South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

1st Amendment Mayor TenHaken Open Government Open Meetings SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE: Mayor TenHaken really struggles with the 1st Amendment

l3wis 6Comments

UPDATE: So this happened today! The 1st Amendment prevailed. I like the part where they pretty much describe a certain zombie mayoral candidate in the suit as a ‘Gadfly’.

I get it, some people struggle with the rights the US Constitution and 1st Amendment has given us. Our forefathers had the vision to realize a strong Republic depends on it’s citizens ability to challenge our government very vocally and publicly. If you don’t like those rights, and some don’t, you can leave the country (if anyone will have you).

As I have said in the past several times, the 1st Amendment and especially ‘prior restraint’ gives citizens the right to say whatever they want to at public input. In fact, the US Supreme Court, has backed this up several times.

During the council meeting last night Mayor TenHaken cut off several inputers because he didn’t like what they were saying. At one point he claimed it was his meeting (he actually said this and didn’t mumble or grunt it into a microphone for once).

The guy really needs to take his act on the road . . . like permanently.

City Council meetings are public meetings and belong to the public. We own the building, we pay for the resources to run the meetings and we pay the salaries of those running the meeting.

There seems to be a consensus by a majority of our council and mayor’s office that once you win an election you can do whatever you want to, but quite the opposite should happen. When someone leaves the comforts of their private life to run for office and they win a seat this is when you START LISTENING to constituents.

When an elected official threatens you with arrest because you said something they didn’t like that is called FACISM.

If Mayor TenHaken thinks he is correct in the way he interrupts the US Constitution why doesn’t he follow thru with his arrest threats? But like most bullies they say stuff to intimidate and scare constituents.

One of the reasons why citizens have been challenging our city government at meetings and ignoring the Mayor’s empty threat of arrest is because they know they have the 1st Amendment on their side. In fact, once again, Mayor TenHaken failed last night to stop anyone from saying what they wanted to. Not that he didn’t try, but I think at this point most people just wave his interruptions away like flies.

I challenge PTH to follow thru with his threats and arrest someone for speaking their minds, then the real education starts.

Downtown Sioux Falls SF City Council Sioux Falls

City of Sioux Falls presents $16 Million dollar Bunkerland at the Falls without knowing the operating costs

l3wis 5Comments

During the City Council informational meeting yesterday (FF: 46:00) Councilor Merkouris asked the finance director and the parks director what the operating costs would be for the new park. They said they wouldn’t know until 2025.

You are building a $16 million dollar facility and have NO idea what the operating costs will be?!

They played this same game with the Midco Aquatic Center which has become a bigger drain on subsidies every year and has never even come close to breaking even.

Before you purchase a home or car you know what your payments are and know what to expect for expenses, so why wouldn’t the city know what this place will need for operating costs?

Obviously a playground, splash park and dog park are NOT going to produce much revenue and any money made from user fees will easily be ate up with labor and other costs.

The councilors need to demand an operating figure before they vote to approve this, because refrigerating ice during a 60 degree winter is going to be spendy.

RIVER GREENWAY SHOULD BE CALLED THE RIVER GRAYWAY

There is nothing GREEN about our River Greenway! It often cracks me up when they call it this, all it is poured concrete with some crappy banners and goofy planter boxes. I have argued all along the River Greenway should just be a simple bike trail adorned with all kinds of native plants, that of course would save taxpayers millions in construction and maintenance costs and probably look a lot better. But I guess it is hard to attach a donor plaque to a daisy.

SF City Council Sioux Falls

Another Domino falls at Sioux Falls City Hall

l3wis 7Comments

In April I told you about all the people leaving the administration over the past year. Well this shoe dropped today;

Dr. Charles Chima is out as Mayor Paul TenHaken’s top official in the Sioux Falls Public Health Department — two days shy of his second anniversary in the post, The Dakota Scout has confirmed.

While no reason yet has been given for his departure there have been rumors about the doctor and the mayor not seeing eye to eye on things.

Hopefully, for once, we will get his version of the departure. But like most directors that come from out-of-state he probably just left quietly in the night and never looked back.

A bit of a rant here; A city employee, any city employee, especially a director, has the obligation to be honest with the public. And if the administration or council is doing something they know is wrong or mis-guided, they have an obligation to tell the public.

I’m not holding my breath.

I GUESS COUNCILOR CURT SOEHL THINKS YOU CAN REMODEL A HOUSE IN 30 DAYS

Ironically, it has taken a guy 10 years to build a house that is still not finished! Curt is proposing we stick it to vacant property owners IMMEDIATELY (Item #17)!

(a) The owner of a vacant building shall pay an annual fee of $1,000 for the first year period
the building remains becomes a vacant building. If the property is located in a historic district
identified by the city of Sioux Falls, the owner shall pay an annual fee of $2,000 for the first year
period the building remains becomes a vacant building. Thereafter, if any property remains
vacant unoccupied, the subsequent annual fee shall increase by $1,000 increments each year.
(b) The first annual fee shall be paid not later than 30 days after the building becomes a
vacant building. Any subsequent annual fee shall be due upon renewal of the vacant building
registration. If the fee is not paid within 30 days of being due, the owner shall be in violation of
this subchapter.
(c) The fee shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of any building permits, with the
exception of a demolition permit.

While I support the vacant housing fees, especially for vacant properties that are not being refurbished, I’m not sure 30 days is enough time for a remodel job. In other words if you are renting a property and the tenants move out and you want to do some work to the place before re-renting it, you only have 30 days to get the permits and knock it out. I would suggest an amendment that clarifies if the house has permits pulled for a remodel they should have 6 months before registering the property. If a property owner is actively trying to keep up with maintenance on their homes by remodeling between renters, we should encourage it, not punish them.

Once again the council and administration are pulling rules from their butts without reason or explanation.

Liquor Licenses Mayor TenHaken SF City Council Sioux Falls

City of Sioux Falls Liquor License proposal will squeeze out small business owners

l3wis 10Comments

The city (more specifically the mayor’s office) is proposing this (Item #13);

Updates city ordinance related to the sale of and application for on-sale and off-sale dealer liquor licenses by replacing the liquor license lottery procedure with a sealed bid process. Additionally, updates city ordinance to allow for on-sale liquor licenses at various municipal-owned facilities to reflect changes to South Dakota Codified Law that becomes effective on July 1, 2023.

Since there has been NO presentation to the public OR council (they found out Friday morning) there seems to be more questions about this POLICY change then answers;

• Why is the mayor’s office directly sponsoring policy that by charter should be introduced by council?

• Does the city NEED more then $240K per liquor license? Where do licensing fees go? To alcohol compliance with the SFPD? As I understand it, all licensing fees go directly into the general fund.

Recently PTH did an interview on one of our 30 second news clip TV stations and proclaimed that MJ is a gateway drug to other hard drugs like opioids. While any kind of drug use can lead to doing other drugs, there is often a connection between alcohol use in minors and using harder drugs like opioids. While MJ is a lot stronger then it used to be and is classified as a narcotic, it doesn’t have the addictive qualities that alcohol or opioids may have. Many long time suffering alcoholics and opioid drug addicts have actually used MJ to beat their opioid and alcohol addictions.

So are we using these licensing fees to combat alcohol consumption in minors?

My bigger concern besides policy disputes, compliance and speculative budgeting is the obvious; putting local business owners in competition with large investor groups and national franchises will virtually eliminate their opportunity to buy a liquor license in this town. While the lottery system is messy (I don’t approve of it) it is still more fair then giving licenses to the highest bidder.

I really don’t know why this change is being suggested besides the GREED of the big guys and their firm grip on city hall, there really is NO other explanation.

COST OVERRUNS! COST OVERRUNS! COST OVERRUNS!

It hasn’t even been a week since the mayor mocked a former city councilor while mumbling into his microphone like an old man waiting in line for his prescription at Lewis Drug and we have this from the supposed fiscally restraint administration;

But the new project timeline also means the city will have to pony up its portion of the $16.5 million endeavor sooner than expected, however. The donations are contingent upon the Sioux Falls City Council approving an additional $3 million for the project, which will bring the city’s commitment to about $8.5 million. The Council will consider a request from the mayor’s office to supplement the city’s 2023 budget next week.

So a project that was going to originally cost taxpayers $2 million (capital costs) has ballooned to 4X that!? I thought the city doesn’t have cost overruns? LMFAO!

Of course the administration has tried to cleverly hide the cost overrun with this ordinance (Item #12);

Notice how they packaged the supplement as helping out several departments. But does the Fire Department really need another $500K to finish out the year?

HEY BONEHEAD! LOCK YOUR DOORS!

While there is a part of me that laughed when I read this ordinance (Item #16), it is not such a bad idea;

The proposed ordinance adds $50,000 to the Police budget for a community awareness campaign to remind the vehicle owners in Sioux Falls to lock their vehicles.

In the late 1980’s I moved to live with my dad in a large West Coast city. While I was living there I got my first car and learned very quickly if you don’t lock the doors on your car you can expect just about everything to be stripped from the interior of your vehicle in the time it takes you to pick up a soda at Fred Meyers so it has often baffled me that people will leave valuables and especially loaded guns in unlocked cars. I think a great PSA would be a dramatization of a criminal stealing a loaded gun from an unlocked car in an affluent neighborhood and using the weapon in a crime.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Uncategorized

It was only a matter of time

Uncategorized

Internal audit has a busy schedule

Uncategorized

Every Single South Dakota Democrat shows up to the convention

Cartoon Miranda Bayse SF City Council Sioux Falls

Beyond Help