Why vilify citizens that want to participate in local government?

by

From KELO TV;

Bob Litz says, “What this is, what you’re seeing there with a conflict of interest actually is a tactic by a group of people that don’t want me to vote on this thing and they think if they can keep me from voting on it that they’ll get their way so it’s a tactic. Let’s just say that.”

Greg Jamison says, “I think some of the people that might be intrigued about de-railing this whole process understand most likely that it is going to pass and that they are looking for another way to derail this.”

I can understand why councilors Jamison and Litz would be personally upset that a citizen is questioning their intentions as they govern. What I can’t understand is why they would vilify citizens that want to participate in the democratic process just because they disagree with them? Would they prefer citizens just showed up to vote for them on election day and then remain apathetic until the next election day? That’s the impression you get after reading their statements.

I wasn’t trying to get anyone in trouble by asking the ethics committee to issue an opinion on conflict of interest. I was simply asking them to render one before the September 15th vote on raising development platting fees so there is a precedent and not a complaint down the road (no pun intended).

Make no mistake about it, developers have been pulling the puppet strings of city hall for quite some time and the public is finally coming to the realization that developers want your tax money to invest in their projects. This isn’t always a bad thing if the public benefits to. Growth in Sioux Falls is wonderful, but can’t developers find a way to continue doing business without constantly pandering to the city every time they want a new road built?

When I first filed the opinion request and saw my name plastered all over the media, my first reaction was that there would be a backlash. Quite the opposite. I haven’t heard one single negative comment about what I did, most people reacted by saying “It’s about time.” And these are people from all walks of life. Remember, Litz has been down this road a couple of times, and is becoming increasingly untrustworthy. He recently changed his vote on a road closure after he had already promised citizens in his district he would vote in their favor. He also got caught serving on a housing board while also sitting on the city council, in essence voting on policy twice. He seems to have trouble taking responsibility for his actions, and wants to blame citizens for his misjudgment.

That’s why it surprised me that Litz, Jamison and even councilor Brown were blaming the citizens for my recent opinion request. This confuses me. I never asked if they had a conflict of interest when it came to the retail tax increase, just the platting fees, which are widely supported by most of the councilors and most likely will pass even without their votes.

My suggestion to Litz, Jamison and Brown is to back off the citizens and not assume we are trying to derail anything, we are just asking that you be honorable and uphold the law and stop whining to the media about citizens asking you to do your job. Listen to your constituents, instead of the special interests that funded your campaigns.

A Developer supporting benefits to developers – GET OUT!

by

“It will create jobs” – SF Developer

Is this the standard argument for raising taxes? Dumb. I have lived in SF for 17 years, since when building roads and housing developments in cornfields ‘Created jobs?’ Sorry, there is a big difference between creating jobs, and creating careers.

Want people to live and work in Sioux Falls? Want to create economic development? Stop building new roads and start building ecomonmic development centered around green energy development.

Enough.

BTW, the best parts of this article are at the end. Costello’s quote is priceless;

For Staggers, the vote on the second penny is part of a broader topic that he hopes is an issue in 2010. The city has been on a “spending spree for several years,” he said.

“We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out in future elections,” he said. “It’s difficult to say. But in 2010, that will probably be an issue.”

Staggers, who also opposes the fee increases, concedes that developers might not support candidates who voted against the package.

“I think there could be some kind of impact,” he said. “But at the same time, would a candidate have received their support in the first place? In many cases, no.”

Costello has met with developers to explain his position and show them the city’s budget.

Developers have been told the tax increase will be dedicated to new roads, but Costello says it’s a “shell game. It’s false security.” That’s because there’s nothing stopping a mayor or council from diverting the money to something else.

The Argus editorial board is correct . . . for now

by

Just because I posed the question, doesn’t mean I don’t already know the answer. I feel the ethics committee will allow Litz and Jamison to vote. That is not what this is about, it is about setting a precedence with a legal opinion from the ethics committee. What am I getting at? Well, if Jamison and Litz vote on the fee increase, either yes or no, they will have eliminated themselves from ever developing in the areas that are affected. When the ethics committee tells you there is no conflict, that means to me, at the time of the vote. In the future if they benefit from the fee increase in their respective businesses, then an actual complaint can and will be filed.

Don’t think we won’t be watching.

Why I asked for an ethics opinion

by

This all started on Sunday, August 22, when a concerned citizen asked me if i thought Litz and Jamison had a conflict of interest. We both looked over Sioux Falls code of ethics and state law and basically came to  the conclusion, there may be a conflict. I suggested in all fairness that we inform the council about it and let them resolve it on their own, or at least give them the opportunity to. I forwarded my concerns to the city clerk to disperse to ALL of the councilors. I guess one other citizen (that I know of) contacted ALL of the councilors himself by email. After hearing what excuses they had in some interviews with them on TV, I came to the conclusion they were not going to move forward on this themselves.

What would have been the appropriate move by our elected officials?

Well, basically to ask the ethics committee on their own whether they thought there was a conflict, they decided to act smug (as usual) about it. So I discussed it again with some concerned citizens and decided I would be the messenger.

I am not naive. I know how the mayor appointed ethics committee will rule. Probably in their favor. There is millions of dollars at stake here and I’m sure they have already gotten personal phone calls from the Mayor. What is important is that the committee tells us why they will make the decision they will. I want that on the table before the September 15th vote.

I have a feeling, that once again our rubberstamp council will approve the tax increases, instead learning how to make cuts to a bloated budget. I am beginning to wonder if any of them really want to work for their $17,000 a year pay check.

 

I’ll have to admit, this is the first time a journalist has ever quoted me verbatim. I owe you a beer Ben.

Wednesday he said that he turned in the request because he wanted a definitive opinion on if Jamison and Litz will face a conflict of interest when they vote on this issue.

KSFY’s story is even better. Bob, I suggest you just chill out. No one is saying you did anything wrong, just questioning your intentions. That’s it.

The Argus Leader’s take on it.