Development

The Riverline District needs to be housing, and that’s it.

I will agree this will be a prime piece of land for development but not without many challenges.

The one thing it doesn’t need to be is another play palace or baseball stadium. This city has plenty of recreation opportunities. Heck, right across the street (Fairfax) there is a swimming pool and a future skatepark. I would even suggest we build a playground in the Northwest corner of Nelson Park.

As for ‘amenities’ does this area really need more restaurants, bars and shopping opportunities? Not at all, it is surrounded by dozens of restaurants and only a short distance from a grocery store and Lewis Drug.

I would suggest filling the area with affordable and workforce housing constructing hundreds of units that are studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-bedroom flats for younger folks just getting started in the workforce.

But it will need to be propped up;

TenHaken said it is “very likely” the city will ultimately purchase the land, though, and will then decide on negotiating sales or leases to private developers.

That is not his decision to make alone. While he certainly can negotiate (we saw how well that went with the 6th street Bunker bridge) the ultimate decision comes to the council. I know I will regret saying this, but this would be a great place to have a TIF instead of just a buyout from the city. The city could come in and use the TIF to build up all the infrastructure needed to put in such a large housing project, or take an even more daring approach and skip the TIF all together and just budget for the infrastructure taking out the tax rebate equation all together. If Riverline gets the investors and proves they are secure the city can hold up their end of the bargain by preparing the property with sewer, water, roads and other utilities without expensive TIFs and land purchases it would simply be a line item in the budget.

When we pay our 2nd penny in Sioux Falls it should be going towards infrastructure. There is absolutely NO reason the city needs to get into the real estate or tax rebate business on this one. It could be a lot easier then concocting deals. We provide the infrastructure the private investors provide the housing.

Often when there is development in Sioux Falls, anywhere, I ask ‘What is the benefit to the average citizen?’ We are often told that new development helps build up the tax base, but every year we continue to raise the property taxes on 3 levels (county, city and school). If all this development is increasing our tax base, why do we continue to raise taxes? Because of all the play palaces we are subsidizing.

There is ONE benefit to taxpayers, especially those who live in the area (I live 4 blocks away) if any kind of housing is to be put in this area it will border one of the most active and LOUDEST train tracks in the city. The trains are going nowhere. We would need to build a quiet zone in this area in order to make the housing work. I should know, I hear the train whistles all hours of the night since this is the most active thoroughfare.

While Riverline has challenges the city could make this very easy and painless by simply getting out of the way after building up the infrastructure. Of course that isn’t as sexy as having press conferences and talking about complicated land swaps and baseball stadiums that we DON’T need. Sometimes the best thing government can do with projects like this is get the f’ck out of the way and let the private sector offer a solution.

As I have said in the past, most smaller developers and contractors in this city take NO city subsidies. How is it that the little guy has figured out how to make a buck but the big guys are always begging at the trough?

If the city moves forward with a land purchase deal I would suggest the voters of Sioux Falls refer it to a public vote and break this cycle of waste and bureaucracy.

Bunker Ramp Developer Proposals need to be made public

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.

But what about our original stink?

Ms. Schwan asks the obvious question when it comes to the ballot initiative, ‘What about Smithfield’s?’

Second, my biggest issue with the initiative as written is that it allows Smithfield to continuing expanding downtown.

Not long ago, I stood on the top floor of the new 10-story Bancorp building at Cherapa Place and looked out at Smithfield in the distance. If we’re going to have a conversation about the suitability of certain locations for meat processing, my hope is that we also can talk about how we might persuade Smithfield to build somewhere else – or even partner with Wholestone, as Hormel did. That conversation can and will never happen if Smithfield’s only option is to expand downtown. The company owns enough land to do so, and by passing this initiative, our community will ensure that’s the only place Smithfield’s growth will occur.

This has been my issue with the petition to begin with. If we are going to ban these kind of operations, we need to ban all of them in the city limits.

I wish the community didn’t have to vote on this at all and that those opposed could have worked with Wholestone to ensure the highest possible mitigation of any environmental factors of concern. That’s typically how we do things in this community.

Yes, prior to Shape Places, the council would have been all over this.

This is why local government matters, because if you don’t pay attention to the baby steps you miss Bigfoot stepping on your head.

Sioux Falls Housing Permits up, but is it affordable?

Something sadly missing from the stats of record building permits;

There’s more than a billion dollars of construction happening in Sioux Falls but where in all that money does affordable or workforce housing fit in?

It doesn’t so far.

“I just looked at the projects and we’re adding over 3,000 (housing) units,” said Jill Madsen, the president of the South Dakota Multi-Housing Association (SDHA). “From what I see I don’t see low income or workforce. I don’t see any tax credit housing and that has been workforce housing.”

It seems the permit values have risen because builders are building more expensive homes;

“There is still a lot of building going on but it’s more expensive houses that are being built,” Ingle said. “The (permit) valuations are going up because we are building more expensive homes.”

I still don’t understand what the end goal is with housing concerning city leadership? If you were to look at it from a distance as an outsider you would think city leaders are trying to push poorer residents out of our community, not just with permanent housing but with rentals also. I have said it is unsustainable in comparison to the workforce we will need.

Sioux Falls Mayor TenHaken taps former Thune and Rounds staffer for Housing Development Manager

Logan Penfield was tapped 2 months ago according to his profile. He does have educational and professional government experience (unlike some of Paul’s past appointments) but I found it interesting that the circles Mr. Penfield runs in probably contributed to his appointment.

When I think of affordable and accessible housing advocacy, the Republican Party usually doesn’t rank high on that list. (FF 9:40 to hear is introduction);