Development

Why is the city lending a religious organization $500K?

This money will come out of the Community Development funds. (Item #6, Sub-Item 28):

Agreement for a redevelopment project located within the All Saints Neighborhood and the Sherman Historical District, tRE ministries, $500K (interest free loan).

I received a Community Development loan about 20 years ago for needed upgrades to my house, my loan was about $4,500 with a 2% interest rate. I guess I am wondering why we would take this much for ONE project when we could rehabilitate 40-50 houses with this money instead? And I mean ‘Rehab’ not demolition, which is what this money will be spent on. There is also the questionable relationship with the developer who is worth millions from video lottery, liquor and Med MJ (unless he has already handed over ownership). Why isn’t he just loaning them the money? I also don’t think tax dollars should go to non-profits (religious organizations) since they pay very little taxes and the fact they have a Daddy Warbucks taking care of them (who ironically makes money from sin taxation). I actually support this project to clean up that part of town but like any development with private parties, they need to pony up the money, but NOT in Sioux Falls, GRIFT, GRIFT, GRIFT. I thought at least ONE councilor would vote against this, but who am I kidding. The mayor wants to turn the entire town into a mega-church. Ick.

MAYOR FIRST AMENDMENT DENIER, INTERRUPTS A CITIZEN, AGAIN

Poops was at it again tonight, ignoring his Constitutional duties and denying a commenter his input. (FF: 1:44:00) Jordan Deffenbaugh came up tonight to talk about how housing would be affected by the Riverline District and the mayor cut him off saying this was already discussed. Oh, Paul, we have been over this, you can’t control the narrative at the podium that is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights but you seem to be above that. I wonder what it is like to take an oath on the Bible, surrounded by friends, family and colleagues and once installed ignore all those constitutional ‘thingies’. Paul, it may not be me, but the city and specifically you as the chair will be sued and it isn’t going to be pretty. Maybe they will let you on one of those East Coast TV morning shows where you can talk about your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Constitution and the lawsuit should be dismissed because of your stupidity. Stranger things have happened.

UPDATE: Who is paying for this?

UPDATE: Since I posted this story either the developer of city has been sweeping this street everyday. It is appreciated.

This street in front of the apartments wasn’t in stellar shape before construction started and now it is completely destroyed. I wonder who will be paying to resurface and fix this street once construction is done? I would guess just to resurface this street would come to about the same amount the developer paid the city for the lot.

Now there may be something in the contract that requires the developer to reimburse the city for the costs associated with street repair but we know who the developer is . . .

I have also heard tons of comments about the structure from downtowners, none of them positive. Most just don’t understand how such an ugly concrete box got permitted there.

Is Sioux Falls’ Boomtown Mentality creating our housing crisis?

This interview about how Austin, TX’s massive growth caused a housing affordability crisis is an interesting comparison to what is happening in Sioux Falls right now;

People flock to booming cities for good reasons: jobs, educational opportunities, cultural and recreational activities. But traffic can be a nightmare and housing costs are off the charts.

“Very few, if any, growing cities have given real thought to what they want to be when they grow up,” said Mallach. “They’ve been conditioned to think that growth is good, not growing is bad, so what passes for planning is usually about how to accommodate growth.”

The population of Austin, Texas, has grown more than 33 percent since 2010. The median cost of a house in Austin jumped from less than $200,000 in 2010 to more than $500,000 in 2022.

Mixed Use Zoning in Sioux Falls is needed

The administration has been busy pushing it’s agenda onto the city council just waiting for their rubberstamp approval;

The new zoning districts, referred to as “midtown mixed use,” are specifically aimed at increasing population density and walkability in fitting parts of the city. An ordinance that would introduce them into the city’s zoning options passed to a second reading unanimously Tuesday.

They range from three-to four-story buildings that could fit near single-family homes to seven- to 10-story buildings that could only be built along some of the city’s busiest streets, or perhaps a whole city block.

Councilor Rich Merkouris said increases in this type of zoning could hopefully be accompanied with improvements to the city’s transit system, and Councilor Greg Neitzert said bicycles should be taken into account while sidewalks and roads around the buildings are developed.

With most proposed city ordinances, the devil is in the details.

I support building density and finally cleaning up corridors like Minnesota Avenue, but I’m starting to get the feeling this will be more like the old Westerns with the fake main street facades. We can clean up the curb appeal of Minnesota Avenue all we want but it is what is behind the street that concerns me more.

When cleaning up neighborhoods it starts with the lowest rung on the latter, that means a total overhaul of our core neighborhoods FIRST then we can concentrate on the window dressing.

And Rich and Greg are correct, there are many other issues we must solve first in our core before dreaming about moving next door to George Jefferson in the high rise with an awesome view of the Pita Pit roof.

Of course Wealthy Welfare Developer Queens have their prince on the council;

And Councilor Alex Jensen said there would need to be incentives to make the zoning appealing, saying it was easy to go buy land on the outskirts of the city for a one-story project, if the location made sense. Convincing that hypothetical landowner to get into the core of the city could take some extra work.

Which means tax rebates and TIFs. Ironically there is a natural incentive to those who actually play the FREE market system fairly, instead of waiting for government handouts, you get to build 5 to 10x the square footage on the same plot of land in the core as opposed to a cornfield next to Brandon.

Besides transit and walkability I also have other concerns about transitioning these buildings from well established core neighborhoods. So does councilor Soehl;

“If Mr. and Mrs. Smith have been living in their house for 40 years and now we’re gonna put a seven-story building in the same city block, explain to me how you’re gonna alleviate the city council from making that hard decision,” Soehl said. “Because it’s gonna end up with us. The complaints, the packed room, it’s gonna end up here to make those hard decisions.”

Once again councilor Soehl is choosing to take the safe and easy road and wanting to throw out the entire proposal based on the fact he may have to make a decision. This kind of zoning WILL require a case by case basis review and approval. DUH! What works well at 18th and Minnesota may not work at 33rd and Minnesota, I think the public and developers get that.

Building density is always a good idea, this is NOT complicated.

What is really going on with the Riverline District?

GeoTek surveying the Riverline District Property • 2/7/23 (H/T to a South DaCola Foot Soldier for providing me the links)

That is an excellent question with few answers and a whole lot of speculation.

If you do a little research on the Minnehaha County GIS you will see where the current SD Social Services building is sitting. That property is NOT owned by the state but an LLC called ‘State Partners LLC’. The listed business address for the LLC is 101 South Reid Street, Suite 201 which is the exact same office address of Lloyd Companies in Downtown Sioux Falls.

While the information I provided above is factual, the rest of the story is purely speculative.

So why would a developer who already owns a huge chunk of this property (there are other individual owners for the smaller parcels) want to sell it to the city which passes it back to the development foundation and potentially SECOG then turns around and pitches it to the very developers who sold it to the city to begin with?

I know, baffling, but you know there has got to be a catch.

Now for the speculation; It could be that the developer is going to make money on both ends – current LLC sells high to the City; new LLC controlled by developer buys cheap from SF Development Foundation, after one or both suck TIF money for the project (and various other grants and tax rebates they can conjure up).

The other reason for city involvement could be in order to facilitate a land trade – offer city park and greenway property in exchange for land on which a stadium and parking would be placed (sound familiar)?

I really have no idea what path this project is taking, but we have to keep a close eye on the players and the conflicts of interest if taxpayer capital is involved. Just like the Bunker Bridge the council will probably only have a couple of hours to decide on this project.