Sioux Falls Planning Commission, Wed, March 6, 2019

Planning Meeting, 6 PM (Carnegie)

Item#3D, Reifel Middle School Rezone from AG Land

Item#6D, Another Telephone Booth VL Casino, it looks like the Planning Commission is recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit. It will be interesting to see why. When I viewed this last night, there was a spreadsheet about the incompatibility, It’s not appearing anymore in SIRE.

Item#6F, Avera’s 2nd pot shot at ripping up a neighborhood, this one is about as clear as mud.

Half the Sioux Falls City Council & Mayor dying on the Plurality hill

I’ve seen certain members of our city council die on some pretty stupid hills over the past decade, but defending a majority vote for city councilors in a probable runoff, a previous 20 year rule, that changed in a sneaky amendment move by a couple of outgoing councilors that had indigestion that day is pretty lame.

The other 4 councilors (who were awake for the working session) have a solution. If you are too chickensh*t to change the rule with a basic vote of the council, we will leave it up to the citizens (who most of them don’t even know it changed or what the rule was to begin with);

“You saw how we’re split on this issue and how it should be handled, so let’s let the people of Sioux Falls decide,” Starr told the Argus Leader Wednesday.

Besides the fact that the rule worked for 20 years, most ‘intelligent’ people know that by pushing for runoffs in a council race you will eliminate grassroots candidates who won’t have the money, time or resources to run the full race. It will also cost the taxpayers more for an election that will only draw a ‘fake’ majority. This is really why councilors Erpenbach and Rolfing pushed for this, they don’t want ‘regular’ folks running for council, they only want those connected to the ‘club’. If you have ever noticed, the council candidates that are recruited by the elite in town (Soehl, Selberg, etc.) are usually shrews for big development and do little to improve the lives of the working class of our city. They contribute very little to us, and a lot to their campaign contributors. Grassroots candidates (who are lucky enough to win) represent the citizenry.

Neither Soehl or Selberg say they’re eager to revisit the issue. Soehl said he’s interested in what the public’s feelings are, but a special election could be seen as another attempt to tinker with election rules.

“I certainly want to follow the wishes of the public, but what I object to a bit is the council trying to change election standards every two years,” he said. “

Blah, Blah, Blah. The rule was in place for 20 years! The rule change hasn’t even been used yet. No harm, no foul. Change it back, most people wouldn’t even know it was changed for two years since it hasn’t even been used. I know Curt, you forgot to mention that in your statement.

Selberg questions the need to hold a special election considering the council set the majority standard in 2017 and debated the matter once again just this month.

“We still need to let this breathe a little bit before we’re out there trying to change it again,” he said.

Breathe about what? A rule change that hasn’t even been used and was fine for 20 years without ONE SINGLE CITIZEN complaint! Just because Rolfing forgot his TUMS for a council meeting is no reason to change a 20 year rule that has worked well.

I hate to use the words ‘Brain Dead’ but sometimes I wonder. Why die on this hill?

Sioux Falls City Council Working Session

Well about 50% of our council decided to show up and actually contribute to the meeting. While Brekke, Stehly, Neitzert and Starr shared some budgetary ideas (we will get to that in a moment) the other four had little to say. Soehl and Kiley didn’t even bother to show up, Selberg said he was basically just there to ‘listen’ (he is one of the laziest city councilors I have ever seen) and Erickson admitted she was working on her ideas with the administration and wasn’t going to show her cards. Brekke called her out on it and wondered why she wasn’t going to share.

As for ideas that were shared;

• Stehly offered many great ideas including cleaning up our core neighborhoods with tax rebate incentives and eliminating project TRIM and putting that under the city’s forestry department (something both of us have been suggesting for over a decade).

• Brekke talked about long term strategic planning and possibly hiring an outside mediator to assist with it (that was a funny exchange with Erickson who suggested the council’s note taker staff could do that).

• Starr focused on the need for workforce development.

• Neitzert suggested (after making fun of the Denty’s crappy location-LOL) that we work on policy to make our city more walkable with safer streets.

While I was happy to see HALF of the council contribute to this working session, it seems the other half (who include the chair and vice-chair) were out to lunch.

Buffalo Hunt wall could be (partially) saved by using stone cladding

 

I often shake my head when artists and engineers get together to ‘solve’ a problem. Often engineers win by saying safety is more important than artistic integrity. But if engineers would talk to artists once in awhile they may find a solution that is not only SAFE but beautiful.

I understand the city and the original artist who created the wall are in disagreement, I’m not going down that rabbit hole. That is a gigantic political mess of he said, she said (I tend to believe the artist in this one). I also take issue with the fact that the artist hasn’t really been consulted at all on how to fix this wall (even though they claim they have consulted him, he says otherwise). As I understand it, he agreed to fix the wall for around $30K, but it would require some work AND a special backfill. It would also require the Parks Department To put up a special signage telling people to not climb on the ‘ART’ or take rocks from the structure. But that ship has sailed. The city’s solution is to build a permanent block wall (Which at some estimates could exceed $250K). I think the city, the Parks Department and the artist could all compromise and have the best of both worlds. The city could build their permanent structure and save the rocks from the original wall and ‘clad’ them into the new wall (you can see cladding in the images above). The problem is the city wants to just bulldoze the entire structure without saving the stones that make the buffalo hunt image. The artist has even requested he be allowed to save those stones by carefully deconstructing the wall. The Parks Department is not keen on the idea.

I actually think if the original stones of the image were clad into a permanent structure it would look pretty cool (probably easier to see) and it would be ‘safe’ according to the engineers.

Of course this would require a compromise, and we know the Parks Director doesn’t know the meaning of a compromise. Heck they can’t even find their ‘no mow’ list or how the Elmwood shed fire got started.

Must See Exhibit at Pavilion • Opening this Friday!

I got tipped off about Angelica’s show yesterday, and I am very excited to attend her reception and talk on Friday. As a blogger (who actually got into blogging about local politics because of art) I can tell you that there is much more going on with this exhibit than you can even imagine, but I will leave it at that. You know when you have a disclaimer that 12 year olds have to be accompanied by an adult, it’s good stuff.