Mayor TenHaken apparently rode the elevator to the top
l3wis That was nice of him to send it back down to the rest of us. Will a boulevard tree fit in there?
Sioux Falls
Sioux Falls City Council kicks the can down the road when it comes to alcohol use around Dudley House
While I’m not sure if the repeal of an alcohol license for a C-Store by the Dudley house was a bad thing (6-2 for the repeal) it won’t fix a damn thing. There are several establishments around the shelter to buy alcohol at, and they really just playing whack-a-mole. The shelter should have never been built there, and until it moves the problem will exist.
I guarantee, the same people will be drinking in that area next summer.
I told several councilors this summer when it was at the height of these issues that they needed to nip this in the butt over the winter with a higher concentration of police patrols and ordinances that give the police officers more tools to limit public drinking. While I think the triage center may help, I also think moving the Dudley House closer to the proposed site would help to.
UPDATE: Majority of Sioux Falls City Council votes against transparency
The Sioux Falls City Council votes down the cell phone ban, 5-3. The only one who spoke against it was councilor Soehl who said he needs his phone during the meetings so he doesn’t seem old, but progressive. Yeah, I laughed to*. This was about transparency in out meetings. Something councilors want from citizens during public input but don’t expect to follow those rules themselves. I have often said a majority of the council is anti-open government and their vote tonight proved it once again. The ban that Brekke and Stehly proposed was actually very liberal. It did not ban cell phone use, it only asked if they had to take a text or call, to do it out of the chambers. It is a very sad day that the city council can’t act like big kids, and refrain from playing with their phones during meetings.
*Soehl also said that he should be able to have a cell phone at the meeting because the mayor doesn’t wear a tie (Curt was wearing a Santa Clause tie). But what I found even more humorous was when Curt held up his cell phone during his testimony, the screen looked like he just used it for a dinner plate, and by the looks of it, he must of had hot turkey at the diner.
UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Councilor Neitzert responds on FB about the measure below. I would like to comment on this line;
We do not, and are not required, to disclose all of the various calls, emails, texts, meetings, and correspondence we have with any source we use to do our due diligence on legislative items.
It is true that they are probably not ‘required’. But if there is a contentious issue and someone from the media or public think one of the councilors was swayed thru a private meeting, text or phone call, they can ask for an open records request. Will they provide the records? We saw this done several times by the media in the last administration, and little was provided. So while Neitzert feels he doesn’t have to hand over records, there is NOTHING illegal about the media and citizens from asking. Nothing. And if those records are not provided guess which one will look corrupt? Not the media or public.
Neitzert on FB;
I want to be really clear. This was primarily about the merits of the issue. The inflammatory rhetoric certainly didn’t help. The proposal is a solution looking for a problem. We have debated this repeatedly over the last several months. We have big issues to tackle in this city, and this is not one of them. It’s time to get to the real issues we face and stop expending our time and energy on issues that don’t move the needle for citizens.
Next, there are no “special deals”. Accusing colleagues of corruption is reckless, irresponsible and damages faith in city government. No one can point to a shred of evidence or a specific instance, because it doesn’t exist.
The vast majority of items we address are legislative. We are elected to take input from any and all sources we see fit, and to make a judgement and vote based on what we believe is the best for our constituents. We do not, and are not required, to disclose all of the various calls, emails, texts, meetings, and correspondence we have with any source we use to do our due diligence on legislative items. We make the best decision we can based on all of the information we have gathered.
As it relates to quasi-judicial items, which are few and far between, we have a legal duty to disclose anything we learn that would affect our decision making. Failure to do so could cause our decision to be overturned by the courts. We are very well aware of this and handle it appropriately.
Public input and testimony is a limited public forum, and we set time limits as we are allowed to (time/manner restrictions) for the purpose of keeping the meeting moving along and for the order of the meeting. Time limits and structure are about order and keeping meetings moving. Extensive court rulings have made clear the principal purpose of a meeting of a governing body is to get the business of the jurisdiction done. Time limits and order are necessary. That’s why we can prohibit people yelling from the crowd, or testifying at the podium for 30 minutes and stopping the meeting from progressing. But there is nothing that forecloses other input. Even if someone emailed or texted one of us during a meeting, which is pretty rare frankly, there is no prohibition or legal issue with it. We all lean over to discuss various issues with colleagues, we may write a note to a colleague, we may read an email. All of this is part of our due diligence. More often than not, I’m thinking and working on the fly, as I hear information during staff presentations or citizen input. As an example, I might look up state law to verify something, or pull up our zoning ordinance. That’s the benefit of technology, it allows us to be dynamic and more effective. That’s usually what I’m up to. I tend to use my phone instead of having my tablet open, which gets in the way of the video screen we have to see what is on the big screen behind us.
Finally, our City Charter and the people who created our city government felt it was important that we were part time citizen members, not full time career politicians. We have personal/family lives, full time jobs, and our Council roles. We have to multi-task at times, and be able to address family and full time job issues so that we can serve. To the extent any of that comes up we all have a responsibility to make sure it is not unduly disruptive or distracting at our Council meetings. If one of us gets a message that is urgent and requires more than a quick response, we may step out. We may ignore it until the meeting is over. We all have to manage and balance this. We are all adults, we are all aware of our ethical duties, and all work diligently to serve our constituents.
A solution looking for a problem, and an issue that doesn’t move the needle to solve the real issues our citizens face. That’s why we declined to move it forward.
Sioux Steel Development justifying 20 year, $22.6 million dollar tax break on economic impact patrons will contribute to
While I have no reason to argue with the data (maybe a little), what they left out of their presentation this afternoon at the informational meeting was that the supposed $25 million dollar a year economic impact doesn’t come from the owners of the development, it comes from their customers, whether local or visitors. They also left out that a large amount of this ‘economic impact’ goes straight into their pockets. So really, what is the justification of the TIF and BID Tax rebates?
When you build a ‘for profit’ business in a capitalist society, you expect to make a profit. Why should you be also rewarded tax breaks? I would think a ‘for profit’ private business that is expecting to have a $25 million dollar impact a year, wouldn’t need any handouts, breaks or rebates. I would think they would be smiling all the way to the bank and simply thanking the city for issuing the permits.
When I look at TIFs I always ask the same question, “What is the benefit to the public as a whole, you know, the ones who have to pay higher property taxes to supplement this TIF?” While I appreciate the study, the only thing it shows me is the money that it will be generating will mostly be helping them.
I would be willing to still give a BID and TIF to the development, but only for the benefit of the city. As I have suggested in the past, I think the city should gift them Kiwanis Park and grant them a TIF for the amount it would take to redevelop that part of the project and forgo the additional $10 million it is supposed to cost taxpayers to redevelop the river greenway, which really makes this a $32.6 million dollar tax break when you add it all together.
I think the city council should amend this TIF, make it a lot smaller and reduce the TIF time limit to 5 years.
After hearing the council tonight discuss the TIF, I have no doubt this will pass. And hey, if you want to support corporate welfare based on a study the developer produced (not the public) so be it, but at least ask for a study that shows the REAL benefit to the rest of us in this community who are paying 100% of their property taxes and always have. You know why they will never produce such a study? Because they won’t like the results.
You also have to take into account, the study they did on economic impact is a ‘prediction’. The study I have asked for is of our current TIFs and what benefit we are getting from them. This would give us REAL data to base their prediction on. Government should never base a 20 year, multi-million dollar tax break on ‘predictions’ of what could happen, but should base them on actual data that already exists. Will they have to courage to ask for it? Probably not.
Graphic of Sioux Falls Taxes
A gentleman tonight during public input at the City Council meeting put this graphic up on the overhead during his presentation. I was disappointed he ran out of time before he started to address TIFs. I should recruit him to write for my blog.
