Bonita is the first candidate to submit her nominating petitions. All 101 signatures were valid.
Schwan and Erpenbach also don’t have any challengers, but if Michelle keeps up her recruitment (She recruited Rice, or as he said in the Sunday paper “My wife is friends with Michelle.”) Bonita may see someone.
As you watch the Public Services Committee meeting yesterday, you would think that councilor Erpenbach would want to do everything in the city’s power to stick it to small cab companies (well they are all small in SF, even the biggest one is small) Her suggestion of 24/7 operation did get voted down, As Karsky said to her, “Our public transit doesn’t run 24/7 so how can we require private businesses to do it?†She did however push for more regulations, permanent markings, inspections and higher license fees, of course in the interest of public safety, that is. Remember, these are private businesses being subjected to more regulations then most, these are also tax generators (one cab company owner figures he collects around $2,300 a month in sales taxes for the city.) While I do agree with SOME of the Committee’s proposals, I find it a bit odd that she really wants to hammer it to cab companies.
Why?!
Let’s go back to the SF City council informational meeting a couple weeks back, during open discussion (towards end of meeting). Councilor Jamison suggested more transparency in the TIF application process and suggested it needed to be discussed during a work session or committee meeting. Erpenbach, didn’t feel like they needed to ‘dig’ into this matter anymore, and went into a gentle tirade about how her and her colleagues really didn’t need to revisit the topic. She got trumped of course, and Karsky scheduled it for a committee meeting.
What makes this interesting is Erpenbach’s hypocrisy on the issue. While she is okay with large private developers who are receiving public assistance keep their investors a secret, she feels we need to stick it to the small private business owner and regulate them to death, as they collect tax revenue for the city while we refund property taxes back to gigantic developers.
Of course, this hypocrisy stems from Michelle’s campaign donor list, that has about every big wheel developer in SF on it, but seems to have no names of cab company owners on it.
DONORS: erp-finance
So I guess it is safe to say, if you want Michelle to do your bidding, you best get your checkbook out, otherwise, you are screwed.
And the big winners are Erpenbach (over $9KÂ and Huether (over $50K). Documents:
What I find even more interesting is the in common donors. And these are not just dead beat rich folk in town. Who says the mayor’s office doesn’t work with the city council. Besides Michelle & Huether double-teaming the termination of Owen, looks like they send their contribution letters to the same peeps;
Doug Hajek (handles a lot of legal work with bonds for the city, including the EC. Doug is married to state legislator, Anne Hajek.
Craig Lloyd (the owner of the largest development company in Sioux Falls and also the recipient of the most TIF’s in Sioux Falls)
Jeffrey Scherschligt (awarded a TIF and a taxpayer funded bulk head along the river greenway)
Dana Dykhouse (Head dude at First Premier Bank)
Michael Crane (developer and partner with Huether and his wife on projects)
Michael Bender (commercial realtor)
And the developers, attorneys & bankers don’t get what they want, yeah right.
I also viewed Rolfing & Aguliar’s financials, but did not post them. Neither raised any money in December. My guess that neither will seek re-election.
I recall Michelle saying this, and kind of just chuckled at the time, but this letter writer puts a whole new perspective on it;
In an article in the Nov. 24 Argus Leader, Michelle Erpenbach said “… If I’m going to rent a crappy house, I have to take responsibility for that.†She also stated that part of that responsibility is alerting city officials to code violations.
Does Erpenbach think people deliberately choose crappy houses and apartments to live in? For many renters, there are very few choices, so you take what you can afford. And many renters in those “crappy houses†are reluctant to snitch on their landlords because they are afraid of losing their homes if the landlord finds out.
And Kermit Staggers’ statement, “I’m glad we don’t enforce every code in the city,†must have made landlords with code violations jump for joy.
Well, Michelle, we are all not as fortunate as you to have a part-time gig as a newsletter writer and a husband that will provide you with ‘non-crappy’ housing. As the letter writer points out, many people don’t have a choice because they are priced out of decent housing. My last apartment I had before I purchased my home was in Pettigrew Heights. This was about 10 years ago, right when the neighborhood was beginning to become shady. I had cheap rent, and my landlord didn’t always upgrade things, but the place was livable and fine for me. Just because there is a little paint missing or a chip of concrete on the front steps, doesn’t mean the place is falling to pieces. I believe that is what Staggers is getting at. It seems some people in city government have this attitude that you should desire to live in safe, clean, updated, new affordable housing. The problem is, not a lot of that kind of housing exists. And the places that do have so many restrictions, they are almost impossible to get into. This is why I have often said we need to switch the purpose of TIF’s to almost ALL affordable housing projects and to individual, small landlords who want to fix up small-plex apartment buildings. Sioux Falls, CAN provide  ‘non-crappy’ affordable housing, the problem is, we are giving the tax breaks to sports complexes and luxury hotels instead of small time landlords that want to help people with affordable housing and that in itself is kinda ‘crappy’.
Erpenbach, “I want to hear from the public, unless it is about snowgates.”
In this episode of Inside Town Hall you can watch councilor Erpenbach talk out of both sides of her mouth about snowgates and indoor swimming pools.
During the first half of the show Michelle reminds us why we need another 16 months to educate ourselves about snowgates before an April 2014 election, that she ‘guarantees’ will happen.
Then in the second half of the show she talks about how she is ‘just one person’ that cannot possibly make the decision of building an indoor pool at Spellerberg without input from the public.
What a hypocrite. Over 8,000 people told you on a petition they WANTED a snowgate election this Spring. Then when over 30 of the snowgate petition volunteers showed up to a public meeting to tell you why this election was important, you limited their testimony, and as ONE PERSON took it upon yourself to deny the wishes of the people.
Michelle, you don’t give a rip about what the public thinks, about anything.
l3wis