Last night at the Sioux Falls City Council Meeting when the Development Foundation was pushing the biggest boondoggle ever pulled on the taxpayers of Sioux Falls in the history of our city, State GOED director Steve Westra came to testify that the Governor was in support of the $94 million dollar TIF for Foundation Park.
I didn’t think of it until after I testified (FF: 49:00), but I found it ironic that Noem would complain about Communism and Socialism in Georgia yet support blatant corporate socialism for possible foreign communist investors.
The hypocrisy never ends with these folks.
I also made funny about the Municipal Band reach around (FF: 11:40).
Item #4, Awards, Souper Hero Award has NO supporting documents telling us who this is, which is odd.
Item #7, Approval of Contracts;
Sub Item #18, Agreement supports the Bishop Dudley Hospitality House by contributing to the reasonable and necessary expenses associated with a warming site and year-round shelter services, Bishop Dudley Hospitality House, $120K. I hope this item gets pulled and someone from the BDHH comes and explains why homeless people have invaded my neighborhood over the past 2 years and for the first time since I lived in my home (18 years) there has been year round panhandling (I even saw them on Friday when the wind chill was 24 below). So what is the BDHH doing with our money? Are they combatting homelessness in this core neighborhood? Sometimes I wonder. I still stand by my assertion that the BDHH should have been built behind the jail downtown and not smack in the middle of a neighborhood. The city council was warned, the Catholic Diocese was warned and look where we are at, year round panhandling. I have told many councilors that they need to make it a city ordinance violation for someone to give to the panhandlers from their cars while in traffic. Post signs about the fine and law at the intersections where it most prevalent and it would end over a season. If you want to help these people, that is great, give your money to the Mission, the BDHH or the Banquet, or volunteer your time. You are not helping them by buying them their next can of Joose.
Items #27-40, We have 13 items that have to do with alcohol in our city in one meeting yet we think a plant is bad 🙁
Item #45, 1st Reading: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, ESTABLISHING THE TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO SIOUX FALLS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC., IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT NO. TWENTY-THREE, CITY OF SIOUX FALLS.
This of course is the ridiculous notion we should give $94 million in tax rebates over 20 years to promote low wage companies to come to Sioux Falls while raising taxes on the rest of us. I have said all I can, but I implore the dwindling joke called the MSM in Sioux Falls to actually do a fact based story on what this TIF does to the rest of us, the pros and cons (there are no pros). There has been virtually radio silence from our media. While they focus on hamburger competitions and GPS tracking of food trucks or recycling the same story about Jason Ravnsborg’s lack of indictments they can’t wrap their heads around how bad this is. It’s a story that could be told easily;
• The Development Foundation will receive $94 million in tax rebates that they will pass onto mostly out of state and foreign companies that pay little to no federal income taxes, state taxes and low wages.
• The millions and even billions in valuation will be passed onto to citizens in higher property taxes and the state (which receives part of their sales taxes from taxing food) will have to make up the shortfall for school districts). This is all happening while our building permits are crushing records every year. Why do we need to give these incentives?
• This won’t occur over a year, or even 5 years, this will impact our taxes for 20 years and compound with interest.
• The jobs Flopdation Park will create will have to be brought in from out of our community and since most are barely living wages this will create a crime and affordable housing issue that will be even worse than what it is now. Remember, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, in fact we have one of the highest rates of single working moms and people with more than one job. This isn’t a ‘job creator’ for those of us that live here. Like the Events Center it will create a vacuum that sucks our economy dry by creating more poverty and crime while profits leave our community.
• While they deny it, this is growth for growth sakes that only enriches the Development Foundation, banks, developers and bond salesman while the taxpayers have to clean up the mess.
• It will also further deteriorate our core and proper neighborhoods in Sioux Falls which are the cornerstone for affordable home ownership because our infrastructure money will be funneled into a cornfield for an Egg Roll factory.
This is a bad idea, and I am still baffled why NOBODY in government or in the media is screaming bloody shame!?
Item #53, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AMENDMENT ONE TO THE FIRST AMENDED MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WASHINGTON PAVILION MANAGEMENT, INC.
They had to amend the contract with the WPMI because of the new band deal. I still think they made this more complicated than they had to and saved the taxpayers $0. But hey, that’s innovation and CLOSED government for you!
I’m not going to mince words, this is just a blatant coverup;
But exactly how often are ethics complaints actually brought against city employees and elected officials, and for what? Well, taxpayers aren’t supposed to know.
There have been 16 ethics complaints filed with the Sioux Falls Board of Ethics since Jan. 1, 2000, according to the city’s recent response to an Argus Leader open records request.
But City Attorney Stacy Kooistra said not only could the details of those complaints not be released, neither could the roles held by those accused. Kooistra cited state law and city ordinances.
The only path to transparency on those ethics complaints is if the accused waives confidentiality.
Of those 16 complaints, only two have elected to do so.
While I don’t think there should be confidentiality to begin with, what I don’t understand is after a complaint has been thrown out, why does it remain confidential? While Kooistra may be correct that they have a right to confidentiality, I think that right ends once the complaint has been thrown out and the public has a right to see the complaint and the reason it was thrown out. I don’t think the law is on their side after the complaint has been thrown out. I believe there are two reasons why they are claiming they can do this 1) They don’t want the public reviewing the complaints that are thrown out and questioning why they were thrown out and 2) This administration has a deep, deep, deep hatred of open government, it’s almost a feverish sickness within city hall. It often amazes me why someone has such deep hate in their souls for something that is the moral, honest and the ethical thing to do AND actually saves taxpayers money. You also have to remember that ANY complaint can be simply thrown out as frivolous if the complainant doesn’t cite the correct chapter in law/ordinance. You wonder how often this has happened? So while the complaint could have substance, it could get booted due to the ignorance of the complainant. Should the city attorney or ethics board be assisting the complainant to cite the proper ordinance? Yes!!!!
But, not only is there a DEEP HATE for open government they seem to be delusional about what an ethics indictment means;
The confidentiality of the complaints has been cited as a way to prevent their use as a weapon. Neitzert only waived confidentiality on the complaint following his successful re-election, saying there was “clear evidence of a timed and coordinated attack against my character for the purposes of defeating me in my re-election effort.”
Greg seems to be confused, because he WAS indicted on the complaint;
The board found probable cause that there had been a violation of ethical ordinances, but added that it was a ‘common practice’ for councilors to have their expenses paid for by a third party and that the City Council’s rules around such matters were broad and confusing.
The board recommended no individual sanctions against Neitzert, who was later cleared of the charge in a 5-2 vote of the City Council.
While Greg’s best buddies on the City Council dismissed punishment, Neitzert was still indicted by the ethics board and that remains unchanged. It wasn’t a political attack since the ethics board did say he violated charter. Him and the mayor accepted the gift and took the trip. A political opponent had nothing to do with that violation. In fact, to this day Greg hasn’t been able to show evidence that the complaint filed against him had any connection to his opponent. Not one shred. The only thing the ethics commission did say was he didn’t deserve sanctions since everybody was apparently ‘doing it’ even though they gave no evidence of who these other councilors or mayors that were doing it. Even though we know TenHaken has been ‘doing it’ quite a bit.
As I said from the beginning, this is clearly just a coverup. I would love it if Attorney Kooistra provided us the laws and ordinances that cover, coverups but not until he figures out prior restraint and the 1st Amendment.
As a South DaCola foot soldier pointed out to me yesterday, how can 4 votes out of a 9 member commission pass a $94 million dollar TIF recommendation to the city council?
Good question. After spinning my wheels yesterday I discovered according to the Commission’s own rules and Robert’s Rules they can conduct business with 5 members present even if the chair is a non-voting member (they only break ties).
While I totally understand that these members are volunteers, I question what they signed up for? While they do have to read a lot of materials to prepare, they only really need to attend ONE meeting per month for about 1-2 hours. That’s it!
But my blame for this attendance isn’t on this all volunteer board, it really lies in the lap of Planning Director Eckhoff and his boss Mayor Stoneless. Has there ever been an attendance discussion? My guess is probably not considering it is easier for the mayor and his developer friends to push an agenda when no one shows up to vote on that agenda (or very few).
I think it is absolutely disgusting that a board that is supposed to recommend to the council can pass a ludicrous $94 million dollar TIF on 4 out of 9 possible votes, with next to no discussion.
This administration gets sloppier by the day when it comes to process.
The administration does a fine job of man-splaining to the commission what they NEED to do ETHICALLY and LEGALLY and their OPTIONS. Wondering when the city attorney is going to go over these rules with the mayor? Either way, should be a good meeting, and I think the members of the commission is a good bunch.
There are several presentations with NO supporting documents except the plan for the Washington Pavilion to take over the Municipal Band. While I don’t take any issue with them taking it over I do find it a bit ironic that the city will still be funding the entity with our taxdollars;
• WPMI to Provide budget annually, subject to appropriation, set at $112,200 in FY2021.
So the Mayor’s Administration’s big plan to force the Municipal Band to become a non-profit really went nowhere. Just like changing the names of several departments in the city with no real changes, this is just another example of the city doing something to make it look like they are doing something without producing any real change. Kind of like the creation of police precincts that are not to be confused with police precincts 🙂
l3wis 
