MMM mentioned in his CIP address yesterday, we are a Boom Town

by

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yteMugRAc0[/youtube]

We are certainly in a Boom Town, if you are one of the ‘Specials’.

No mention of First Premier, marketing the worst, subprime CC in the nation;

A former executive who spent 15 years with Citibank

Oh, he gets around to it;

Then I went to Europe and then came back to South Dakota to work at Premier Bank with Denny Sanford. I quit in 2009 to pursue my dream to be in public service.

Bank? Nice little line, you worked for the card division, Pinnochio. Quit? More like you got caught pursuing public office . . . then . . . quit . . . ahem.

Looking at your unemployment numbers, with the exception of a brief spike in 2010 when the rate went up to 6 percent, it’s surprising that more people don’t move here.

They don’t move here, because of the low wages and under-employment. Most people have multiple jobs. I get so tired of Mike waving that 3.5% unemployment rate around like it is the only part of the story. We have low unemployment, because people have to work their asses off to make ends meet.

Oh and this is interesting;

This year, we will blow away the record for construction in a single year. We’re already 150 percent of where we were last year, and last year was the second-highest construction year in our city’s history.

WOW! Yet we are handing out TIF’s like candy and developers are contributing very little to platting fees to help pay for arterial roads. If we are in a ‘building boom’, which we are, why do we have to handout all these incentives? It seems the developers are having their cake and eating it too.

Fifty years ago, whoever the leaders were decided to put two private country clubs side by side in what is now the heart of our city. Now we have a challenge driving from the east side of town to the west side of town because of that decision.

Then fix it. I have said all along, you could put a road through there using ED, or even working with the Country Clubs. Either way, it is possible. If we took it, we could turn it into a wonderful state park with campsites available. How wonderful it would be to have campgrounds in the middle of our city? I have often said this project should have been pursued over an EC. It would definately have a greater economic impact on our city.

Here’s another thing: Our city council insists we have at least 25 percent of our operating expenses in a reserve fund every year. Right now we’re at about 36 percent. Name another town in America that is repairing streets, rebuilding infrastructure, tackling growth needs for a community, and adding to their city’s piggy bank. We have added to our city’s reserve every year for the last three years.

Nevermind most of that money in the reserves is BORROWED, and the city is $400 million in debt.

That was one of my dreams when I moved back here from San Antonio—I wanted to create a downtown where people would want to live.

I don’t give Munson much credit for anything, but the expansion of DT is because of him and Carol Pagones (sp?) not MMM. If Mike was so enthusiastic about growth DT, he would have finished the RR relocation project already and either built the EC downtown, or moved the CC downtown. He has done neither. He has successfully given TIF’s like candy to DT developers, and turned the $5 million River Greenway project into an over $15 million private landscaping project for private developers.

The spin in this article doesn’t surprise me. MMM only gives you the positive side of things, and I guess I am always the cynic. But folks, cynicism is reality. Bullshit is Bullshit.

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

Chad Huwe, City Engineer, denies there was any ‘agreement’ with developers when the 2nd penny was raised to a full penny

by

Of course, Council Anderson reminds Huwe that there was a ‘soft’ agreement (Item C – PDF DOC: platting). I also remember a city funded website that Munson had put up to sell the public on the idea. The Developers promised they would put in 50%, and when that didn’t happen, they blamed the economy (Taxpayers have put in about 5x more then developers, not quite a 50/50 split.

The reality of all this is that the city will NEVER get 50% from the developers. Why? As I was reminded yesterday,

1) Sanford and Avera are paying NO platting fees on redevelopment, and they are some of the biggest developers in SF, who also got to attend the arterial street meetings. So I guess they get to have a say, but don’t have to pay for it. Hmm.

2) We hand out more property tax breaks (TIF’s) to developers then what we collect on platting.

As I told someone yesterday, not only are the developers running this town, they are robbing the taxpayers blind (TIF’s, arterial roads, Greenway landscaping for private hotel) and Mayor Huether and Darrin Smith are driving the getaway car. But hey, we better cut funding to Paratransit.

Posted in: Developers, Sioux Falls

Will the developers ever be putting forth their fair share for arterial roads?

by

As you can see from this graphic, developers haven’t even come close to chipping in 50% for arterial road development as they promised (several posts about the tax increase and lies from the developers) They would when we increased the second penny .02%. They have been good at blaming everything from the economy to the way the wind blows. Ironically any platting fees that they ultimately chip in for arterial roads probably is a wash because of all the TIF’s they are receiving lately.

Sioux Falls is slowly becoming a corporate welfare city, and this graphic is further proof of it. Whatever happened to the business model of ‘sink or swim’? Now it seems anytime a developer can’t afford something they just go running to the city for a lifesaver, and the planning commission, city council and Community Development office concedes. It’s time for the city council to put their foot down and say “Developers haven’t held up their end of the deal – so you are not getting this arterial street money.” Of course when you have several councilors and the mayor* investing in development in Sioux Falls, what else would you expect out of their self servitude. My suggestion would be to transfer that .02% into road maintenance and upgrades, and once the developers show us 50% we will put in our 50%.

*The mayor granted a TIF in the Whittier neighborhood for an apartment building his wife is investing in and councilor Jamison’s company did the facade remodel on Sid’s Liquor which received a facade easement grant from the city.

Posted in: Developers, Development, Sioux Falls

How are the arterial streets being funded?

by

Guest Poster found this from 3 years ago;

When the city council decided to raise our taxes last Semptember they promised two things. 1) That the extra revenue of .08% would go into a special fund that would only be spent on arterial roads 2) That the developers would be paying 50% of that tab through platting fees. Even with the economy down and the city not being able to raise $10 million for the roads doesn’t mean that developers should be off the hook for their half of the bargain. But it seems like they think they are, and the city isn’t doing a damn thing about it.

If you look at the April financial report you will find that platting fees are still dismal: april-finance

While the platting fees are pretty measly when compared to the $15 million contributed by taxpayers, I am wondering what (Contributions/Other) is? If you follow the numbers across, you will see that it looks like the (.92) is contributing to the (.08) fund. Interesting.

Guest Poster had this to say;

I know this is an oldie but there is still the question about the need for the 69th St viaduct, roundabout and 4 lane highway in front of the 2 ‘Christian’ run businesses called schools.

There still is no need for this expenditure.  If WalMart would have been able to be built on this street, we the taxpayers would have been able to start recouping some of the costs.  As of now, the only traffic for this multimillion dollar street extension are TeaBaggers paying to send their children to private church schools.  If I mistaken, these ‘church’ schools are tax free and as such do not pay any taxes or street upkeep.

The funds should have been used to build a much needed 26th street / Southeastern / Sioux River, or Cliff Avenue bridge or both.  The traffic jams at both of these intersections has been needing attention for 20+ years.

No matter what or how the downtown rail yard discussion plays out, infrastructure changes need to be made in the core of town.  Trains are still going to be traveling on these tracks, in fact we recently learned BNSF is planning more trains per week.  What is the city’s plan?

Why doesn’t the developers look at a development plan to actually consider the railroad a tourist attraction?  Travel the roads of America and see how railroads have been a must see thing.  I have been very happy with the city’s failure with the railroad.  If the developers want to rework the railyard for their profits, let them pay for the costs.

Just because developers keep stretching out the the town’s boundarys doesn’t mean, we the citizens must pay for their ability to make more money on the taxpayer’s backs.

We are getting tired of socialism for costs and privatized capitalism of profits.

Posted in: Developers, Sioux Falls

Sorry, but you have NO skin in the game

by

I watched Jared Smart mumble about how developers needed more money from the taxpayers for arterial streets because they have had ‘Skin in the Game’ (FF 51:00) (he was referring to the platting fees developers have been paying since the 2nd penny tax got raised to a full penny.)

Wanna know how much SKIN developers have put in the game compared to taxpayers (financial report August 2011) (screenshot)

He was crying because there was a 81% cut in arterial street construction. But, Jared failed to mention that their ‘Skin in the game’ is barely 10%. We were told that the developers would match the city funding when that 2nd penny was passed. Sorry but $200,000 towards $2 million isn’t MATCHING funds. I think a 4 year old kid could do the math. I wonder what kind of audacity a person has to have to come before the city council and ask for money when they have contributed virtually nothing. This makes me furious, because I was there the night the council and mayor Munson made us sit for two hours before we could give our testimony, and I had to endure Craig Lloyd’s bathroom jokes about Joe Six-Pack’s contribution. I knew this would end this way, but I never imagined that a developer would have the nerve to show up and ask for MORE money when they have given virtually nothing. Jared, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted in: Sioux Falls