The City ‘CAN’ talk about the Parking Ramp

I find it interesting that his letter was sent out to the media (but posted nowhere on city website that I can find).

While Kooistra is correct in saying that public officials cannot talk about the ‘details’ of pending litigation, they CAN talk about what has already been publicly filed. They can also share their opinion, especially councilors, on the matter without going in to detail of the case.

I’m actually surprised and disappointed that the six councilors and past mayor who ramrodded this through don’t even have the courage to apologize for how this turned out. That would have NOTHING to do with a default of the developer. Instead they are trying to hide behind this shield of the city attorney claiming they can’t talk. That is a bunch of boloney coming from a hen house full of rubber stamp chickens.

Interesting Human Relations Commission hearing

I believe the case will be heard next week, 10 AM on Wednesday, probably in city hall at old commission chambers. Please read the complaint here (DOC: Human-Relations).

Jesus Pena has lived in the United States since he was the age of four. He was born in 1951. He has been a US resident for decades and has worked all over the country as an assistant surveyor and civil engineering technician. All he wanted to do was become a licensed surveyor himself, but was apparently being discriminated against while taking courses at SE Tech (3 semesters) (I’m still verifying the name of the professor who allegedly treated him this way).

It’s unfortunate to hear something like this, especially with the intent of trying to draw more students to SE Tech and the new proposed SF Community College. As our community continues to become more diverse we need to put a clamp down on educators who discriminate based on race and age.

Mayor TenHaken misses the point of open government

PTH was on Belfrage yesterday talking about a bunch of things. Belfrage brought up the ‘dysfunction’ of the city council. It of course came back to trying to blame ‘ONE’ person on the council. While Stehly’s name was never brought up, it was clear who he was talking about.

PTH thought it was a waste of time to discuss a $20 fee for the housing summit instead of spending more time talking about supplemental appropriations during a council meeting.

As for the supplemental appropriations, the council and the public, I believe were in agreement. What discussion did you need? (PTH even admitted to that). But to say having a ‘wasted’ discussion about the $20 fee just shows (as I have suspected) he knows little about open government and transparency. This wasn’t about the $20 this was about charging the public to come to a PUBLIC event. Ironically, the administration changed their tune and said they would waive the fee and film the event (I encourage people to watch the over 5 hours, it is fascinating, especially the tiny homes for vets discussion). So was the discussion really a waste? Open and transparent government SHOULD be priority over everything else.

I think we need to have a longer public discussion about how the citizens own this government and they shouldn’t be ‘charged’ to participate in it.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls School Board Election, Tuesday May 21

There are 4 candidates running for 2 spots with one incumbent. Alberty is NOT seeking re-election (I wonder if he will be offered a job with the district like the previous School Board President)?

I am recommending a vote for Anderson and Hubbel. While one is a liberal and the other a conservative, they do see eye to eye on several matters, including transparency and putting students/teachers first. Both have been critical of the top heavy administration and lack of public engagement.

While Reiter is the incumbent, in the 6 years she has been on the board, she has simply been a rubber stamper only questioning the administration when she knew her NO vote wouldn’t really matter. Baker was co-chair of the school bond issue task force. I was hardly impressed with that process.

There are two forums, Today at 5:30 at the IPC that the Chamber is sponsoring, it most likely will be live feed on the Chamber’s FB page and the School District’s YouTube Channel. There is a 2nd forum tomorrow at NOON at Democratic Forum, Royal Fork meeting room.

The School District will again use vote centers (most of them located in the Southern part of the city). I believe there is 13 of them, you can vote at any of them with a valid ID. The election will likely be hand counted again, but I am not sure. My guess is if we get around 3,500 votes cast, I will be surprised, so this could be anyone’s game.

Is someone waiting in the wings to scoop up the parking ramp project?

Yeah, I know, Mr. Conspiracy theory here, and who can we believe? But this is an interesting change of events;

The group said it had proposed changes to the project to the city, but then it stopped receiving any notices or responses from the city, which the developer also alleges canceled meetings before alerting it that it was terminating the deal, which would have co-mingled public and private money to see two hotels, restaurants and retail space built around a parking garage at 110 S. Mall Avenue.

So the city council now is on ‘silent mode’. The city refused to negotiate the deal and late last night, TJ TypeOver sends out a press release saying they are looking for someone to complete the project.

When the performance bond payment didn’t come in, do you think the city got a little nervous and did some ‘shopping around’?

It will be interesting to see how fast another developer swoops in, and who it is. Information lockdown usually means things are going on in the backroom. At this point I can’t even speculate who would want to take it over, but we have our guesses 🙂 Heck, I wouldn’t even be surprised if one of healthcare monsters builds a hospital on top of the parking ramp.

It will be fun to watch as the administration and the rubber stampers talk about how they ‘saved’ the doomed project while the rest of us roll our eyes.