Sioux Falls

Wholestone, Video Lottery, Ticket fees and Data Harvesting

There has been a lot of talk about the upcoming election. One of the topics is Mayor TenHaken’s participation in the Anti IM 27 campaign and if it is it is legal. I have been warning people for years that PTH’s former job was being a political partisan marketing hack, and little has changed. He continues to ignore the ethics of being a politician while setting precedents when unchallenged. Paul not only is betting the farm on his input to the opponents but I also think he is doing this to harvest statewide voter data for an eventual run for Governor or Senator. It makes me laugh when Paul says he hates politics and doesn’t like being a politician, but he has done it his entire professional life and now is using PAC money from a PAC he runs to make a political stance. We will see how this plays out. I think the race is in a dead heat, but if Paul is successful in getting his SF mayoral supporters in line with his feelings on MJ he will set another precedent right in front of our faces. Even if IM 27 passes and foils his ambitions (he will still have secured the voter data), I still encourage members of the IM 27 campaign to file ethics violations against him for his political stunt as a sitting (lying) mayor.

Even if the Wholestone Slaughterhouse ordinance fails or passes (I think it will get between 70-80%) it will ultimately be decided in a court of law and NOT by voters. Why is this? For the same reason I voted NO. It is a poorly written measure that doesn’t address property rights and current zoning. Liking the concept or not doesn’t matter here, it is about law and city ordinances, and since the city council didn’t have the courage to do something about this in January here we are. Thousands of disenfranchised voters and a very nervous judge.

Speaking of the ordinance, council chair, Curt Soehl, decided it was a good idea to write a letter to the editor in support of the NO vote. I was told the entire council was advised to publicly keep quiet about the ordinance until after the election, Soehl obviously ignored them. Funny how this guy likes to tell councilors how to conduct themselves during meetings but does whatever he wants to on the side. Not just an authoritarian, but a hypocrite.

The Events Center Campus is a dump and always will be, that isn’t coming from me, that is straight from councilors yesterday at the informational meeting;

Neitzert called the proposal to spend more at the events center complex a “sunk-cost fallacy,” and unless the plan includes overhauling the entire neighborhood and creating a walkable road network, he doesn’t anticipate much success.

“We’ve been proven wrong twice,” he said. “It’s just a tough area. It just is.”

Maybe Greg learned something from his Bunker Ramp vote. The 3rd time isn’t always a charm.

Speaking of Greg, last night with the support of the mayor at the council meeting found ways to limit video lottery at a handful of casinos but did argue that it will take some stronger ordinance changes in the near future to affect change. I can guarantee lobbyists for the VL industry in SD are already nagging lawmakers to make changes to state law so they can have these mega casinos that hand out free beer. Like Wholestone, this will also be decided by a court, and also like Wholestone the City Council acted too little and too late. The city council should have been working on this for the past two decades.

A few weeks ago I addressed the city council about having a $5 dollar bond payment ticket fee at the Denty to help pay down the mortgage. This week they turned around and gave a ticket fee to the general fund of the Sports Authority for ‘Marketing’ with NO oversight. Of course this is the same city council that continues to subsidize the operations of the Pavilion while spending millions on building repairs while the Pavilion sits on a $5 million dollar savings fund. Yet some how the city may have to scrounge the money together for an additional warming shelter this winter.

The screenshot below is from the last Audit Committee meeting Councilor Jensen chaired. It was so nice of the taxpayers of Sioux Falls to fund City of Sioux Falls logo wear for councilors (instead of a simple $10 lapel nametag magnet) so that when they actually show up to a live streamed public meeting they could be promoting their Dr. Oz and Alex Jones vitamins. #justrolledoutofbed

Local Transparent and Open Government is easy

I do support 1st Amendment Rights and the freedom to dissent our government, but there are things the government can do that has very little to do with free speech. The City of Sioux Falls could put these modest proposals in place with very little capital, if any, which would actually reduce the need for constituents to dissent the government.

Some local governments have instituted some of these things;

• Livestream all public meetings on YouTube (including boards) and have that livestream on the main page with . . .

• A rolling calendar of all public meetings . . . (which we have on the council agenda page, but NOT on the main page)

• All public meetings should be after 5 PM during the work week.

• An online search engine portal of all public city documents (the city has something like this, but it is complicated and cumbersome)

• Answer constituent questions if possible during public input (the council used to do this but the practice was ended during the Huether administration).

• Have a weekly mayoral and separate council presser to answer media questions about the weekly agenda (and live stream it on YT).

• Stop limiting council debate during the meetings.

The last one is a new thing. During the past couple of council meetings there has been an effort to limit the council debate. I am not even sure where this is coming from, but it seems there now is an effort from council leadership and the mayor’s office to limit debate between councilors during first readings.

Open government is easy, and most times it costs nothing to do. I think our issues with zoning, homelessness and violent crime could be easier tasks to conquer if we just talked about them openly.

Mayor TenHaken proposing sale/lease agreement on Bunker Ramp BEFORE developer selected

As I have stated in the past, the selection of who takes over the Bunker Ramp will likely be a usual suspect, and probably already in the hopper. But all assumptions aside, the mayor has sponsored a resolution (Item #59) to put framework in place BEFORE the developer has been chosen. Cough, snicker, laugh, cough;

Background & Objective: This Resolution outlines the City Council support to consider both a lease and/or sale of the property at 140 E 10th Street (Parking Ramp site). It outlines the goals and expectations of any proposals that will be received through the Negotiated Sale process.

It seems this time around they are trying to get ahead of any questions about who is chosen. I look at this as a good thing, besides who is negotiating this sale, likely behind closed doors.

They still struggle with the concept of transparency, and if used the first time around (they had three bites at the apple) we wouldn’t be in this place.

There has been a lot of discussion about what went wrong with the original project, just like how did a slaughterhouse get approved without conditional use permits, why is homelessness and violent crime exploding and musical chair rotating video lottery casinos.

It seems this administration and council have learned very little from the past, but they are trying really, really, really hard (not to blow out the candles during their meetings).

IM 27 opponents spread lies

The worst part about the campaign is it is being funded by the mayor of the largest city in South Dakota. The opponents know they need Sioux Falls to vote this down in order to win so they spread the lies.

Rick Steves was the guest on The Dakota Scout podcast this week. He did a marvelous job of explaining decriminalization further and how it will be up to our state legislature to fine tune the law if passed. He called it the ‘Reefer Madness’ propaganda.

Lalley brought up the sticky situation Mayor TenHaken has put himself in;

But Mayor TenHaken made an interesting point. He said that if IM27 does pass, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to buy weed in Sioux Falls, other than what’s currently allowed for medical marijuana use.

The mayor brought up Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the city doesn’t allow dispensaries even though it’s legal in that state. Ultimately, it would be up to the South Dakota Legislature to decide how marijuana is regulated, he said.

So I asked him what he would tell lawmakers should that come to pass.

“If I could tell them what to do, I would say we have what’s called home rule in Sioux Falls. I think that is a muscle that we would certainly flex on this. But I can say other vices that we limit. We limit the number of liquor licenses. We’ve limited medical (marijuana) dispensaries. It’s not going to be a cannabis free-fall in Sioux Falls if this would happen and we have to put this here. We need to be pragmatic about if it would pass.”

First off, even with Home Rule, the mayor doesn’t have the power to limit anything, that is up to the city council. I would also find the limitation of casinos, bars, liquor stores as NOT a fair comparison. You can gamble, drink or buy alcohol for home ingestion on any corner in this city. I guess I would ask what limitations he is talking about? By that comparison we could have a dispensary within a half mile of everyone’s house in Sioux Falls.

I don’t care if you are running for office or are advocating for or against a measure. Lying to constituents to get the intended result will always fail in the end. Liars will always be losers no matter what happens on election day.