city council

Why vilify citizens that want to participate in local government?

From KELO TV;

Bob Litz says, “What this is, what you’re seeing there with a conflict of interest actually is a tactic by a group of people that don’t want me to vote on this thing and they think if they can keep me from voting on it that they’ll get their way so it’s a tactic. Let’s just say that.”

Greg Jamison says, “I think some of the people that might be intrigued about de-railing this whole process understand most likely that it is going to pass and that they are looking for another way to derail this.”

I can understand why councilors Jamison and Litz would be personally upset that a citizen is questioning their intentions as they govern. What I can’t understand is why they would vilify citizens that want to participate in the democratic process just because they disagree with them? Would they prefer citizens just showed up to vote for them on election day and then remain apathetic until the next election day? That’s the impression you get after reading their statements.

I wasn’t trying to get anyone in trouble by asking the ethics committee to issue an opinion on conflict of interest. I was simply asking them to render one before the September 15th vote on raising development platting fees so there is a precedent and not a complaint down the road (no pun intended).

Make no mistake about it, developers have been pulling the puppet strings of city hall for quite some time and the public is finally coming to the realization that developers want your tax money to invest in their projects. This isn’t always a bad thing if the public benefits to. Growth in Sioux Falls is wonderful, but can’t developers find a way to continue doing business without constantly pandering to the city every time they want a new road built?

When I first filed the opinion request and saw my name plastered all over the media, my first reaction was that there would be a backlash. Quite the opposite. I haven’t heard one single negative comment about what I did, most people reacted by saying “It’s about time.” And these are people from all walks of life. Remember, Litz has been down this road a couple of times, and is becoming increasingly untrustworthy. He recently changed his vote on a road closure after he had already promised citizens in his district he would vote in their favor. He also got caught serving on a housing board while also sitting on the city council, in essence voting on policy twice. He seems to have trouble taking responsibility for his actions, and wants to blame citizens for his misjudgment.

That’s why it surprised me that Litz, Jamison and even councilor Brown were blaming the citizens for my recent opinion request. This confuses me. I never asked if they had a conflict of interest when it came to the retail tax increase, just the platting fees, which are widely supported by most of the councilors and most likely will pass even without their votes.

My suggestion to Litz, Jamison and Brown is to back off the citizens and not assume we are trying to derail anything, we are just asking that you be honorable and uphold the law and stop whining to the media about citizens asking you to do your job. Listen to your constituents, instead of the special interests that funded your campaigns.

A Developer supporting benefits to developers – GET OUT!

“It will create jobs” – SF Developer

Is this the standard argument for raising taxes? Dumb. I have lived in SF for 17 years, since when building roads and housing developments in cornfields ‘Created jobs?’ Sorry, there is a big difference between creating jobs, and creating careers.

Want people to live and work in Sioux Falls? Want to create economic development? Stop building new roads and start building ecomonmic development centered around green energy development.

Enough.

BTW, the best parts of this article are at the end. Costello’s quote is priceless;

For Staggers, the vote on the second penny is part of a broader topic that he hopes is an issue in 2010. The city has been on a “spending spree for several years,” he said.

“We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out in future elections,” he said. “It’s difficult to say. But in 2010, that will probably be an issue.”

Staggers, who also opposes the fee increases, concedes that developers might not support candidates who voted against the package.

“I think there could be some kind of impact,” he said. “But at the same time, would a candidate have received their support in the first place? In many cases, no.”

Costello has met with developers to explain his position and show them the city’s budget.

Developers have been told the tax increase will be dedicated to new roads, but Costello says it’s a “shell game. It’s false security.” That’s because there’s nothing stopping a mayor or council from diverting the money to something else.