Who first proposed the use of tasers in Sioux Falls?

by

I believe back in 2009, councilor Staggers first proposed testing tasers for the SFPD. It seems, like snow gates, Dr. Staggers was ahead of his time. It often cracks me up when Kermit is labeled as an extreme conservative naysayer, when he is actually very progressive in his ideas. On the ‘Su Fu Stupid’ show the other day, Patrick Lalley determined that ‘Only 5 percent of the community agrees with Staggers’ but somehow gets mysteriously re-elected.

Gee, Pat, do you think there is a correlation there between support and being re-elected? Actually many people support him, just because a rubberstamp city council more concerned about developers and the chamber of commerce don’t always agree, doesn’t mean the public does not.

Remember, besides the snow gates victory, he also beat De Knudson when she spent 6x the money he did for an at-large seat, he also won the general election for mayor, only to lose to the well funded credit card salesman in the run-off.

Maybe Pat was saying only 5% of reporters agree with Staggers? Because when it comes to snow gates and tasers, it seems like Kermit has the best ideas.

Councilors Erpenbach & Rolfing riding the pine today

by

Councilors Erpenbach and Rolfing missed the whole point of ‘conflicts of interest’ when it comes to the ethics of councilors last night (FF: 7:40).

In their disdain for Councilor Staggers (at one point, Rolfing told councilor Staggers to go sit down who was presenting his resolution from the podium, let’s talk about decorum Rex, that was a real classy move) in reference to Kermit’s resolution to allow councilors to be committee members in their respective parties.

Rex seemed angry when reading his statement, which he should be, but it was entirely misdirected towards Kermit’s resolution. I joked not to long ago, Erpenbach and Rolfing would vote against a promoting World Peace resolution if it was Kermit’s resolution.

Rolfing was angry about conflicts, but not once mentioned the obvious and blatant conflict Dean Karsky has with the Chamber of Commerce, which does do business with the city, unlike the party committees. He also didn’t even bring up the mayor representing Obama as a Democratic Party delegate. That apparently wasn’t on the radar. Nope, because Karsky and Huether are not Staggers, and let’s admit it, that’s all their NO votes against the resolution by Erpenbach and Rolfing were about (they were the only two to vote against it, because you know, the rest of the councilors used common sense instead of angst while voting).

To be honest with you, they looked like fools singling out Staggers and Erickson last night, when every single one of the councilors and mayor have numerous conflicts of interest that are more detrimental to governance in this city then going to a convention for your party every couple of years.

Some people on the council need to grow up, or at least grow a brain.

Editor of the AL shows how little he knows about city government

by

I wear a helmet to protect my brain from FACTS.

The interview Lalley conducted with Councilman Staggers today was laughable at best. I suggest that Lalley schools himself on all things city government before he conducts any more interviews with city officials.

Here’s a few highlights from the ‘Morning Conversation’

– Staggers defends public input in the regular council meetings after Lalley suggests we have ‘special meetings’ for big topics. Staggers points out why this is a bad idea because public input needs to take place at the time of the vote. And if that takes 3 hours, so be it. I also asked Staggers in the comments section, if he thinks the city council violated city ordinance by limiting public input time. He walked a pretty fine line when he answered the question, he didn’t go as far to say that they did, but he did defend public testimony and said that it should not be limited in the future. Lalley seemed to think different topics needed different amounts of time, then he goes into some weird rant about limiting public input because it had to do with Theresa Stehly. WTH does that have to do with anything?

– While we are on snowgates, Staggers was talking about city debt and bonding for special interests after a commenter asked about bonding. Staggers was quick to point out how the city needs to spend more money on capital projects, like snowgates, instead of special interest and recreational projects, because snowgates would benefit most residents in Sioux Falls. Of course, Lalley couldn’t resist to refute Staggers with some really bad math. First he said that it wouldn’t help most residents because only 5% of the total population of SF owns homes with driveways in Sioux Falls. Staggers kind of laughed at such a notion, and Lalley says, “I will email it to you!” Staggers was quick to point out that you don’t need to be a homeowner to benefit from snowgates, because it would clean out driveways of businesses and apartment buildings as well as clear intersections. But Lalley just couldn’t drop it and said it wasn’t about snow removal it was about SHOVELING.

– And just when Lalley couldn’t look any more ignorant, he blames the $400 million dollar debt MOSTLY on the Events Center. Not to defend that pointless project, but that is only about 25% of our debt, Lewis & Clark also racked up $70 million (for a pipeline we did not need) So where did the other $100-200 million come from? As Staggers points out, all of these special interest projects. Lalley then mutters something about sewer pipes. Hey Pat, if you were paying attention at all when the city raised our water rates you will find that those repairs come from rates and enterprise funds now.

I have a suggestion for Lalley if he is going to do a daily media program. Stick to asking questions and leave the editorializing to your boss. You just look stupid when you say stupid things.

UPDATED: A curious letter . . .

by

Updated, summary of the letter: DT-Quest

Councilor Dr. Staggers and I received a letter today CC’d to both of us. While I cannot post the letter (apparently this person thinks they can copyright the contents, anonymously) I am free to discuss it’s contents in a general matter 🙂 OK, Wizard of Oz.

The letter contained a list of 20-some questions about the proposed Dunham TIF affordable housing plan. For the most part, focused, Good questions.

It seemed to trail off in some parts about herding the poor and minorities into certain parts of town. Not sure if this is true, but if you have ever knocked on doors collecting petitions, you may have a different aspect. They also asked if TIF’s are being used to supplement developers costs when associated to street construction?

There was even some speculation about certain city employees and elected officials benefitting from these developments . . . I will stay away from that. I’m sure Pathloss will fill us in 🙂 Though I have pointed out that the Mayor’s wife is investing in a project that is receiving a TIF.

The only reason I post this is because I hope this person gives me permission to publish the ‘Questions’ – otherwise, not sure what will come of the issue.

While I cannot publish this letter ‘electronically’ (because this anon person said I could not – LOL – I can, and will show other people privately, just so you know.)

BTW, on a similar note, I found out former city planner Steve Metli’s retirement package tonight. Wow! Let’s just say, keep your eyes open. One of our SF daily papers will be covering the story soon 🙂

What is the public allowed to know when it comes to naming rights for the new events center?

by

Ellis wrote a great column yesterday in the non-free online newspaper about the secrecy surrounding the EC’s naming rights.

So let me get this straight;

• The public was not allowed to pick the location

• The public was not allowed to pick the financing plan

• And now the public isn’t allowed to be a part of the naming rights

What if the corporation chosen is unpopular with the public, even if they give much more then other bidders? Sometimes the highest bidder isn’t always the best. Do we want a subprime credit card company’s name on the side of our events center? Or the name of the founder of that company?

I agree with Ellis, we should be told something, heck, anything. Either the list of companies bidding, or a ballpark figure of what the city is expecting for revenue for the naming rights. Or better yet, both. I think if we made the bids public, we actually might see a bidding war take place which would help us garner even more money.

But hey who am I to question our mayor, Mr. Transparency himself.

STAGGERS & HUETHER

On a different note, several people have asked me what I think the working relationship will be between the mayor and councilor Staggers. I have not spoken to Kermit or Mike about this matter. Believe it or not, you may see them join forces on a whole host of things. They both want the EC to be profitable. They both are proponents of testing snow gates. They both want to see infrastructure projects moving at a fast pace. We all may be surprised how much these two have in common. Don’t get me wrong though, there will be battles. Kermit is big on demanding information from city hall before he makes a decision on the council. You may see an all out cage match between Kermit and Darrin Smith (they never got along much on the council).

I will end by saying something Kermit stated the other day on the ‘100 Eyes‘ show when asked about taking things personal. “I don’t take anything personal when there are disputes . . . if someone has a personal issue with me, that’s not my problem, that’s theirs.”

Amen to that.