Yes on 14 talks about how great it is to take your taxdollars and give it to corporations who have shoved an axe handle up our hard working butts for years. Denny Doobad tells us that we have to give these handouts so we can attract businesses that pay good wages. Really? We have had corporate handouts for decades in SD, and what has been the result? The rich getting richer and the working stiffs getting poorer, while paying higher taxes on food and utilities. Wanna help us? Spend our tax dollars on public service and education, and budget accordingly. If the state wants a fund to help corporations I suggest a state income tax on corporations.


#1 Pathloss on 10.30.12 at 9:52 am

If they can’t steal it from non-competitive bid contract kickbacks, voters are stupid enough to give it away to corrupt criminal corporate moguls. After all, they voted in Home Rule knowing it would evolve into the present nazi regime.

#2 Tom H. on 10.30.12 at 9:58 am

Here’s an outside the box suggestion for a 2014 ballot initiative: a 0.25% SF transit sales tax. Based on last year’s sales tax revenues, this could raise ~$12M annually. Give $2M to help cover operating costs for existing routes (freeing that money for other uses), or to supplement frequency on existing routes to make them more useful (e.g., every 15 minutes instead of every 30).

The remaining $10M / year would be sufficient, at today’s municipal bond rates (~2.5% for 20 years), to finance about $150M in bonds for local transit infrastructure. What could we do with $150 for local transit?

1) Build about 6 miles of modern streetcar line (averages $25M / mile), perhaps along 12th / 10th through downtown, or from downtown to the mall along Minnesota / 41st (or through the hospital / college campuses). With proper zoning, this could trigger significant redevelopment. (See Portland, OR for an example of this.)

2) Build about 12 miles of BRT lines (~$13M / mile) along major roads like Minnesota, 10th/12th, 41st, and Cliff.

Is this an out-there idea? Yes. Would it have any chance of passing in SF? Probably not. But I wish there were more crazy, out-there ideas proposed in this city, rather than just going by the book and never innovating, as seems to be the case most of the time. I just hope that transit funding starts to become more of a priority in Sioux Falls before the bottom really falls out on the cheap oil bonanza (to quote J.H. Kunstler) we’ve had for the several decades.

#3 Detroit Lewis on 10.30.12 at 12:33 pm

Tom, I like your idea.

#4 scott on 10.30.12 at 4:15 pm

South Dakotans are conditioned to being “trickled down” on.

#5 Detroit Lewis on 10.30.12 at 8:57 pm

And that is basically all that Doobad and Owen are promising . . . crumbs.

To be honest with you, I like David Owen. I have met him on several occasions, he is really bright, and has a great sense of humor. I sat next to him and Debra (his wife and former city clerk) during the Open meetings commission meeting, and his under the breath wisecracks were very entertaining. But back to topic, it always bothers me when people either really believe in the sham they are selling, or don’t but just do it anyway. The amazing part about the video is even if everything Denny and David said was true, it still isn’t very good talking points. “We are going to take the money out of this pot and give it to this people in hopes they ‘might’ give you a high paying job.” WTF?

#6 Randall on 10.31.12 at 9:32 am

As more of Grover Norquist’s (R-never elected to anything) anti-tax pledge kicks in, welfare states like South Dakota (we get back $1.56 for every $1.00 we sent to D.C.) will have to raise state and local taxes.

The math is pretty simple.

The irony is that most welfare states are RED states, like South Dakota.

Republicans – shooting themselves in the foot and then imagining it’s the Democrats stepping on their toes.

#7 Tom H. on 11.01.12 at 10:25 am

Great observation. Think about it this way: why not let the Tea Partiers have their way, and stop redistributing taxes among the states? Then the blue states (generally the “makers”) would have more tax dollars to implement their spending, and the red states (generally the “takers”) could get on with their “starve the beast” activities.

Seems like a win-win? Why don’t we do it? Could it be that Republicans in red states don’t really want to see their federal dollars taken away? Do they not think that they are part of the “spending problem” they like to focus on?

#8 l3wis on 11.01.12 at 10:09 pm

Remember when DooBad took money for a recent Obamacare program, then said he would let the Feds take care of it, but hasn’t given the money back. Rat Finks, every one.

Leave a Comment