Millage. Guilty by association?

“Making Mac & Cheese with the mayor, not such a good idea anymore.”

Not sure if the above picture was the one that doomed Mr. Millage on the city council, but I found this line in Mr. Ellis’ weekly editorial to be quite comical;

There was a picture circulating on the Internet capturing Millage and Huether in a “Hey pal” pose, which didn’t go over well with councilors who have their suspicions about the mayor.

I guess if you are even seen serving mac & cheese with the mayor it will taint you. Personally, if I had to choose, I would have voted for Thompson in the first round, even if he didn’t seem interested, and in the second round I would have voted for Millage. The Huether association didn’t bother me. Karsky just seemed uncomfortable with the public, while Mark is very comfortable, Hell, he agreed to come on our podcast. Like Huether being the anti-Staggers vote, I felt Karsky was the anti-Millage vote. It’s unfortunate that people have to pick the lesser of the evils, but I guess that’s the way mac & cheese is made these days.



4 comments ↓

#1 l3wis on 04.11.11 at 4:55 am

I see Karsky knows where he would like to see the EC built, but won’t say. Smart man, looks like he has already learned politician doublespeak;

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110411/VOICES/104110315/5-questions-Karsky-ready-represent-west-side?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s

#2 Sy on 04.11.11 at 10:42 am

I posted about the Huether photo a week ago, and what do you think REALLY hurt Millage at the Council level?

They said they didn’t want a MyMan Yes-man on the Council, yet Millage’s association with Build it Downtown tells you quite clearly that’s not who he is.

It also tells you Millage isn’t about the quick & easy decision, he thinks economics should trump politics when it comes to spending a hundred million $$$.

I also think Vernon was being petty, as he still wants to be Mayor.

Also from Jonathan’s column:

“There are fears among some councilors that the Build it Downtown movement is going to mess up things by creating a rift over location. Then voters will scuttle the whole deal and we’ll be stuck with the Medieval Sioux Falls Arena and its inadequate beer taps and urinals for another 10 years. So Millage was hurt by his Build it Downtown support.”

Great…you have a non-profit, citizens group arguing for the largest economic impact possible on a 50 year project and that’s now the kind of crazy talk that disqualifies you from sitting on the Council? WTF?

The Mayor has said the following on the Events Center:

A. We will trust the experts on the site selection
B. That he is not an expert when it comes to designing or building an Events Center.

If the Mayor’s plan get voted down it’s because the Mayor advanced a shitty plan. You can’t find ANYONE in town who will tell you they are pumped about investing in a project out there, yet we think somehow they will emerge once it’s built? Who besides Jim Entenman has anything planned out there?

#3 Sy on 04.11.11 at 11:05 am

From your AL link:

Karsky: “I’d love to see an events center in one place. I’m OK with it being in another. I want to do what is right for the city long-term. That’s what the decision is based on.”

There’s only one site the has shown long term benefit potential Dean, and it’s not in your district.

#4 l3wis on 04.11.11 at 3:07 pm

I suggested to a councilor that instead of a dollar amount on the ballot for bonding they should do a percentage instead. I suggested that it should say something like this;

‘Would you support the city bonding 70% of the cost of Events Center if 30% comes from private sources?’

If a majority says yes, it would force the city to find the other 30% elsewhere. And if they can’t come up with it, the taxpayers won’t be on the hook for the remainder.

I think this makes sense for several reasons. You don’t need to come up with a location or dollar amount before you put it on the ballot, and it answers the question, does the public really want it.

Leave a Comment