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!
This interview about how Austin, TX’s massive growth caused a housing affordability crisis is an interesting comparison to what is happening in Sioux Falls right now;
People flock to booming cities for good reasons: jobs, educational opportunities, cultural and recreational activities. But traffic can be a nightmare and housing costs are off the charts.
“Very few, if any, growing cities have given real thought to what they want to be when they grow up,” said Mallach. “They’ve been conditioned to think that growth is good, not growing is bad, so what passes for planning is usually about how to accommodate growth.”
The Darkness at City Hall was taken to a whole new level this week when the city said this about denying Forum News a copy of the contract with the Link;
The City of Sioux Falls has denied a request to make public the contract to operate The Link, the publicly funded triage center for people in crisis from addiction or mental illness.
Sioux Falls Live requested the contract from the city on July 17. The city denied that request on Monday, July 31.
The reason given for the denial is that the contract is not technically with the city, but rather with the non-profit created to run The Link, according to Paul M. Bengford, senior assistant city attorney.
“The City of Sioux Falls is not a party to the Agreement you are seeking,” Bengford wrote in a statement denying the request.
WOW!
‘Yeah, you know, that building the city owns and leases for FREE to the Link and helps subsidize with city and county taxpayer money, yeah, we really don’t know much about that.’
The Link was setup BY the city and county, it is occupied in a city owned building. If anyone would have the contract and know what is in it, it would be the city.
Oh, and to state the obvious;
“The Link is an important community resource, and there’s interest in knowing how it’s operating,” said Mary Jo Hotzler, chief content officer for Forum Communications Co., parent company to Sioux Falls Live. “Our interest is in transparency and accountability.”
Heck, I can’t even get an annual report from a non-profit that provides free concerts, what makes you think you get this contract? Maybe there is no contract;
During a city council meeting in July, which included approval of a new three-year agreement between the partners, TenHaken said the source of new funding was “TBD.”
It kind of sounds like most things the city does . . . by the seat of their pants. Recently it was said that the city is looking for a recruiting contractor to help find more mid-management, skilled positions. Maybe the city is having problems finding these people because no one wants to work for a certain somebody. I’ve seen morale take a 180 at places I have worked after certain troublesome management is let go. Maybe the city has an image problem?
I tell people it must be a great place to work, I saw a mid-manager at a meeting a couple of months ago wearing sweatpants and sliders, surprised he wasn’t curled up in the corner with a pillow and a blankey.
With all this darkness lately, it makes you wonder if this is about keeping information from the public or keeping information from a higher authority, and I ain’t talking about JC.
Well it did not take to long for a landlord to challenge the ordinance.
There was a public* hearing last week in which a landlord challenged the city over exactly what constitutes a vacant property and the hearing examiner judge ruled in their favor.
At issue is the definition of occupant, and the judge agreed with the defendants.
I am still awaiting a summary of the ruling and what that may mean for the vacant house ordinance and it’s recent change of a 30 day requirement. Either the city will have to repeal the entire ordinance and rewrite from scratch, or ditch the entire thing.
It’s unfortunate on some level, because there really are some places that need to be fixed up and rented out, but I do agree with the landlord that challenged this, as long as someone is using the property or working on it, technically it is occupied.
I was told a few weeks ago that their has been some investigative reporters digging around on all the vacant home rentals Sanford has hoarded and boarded up just east of Sanford between Grange and Minnesota Avenue. I rode my bike around the area and you could see dozens of vacant homes. I think one one block I counted three in a row.
I’m not sure what the happy medium is but if a landlord is actively trying to improve their property, leave them alone.
*The city has been telling people in the press that these code enforcement hearings are NOT open to the public unless invited by the defendants, but that is not true, anyone can attend.
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.
l3wis 
