I heard a rumor recently that a west coast organization was sniffing around in Sioux Falls looking for an opportunity to run ‘progressive independent candidates’. My source wouldn’t tell me the name of the organization, but passed my contact info along.
My assumption is that it is NO LABELS and they seem to have a vested interest in getting involved in local races like school board, county commission and city council.
As I understand it they are willing to assist campaigns, especially ones that are bi-partisan in nature, like a city council race.
I have been telling people I would like to see at least 3 solid candidates for each of the 4 city council races this next Spring, and it may happen.
Someone has already told me they are running for Neitzert’s NW district seat (he is term limited) and another person told me they are interested in running for a different district seat.
There has also been some recruitment efforts by Rick Knobe’s group, the Change Agents, the Patriot Ripple Effect (ultra right wing) and the South Dakota Democratic party.
I have been telling people who are actively recruiting or considering a run that Mayor MisTaken will have his 4 recruited, well groomed, christian, white lackeys in which he will endorse and feed shady PAC money to, and why wouldn’t he? It worked in the last election.
I can tell you that many who watch the council races closely have studied the shellacking the NON-PAUL candidates got in the last election, and they are not going to let it happen again.
If you go to my zip code, the average 1-bedroom apartment is $970 a month. You would have to make at least $38,000 a year or around $18 an hour to afford this (30% of income).
I heard a rumor recently that 70% of job listings in Sioux Falls pay $15 or less.
It seems in Sioux Falls we have affordability issues with all kinds of things like groceries, housing, and childcare. Maybe Sioux Falls doesn’t have an affordability issue, maybe it has a wage issue?
But don’t bother our local leadership with that issue, because they will tell us that wages should be determined by the FREE market, you know, the FREE market in South Dakota that allows business owning legislatorsto take government handouts, or that same FREE market that creates special tax districts so developers can buy skywalks and public art, or the millions and millions we give away for parking ramps that will be obsolete within 10-20 years.
While our local governments are quick to throw money at the top and hope it trickles down to the rest of us, they really need to put their foot where the sun doesn’t shine and get businesses to pay living wages, then things like buying a home or even a loaf of bread are a lot less challenging in our community.
The city council has the power and authority to pass policies that would help wage earners in our community, for example, an ordinance that requires all businesses advertising for employment within city limits list their starting wage, or raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour or more.
When we talk about the affordability of our city, it really comes down to what our employers are willing to pay and little else because all this talk about affordability is just a smoke screen to what our real problem is, CRAPPY WAGES!
I’m surprised the council didn’t hand out flashlights before the meeting.
On Item #5, approval of minutes, Councilor Starr asked to amend the minutes since they don’t reflect what happened during the Informational Meeting of July 18 (FF: 20:00). Of course 7 councilors voted against amending, which is surprising in itself, because when you listen to the discussion it is obvious what is in the minutes isn’t what happened. Here is their version that was submitted for approval tonight;
As you can see they are claiming they made a motion to amend, the problem is they were already in executive session when they amended it (amendments must be made in public).
Selberg claims they were following law when it comes to what is discussed in the meeting. He is correct, but only after they amended the session. If you look at the image above you will see that they were first going to put this under personnel matters (this refers to individuals, not to the city council employees as a whole) this is why they probably decided to amend it, because it looks like they were discussing raises, bonuses, etc., which would be under contract negotiations.
Like I said, the amendment was justified, the problem is the amendment wasn’t made in public. Even the city attorney stumbles a bit when he tries to claim that since ONE person was sitting in the lobby of Carnegie and the doors to the council chamber were open (because he forgot to close it, complaining about the door stop being stubborn) that makes it all good. That would be like saying if I was sitting on the toilet in Carnegie’s bathroom and the door was open the meeting was technically open to the public 🙁
I have heard you can hear them talking when you sit in the lobby if the door is open, but unless you are actually in the room, you would have no idea what they were doing. It is a stretch to claim it was done in open, and Starr was correct to ask for an amendment.
Ironically, if anyone decides to file an open meetings complaint because of this, seven councilors just signed their own pink slips by voting against the amendment while Starr gave himself an out. Even more ironic, the 7 councilors went a step further by noting that Starr voted NO on the amendment and that should be reflected in the minutes. Starr happily agreed and voted with the rest of the council to include that in the minutes.
I wonder what it is like to have such a dislike for your fellow colleague you would risk violating open meeting laws just to stick it to him in a public meeting. Apparently seven of the toddler councilors didn’t take their nap before the meeting.
SIOUX STEEL PROJECT REQUESTING ANOTHER $3.575 MILLION IN CITY FUNDING
Talk about playing some legal gymnastics when it comes to approving this funding (FF 1:14). When I first saw this on the agenda Friday night I didn’t really read it very close and just figured the BID tax was for Downtown Sioux Falls, which I would fully support. I don’t think we charge enough BID tax in Sioux Falls when compared to other communities. This tax is paid for by travelers and is a great way to fund things like paying off a bond for an entertainment venue, instead the hotel will collect the tax, submit to the city then the city will turnaround and give the money to the hotel at Sioux Steel for public improvements.
As you can see, most if not all of these improvements will be made on the private property of the Sioux Steel Project so I am curious what are the public improvements? Access to the Greenway on your property is NOT a public improvement. And while the artwork will be technically ‘public’ because if someone is walking thru the district they will see it, it is still on YOUR property which is a benefit to you also.
The discussion gets interesting including Starr calling this a ‘NON-TIF, TIF’ and asking the question, “Why don’t they just finance this themselves and collect an extra $2 fee?”
Good question, but it is much easier to feed from the trough, or as councilor Neitzert points out, this is a way to blame government for the extra fees instead of the hotel itself (because, you know, it is almost impossible to hide hidden fees on a hotel invoice 🙁
Of course, Starr was the only one that voted against it, even laughing while saying NO!
Only in Sioux Falls and South Dakota would we think it would be okay to collect a tax from tourists and turnaround and hand that money over to the very business that is making money from the same tourists. It’s Bannaners!
100 DAY CHALLENGE
I finished it out with 1,430 miles, which was a combination of stair stepper, regular biking and low setting on my E2. I didn’t count any throttling road miles. I rarely throttle my bike unless I am in a hurry.
I also had to chuckle about the Fitness Challenge last Thursday. As you know, I took pictures of the nasty goose crap that morning, and when I came by later that night, I was right, someone attempted to power wash the goose crap before the event.
The one thing that always holds true with city government – they are always predictable.
What have I been saying about informing the public about policy changes? Tomorrow the city council plans to approve this on the consent agenda with NO informational presentation to the public (Item #6, Sub-Item #22);
Homelessness Street Outreach Services Agreement Implemented on the recommendation of homelessness task force. South Dakota Urban Indian Health, Inc., $175K.
While this was recommended by the Homeless task force and was discussed in their meetings, there hasn’t been a broader presentation by the city to the public on how this program will work.
But you can read all about it HERE. I guess the city is relying on bloggers now to put out information. I never thought I would see the day 🙂
While I totally support what Dakota Scout, Sioux Falls Business and Sioux Falls Simplified do, the information needs to first be disseminated by the city. Maybe they can do a quick two minute YT video about how they are serving the UNHOUSED (I’m still getting used to this synonym of homeless and puzzled by what the difference is between the two words).
Recently I mentioned what the business elite call pro-democracy, politically involved, regular middle class folks; special interests. It was startling because the mayor recently used the term to describe certain folks who were promoting the original sustainability program. There have been other regular folks who have individually advocated for changes to 14th street, public art, and even riding E2s on the bike trail. While I have no problem with being called a special interest (I have always thought I was special 🙂 I am only an individual looking out for my personal interest, so am I really a special interest?;
What are considered special interest groups?
A special interest group (SIG) is a community within a larger organization with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences.
There are broader explanations of the specific groups, but nowhere does it say an individual who walks to the podium at a council meeting an airs their views about a city issue makes them a special interest.
A better term would be citizen advocate;
Citizen advocacy is when you work with a member of the community who volunteers their time to advocate for local people. Citizen advocates usually work with those who would otherwise find it challenging to speak up for their own rights, views and wishes. Your relationship with a citizen advocate can be long-term.
So why is this important? Many times elected leaders put labels on people who just want the city to be better. They don’t belong to some group that is trying to undermine the government of Sioux Falls, the politicians are already doing a fine job of that themselves. They are just practicing their 1st Amendment Rights of dissenting the government.
So do we have a special interest problem in Sioux Falls? We do. But it has nothing to do with Gladys complaining about loud music at the park, they have specific names like the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, Sanford Hospital, Development Foundation, Housing Association, Retailers Association, etc.
The mayor is calling Gladys a special interest because he is trying to deflect the REAL issue with REAL special interests in our community, like developers giving thousands of dollars to PACS which get funneled to the special candidates (rubber stampers).
So in conclusion, Gladys is a citizen advocate, banking executives and development company owners are special interests. Don’t believe what the Dutch Mafia tells you.
