Yesterday the Soukup family proposed a donated park that will have fishing ponds
See the full presentation here
It still has to be approved by council and we must also realize it won’t be cheap to maintain, but will be something nice within our city limits. I’m kinda on the fence about it, but the Soukup family is very generous, so I see this as a good thing (even though there is a million places to fish in the region).
Next Thursday the city is holding a public meeting at the community center by Harvey Dunn elementary (still need to get deets on time and locale) about project TRIM, so the public can ‘Ask Questions’. Word on the street is that not too many questions will be asked, in fact it will be a gigantic bitch session. People in my district who were targeted by the ‘blanket’ code enforcement are not happy. Several called SF Parks and Rec and asked what trees were in violation, and the response was, “We don’t have the manpower to determine that.” I guess $31 million a year funding their department isn’t enough money to staff enough people to provide proper customer service.
This is total crap! It is an attempt to go after creating problems and fines where they don’t exist, I also heard this blanket enforcement was lobbied by tree trimming companies in town. Apparently they were driving around town and telling the city about ‘problem neighborhoods’. I can’t prove this, but that is the rumor and would not surprise me. The economy is down and contractors are looking for work. In fact the Parks director said at the info meeting the other day that he did not want to delay bids at McKennan Park for the new John because contractors are ‘hungry’ for work.
I hope to make it to next week’s meeting – should be fun.
Hey Teacher, Leave those kids alone!
Okay, I was wrong about the city harassing me in reference to my tree trimming, they were actually harrassing an entire district.
I was discussing the issue with someone who lives in my district yesterday, and she received a letter also. The problem I have with the letters is that this is ‘blanket’ code enforcement. In other words, everyone in the district is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
The letters are not specific about what trees you should trim. Obviously, for me, it is easy, I only have one tree on my boulevard. But what about people with multiple trees? Or what about people who don’t need their trees trimmed? Did they get letters to?
Code enforcement should be on complaint basis ONLY. Blanket code enforcement is silly, it is assuming that EVERYONE in the district is a irresponsible home owner that doesn’t have enough sense to know when to trim our trees. Trust me, the last place I would go to get advice about responsibility and common sense is from a city employee. That’s why complaint basis works best.
I’m getting sick and tired of the city treating it’s property tax payers and citizens like little kids. No wonder it costs so much to run Parks and Rec, they are busy bugging law abiding citizens instead trying to find ways to save us money.
Which brings me to another topic;
Rumor has it the Parks director said my ‘numbers were off’ in my letter to the editor about the bloated Parks budget. I used a $33 million dollar figure instead of $31 million dollar figure which I guess is the actual operating budget (which would bring the per acre maintenance cost down to aproximately $10,800 per acre instead of $11,500), which IMO is still too damn much. But I guess his biggest concern was that I didn’t breakdown how the money was spent. Who cares. An operating budget is an operating budget, I simplified it by using the amount of acres and simple division. It doesn’t matter how you ‘break it down’ at the end of the day $31 million is still being spent by Parks and Rec taking care of our parks. With that large of a budget that is obviously complex, don’t you think we can trim some fat? I think so, and that doesn’t change a damn thing.
Just like clockwork, when you question a city department in Sioux Falls, they send out one of there unconstitutional* code enforcement letters. If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be comical.
A few months ago, after addressing (chewing out) the city council one night, I brought up the benefits of the community development loan I received. A few days later I received a letter from the SF community development office that they did not have a copy of my insurance. Who cares?! My bank owns the loan, not the city. They claimed ‘law’ says they have to have it on record. Whatever.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor about the bloated Parks and Rec budget. Yesterday I received a letter from them informing me that my tree on the blvd (the one the city owns) needed trimming (yeah, because people trim their trees in the middle of winter).
Just like clockwork, the city goes after people who question them. They harrass the very people who put food on their tables and it is digusting. Let’s put it in perspective; it would be like your boss telling you had to learn a new software program and you looked at him and said ‘F’ck You’!
Guess what would happen?
The city departments need to learn they are here to serve the taxpayers-not to screw them. We are your boss – not the mayor.
Figure it out and knock it off.
*(Code enforcement in Sioux Falls violates the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution which addresses ‘Due Process’ and the right to a court trial)
I found this paragraph from there spring meeting interesting;
I think what scares me the most is the $300,000 for discretionary items! Can you imagine having almost half your income to spend on whatever you wanted (of course, in my case, that wouldn’t be much)! Also, the $52,000 for fuel. I know gas prices were pretty high in March and increasing, but that is a lot of coin for just an increase, also considering the city buys their fuel in bulk and gets a pretty good deal.
The Parks board truly has no oversight or accountability.
l3wis