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.
I’m a local visual artist and have worked with local musicians over the years and have argued for a long time they are extremely underpaid and I will go fisticuffs with anybody who wants to cheat local performers (it happens a lot).
Officials with the Washington Pavilion have announced the lineup for a new performance series, called “Live & Local.”
The series will include monthly performances showcasing Sioux Falls area talent, such as singers, dancers, comedians, actors, musicians, artists and more.
The stickler?
Tickets for all nine dates go on sale at 10 a.m. Friday. The price is $20 for a ticket plus tax. Visit WashingtonPavilion.org/LiveandLocal to view the full performance lineup and additional details, as well as to purchase tickets.
The average price of a ticket to see national acts at local music venues runs you around $10-15. So for $2 to see a show (there are nine shows) it is a pretty good deal.
I can’t remember the last time I was charged a cover to see a local act (they used be able to charge) that’s because the venue presenting them budgets for their compensation.
As a local performance series there is absolutely NO reason the Pavilion could not have found a sponsor for this so everyone could attend for FREE.
Better yet, cut the salary of the director to fund it.
They did the same thing in the Visual Arts Center charging to see regional visual artists (I’m all for charging for National or International exhibits due to the cost of insurance, etc.) going against their promise of keeping the VAC open for FREE.
I actually think it is petty to charge $2 to see a local act, you could make up that revenue in beverage sales. This has ‘experiment’ written all over it.
I am often amazed when a local arts non-profit presents amazing programming for local artists then turns around and says, BTW, it’s going to cost you. But what makes this different is that the Pavilion receives millions in subsidies from the city in building maintenance and operating expenses EACH YEAR (roof replacement, for example).
I’m sure they are looking to see what kind of interest there is and what kind of revenue could be pulled in. I have no doubt that people interested in seeing these shows will plop down the $20, but do they really have to?
What have I been saying about informing the public about policy changes? Tomorrow the city council plans to approve this on the consent agenda with NO informational presentation to the public (Item #6, Sub-Item #22);
Homelessness Street Outreach Services Agreement Implemented on the recommendation of homelessness task force. South Dakota Urban Indian Health, Inc., $175K.
While this was recommended by the Homeless task force and was discussed in their meetings, there hasn’t been a broader presentation by the city to the public on how this program will work.
But you can read all about it HERE. I guess the city is relying on bloggers now to put out information. I never thought I would see the day 🙂
While I totally support what Dakota Scout, Sioux Falls Business and Sioux Falls Simplified do, the information needs to first be disseminated by the city. Maybe they can do a quick two minute YT video about how they are serving the UNHOUSED (I’m still getting used to this synonym of homeless and puzzled by what the difference is between the two words).
I guess the Finance Department is too busy running other departments like Health to manage IT. Who knew you can’t have an accountant run an IT department.
