Sioux Falls

Mayor P.E. Teacher?

As I have said in the past, I will defend any elected officials’ pet projects. Whether that is mentorship, physical education, youth drug prevention or adoption. I say use the bully pulpit for your causes. But you do know you don’t have to actually participate? Just take your own example, a year after announcing Sioux 52 mentorship program you turned it over to the HelpLine center with taxpayer money.

The other day a friend said to me, “Yeah, Mayor TenHaken was working out with my kid today at school during PE class.” Sure enough, he was bragging about it on social media. (you know the Personal account, not associated w/ City of SF except when he posts things he does as the capacity of the mayor).

I know you run a closed door, authoritarian, cruise control government but between 8-5, Monday-Friday, can the adults of this city have your attention in-between your kick ball games and fitness challenges?

I bring this up because I know of several groups who have requested meetings with the mayor and been denied. I’m sure he could squeeze in a couple of more meetings with constituents if he gave up playing tiddlywinks and marbles with the kids.

UPDATE: Sanford Sports Complex upgrades include a baseball stadium and housing

UPDATE: The city council accepted a withdrawal of renewal alcohol licensing for Lucky Lady Casino tonight. I will have to commend the city council and administration for keeping the pressure on and thank the business owner for having the courage to withdraw instead of fighting this. The council may take more licenses away in the coming weeks at that strip mall.

There was a private meeting with the mayor and some city councilors (only 4 can attend due to quorum) with the property owner recently, but I never heard at the meeting tonight what happened at this closed door meeting. Once again some on the council and the mayor think the best way to negotiate these very PUBLIC problems are in DARKNESS.

This reminds me of when the city council bailed on implementing stronger noise ordinances DTSF and enforcement because a group of DTSF business owners took upon themselves to try to solve the problem through closed meetings between themselves. The council failed to act. Nothing will get solved when you try to fix PUBLIC problems in the DARK.

Just another reason we don’t need a stadium in DTSF. This of course has been NO secret. The Sanford folks have floated an indoor pool and a baseball stadium in the past.

I wonder what the Riverline District folks think of the proposal? Would have loved to see the hand wringing . . .

HERITAGE PARK GETS A CLEANUP?

A concerned citizen pointed out to me today that suddenly Heritage Park (on 6th and Weber) is suddenly void of transients. This all seemed to fall in line with the opening of a new consolidated ad agency next to the park.

Things that make you go hmmmmm?

WILL THE CITY COUNCIL GROW A . . .

At Tuesday night’s meeting the city council will be re-visiting the Lucky Lady alcohol license. As I understand it the vote may be split and there has been some back door wrangling going on. What I find ironic is that the administration and the council have had three years since they were denied a purchase agreement to fix up this area and have done NOTHING!

This isn’t a time to hold hands and say grace, this is a time to get out the pink slips and send these folks packing!

Maybe the City of Sioux Falls should take up the State’s bid requirements

As I was stumbling through the city council’s upcoming agenda (Item #7, click on PDF of South Veterans) I found this bid requirement interesting;

The South Veterans Parkway with arterials estimate was $44.1 million (M) and the low bid was $47.9M. The estimate for the sanitary sewer and water main improvements was $2.6M and the low bid was $1.7M. The total bid estimate was $46.7M and the total low bid amount was $49.6M. This is less than 10% over the estimate and SDDOT recommends awarding both bids.

So is this a SDDOT requirement? If so, maybe the city needs to take this on for bridge replacements?

Sioux Falls City Council should have more controls over alcohol licensing

After the Bonus Round bar closed by my house a new owner took over the Cliff avenue establishment. They went through the normal process of applying for a license. They were going to be a casino with off-sale beer. The next thing I know the place closes after just a few weeks and re-opens with no video lottery and only a walk up counter to buy small plastic package liquor and beer (they also sell vape products).

A city councilor told me that since they already approved the alcohol use the business owner can change that use however they want to.

While you would think I would welcome a liquor store in my backyard it’s a little more complicated then that.

The Get N’ Go at 14th and Cliff suddenly closed on May 1st. They sold the single malt beverage cans. Essentially the closure is pushing the alcohol sales to this liquor store.

I think in the future if an alcohol establishment presents a business plan to the council when applying for a license they should have to stick to that business model for at least 12 months or self-termination of the license.

Isn’t it ironic all the tears shed over MJ yet getting alcohol in this city is a walk in the park.

UPDATE: Does Minnehaha County Auditor’s petition ‘policy’ violate 1st Amendment Rights?

UPDATE: There has been a rumor circulating that this all came about because a PETITIONER filed a protection order against a former Republican State Legislator. I’m not going to finger him until I know for sure, but it seems like his style since he is MAGA and supports abortion without protections. I guess he pushed a (pro-choice) petitioner and that is why they filed the order. But what is bizarre is that the petitioner was the one being harassed NOT the people walking by the petitioners. Maybe the county needs to have a policy that protects petitioners from MAGgots.

While I have heard from others that they were being ‘harassed’ by petitioners I personally never have. I either say yes or no and walk off. People who have the impression they are being harassed would have never signed your petition anyway.

Either way, petitioners have 1st Amendment rights to gather in public spaces, especially for petition gathering, the County Auditor thinks differently;

One will be in the Minnesota Avenue parking lot on the west side of the administration building, about 25 feet from the main entry where residents often enter to take care of automobile registration, voting and other county business.

The other will be adjacent to the county courthouse on the south sidewalk but away from the two stairways that lead to the main entryway.

I find it ironic those who claim to be on the side of Liberty, Freedom and Justice want to TRY to limit our Constitutional Rights. This is an obvious attempt at limiting petition gathering since this is one of the best places to gather signatures, and they know it.

I encourage any petitioner to ignore the rules and petition in front of the main entries and if threatened with arrest I would remind them you have a 1st Amendment Right to petition the government, especially on tax payer owned property. The County Commission and County Auditor do NOT have the constitutional authority to do this (that is why they call this a ‘policy’ and not a law or ordinance, because it is just a suggestion and they know it).

The County Commission ate it up and voted full authoritarian unanimously to limit the areas (FF: 24:00)