I just got done reading Sue Aguilar’s website. She is running for SE district SF city council. I like some of her stances especially on road funding;

Infrastructure
Streets/sewer/water – the essentials of any good city government.  These basics are too often taken for granted, yet are one of the main functions of city government.  Currently, portions of the second penny sales tax, originally instituted many years ago to keep our streets maintained, have been used for other capital improvements.  While I am not opposed to using a small portion of this money, the majority of the dollars from this source must be used to make sure our streets are improved first.  Then and only then can we use any portion of this fund for other projects.

This is a tough choice, because I also believe Bob Christensen would make a good councilor. But, I will say this, the city council needs more women, and Sue isn’t a slacker;

Sue began her professional career in New York, where she held positions as a Government Bond Trader, Human Resource Executive, and Social Services Administrator.

This is a tough one.

YouTube Preview Image

Some early work, Fairport Convention (the bestest hippy band evah!)

YouTube Preview Image
YouTube Preview Image

Watch more video and read more here. Just so you know, there is no Thune-bagger bashing, sorry to disappoint you.

YouTube Preview Image

I love laughing at her defenders when this clearly mentally challenged person does shit like this. I’m sure she will blame the liberals.

YouTube Preview Image

Read the comments, they are great. I agree with Cory, if I am not making one single penny from anonymous people trying to defame politicians on my website, how does that make me responsible, and what is my personal gain? I have deleted comments in the past that are either slanderous or just really, really bad, but like Cory says, why should I be the speech cops for Pierre? This is just an attack on the blogs and they have suckered a former(?) blogger into writing the legislation to make the rest of us feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

As I discussed in the past, the state has said all along that our petition drive was legal as long as the petitions were in a 6-month time frame. The city refused to give us an answer on the topic, but if you watch this Charter Revision meeting, the answer is pretty clear, there is no filing deadline and the city attorney’s office is attempting to get a deadline (because no rule exists now), even though it may be unconstitutional. Funny how they couldn’t give us an answer BUT now they are attempting to change the rules. How can you change a rule that you are unsure exists to begin with? Can you say Weasels? That’s right, the city feels it can pass any ordinances they want with no regard to the state constitution and it seems like they welcome the challenge, that is if citizens can afford to challenge the constitutionality of their petition drive.

What this mean? It means politicians are attempting to further tie the hands of citizens when it comes to petition drives for initiatives and referendums. In other words, they don’t like their decisions being overturned even if those decisions are wrong and the citizens are right.

Thanks Judge Admunson for nothing. You truly have no clue who you work for.

Watch the video here, “I’m not saying your mother is a whore, she just has sex for money.” – Stewart

Advocates, We learned something since yesterday, namely that HB1198 (to allow more sales tax for new city projects) comes up on Thursday. So contacts are needed to the committee members who will vote on Thursday. Urge them to oppose this bill.

The news of the hearing comes from the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, a big supporter of HB1198. They want 1% more sales tax for an event center. (Other cities might want to raise sales tax for their new projects.) They put out legi contact info (copied below) to their members.

Please urge Rep’s to OPPOSE HB1198, because it would be problematic for the cost of living to go up, which would happen if cities raise sales tax. I personally think it would be morally wrong to charge the poor and middle class for large portions of the cost of a place of entertainment.

HB1198 says the tax hike would be temporary. But it does not prevent a city from thinking of one project after another.
It requires a local vote for the project and accompanying tax hike. But we know low- and middle-income people would not be able to mount the kind of advertising campaign that project enthusiasts could. And low-and middle-income people have a harder time getting information except from advertising and getting to the polls.
It says cities could have a refund program, if they choose. We know about refund programs! No matter how generous and simple, refund programs miss people, often lots of them. If the idea is that basic necessities should not be taxed, then let’s not tax them in the first place.
Cities do not often admit it, but there are other ways to raise funds. In the case of the event center, the city could be asking for a higher allowable bed-board-booze tax (BBB). If not such a hurry to pay off the building (3-4 years), they could build an event center mostly with 2% more on BBB, supplemented with some private fundraising (donations, naming rights, ticket fees, luxury suite fees, etc).

Here is nifty Legi Contact info (from the Sioux Falls Chamber):
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
On Thursday, Feb. 11, the House Local Government Committee will take up the Local Option Sales and Use Tax increase - HB 1198. Here is your chance to be part of the process. We have included a list of those who are on the committee. It is usually most effective to contact your local representative or senator; however, if you personally know others on the committee your contact to them can be very powerful.

Here is a listing of all those who are on this particular committee (just click on their names to send them an email):
Mark Kirkeby (Chair, represents Pennington County)
Val Rausch (Vice Chair, represents Brookings, Deuel, Grant and Moody counties)

**Sioux Falls area legislators**:
•  Jim Bolin lives in Canton and represents Lincoln and Union counties. His phone number is 987-2630.
•  Blake Curd lives in Sioux Falls and represents Lincoln and Minnehaha counties. His phone number is 321-0121 while in Pierre and 339-8918 in Sioux Falls.
•  Dan Lederman lives in Dakota Dunes and represents Lincoln and Union counties. His phone number is 712-251-1992.
•  Darrell Solberg lives in Sioux Falls and represents Lincoln and Minnehaha counties. His phone number is 361-2475.
•  Martha Vanderlinde lives in Sioux Falls and represents Minnehaha County. Her phone number is 201-7427.

Other legislators on the committee include (we’ve linked their names to their email addresses):
•  Justin Cronin lives in Gettysburg and represents seven area counties.
•  Dennis Feickert represents Brown and McPherson counties
•  Justin Frerichs represents Day, Marshall and Roberts counties
•  Betty Olson represents Butte, Corson, Harding, Meade and Perkins counties
•  Fred Romkema represents Lawrence County
•  Tim Rounds represents Hughes, Stanley and Sully counties

City Attorney Shawn Tornow has more important things to do then assist the citizenry that pays his wages

Trust me, I have heard the horror stories about attorney Tornow from citizens and city employees alike. I hope the next mayor has the brains to give this guy his walking papers. I find it hard to believe that City Clerk Owen is the one being uncooperative in this matter;

After Tornow and Owen disagreed on whether ballot measures should contain the editing marks indicating how existing law was being changed, and whether the proposal to let the City Council set initiative filing deadlines was written too broadly to be constitutional, a frustrated commissioner Pamela Miller told them “it seems a lot of discussion between your offices goes on right here. I guess I’d appreciate a little more communication between your offices.”

Tornow has gotten quite a reputation for sweeping things under the rug, just ask Dan Daily how times his court case got postponed because Tornow had some lame excuse. I have a feeling that Owen probably tried to get Tornow’s cooperation, but like most requests from the attorney’s office you never hear anything back.

And with no surprise by me, he favors less transparent government;

Owen and former state Rep. Mary Glenski told commissioners that elected officials routinely see the marks in draft ordinances and they would be helpful to voters, too.

But Tornow countered that the marks would be confusing.

“The council is used to dealing with that. Joe Citizen is not,” he said.

Yeah, God forbid they see what the current law is before voting to change it.

Go away Shawn.

Next Page »