UPTOWN Timeline

by

 

This was the presentation I gave last night to the city council meeting during public input about UPTOWN II TIF application.

I said I was NOT doing the presentation for council but for the public, since their minds are usually made up before the meeting even starts.

Phillips to the Falls – UPTOWN Timeline

2004-5 Completion of Phillips to the Falls

8/14/2006 – Uptown Presentation to the city council, 3-Phases, $2.582 million dollar purchase price for 3 parcels, promise to be finished by 2014-2015, Over $100 Million valuation, $4-5 million in property taxes a year. When Craig Lloyd from the Lloyd companies was asked when him and his partners anticipated purchasing the property by councilor Kermit Staggers, Lloyd responded, “Soon as you can give me title.” Purchase price at that time was $2,582,000 for all of the parcels. Development agreement was supposed to finalized in September 2006 according to city planner Erica Beck.

4/2/2007 – (Land still NOT purchased) City Council awards TIF #8 for first phase of Uptown. Before approval city councilor Pat Costello asks why a ‘Needs’ analysis was NOT done for TIF and It concerned him going forward on future TIFS. Planning Department said they followed state statutes which did not require the analysis.

7/16/2007 – City Council approves purchase of land, Split into TWO payments. Lloyd promises to break ground in March of 2008 (They did not).

12/6/2010 – Land still not purchased. During a city council informational Council Chair Greg Jamison asks about (purchase/TIF) deadlines for the Uptown project. City Planner Erica Beck (at the time, now is the project manager for Uptown II for Lloyd companies) said they were working with the city attorney’s office to amend the agreements, they want to give the Lloyd companies until the end of 2011 to move forward with project since they have invested so much of their own capital so far (Yet the taxpayers of SF are still holding on to the land and receiving NO tax revenue).

12/11/2012 – Utility Easement finally released for Uptown Phase I – Purchase finalized for Uptown Phase I first parcel shortly after that for $1.1 million (Which should have left a balance of $1.5 million without inflation on remainder of property – (See original valuation chart above from first meeting/presentation in 2006).

It took Lloyd Companies over 6 years to purchase HALF of the parcels AND another 5 years to purchase remainder. Taxpayers held the land for a private developer for 11 years. This is unheard of in the private sector without a significant down payment. Why didn’t we open this land for sale to others instead of holding property for Lloyd? Why didn’t we clean up the land ourselves with the assistance of EPA Federal Grants (Remember we just got $27 million for the railyard).

The TIF passed 6-2 (Starr and Stehly voted NO saying it was NOT a good use of a TIF).

Myself and another citizen also pointed out that several of the councilors voting last night received campaign donations from Craig Lloyd. Erpenbach, Rolfing, Kiley, Selberg and Erickson and should not be voting on the TIF. It was also pointed out that Selberg works as an independent broker for Lloyd and should definitely be excusing himself from the vote, he did not.

If you watch the above meetings and how this played out over the last 11 years, you will see a lot of secrecy, conflicts of interest and insider baseball being played. Even if the TIF was a good idea for this project, how they got to the end game certainly was questionable.

Posted in: Developers, Development, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls Parks Board District Representation

by

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.”

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.

Posted in: SF City Council, SF School District, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec, Theresa Stehly

As I predicted, Mayor Huether cries wolf again and uses the media to take the temperature of voters

by

Time to collect some beer cans.

And he keeps getting the media to fall for it. Though I will give props to Stu for getting in some digs about his indecision, especially with including Jamison in the article.

He still hasn’t forgotten how Jamison attacked his ethics and credibility during the 2014 campaign by pointing to real estate investments held in office by Huether and his wife, Cindy, and questioning whether such interests impacted tax incentive decisions.

No wrongdoing was established and Huether went on to win with 55 percent of the vote. But he felt unjustly robbed of a landslide victory that would have more forcefully validated the successes of his first term.

I think wrongdoing was well established, but in the land of no ethics (and no ethics laws) there was really nothing the public or Jamison could do. Apparently family members can invest and benefit from tax dollars. Just look at the Huether’s Tennis Center.

“In my re-election campaign, our numbers were really positive, but what happens at the end of races is that sometimes people throw out everything to try to reverse that. The strategy in this case was that even if (Jamison) wasn’t going to be successful, he would make sure that Mike and Cindy Huether never got a chance to do this again. He decided to make it personal, and you can’t find a way to make it more personal than going after someone’s family.”

Classic Mikey, blame the messenger. He is the one who drags his family members into the fray then turns around and blames others for when he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Recently he had his daughter be a part of a proclamation for her work organizing the ‘Walk for Science’ which was basically people complaining about Trump’s stance on science, ironically, Mike is a Trump fan.

Even in his 2010 race for mayor, the support of otherwise friendly business leaders such as Sanford and Beacom was more elusive than Huether anticipated, a lesson in party politics that shaped some of his later decisions.

This has always been a point of contention. While helping the Staggers campaign I found out that Mike’s departure from First Premier wasn’t exactly ‘smooth’. I have consistently heard from former FP employees and city employees that he isn’t exactly pleasant to work for. But this of course is all rumors, maybe if he runs for statewide office, we will get to hear more about his executive management style from some of them.

Nelson points to public projects that had “stalled out or become stagnant” under previous mayors but were brought to fruition under Huether. Much of that work came without collaboration with the city council, leading to criticism about the mayor’s oversized ego and strong-arm executive style.

I will never criticize Mike for his enthusiasm or getting things done, but I strongly disagree with his process. I have often said that Mike could have accomplished all the same goals with using honey, getting the public and council involved with decisions and using transparency at the highest level. When you step on toes, you piss people off, and if South Dakotans are good at one thing, it’s holding a grudge. Mike has made a lot of fierce enemies over the past 7 years.

Does that mean a bid for governor is unattainable and that U.S. House is more prudent? Is there a fallback position that says go for broke and then run for mayor in 2022 if you fail? Maybe Huether would be comfortable enjoying time with family and making memories without that burning need to succeed?

The stream-of-consciousness debate in his mind is political agony in real time, which some of his once and future rivals find distasteful.

“I see a guy who’s struggling,” says Jamison, who has yet to declare his own candidacy for mayor. “It’s like he can’t figure out the next step and doesn’t want to lose, but nobody likes to lose. If it’s really about public service and not just being the guy, why doesn’t he run for city council? That would be a great way to stay involved. But if he’s going to ride it out because he only wants the top job and that’s all he’s good for, I would caution him against that.”

Personally, I think if Huether decides to ride it out for 4 years to run for Mayor again he has a strategy to keep him in the limelight. It is no secret in certain circles that he recruited Diamond Jim to run for mayor. IMO, if Jim wins, he will make Mike his Chief of Staff, and in essence, allow Mike to run the city for the next 4 years. I know this sounds like a crazy conspiracy, but just look how crazy the last 4 years have been.

There is also the possibility of Jim resigning after a year and having a special election for mayor in which Mike could run.

Posted in: Gregg Jamison, Mayor High Crimes, Mayor Hubris, Mayor Subprime Mike Huether, Media, Mike Huether, Sioux Falls

It took 7 years, but the mayor finally admits to his Hubris

by

Before we get to the mayor flapping his trap and not really filling us in on what he is running for, I still predict he will be running for Congress. Once you read the article you get the hint that he doesn’t like losing, and Congress would be his best bet. Remember, it is only two year terms, and in 4 years he could run for governor or mayor again. I think the mayor is weighing this heavily, but I also think he realizes what is going on around him. I may be wrong about the congressional run, but remember, I predicted Staggers and Huether in the run-off for mayor 6 months before the election.

What I found interesting about Whitney’s article is that Huether finally admits to something we have known about him and his leadership style for a long time, he is a dictator;

“First of all, this is the executive branch,” he says of the governor’s seat being vacated by Dennis Daugaard. “It’s not the judicial branch. It’s not the legislative branch. And I don’t care who the candidate is – I’ll put my qualifications up against any of them, particularly if you want to bring business acumen to government. OK? If it were a non-partisan race, I would have thrown my hat in the ring already.”

As usual, what Mike has never understood is that all 3 branches of government must work together in a democracy. But for 7 years he has enjoyed a city attorney that follows orders from the guy who appointed him and a rubber stamp council.

He is going for broke. Nothing but victory will suffice.

“I don’t handle losses very well,” he says. “I would struggle if that happened. I’ve had people encourage me to run for things and say, ‘Do it and just get your name ID out there. Establish your foundation for the next race.’ No. That’s not how I do things. There are no fallback positions. That is not how I do it and I know that people don’t understand that mentality – but that is me. That’s a problem I have and it’s an issue I must deal with as a person. And I struggle with it. I do.”

Win at all costs, no matter who you destroy or if it benefits the citizens or not. It was his mantra while running against Staggers, it was his mantra while pushing for an EC, Pool and Administration building. Mike doesn’t give a rip if what he proposes helps a damn soul as long as HE is WINNING. And it is a piss poor and disgusting attitude for any politician to have.

More importantly, with help from Hildebrand’s consulting firm, he coordinated a get-out-the-vote effort that pushed him past Brown and Costello and into a runoff with Staggers, the penny-pinching city councilor that he knew he could beat head-to-head.

Since I was partially involved with the Staggers’ campaign, I can really tell you that it was Hildy’s get-out-the-vote strategy that put Mike over the top. Not only was Hildy suckered by Mike, but Sioux Falls Democrats helped Mike to. And what has Mike done to the pro-labor party? First he took a dump on the unions then he left the party all together. Remember, win at all costs no matter who you trample.

“I’ve taken a lot of heat, but that’s exactly what we should be doing in government,” he says. “And I know not everybody in the press likes that. I don’t care. I don’t give a crap. It should be run like a business, looking for productivity and service improvements and getting better bang for your buck. That’s what I did in business and that’s exactly what I’ve been doing for Sioux Falls.”

His business acumen philosophy will probably bankrupt our city. The signs of over borrowing are already starting to rear their head. By the end of his term, it will be obvious what his ‘business acumen’ has done for us. We will have a lot of bond payments for play things and little money to keep up our infrastructure.

He became estranged from his former campaign strategist on the events center issue, as Huether favored building at the convention center complex and Hildebrand spearheaded the Build It Downtown campaign. Huether claims to have lost other friendships in that battle, but he came out on top – just as he stuck to his guns to override the city council on a $25 million administration building plan.

Win at all costs, screw friends, who needs them.

Hildy describes the mayor as I have described him for years, an out-of-control dictator;

“There are people who have known Mike Huether for a long time who still don’t know what drives him,” says Hildebrand. “Some might argue that he’s been a strong leader, but saying ‘my way or the highway’ is not being a strong leader. That’s being a strong dictator.”

And he has certainly proved that, time and time again.

He admits that the statewide odds are against him but feels he can find a “perfect storm” to stir up voters, pointing to name recognition and favorability ratings while refusing to comment on whether he has conducted internal polling for a potential run.

Once again, just because you ‘say something’ Mike doesn’t make it true. If you have actually conducted a poll, tell us that, don’t just pull the old, “I’m popular, just ask me.” routine.

“Try to outwork me,” he says, leaning in again with competitive flare. “If there’s one thing I love to do, that is engaging in people. Actually engaging the people. Going to where they’re at. And that makes everybody else unbelievably nervous. There are still people in South Dakota that actually want you to earn their vote instead of buy their vote. They actually care that you shook their hand. Or that you listened to them. Or that you had to agree to disagree on something that they challenged you on. They respect that more than someone who’s out there raising millions of dollars from people outside of South Dakota and pretending to represent normal voters. And if I do run, that’s what I’m banking on.”

Yet he knew he couldn’t beat Staggers in handshakes, so he spent well over double of what Kermit did.

Nothing new in this article, just the same old hubris. Surprised he didn’t mention his chain-smoking alcoholic father . . . oh, sorry, that will probably be in Part II of this intriguing in depth article into a Hayseed Egotist from Yankton.

Posted in: Mayor High Crimes, Mayor Hubris, Mayor Subprime Mike Huether, Mike Huether, Sioux Falls

The Mayor ‘Hoodwinked’ the unions years ago

by

When Dr. Staggers was running against Huether, my union friends would bust my balls about Kermit being a Republican against organized labor. While I can’t speak for Kermit’s opinion on labor, it stung a bit. While I have never been a part of a union, I supported them, and understand their power.

The Unions backed Huether, mostly because he called himself a Democrat. Which I never understood. Maybe he was pro-choice or had a homosexual friend? Not sure. But it seemed odd coming from a guy who marketed the WORST credit card to ever exist.

Fast Forward tonight, where our mayor, the newly crowned Trump supporter and Independent had to break a tie vote retro-paying the police and city employee unions until January 1st, which may have cost taxpayer’s under $100K.

But one of the most troubling pieces of the argument to not pay police more tonight came from councilor Erpenbach, who works for a well funded nursing home. She stated that pretty much times are tough, and raises don’t come easy.

I will agree with Erpenbach on that statement alone, but we are not talking about people who write newsletters, we are talking about people who are fighting crime, and guess what, it is increasing in Sioux Falls at a dramatic rate.

I will make this argument simple. While are city is seeing massive growth in development, we are NOT seeing that trickle down to the masses.

But let’s simply this. When the Fire Department shows up to put out a fire, and the flames are increasing, they don’t throw gasoline on the fire, they throw more water. So if we think we are going to get our crime rates to go down by not giving decent raises to our police force, we might as well just being buying guns for the criminals.

Posted in: SF City Council, SFPD, Sioux Falls