Dunk Sioux Falls City Councilor Stehly for a good cause
I warned Theresa that she may raise the most money for the day. I believe this is Saturday at the Barrel House.
![](http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/bigtdunk.jpg)
WussCollege spreading BS about ‘Triple Check the Charter’
Besides the fact it is NONE of Pitty’s business what Sioux Falls citizens want to do with their charter, he seems to be reading into things and believing Councilor Neitzert’s continued distortions and propaganda while he is attacking private citizens for trying to make their city government better.
As you can see from the original document HERE, it is notarized by the city clerk. So do you think Phatty Patty will correct this? How about city councilor Neitzert? Maybe I should call his mommy and tell her he has been a very bad, bad, boy.
Don’t Demolish SF Stadium, SELL IT!
In the private sector, if something doesn’t make money or at least breakeven it goes away. I have often argued that if there is truly a NEED for something, it will pay for itself. The Arena, the Indoor Aquatic Center, Canaries Stadium, The Orpheum, The Washington Pavilion and even the Zoo are operationally subsidized each year by the taxpayers. This doesn’t even include the maintenance and upkeep that comes from the CIP and entertainment tax each year. And who is the biggest offender? The Denty. The taxpayers are on the hook for millions each year in a mortgage payment no matter how many concerts come in or sponsorships.
While many people support the demolition of the Stadium, I say we keep the taxpayers out of the whole deal entirely, sell it as is.
If the Canaries want it, let them buy it and fix it up on their own dime. If a private hotel wants to build there, they can pay the cost of demolition.
Why is it that taxpayers always have to foot the bill whether coming or going? Make this simple, risk free and at no cost and sell the property, even at a discounted rate, and let private industry and the free market take care of it.
As for a public/private partnership with a hotel or baseball stadium, we need to heed the warning of what is happening downtown and the bunker ramp. If people want semi-quasi-minor league baseball in town, they can invest in it or just lease space at Harmadon park as I have suggested in the past.
‘Some’ people in town think we need to subsidize all this entertainment in town for ‘quality of life’. I am for subsidizing the city parks and other amenities, but have you ever looked at ticket prices at these places? I passed going to two different shows this past month at the Pavilion because I just couldn’t see myself paying $80 to see a 90 minute show. I made that mistake ONCE at the Denty. Never again.
I guess what I am saying is that while we are subsidizing these facilities for millions each year, what really are we getting back if you have to drop another $100 at the door? And what about all the people who either can’t go to these facilities, don’t care or cannot afford to? Why should they subsidize them? And don’t believe all this economic impact BS. If we were truly getting an economic impact from it, the hospitality jobs in this town would pay a living wage.
I think we can make this really simple, just sell the stadium as is and be done with it already.
Charter Revision Commission to look at amending charter to fit city attorney’s ‘OPINION’
When I tell people our city government has gone off the rails, it is NOT an exaggeration. The city attorney and city clerk told ‘Triple Check the Charter’ organizers according to their ‘OPINION’ that only the 15 committee members could circulate the petition. BUT that is NOT in charter, it has to be approved by the voters to make that amendment, and that is what they are attempting to do at the CRC meeting next week.
So how is it that the city can implement a RULE that hasn’t been changed in the Charter yet? I don’t know. And, what if the voters don’t agree with the rule? There is a distinct possibility that they won’t.
I have maintained that an attorney’s opinion (any attorney) is just that an opinion. Unless a judge rules differently (case law) or the voters approve an amendment to the charter.
The city has already admitted that there has never been a petition drive to change the charter, in other words there is NO precedent.