SON-REF-LOGO

I was just informed that the city clerk’s goal is to have final results on Friday of her findings on the challenge to the petition. She is supposedly waiting for one more recently purged list, then wants to have one more review of her findings before informing the public.

Hold tight.

I have posted about this so regularly over the past year, I am almost dreading beating this dead horse again;

The city already has issued a record $524.3 million in construction permits this year, slipping past the previous mark established in 2007.

“Can we imagine any other city across America that wouldn’t want to trade places with Sioux Falls today?” Mayor Mike Huether said last week, when he and city planning director Mike Cooper announced the record.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is a good thing, on SOME levels, on others not so much. The one thing that stuck out in the article was the hesitant public buying homes;

In the early 2000s, every new house going up in Sioux Falls was matched by a corresponding new apartment unit, he said. But the 928 multifamily units permitted this year is a record, and combined with 265 townhome units is twice the number of single-family housing permits issued.

Part of that apartment push is tied to a low vacancy rate in the city, a reality shared in places such as Omaha, Rochester, Minn., and Des Moines, developer Craig Lloyd said. People hit hard by layoffs and the housing bust see opportunity in Sioux Falls with jobs and the quality of life, Lloyd said, but often are wary of taking out another mortgage.

“We’ve had people over the last couple of years say, ‘If I never see another house payment, I’ll be happy’ … because they lost their shirt with the last house payment they had,” he said.

Part of the multifamily construction surge is changes in lending laws and downpayment requirements, said Steve Van Buskirk, director of land development for Van Buskirk Cos. For younger residents and potential first-time homebuyers, the downpayment requirements are just too high, Van Buskirk said. And the tightening of financial regulations on credit scores and histories makes it difficult as well.

“The starter home market is the weakest point in this market,” Van Buskirk said. “People are choosing apartments rather than the new starter home, which averages in the $150,000 to $180,000 price range. Right now, they’re going to the monthly rent route.”

To me this says a couple of things. 1) a cautious public, people got their asses handed to them during the economic downturn, mostly because they were sold houses they could not afford, that they paid too much for to begin with. 2) People really can’t afford to buy a home in SF.

I know what you are thinking about my second statement, but believe it or not, while the developers in SF are getting bank loans to build everything from hot dog stands to luxury hotels (and TIFs to boot) the average Joe is just happy he didn’t lose his entire retirement, and he is certainly not looking to be chin deep in a mortgage.

What does this all really mean? Well, if you are investing in an apartment building, you are gonna make some money. Developers are also doing well by building new properties that are leased before the paint dries and paying off their bank loans with the use of TIF’s instead of paying property taxes.

While I could go on a very long rant about money these folks are making using public incentives, I really am not in the mood for a novel comment from Craig 🙂

I will say this, we have learned NOTHING from the last time we went full boar on development, the market dropped, platting fees went in the toilet, and sales tax payers were left holding the bag for arterial roads.

My bigger question is whether this growth is sustainable? Remember, as taxpayers (sales, property and enterprise funds to utilities) we pay the lion’s share to infrastructure maintenance and new construction. Is all this new growth sustainable 10-15 years down the road? Are we creating new annexation that is unneeded?

But the real question to come from this announcement is “When is the development community going to pay their fair share towards infrastructure?” It’s one thing to brag about a half-billion dollars in growth, it is entirely something else to brag about how this growth is helping to supplement our infrastructure. All I hear is crickets on that front.

But I guess that’s not how we do things in Rome, uh, I mean, Sioux Falls.

A restaurant owner claims her freedom of speech rights are being violated for political reasons.

August 08, 2013

A small restaurant owner in Belleville, Ill., filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on Monday claiming her city unconstitutionally ordered her to remove a sign from her window that sarcastically thanks city government.

Dianne Rogge, owner of the Pour Haus restaurant, posted a big sign in her business’s front window that read “No TIF for us, Tks B’ville.” Rogge claims that her request for $15,000 in tax increment financing— a form of public financing used to spur economic development—was rejected because she had openly supported Belleville mayor Mark Eckert’s opponent, Phil Elmore. She had hoped to use the TIF money to renovate her business.

City employees sent Rogge letters in June requesting she remove the sign or face a $500-a-day penalty. They cited a city ordinance that requires business owners to get a permit and pay a fee to put up signage. The sign, which has been up since June 5, has racked up more than $31,000 in fines, Rogge told a St. Louis television station.

Rogge’s 20-page complaint, filed in federal court by attorney Eric Rhein, says Belleville’s sign ordinance is unconstitutional and is enforced in a discriminatory fashion. It claims that a former city attorney had posted political signs in his window that the city never forced him to remove. “They have to follow the First Amendment no matter who they are,” Rhein told the Belleville News-Democrat. “It reigns supreme and political signs are afforded the highest amount of protection.”

The lawsuit seeks to prevent the city from enforcing its ordinance, monetary damages to Rogge, attorney’s fees and punitive damages of $50,000, the local paper reported.

Last night as the city council was posed to vote on the new TIF application process (Item#21, FF: 23:00) a very nervous Q-Tip Smith, director of parking, community development, and golden P’s, had to try to explain why there should not be transparency and disclosures when applying for TIF’s. This happened after councilor Jamison offered an amendment (that he later rescinded) that said there needs to be disclosure as to who is applying for TIF’s (he borrowed the language from Rapid City).

Ironically Smith brought up a representative from Lloyd companies (one of the biggest receivers of TIF’s in our city) and Mike Crane (who received TIF #11 that had to be signed by director Cotter instead of the mayor-hmm). To argue against disclosure. Investors, Investors, Investors, blah, blah, blah.

Of course Staggers and Anderson said it best; if you are looking for government assistance or taking advantage of a government program, disclosure and transparency should go along with that, Staggers went even further and accused TIF benefactors of having ‘political connections’ (Gee, is that why Director Cotter had to sign one of the TIF’s instead of the mayor 🙂

Of course Councilor Erpenbach poo-poo’d the amendment (not sure what her pro-censorship, anti-transparency stance is about anyway, it’s just becoming weirder by the day).

What I found even more ironic is that as a citizen I have to state my full name before I can even address the city council in a video-recorded public meeting for 5 minutes, but if I am asking for millions in the form of a tax break, I can remain anon until that application is approved.

This isn’t the last you have heard of this, while the new process passed w/o the disclosure, several of the councilors agreed this will be revisited.

Smith was also asked why it could not be deferred Tuesday night for another month, he mentioned an urgency about another TIF that was fast approaching (my assumption is that the developer who is asking to build condos between 13th and 14th on Phillips Avenue is asking for a TIF to tear down Sushi Masa, but that is just an educated guess).

The graphic below shows the current TIF’s the city has granted so far (the italicized Dunham TIF’s represent a company that is in transition)

CLICK TO ENLARGE