SF City Council

Mayor TenHaken misses the point of open government

PTH was on Belfrage yesterday talking about a bunch of things. Belfrage brought up the ‘dysfunction’ of the city council. It of course came back to trying to blame ‘ONE’ person on the council. While Stehly’s name was never brought up, it was clear who he was talking about.

PTH thought it was a waste of time to discuss a $20 fee for the housing summit instead of spending more time talking about supplemental appropriations during a council meeting.

As for the supplemental appropriations, the council and the public, I believe were in agreement. What discussion did you need? (PTH even admitted to that). But to say having a ‘wasted’ discussion about the $20 fee just shows (as I have suspected) he knows little about open government and transparency. This wasn’t about the $20 this was about charging the public to come to a PUBLIC event. Ironically, the administration changed their tune and said they would waive the fee and film the event (I encourage people to watch the over 5 hours, it is fascinating, especially the tiny homes for vets discussion). So was the discussion really a waste? Open and transparent government SHOULD be priority over everything else.

I think we need to have a longer public discussion about how the citizens own this government and they shouldn’t be ‘charged’ to participate in it.

Is someone waiting in the wings to scoop up the parking ramp project?

Yeah, I know, Mr. Conspiracy theory here, and who can we believe? But this is an interesting change of events;

The group said it had proposed changes to the project to the city, but then it stopped receiving any notices or responses from the city, which the developer also alleges canceled meetings before alerting it that it was terminating the deal, which would have co-mingled public and private money to see two hotels, restaurants and retail space built around a parking garage at 110 S. Mall Avenue.

So the city council now is on ‘silent mode’. The city refused to negotiate the deal and late last night, TJ TypeOver sends out a press release saying they are looking for someone to complete the project.

When the performance bond payment didn’t come in, do you think the city got a little nervous and did some ‘shopping around’?

It will be interesting to see how fast another developer swoops in, and who it is. Information lockdown usually means things are going on in the backroom. At this point I can’t even speculate who would want to take it over, but we have our guesses 🙂 Heck, I wouldn’t even be surprised if one of healthcare monsters builds a hospital on top of the parking ramp.

It will be fun to watch as the administration and the rubber stampers talk about how they ‘saved’ the doomed project while the rest of us roll our eyes.

UPDATE: TenHaken could have killed Village on the River before it got this far

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the bonds were sold before PTH came into office. So if he would have killed the project, it likely would have cost us in fines. I think I predicted about $2 million at the time. But in hindsight it would have saved us in the long run, because now we have a structure without a private partner.

Over on the WussCollege chief talking mouth, Pitty, is trying to defend the mayor’s position on the parking ramp. But early on PTH could have killed the project, and did not. As one commenter said;

When Mayor TenHaken took office, he announced his administration was vetting the project and development agreement and subsequently endorsed the project during a press conference in July 2018

I also find it a bit ironic that while Pitty likes to throw Stehly under the bus, she is the only one (with Starr) who has tried to stop this project while Pitty’s buddies Neitzert and Erickson steamed forward.

VIDEO BELOW is last night’s CC meeting;

So why didn’t PTH stop the project before it got this far? As someone put it to me last night, he didn’t have a legal team in place at that time that knew their heads from a hole in the ground. While I commended PTH last night for killing the project, he really could have stopped it much sooner. While real leaders do get things done, they also get things done right and know how to say NO when necessary. It seems the only two leaders we have right now in city government is Stehly and Starr who had the vision and foresight to know this was doomed from the very beginning.

UPDATE: Downtown Parking Ramp a bad deal. Yah think?!

We have all heard the story tonight, and Detroit Lewis saw this coming. I predicted early on “There will never be a hotel built at that site.” Trust me, I hate being the ‘I told you so’ guy, but this was obvious from the beginning. I will leave you with my public scolding tonight at the city council meeting.

UPDATE: The city just sent this out;

CLARIFICATION: The City of Sioux Falls has not ruled out private development at this site in the future. At this time, we are focused on the completion of the parking ramp portion of the project.

Today, the City of Sioux Falls provided the Village River Group (VRG) with a notice of termination of their development agreement and ground lease for the Village on the River project.

On December 29, 2017, the City entered into a development agreement for construction of a mixed-use development including a public parking ramp and private hotel with leasable retail space.

The City has invested significant time and resources working with VRG in furtherance of performance of the development agreement.

On April 1, 2019, the City notified VRG that it was in default on the Village on the River project. In accordance with the development agreement, VRG had 30 calendar days to cure multiple defaults. VRG has failed to cure these defaults within the development agreement’s cure period or at any time thereafter.

The project can and will proceed as a stand-alone parking ramp which will alleviate parking challenges within downtown Sioux Falls.

Consistent with protecting taxpayer interests, the City has reserved any and all of its legal remedies available to it under the terms of the development agreement.

In other news, at the Informational meeting, councilor Brekke read her letter to the editor that Cory Myers, News Director of the Argus Leader refused to publish;

May 6, 2019

Letter to the Editor

From: City Councilmember Janet Brekke

I am writing in response to the recent letter to the Editor by Former Councilmember Rex Rolfing and the May 5th Argus Leader Editorial. In my opinion both articles missed the point.

In today’s environment of good versus evil, winners versus losers, or us versus them, frameworks it is plain to see that the Sioux Falls City Council is suffering from the same ultra-polarization that is immobilizing our Federal Government.

The problem that arose with the City Council’s hiring of an Internal Audit Manager has very little to do with the candidate that was ultimately selected. Ultimately the failed discussions and subsequent actions are symptoms of a larger problem.  The larger problem is the City Council’s inability to discuss any divisive problem in a deliberative open minded manner.

Since I joined the City Council last year I have tried to promote and adhere to good government procedures and practice: Decorum, Ethics, Roberts Rules of Order, Open Meetings and Open Records laws. So why does process matter? I believe good process matters because solving complex problems calls for creativity and collaboration, in ways that us versus them, winners versus losers, and good versus evil, do not. In a political context the idea that the good need to simply destroy the evil as we were taught in the movies of our childhood simply does not apply. Affixing blame and demonizing individual councilmembers is counterproductive.

We all have a role to play in our dysfunction. Ron Brownstien, CNN Sr. Political Analyst spoke at the National League of Cities about Congressional polarization on the health care issue. He said both sides claimed they could not talk about the issue because they were too far apart.   Brownstein’s suggestion, “Being far apart on an issue is not a reason to refuse to discuss an issue. Rather being far apart on an issue is the very reason you begin discussions.”  The City Council needs to engage in a deliberative process where we interact and listen to each other. I believe each of us has a valuable perspective to bring to the discussion. We need to work on our ability to collaborate and compromise. If we cannot take the time and effort to work to achieve consensus on hiring an Internal Audit Manager how can we expect to solve the complex problems facing the City. This us versus them mentality serves no one well, least of all the residents of Sioux Falls.

What amazes me is that our soul daily in town had to come after the only councilor (besides Starr) to oppose the parking ramp. The chickens are coming home to roost.