decision after consultation with the donor and the City.

The VAC handled the selection process the way they are supposed to by making sure the entries qualify for the criteria set forth and having an open and transparent vote on the selection. They even went a step further by taking a 2nd vote for unanimous consent (heck, they run their meetings tighter then the council).

Fast forward to the January 17th VAC meeting (that is posted wrong on the agenda as a Jan 11 meeting) and you will notice they had a special guest to talk about the mural selection;

• 10th Street Parking Ramp Mural, Jeff Eckhoff

What is missing from the minutes is exactly what Mr. Eckhoff told the VAC. According to my sources at the meeting the VAC was informed that the Mayor was not a fan of the VAC mural selection and the mayor instructed that they use the 2nd entry. Not sure why because I am getting conflicting accounts.

While all the artists involved are very talented, they do differ in styles. The winner(s) the VAC chose do the mural are more culturally diverse and present a lot of symbolism when it comes to Hispanic and Native American culture, while the 2nd place entry that the mayor prefers does more nature/abstract/modern commercialized work.

I don’t know what the entries look like, but as an artist I will admit all the artists involved do great work and I can understand how it would have been a difficult decision to make. But if I was voting, I would have picked what the VAC picked purely based on the complexity of their work. While Eric’s work is good, it lacks substance and doesn’t tell a story. Art should always have a message, or NOT, but there is a clear dividing line.

Now there are a lot of rumors swirling around about how this all came down (I’m working on getting more details) but I do know that the VAC leadership was not happy about how it came down and there was some blow back.

The one thing an experienced leader can do is get out of the way especially when you have a talented and capable committee to make a decision for you. But authoritarians struggle with delegation because they want to micro-manage everything. It seems the artists that were in the running were all very capable of creating a great mural, so why did a color blind graphic designer have to have a pity party?

I get it if the mayor was NOT happy about the selection, but to piss in the VAC’s cereal is not a good way to start a day.

Bunker Ramp Developer Proposals need to be made public

by

The Anti-Transparent government running city hall wants to move forward on the failed Bunker Ramp project with even less transparency than what got us in this pickle to begin with;

Powers and chief of staff Erica Beck also have updated the City Council multiple times, answered questions and solicited feedback.

“It’s important to note that some of the interest is because of the confidence we’ve been able to share with the industry and because of the collaboration between the administration and council,” Beck said. “We’ve been transparent that we’re conveying the questions, concerns and comments … and I think that will lead to a process and ultimately applications that may be more than what we first thought we might receive. We’ve received a lot of good feedback both internal and external of the city and state for that matter.”

The city plans to use a negotiated sale process to either sell or lease all or part of the site, including potentially the ramp itself.

A committee of city and community representatives will lead the evaluation process and make a recommendation. The team will start reviewing submissions in January, but there’s no hard deadline yet.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with an initial review process to boot out the ridiculous, underfunded and impossible, serious finalists and contenders need to present their proposals publicly to the city council during a special informational meeting as long as they meet investment criteria (a little problem we had the first time around).

It certainly sounds like to me a process has been set in place that will make the final decision of who takes over the property up to the non-elected planning staff, the non-elected mayor’s staff, the mayor himself and handed over to the council for rubber stamp approval.

And who can resist a property that has PLUMP utilities;

I would challenge the city council to demand that at least 3 finalists need to present publicly their plans to the council, and allow the council to have an up or down vote on those proposals.

As of right now, it would be like going to the shoe store and asking to see all of their running shoes they have in size 8, and the salesperson bringing out one pair from the store room stating, “These are our best shoes sir, you don’t need to worry about what else is in stock.”

One of the biggest reasons corruption and bad decisions are made not just locally but nationally is because those decisions are made in the dark with very little if any input from the public. Bring the public along this time and it could be less complicated.

As I have predicted, the developer will probably be a usual suspect that will get all the handouts and goodies anticipated with a deal like this. There will either be a much lower purchase price or lease agreement negotiated(?) and a tax break or TIF to boot. No developer in their right mind wouldn’t go after this opportunity WITHOUT asking for the full reach around from the city, and they will quickly oblige, heck it is even mentioned in the proposal online;

For property that is being considered for sale, the value of the property is established by a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraiser hired and compensated by the City. Projects that will provide tangible public benefits may be eligible for various forms of financial assistance, such as tax increment financing (TIF) and property tax reduction. Consideration of the purchase/lease price, incentive request, or other request of the proposer will be weighed to determine the best project and offer to the City

In other words ‘just ask’ and you may get what you want.

Mayor TenHaken proposing sale/lease agreement on Bunker Ramp BEFORE developer selected

by

As I have stated in the past, the selection of who takes over the Bunker Ramp will likely be a usual suspect, and probably already in the hopper. But all assumptions aside, the mayor has sponsored a resolution (Item #59) to put framework in place BEFORE the developer has been chosen. Cough, snicker, laugh, cough;

Background & Objective: This Resolution outlines the City Council support to consider both a lease and/or sale of the property at 140 E 10th Street (Parking Ramp site). It outlines the goals and expectations of any proposals that will be received through the Negotiated Sale process.

It seems this time around they are trying to get ahead of any questions about who is chosen. I look at this as a good thing, besides who is negotiating this sale, likely behind closed doors.

They still struggle with the concept of transparency, and if used the first time around (they had three bites at the apple) we wouldn’t be in this place.

There has been a lot of discussion about what went wrong with the original project, just like how did a slaughterhouse get approved without conditional use permits, why is homelessness and violent crime exploding and musical chair rotating video lottery casinos.

It seems this administration and council have learned very little from the past, but they are trying really, really, really hard (not to blow out the candles during their meetings).