Big T will be talking about her parks board districting legislation.
I guess the mayor got to his pals Cory and Stu to help with his propaganda campaign to kill this legislation. Rumor is MMM is gearing up a campaign to convince councilors to NOT support this legislation. Not sure what story he is concocting, but he’s got a little time, 1st reading isn’t until August 1st;
City councilor Theresa Stehly is making a push for more geographic diversity, claiming that adequate representation from all areas of the city is lacking on the seven-member volunteer board, with more than half its members residing in southeastern Sioux Falls.
She has put forth a proposal to establish legislative districts for parks board members with designated seats for areas of the city, including two at-large spots, starting in 2024.
Though Stehly’s dedication to this issue is appreciated, we do not support her proposal.
Councilor Stehly who helped craft this legislation weighs in on FB in response to the editorial;
We crafted this ordinance in a very respectful manner to allow the current Park board members the opportunity to serve out their full ten year terms. This ordinance is implementing guidelines for future representation for all citizens in our growing community. Just as we have district representatives on the council, this would allow a seat at the table for all areas of Sioux Falls on this board.
Our mayor stated at a recent council meeting that this is a very popular board. We can do some intense advertising when a position becomes available in each district to ensure a good pool of candidates.
As we grow in diversity, population and geography, more representation is a good thing for out citizens. It makes sense to me, and I am grateful that we will be able to have a discussion about it. I encourage people living in Sioux Falls to weigh in on it.
As Stehly points out, she has been very careful not to boot anyone off the current board or to even say that the current members are unqualified, this proposed legislation is actually very, very simple, it is just asking that future board members have district representation. Of course the ED board looks at this as some conspiracy to get unqualified people on the board;
Though geographical diversity is crucial to the makeup of the city council, which handles a wide range of governance, such stipulations are impractical and potentially detrimental when it comes to filling volunteer boards.
Such a system would limit the pool of qualified candidates. There’s no guarantee that someone from a designated area possesses the time, interest and ability to serve as an effective board member.
LIMIT candidates? I can’t believe the ED board of the city’s only daily paper would make such a ridiculous and uneducated statement. First off, the current system allows the mayor to LIMIT the candidates by picking most of them from the same part of town. On top of that, what qualifies a wife of the biggest developer in town or the wife of a well-known attorney to be on this board? If anything I wouldn’t look at these as qualifications but potential conflicts of interest. What’s stopping the developer’s wife from gunning for more parks and upgrades to properties surrounding her husbands projects?
As I have said, this is a no-brainer and makes sense. It is also a fair system that guarantees more equality in our parks system. On top of that, NO current parks board members are losing their volunteer positions unless they want to resign on their own fruition.
Come on Argus! Get a grip. Next time, just say it, “We are opposed to this legislation because it was Stehly’s idea.”
First, I would say that I support councilor Stehly’s idea to present council legislation to split the Parks Board into districts. Her and I have had this discussion for several years, and it certainly isn’t a new idea that came out of left field;
Sioux Falls City Councilor Theresa Stehly is floating a proposal to bring more geographic diversity to the city’s Parks and Recreation Board.
More than half of the seven-member volunteer board live in southeastern Sioux Falls, which leaves most of the city underrepresented in comparison, Stehly said.
“The founding fathers of our [city] charter thought it was important for the City Council to have district representation, and I think that would hold true for our Park Board,†Stehly said.
I’ll be the first to admit, this isn’t ground breaking legislation, and it certainly isn’t urgent (they will have until 2024 to implement it fully) But it is good government. Puzzling why anyone would oppose it? Right? But let’s listen to the other side’s argument against this;
Ann Nachtigal, one of the four Park Board members who live in the southeast district, said she doesn’t see how geographic diversity would improve the work of the board, which by charter is required to consider all park-related policies before they head to the City Council.
“How is it going to benefit the Park Board?†Nachtigal said. “I think she’s misinformed about what constitutes diversity. The best boards are comprised of individuals with different skills, knowledge, the time they can contribute. There are so many more things that constitute diversity.â€
Not sure how a group of wealthy people mostly from the SE district constitutes ‘diversity’. But either way, this isn’t about the ‘diversity’ of the members, it’s about representing a certain portion of our city, and since the parks are stretched into ALL districts, wouldn’t having a representative in each of those districts make sense?
City Councilor Michelle Erpenbach, who served five years on the Park Board before being elected as the central district representative on the Council, said she won’t support the measure.
If passed, the Park Board would be the only citizen advisory board with membership dictated by districts. She also worries a district requirement could create turf wars among Park Board members.
She said right now board members represent the entire city, but designating members by district could create competition when deciding what parks are going to get a new pool, playgrounds or other upgrades.
“It would be worse,†Erpenbach said.
Unlike other boards like REMSA for example, that look at the entire wellbeing of our city, the Parks Board is in charge of plots of land that are dispersed throughout the city, having a district representative for those parks makes sense.
The ‘turf war’ argument is ridiculous.
Before any new park is approved, the board will have to be in agreement. I see an advantage of having districts because more horse trading will have to take place, which makes for better fiscal decisions. For instance if a board member from the SE district wants something, they are going to have to get all the members on board, this will mean more debate, discussion and scrutiny, which is very healthy in a democratic society. I don’t want a rubberstamp parks board, I want them to look at every decision carefully.
The discussion could go like this, “I see a park in the SE district beneficial to that district, but how does it help the city as a whole?”
I really think Erpenbach opposes this because it is a certain councilor’s idea and not because it is a bad idea. Her anger for Staggers and now Stehly is getting very tiresome.
I really don’t think this is any different than the city council being broken up into districts. It will be nice if all of our districts had equal representation on the board. When it comes to parks in Sioux Falls, it really is a socialist system, and in a system like that you need to require equality, you would get that with board members dispersed throughout our community instead of all hanging out in the Northern part of Lincoln County.
The AL did story today about using mediation between neighbors instead of a system of anonymously turning in neighbors for the purpose of being vindictive;
City council members Michelle Erpenbach and Theresa Stehly both see potential in mediation, a process that supplements or sidesteps the courts with negotiation through a third party.
“It takes some of the pressure off of the people that are involved and it creates the opportunities to find out ‘what’s really going on here,’†said Erpenbach. “You can’t force people to be good neighbors, but hopefully we can walk down a path where we can learn to live with each otherâ€
In Dayton, Ohio, there’s a mediation center inside city hall. Larger cities use housing court – which Erpenbach calls “glorified mediation” – as a less adversarial forum to sort disputes between landlords and tenants and deal with code violations.
Stehly thinks a more personal approach could stave off more serious issues in some cases.
“Sometimes when people get boxed in, they’re pigeonholed with their backs against the wall it doesn’t help,†said Stehly, herself a target of overgrown lawn ticketing. Judges in some states won’t set a court date without an attempt at mediation through a third party.
First off, I am a little shocked Theresa and Michelle are in agreement on something (bravo). But they both make a good point. Put our efforts in trying to get along instead of trying to tear each other down.
Now if the city can just figure out how to mow their nasty weeds;
The property across the street from Rick Larsen’s western Sioux Falls home was well kept for most of the 35 years he’s lived there.
But since the city bought the property in 2015, weeds and grass have grown unkempt around the former greenhouse at Madison Street and Harlem Avenue.
The lot has prompted calls to City Hall from neighbors wondering why it’s not being mowed and better maintained.
“Eight inches means eight inches,†Larsen said, referring to the grass length limit spelled out in city ordinance. “The city seems to be the worst slum lord of them all.â€
They are a ‘Lord’ alright. Surprised the city didn’t come back and say they don’t have to mow their weeds because they are an ‘Act of God’.
This kitty likes dry and moist cat food both.
Michelle shows her true colors once again. When the Republicans speak of the ‘Tax and Spend’ Democrats, you only have to point your finger at the wine and cheese peeps in the group, or as I refer to as the ‘elitist’ Dems. Huether was part of the club, and just because he changed his registration doesn’t mean he still doesn’t wear the badge with his bestie Erpenbach.
Last night at the SF City Council meeting they were hearing the 1st reading on the fee increases for zoning applications (Item#32), during the discussion, Stehly said this;
“I will be voting NO on this, I’m committed to affordable living . . . (she was the only one to state this).
Erpenbach quickly responds by saying;
“I encourage my colleagues to vote for this. Continue to require people to pay the fee, that covers our cost, helps keep our taxes down. This is a user fee only.”
In other words, if we can’t nail you when you build, we will get you after it is built. Ironically, it seems Erpenbach supports both ways since she has NEVER voted against a property tax increase in the 7 years she has sat on the council, or for that matter a fee increase. So which is it Michelle. Seems you want your cake, and you want to eat it to.