Here we go again

by

It’s too bad the neighborhood just doesn’t pool their money and develop the land they want to, like a private park or plot it for homes;

Owners of properties that surround an urban farm in northeast Sioux Falls have filed paperwork with the City Clerk’s Office to protest a decision by the City Council to allow apartments to be built there.

City Clerk Tom Greco said Friday that 17 properties in the Oakview neighborhood near Sixth Street and Bahnson Avenue were included in petitions submitted this week to force the council to reconsider a vote it took last month to rezone six acres of urban ag land at that intersection to a “live-work.”

The new land-use designation would allow several different types of development, including apartments, but neighbors have been vocal in their resistance, citing density, traffic and safety concerns throughout the months-long saga.

I actually thought the Live/Work designation was fine, and I supported the council on their last decision. I guess the neighborhood wants more conditions on the property before selling. I also believe that the Brown’s held onto the property way to long as agriculture land, they should have rezoned 10-15 years ago.

Lloyd Companies asks for TIF next week

by

They will request the TIF during the Planning Meeting, next week (Wed, Sept 6 – 6 PM).

If you read the attached documents you will see that the Lloyd Companies was probably seeking $5.1 million to begin with, the ‘proposed’ cost of the soil cleanup (still am struggling with the fact that cleanup is this much).

I could say many things about my opposition to this TIF, but you have probably already heard it. I will say this though, we need as many people from the public at this meeting in opposition to get it on public record. I’m not naive, the planning department recommends approval and the commission will probably approve it, I would be shocked if they did not.

My main opposition is that it takes money from the public schools and county. And with all the opt-outs lately, this is NO time to give tax discounts to wealthy developers on prime downtown property.

UPDATE: Minnehaha County Commission has NO objects to Lloyd TIF

by

Erica Beck from Lloyd Companies with taxpayer compensated Dustin Powers (filled in for Brent) from the City of Sioux Falls did a presentation today to the Minnehaha County Commission about the proposed $4.4 million dollar TIF. (FF to 46:00)

Lloyd Companies is saying they need the TIF for cleanup. But, that is kind of a stretch. Whether they need to clean up contaminated soil OR not, they still have to dig a hole for a parking garage. Instead of the TIF for cleanup, I have suggested FREE tipping fees for the project – the entire project. This wouldn’t cost the taxpayers much and we would still be able to receive full property taxes (approximately $450,000 a year) instead of $8,000 a year for approximately the next 13 years (Life of TIF).

My other suggestion would be for the city to actually contract the removal of the contaminated soil before turning over the land. There would probably be some Federal EPA grants to do this.

Lloyd Companies is maintaining they NEED this TIF to do the project. I find this a little hard to swallow.

Not only did the County Commission NOT object to the project and TIF, commissioner Dean Karsky had to inform the public that Lloyd Companies are the largest property tax payer in the county. I’m not even sure how this equates to being able to get a tax discount. What this tells me is that they have attained an enormous amount of wealth and property, and can certainly float this $44 million dollar project without this corporate welfare. It’s like saying Bill Gates deserves to eat a free meal at the Banquet everyday because he has attained so much wealth.

Once again Karsky defends who butters his bread, the Chamber and their esteemed members.

A simple Copper Lounge question we’d like an answer to (Cameraman Bruce)

by
There once was a building standing proud for one hundred years through many business changes and owners.
There once was a building standing in the midst of decay but it stood proud and survived.
There once was a building in need of some work to help it survive and the city offered help to keep the facade solid.
There once was a promise by all to keep the building strong and proud for many more generations.
There once was a building, short and proud with a solid facade financed by the public treasury.
There once was a building in downtown Sioux Falls the people of our little town on the prairie felt was important enough to trust future owners with public treasury to keep it solid.
The proud building stood with a new facade, new use and a bronze plaque.
Then there was a plan to tear down the proud building with the new facade and plaque.
The proud building won a reprieve when someone forgot to buy the building before announcing it was going to be gone.
and then….
The proud building was sold to a new owner with a big new plan to change it one more time.
The once proud building is now gone.
Where is the facade bought and paid for by the public treasury?
The dumpsters are now gone with the public’s facade and once proud plaque.
As this now empty spot is to be made into something else, we ask the question: where is public’s money?
The public treasury paid for a once proud facade and none of it was saved, not a brick, not a window, not a plaque.
When the owner brought in the dumpsters to clean up his mess, didn’t the developer receive an insurance claim to pay off the debts and allow them to put a new building up?
Where is the facade money to replenish the city’s fund?
Since the building is gone, where is the city’s money from the insurance?
Doesn’t the city deserve to get it’s money back now?
The building is gone and so is the facade easement program.
Why is there no protection for the city treasury when this city property is destroyed? If you are driving down the street and run into a light pole, your insurance company has to pay the city for the loss. Why is this different?
You do not build 100 years of historical past with new brick and mortar. The plan is for a new building, new design and no connection to the past except for a grave marker to remind those who care to remember.
The city property was destroyed through no fault of the once proud building, why are we letting the owner of the building keep money no one else would be entitled to keep? The owner must repay the façade easement the owner was entrusted to protect.
Bruce Danielson

Why not loan money for façade program instead?

by

The handouts are ending and the crying begins;

A city program that helps historic building owners spruce up downtown storefronts is the latest casualty of Sioux Falls’ sales tax slump.

Rich Brue had planned to used the city’s façade easement program to help pay for improvements to his property at 212-216 South Main Avenue.

Now that he’s ready to start a $2.8 million renovation project, he was disappointed to learn the program’s funding is zeroed out in Mayor Mike Huether’s 2018 budget.

“It’s not something promised, but it’s something that’s been available for renovation of these old historic buildings in downtown Sioux Falls,” Brue said.

Exactly, NOT PROMISED. Besides the fact that it is a handout from taxpayers to developers, one of the bigger arguments against the program is it only applied to downtown historic buildings and not other older structures in Sioux Falls.

But as we already know, developers can AFFORD to make these upgrades themselves;

Brue can’t delay his project in hopes of getting city dollars, so he’ll go without.

“I’ve got obligations to my tenants for timelines in which to finish it,” Brue said. “The façade easement is not going to make or break the project, but it would have helped soften the blow. Construction costs are not cheap.”

If you can’t afford to redevelop a building you bought, maybe you should not have bought it? Why should taxpayers bail out your bad investment decisions?

I’m not totally against government ‘helping’ with these projects though. There are other ways to help besides a handout. Through community development they could get a low interest loan to help with the historical aspects of the building. When I got my community development loan it came with a low interest and after the loan was secured and work was finished the loan was sold to a bank who administered the repayment. We can still have a façade program, we just need to change the way it is paid for.