SON sues SF city council & city

Your’e gonna need a bigger boat.

Boy, if City Attorney Fiddle-Faddle didn’t have enough caramel corn to pick out of his teeth with the assistant city attorney’s trouble, now he could be in hot water over how he advised the city council to vote. This isn’t the first time old Dave has been wrong, remember his advice to fire Debra Owen in secret, that didn’t turn out so well. Now the city council might have taken action before they got approval from the Lincoln County Commission;

The lawsuit, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and for Writ of Prohibition seeks to enforce state laws that require the City of Sioux Falls to obtain approval from the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners before attempting to annex agricultural land located in Lincoln County at 85th & Minnesota. The Petition also seeks to suspend further action by the City Council to attempt to rezone the illegally annexed property without first complying with state law.

DejaVu. I kind of wondered that when the council approved annexation and thought it a bit strange they would annex the land before getting Lincoln County approval. The city doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to trumping state law. They have lost several lawsuits that deal with state law. VL casino regulation, red light cameras and the Dan Daily case. I have told several city councilors that they were not going to give up this fight very easily. It’s too bad WM spent all that money sending out postcards, they should saved it for attorney fees, or better yet, paying their workers better.

I think it is about time the citizens of SF revoke the city HOME RULE charter. It’s not working for us, unless of course you are an attorney contracted by the city.

If you want to read the case it is Civil 13-2218 docket number.


#1 Testor15 on 07.10.13 at 7:16 pm

Photo reminds me of the mess on Shutup & Listen Day.

#2 l3wis on 07.10.13 at 7:35 pm

‘F’ing Crazy’!

#3 l3wis on 07.10.13 at 9:01 pm

I want to dedicate this song to the City of SF, after this lastest news,

#4 l3wis on 07.10.13 at 9:22 pm

this is probably more appropriate


#5 Big Guy on 07.11.13 at 12:43 am

Yay! That means more detailed information will be coming out and cutting down on bullshits

#6 Big Guy on 07.11.13 at 1:47 am

For the record, I dislike Walfart. I do not believe we need 3rd, even 4th location.

To the readers and commenters – Can anyone of you name a couple cities with population of 160,000 that has 4 Walfarts?

#7 hornguy on 07.11.13 at 4:55 am

Big Guy, I think the thing you’re missing here is that Walmart is a regional retail draw and accordingly is far more likely to look at a broader measure of population, like an MSA or a CSA. The Sioux Falls MSA has a population of 230k.

It’s been stated in a number of forums – including a number of public forums here over the years – that, while their criteria for store placement is proprietary, Walmart has been aiming for one store per 30-50k people. I’d imagine that depends in part on population density. I’m guessing the Walmarts per person number is lower in rural areas and higher in urban areas.

To compare some other smaller urban MSAs in the Midwest, in population per Walmart:

Sioux City-Vermillion CSA: 31,000
Des Moines CSA: 63,000
La Crosse, WI MSA: 67,000
Fargo-Moorehead MSA: 72,000
Rochester, MN MSA: 104,000

So at two stores, Sioux Falls is on the high side of that, at one store per 114,000 people. At four stores, we’re at one store per 57,000 people, which puts us in the middle.

As it goes, it’s easy to conceive of a four-store strategy where the two existing stores serve the bulk of Sioux Falls, and the additional stores provide more proximate options to growing suburban areas on the northwest and south sides in addition to better serving customers in rural communities around Sioux Falls.

Or in summary, yes. It’s easy to name comparable metropolitan areas in the Midwest alone where there are more Walmarts per capita than our region presently has.

Whether that’s good or bad is a matter of opinion. But the facts aren’t subject to debate.

#8 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 7:26 am

“WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, a Walmart executive rebuked the D.C. Council in an op-ed in the Washington Post, declaring that the company would scuttle plans for three stores if the city enacted a living-wage law targeted at big-box retailers. The bill, which passed a council vote on Wednesday, would require a $12.50 minimum wage for workers at companies with more than $1 billion in global sales. ”

Always threats from the corporate sales tax collector when they don’t get their way…

#9 just me on 07.11.13 at 8:10 am

I love Walmart! It attracts other smaller businesses near it and brings in customers and revenue. If that location is a big problem, maybe look a little farther south, west, or east and find a bigger area without present housing developments. In Rapid City a new Walmart went in within a mile of existing housing developments, and at first was opposed by even my daughter who lives in that area, but she now loves it as it is so close to her home. And, it is attracting many, many new small businesses to that same area because it is a growing customer base.

Walmart probably doesn’t pay the highest wages, but I doubt many privately owned small businesses or other large retailers do either for the same type of workers.

#10 Craig on 07.11.13 at 8:30 am

Makes you wonder what else is behind this lawsuit, because simply requiring the city to wait until approval is received from the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners doesn’t seem as if it will lead them to the end result they are looking for.

Sure it will result in delays, but if the Commissioners approve it, it then would head back to the city for additional approvals, and soon enough you would be right back to where we are today.

I have no doubt we will be hearing about more lawsuits as they try to drag this out just long enough that Walmart changes their mind and moves to another location. That may happen – but if Lloyd comes in and builds a massive apartment complex catered to people of lower economic means, I don’t want to hear one single word of complaint from any of the residents who are now complaining about Walmart.

#11 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 8:36 am

just me, your points are what the discussion is all about.

It is not “Walmart” but the size of the store right in the single family neighborhood on a piece of property undersized for the size of the building being placed. The building is so large it does not leave enough land for proper drainage.

There is land available on what would be the south side of SD100 if they are intent on building in the area.

What’s been discovered and laid out in the court filing is Lloyd, Walmart and the city progressing full steam ahead on a development without following the ‘rules’ governing the rest of us. What makes them so ‘special’?

Lincoln county has had strict land use rules for over 30 years in order to protect farm land and control growth. I have wondered how and who thought it was a good idea to circumvent the Lincoln County land use laws. Well this case is going to be a great test case in annexation, land use and the privileged ‘specials’.

#12 Karma on 07.11.13 at 8:54 am

I will bet that most of the Lincoln County Commission would prefer to see this store further south and closer to Harrisburg. One of that community’s biggest complaints is they do not have a grocery store accessible to them without travelling to SF. Although 85th and Minnesota is closer – I will bet another 1-2 miles south may become a push – which I am sure MMM does not want as it then does not become part of his resume for “adding jobs,” with crappy wages – I might add.

I will guarantee the city attorney has probably advised the almighty Mayor more than once and it hasn’t mattered. I am sure the message is “I don’t f***ing care about the Lincoln County Commission and state laws. Find a way to make it work and sell it to the city council.” In many cases – it works as at least half of the city council wouldn’t know how to form an original thought or do any research of their own to see how many of these laws are skirted to appeal to MMM’s agenda, but now they have run up against an intelligent woman lawyer that does know how to interpret the law and make sure it is followed to a tee. I love it!

#13 anonymous on 07.11.13 at 9:08 am

It’s about time someone (SON attorney(s)) with a little influence puts up some significant roadblocks for Craig Lloyd.

The guy’s really DEVELOPING a bad reputation in this town.

Unfortunately, the three names who have surfaced so far as 2014 mayoral candidates: Huether, Jamison and Hildebrand ALL have deep ties to Craig Lloyd.

#14 Sy on 07.11.13 at 9:25 am

CNBC just named this State the best in America for business and part of that ranking is based on the ease of setting up shop here as compared to other peer cities. These SON folks like to pretend they are working in the best interests of their neighborhood and the City in general, but in reality they just don’t like Wal-Mart and their perception of their clientele, part of latter has been frequently highlighted on this blog. Their suit reeks of a hail Mary, hoping WM will pull a DC-like move, and even Kermit & a HB Councilor both say the annexation wasn’t out of the ordinary when the land owner signs off on it

Speaking of DC, they have massive local taxes, high crime, a continued exodus by the middle and upper classes to the suburbs (where there are Wal-Marts btw), and an 8.5% unemployment rate even though if you have a pulse you can get a Federal Job you will never be fired from. Forcing WM to pay 67% more than the federal minimum wage just because they have more than $1 billion in sales (what sane economist correlates wages with gross sales?) shows how disconnected & idiotic their local Pols are as not only does it mean lost jobs & tax revenues, but also no benefit of the “Wal-Mart effect” which is deflationary as other retailers adjust prices to compete.

It makes zero sense to me that all these anti-corporate, occupy Wall Street idiots have no problem with a massively expanding federal government run by statists with the sole purpose of shredding the Constitution. Wal-Mart is out to make money and if you’re a shareholder you can participate in their success. The statists are coming after everything they think you don’t deserve and/or everything they think is bad for you, the Country and the planet in general and they won’t simply go somewhere else if you tell them “Not in my neighborhood”.

#15 Dan Daily on 07.11.13 at 9:27 am

Can’t comment. Likely, I’ll be called as witness. So much I’d like to say. I appreciate your comment here about how Home Rule charter has been abused.

#16 Sy on 07.11.13 at 9:40 am

BTW, I really think some of you who wake up every day hating Lloyd and Dunham should spend some time in the urban areas in some of the bottom 5 States on CNBCs list. Hell, Hawaii is #50 so make it a vacation.

It’s not rocket science, it’s who runs them and as much as you also hate Rounds or Daugaard, the people who look at their results objectively are noticing the positive results.

#17 Poly43 on 07.11.13 at 9:49 am

The cnbc ranking has more to do with the prevailing wage scale any other factor mentioned. So why is it this factor is not even I the cnbc report when it should stand out as the number one reason companies come here?

#18 Karma on 07.11.13 at 9:54 am

But, Sy, what if this isn’t the best location? I know for a fact from a Lincoln County Commissioner that he was pushing to see this further south towards Harrisburg to fulfill the need of that community that does need this business which would obviously draw from south SF. I don’t know what the best answer is but I think it is always ok for people to ask questions and you have to admit, anytime that MMM gets behind anything anymore, people start asking questions as you know as well as I do from your support of the DT events center, honesty is not always the best policy out of that office.

#19 Pathloss on 07.11.13 at 9:56 am

There’ll still be a Walmart. It’ll be at the same location with a Harrisburg address. For once, Lloyd will not be guarranted the build. It will be constructed cheaper and better. I’ll shop there because there’s not the extra penny sales tax and the store means growth and jobs for Lincoln County.

#20 rufusx on 07.11.13 at 10:08 am

For all you “further southers” – Can’t do checkerboard/hopscotch annexation. Annexed property must be contiguous to existing city limits. State law.

#21 anonymous on 07.11.13 at 10:18 am

Karma on 07.11.13 at 9:54 am

and you have to admit, anytime that MMM gets behind anything anymore, people start asking questions as you know as well as I do from your support (Sy) of the DT events center, honesty is not always the best policy out of that office.

Let’s hope people remember this when they go to the polls in April.

#22 Pathloss on 07.11.13 at 10:22 am

Good point Rufus #20. To bad tho. I’d like to see Harrisburg annex thr Events Center. It still wouldn’t make money but they’d limit the loss.

The next time we elect a businessman styled mayor, how bout a real businessman instead of a credit card crook. The right style of mayor is more than perfect hair and a blue pickup munchkin carriage.

#23 Pathloss on 07.11.13 at 10:47 am

Notice the Writ of Certiorari distinction. You (citizen) are denied due process and cannot sue the city unless you are a class of citizens or if there’s a constitutional violation. Dangerous for the city because they must answer and cannot countersue. SON has already won not just because the annex law is clear but because they can keep the city in court for 5 years. The city will exhaust a million or so on litigation and still lise. Meanwhile, Walmart walks away favoring another location outside city limits.

#24 Pathloss on 07.11.13 at 10:55 am

Harrisburg should annex Sioux Falls to save us from Home Rule and immediately restore democracy.

#25 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 11:06 am

Having been involved in stopping ill-conceived water drainage projects, this one could at least be slowed down to protect the downstream land owners.

#26 Enough of SON on 07.11.13 at 12:11 pm

The City of Sioux Falls has had precedent on this issue, several times before they have annexed LC property into the City as the landowner has requested annexation. Same story here. All the talk about not wanting commerical of this size in residential neighborhoods we have the same thing at 26th and Marion Road where you have large commercial that holds the same zoning as WalMart right across the street from residential. There the commerical now runs all the way to I-29. These folks like the media attention, they need to get over themselves and this issue and move onto more pressing things.

#27 l3wis on 07.11.13 at 12:29 pm

For the 900th time for those who are still not listening. Most of these houses were built BEFORE it was rezoned. That is their issue. They were there first and expected a ‘smaller’ commercial developement to take place. The SON peeps are right when they say NO ONE is listening.

#28 Sy on 07.11.13 at 12:35 pm

@ Poly, read the CNBC report and how they score the various factors.

Karma, but since this isn’t a City project where we do one and we’re done for 50 years, it really isn’t our call on what the best location is. WM has a process, they followed it, & they selected a site that fits their needs for a price that worked for both them and the landowner.

#29 rufusx on 07.11.13 at 12:39 pm

Pathloss – So how in the world do you imagine that Walmart would ever build outside coity limits? Their own water treatment system? Their own sewer lagoons? Seriously – get a grip on reality. BTW – Lincoln county would rezone the un-incorporated land for Walmart as “Commercial” in a heart-beat as well.

Enough – you got it.

Lewis – those houses were built as single family in a multi-family zone. They were built across the road from un-annexed (and thus yes, un-zoned) lna d that was none-the-less designated in the comprehensive plan as a future SUB-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL area. From having worked with Lincoln county planning on numerous occasions in scenarios just like this – I can tell you – they WILL defer to the city’s comprehensive plan in making county zoning decisions for rural properties.

The SON peeps don’t actually mean “listening” when they say “listening” – they really mean “doing what we want.” Just like yo mama.

#30 rufusx on 07.11.13 at 12:41 pm

BTW – BEFORE 26th/Louise was rezoned to commercial – there was residential development across the road – for many years.

#31 Winston on 07.11.13 at 12:49 pm

If you build outside of a metropolitan area in the country near a sectional road I can almost guarantee to you that it will some day be a major throughway with commercial development including big box stores. The people on the southeast side of town have always known what was coming.

I personally do not care for Walmart, but I also do not care for the phoniness of the SE Sioux Falls anti-Walmart opposition. As a non-planner I and any other sensible citizen could sit down and look at a SF area map and we could come to easy consensus as to where the future main throughways in this city will be….whether we like it or not….

The people on the west side of town who are building near the Tea/Ellis Road should expect the same eventual reality….it’s common sense….

#32 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 1:21 pm

26th and Marion Road was always designed to be a heavy commercial district. Don’t mix apples and oranges. Long range planning let all to know the future of Friessen’s 26th and Marion Road property.

BTW, when someone shouts ‘Enough – you got it’ it shows a limited grasp of issues. The mayor has his version of this when he gets in your face and tries to talk you down, ‘Enough – you got it’?

#33 Sy on 07.11.13 at 2:01 pm

How is rufusx shouting? Isn’t that typically designated with ALL CAPS?

BTW, when someone nitpicks your post over crap like that it shows a limited level on intellectual honesty as they seem more interested in deflecting from the original point as opposed to simply acknowledging you made one.

#34 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 2:30 pm

Sy, ruf made no new points but was expecting us to accept his. We reserve the right to not accept opinions not based on facts.

#35 Testor15 on 07.11.13 at 3:36 pm

“based on facts” should have been “based on his version of facts”.

#36 OleSlewFoot on 07.11.13 at 3:54 pm

Big Guy – Quick check on Walmart numbers. Lilttle Rock has a population of 160,000 and has 8 Walmarts within 8 miles of downtown. All called Little Rock Walmarts. You go a bit further out and there 12 within 15 miles of DT.

12 in a 15 mile radius in Omaha.

You can use your handy Walmart Store Finder to find this easily.

#37 Detroit Lewis on 07.11.13 at 5:41 pm

OSF – One WM in our community is One too many. I am just saying.

#38 anonymous on 07.11.13 at 6:25 pm

OleSlewFoot, no surprise there!

Arkansas is home of Sam Walton, founder of Walmart!!!

#39 Big Guy on 07.11.13 at 8:31 pm

OleSlewFoot – I did use Store Locator and I used Twin Cities as an example…

Population there is 3,700,000 (according to Wikipedia) and in Store Locator it shows 22 Walfarts in the twin cities. Therefore the ratio will show 1 store for every 168,000 people. I don’t see Walfart rushing to bring the ratio down to 1 per 30-40,000…

My thought is ‘Why us and why here in Sioux Falls?’

#40 LJL on 07.11.13 at 8:45 pm

Dressing up for Walmart.

#41 Poly43 on 07.11.13 at 9:55 pm

As a non-planner I and any other sensible citizen could sit down and look at a SF area map and we could come to easy consensus as to where the future main throughways in this city will be….whether we like it or not….

Very true. 85th street was and always will be a major street. If those home owners wanna sue somebody it should be the realtors who sold them on the idea it would always be a quite residential development.They should be thankful it’s just a Walmart and not a truckstop/truckwash/Harley beer tent area that was originally zoned residential. But then again…in hindsight, could these areas have been anything else. Bottom line. Don’t believe everything your realtor tells you.

#42 Titleist on 07.12.13 at 12:12 am

Do the homeowners have personal responsibility in building and buying on a main through fare? Or is it always someone else’s fault? Will a Walmart on the south side ease traffic congestion on 41st and Louise?

#43 rufusx on 07.12.13 at 12:44 am

testor – 85th and Minnesota was ALWAYS going to be a sub-regional commercial area.

#44 Testor15 on 07.12.13 at 7:00 am

Wow has this getting stretched. Being a ‘main’ thoroughfare? Sure it had been planned to a properly designed and drained boulevard street, both of which have not been accomplished ‘yet’. Some people like having nice houses on boulevards, so what. It will be busy with car traffic, so what.

According to the city’s own zoning plan the land in question was never to hold a development like Walmart’s big box. This is the the issue with the ramifications. People make decisions based on information available and then fight to keep their rights.

#45 Karma on 07.12.13 at 8:07 am

Blaming it on a realtor? For cripes sakes – it’s your investment – do your homework and read the fine print, of which I know existed as a friend of mine out there has confirmed to me as much and they “missed it” when they bought land and built their home. Now – do we read the fine print on everything we sign? – nope, however, you are building on the fasting growing area of SF/Harrisburg with immense land available, 85th St. was always going to become a heavy traveled area, and the plans for HWY 100 have been there for quite awhile. These residents have a lot of traffic coming their way regardless of WM.

I honestly see both sides of this deal, but I still go back to my original comment. These residents have the right to ask questions, make sure things were done ethically and legally (which seems to be the question at hand), and their personal investment is protected.

#46 OleSlewFoot on 07.12.13 at 8:46 am

DL – we already have twice as many walmarts as you want and in two years we will have 4 times as many. Just sayin’.

Almost every claim people make against Walmart can be made against any big box corporation. And as for wages, the small employers in town have to pay similar wages for similar work skills to make a living.

This seems to me to be somewhat of a social/safety issue with some, which I really do not understand. I don’t want “those” people shopping near me. “Those” people are bad. Well I do not believe “those” people will drive from their home in upper eastern SF to 85th and Minn to shop. “Those” people will still come over to the one by Dawley farms.

#47 Testor15 on 07.12.13 at 9:03 am

The traffic on 85th has never been the problem. As stated it has always been a planned ‘main’ street. The problem is allowing a ‘special’ to have zoning changed without proper notice and improper annexation without consideration of the legal drainage issues.

If you had been to the Shut-up and Listen Saturday session you would have heard and experienced these issues.
1. The photograph above illustrates part of the water drainage problem. The current street bed is the ‘final’ road bed. It was designed and constructed wrong with no drainage. It is a mess.
2. It’s the drainage with the accumulated pollution from hard surface deicing, oils and chemicals going into the watershed without letting Lincoln County control it to protect their citizens.
3. The improper zoning change allowing a building larger than previously planned. Its not the Walmart brand, its the size of the Walmart building. If Walmart had decided to build their smaller neighborhood building on the site, we would not even being hearing about this.

These are just some of the issues being pressed in this situation. It is not a realtor’s fault, homeowner’s or the developer’s fault if the city has a long-term plan calling for and insisting on a neighborhood ‘sub regional’ commercial district. Now homes and people are there. So a ‘special’ developer, who is known for getting his way at city hall is asked to ‘develop’ a ‘mislabeled’ plot of land. The developer works his magic and the ‘mislabeled’ property now can be overbuilt on?

#48 Pathloss on 07.12.13 at 9:06 am

Why did they name the city council in the lawsuit? There must be a legal trick or Home Rule maneuver involved. As I understand I the council votes and the mayor breaks a tie or overrules the vote. Aren’t we lucky we’re not on the council. Who will want to be on the council in the future if they’re susceptable to lawsuits. The council are but puppets nanipulated by the mayor. In a government outside from Home Rule they’d serve as checks and balances. Presently they seem as ‘consultants’ but have no authority.

#49 Pathloss on 07.12.13 at 9:53 am

As a councilor, I’d hire my own lawyer before I had Pfeifle represent me. A private lawyers’ first invoice will exceed annual compensation to a councilor. Should we expect that most of the council will resign with a side deal that they become excluded from the laesuit. SON has recruited a smart experiened law firm. The council is represented by a young inexperienced city attorney who probably never tried a case. Forget about Zimmerman. This case is gonna be interesting.

#50 rufusx on 07.12.13 at 11:33 am

See the other multimillion dollar job creating projects that have been stalled and delayed by SON’s actions? Nice job there NIMBY’s.

BTW – for a definition of “major arterial street” (85th) see below:

#51 Testor15 on 07.12.13 at 1:02 pm

The city should never assumed Shape Places was fact until it was. So there are delays now. Who cares? They should have gone through the proper in force method of zoning until the new code was legally in force.

Nice job NIMBYs!

#52 Karma on 07.12.13 at 1:19 pm

I have to agree with Testor15. If their i’s were not dotted and t’s crossed for Shape Places – they are at fault – not SON. Once again – it was a “shove it through” method and it is backfiring. Nobody to blame but 9th and Dakota.

#53 PlanningStudent on 07.12.13 at 4:28 pm

Get into the annexation statutes yourselves gentlemen:

#54 Joan on 07.12.13 at 7:44 pm

Hey, just me, I was sure glad to see somebody agree with me about the wages that WalMart pays compared to other retail/restaurants. I know people that have worked at various WalMarts for 20 plus years, so they can’t be that bad of place to work.

#55 Joan on 07.12.13 at 8:00 pm

I shop at one of the SF WalMarts on a weekly basis and haven’t seen any bad people there. In fact I have seen some people get out of some pretty high priced vehicles in the parking lot—-I’m talking Escalades, Hummers, BMW, etc. that from the way they are dressed look like the hoodlums and thugs(bad people) that some people associate with shopping at WalMart. It’s a shame some people have to be so judgmental.

#56 rufusx on 07.12.13 at 9:42 pm

Karma – I would hardly call over 2 1/2 YEARS of public input, surveys, conversations, presentations and hearings a “shove it through” approach.

Nobody to blame but anyone who wasn’t paying attention and didn’t participate. Like the SON group – or yourself.

#57 rufusx on 07.12.13 at 9:43 pm

Shape was about 5 days away from becoming law when the petitions were turned in as I understand it.

#58 LJL on 07.12.13 at 10:13 pm

But Joan has no problem judging people by what they drive or wear.

Too Funny… Your a riot Joan

You may want to count the Escalades and Hummers you see in a goverment housing parking lots. I had the pleasure to speaking with a person who drove a JAG XK and lived in gov housing last fall.

The people, the wages and the store name has nothing to do with it. And anyone who uses the phrase NIMBY is a D Bag. It is their backyard Rufux, not yours. They have the right to debate what is rezoned in it.

I occasional shop at Walmarts myself. They don’t need to be plopped within or next to an already established neighborhoods. Just go south of the proposed new highway and they will have my business and vote. If the city seriously supports a south walmart they better pony up and build the infrastructure to a more southern location. Why is the north wally not be fought, because there is nothing near that lot and the homes are several blocks south of it.

Does the city need more Walmart, Nope. Should we block the further expansion of this brand in our city because they are Walmart. Nope. If you want more Walmarts you best not bitch went we never get a Kroger, Whole Foods or Trader Joes in the future. More of 1 means less of another in demand supply market.

#59 Who is John Galt on 07.12.13 at 11:55 pm

69th & Cliff was to small for a 185,000 sq.ft. Super WM, the people over there were happy with a HyVee at 45,000 sq.ft. The people at 85th and Min. have said the same exact same thing. A Super WM needs room to breath, it will draw in other business, it will be the catyalst for new growth in the area just like it did at the Louise location and like it did on the East side. I say give a Super WM all the room to do what they have done for Sioux Falls in the past, 85th & Minn is not big enough.

#60 hornguy on 07.13.13 at 7:05 am

Walmart sells to an entirely different income demographic than either Trader Joes or Whole Foods. They’re not coming to Sioux Falls anytime soon because the city isn’t large enough and our median household income isn’t high enough. Sometimes it’s any wonder to me that Pomegranate Market has fought the good fight as long as it has. So that’s a total straw man argument.

Also, there are literally thousands and thousands of acres of undeveloped land to the south and east of the parcel at 85th and Minnesota. If that’s not enough “room to breath” (sic), Galt, what precisely *is*? There’s vastly more room down there then there is around the Dawley Farm/Walmart development, which is penned in by residential development on three sides. By your standards, the city was obviously wrong to authorize that rezone as well, correct?

#61 Justin Enger on 07.13.13 at 9:27 am

The last time I joined the Walmart discussion, I think I was told that this would happen whether I liked it or not. I think this is really going to be a great sh*t show to watch and see all the time and money that is going to be wasted (or not depending on the side you are on). I will state again though that not everybody that lives by proposed sight is a BMW driving person who lives in a $500,000 house, but no one really cares about the “locals” who have lived out in this area for decades. Those of use who live to the south of the site don’t even get a chance to vote on SF’s council members or the major but sadly their actions effect us too. The mayor seems to think that some rules are meant to be broken as long as their is money to be made and he can bolster his nimbus like ego.

#62 Lamb Chislic on 07.13.13 at 10:07 am

LJL nailed it – “If the city seriously supports a south walmart they better pony up and build the infrastructure to a more southern location. Why is the north wally not be fought, because there is nothing near that lot and the homes are several blocks south of it.”

From the beginning, WalMart said it chose the 85 & MN site based on city hall’s recommendation. The utility infrastructure ends there. The ideal location would be about 3/4 mile south – still adjacent to Hwy 100, but on the other side to allow better planned development. Problem is city hall would have to reprioritize the CIP.

Another shit show to watch is going to be traffic around the new Costco once it opens. Two lane roads in and out of there trying to escape onto 41st or Minnesota on a Saturday afternoon. The black and whites will be busy with accident calls. I still can’t believe the 49th Street project is still two years out in the CIP.

#63 Pathloss on 07.13.13 at 3:00 pm

The north site was but a Wally trick to play Huether so he’d force the south location. ‘Aren’t you glad I’m mayor and brought in 2 Walmarts’. No, I’m glad I didn’t vote for you and can vote against you. Your ‘Listen and obey’ cult has decayed. You’re the worst mayor of all time and you’ll never be governor because even the west part of the state sees you for what you are.

#64 Who is John Galt on 07.13.13 at 3:11 pm

hornguy- “thousands of acres” is all true, but consider why nobody has built there? It’s a huge opportunity, retail between Sioux Falls and Harrisburg, it should be awesome right? The opportunity will come but only after the city builds a new wastewater treatment plant to serve all the land that flows to the South and East of 85th & Min. Sioux Falls has millions invested in sewer lines that are not getting used right now, the future planed growth was for other parts of town and for good reason. Now consider the effect #100 will have on property access. Everyone should look at #100 as having the same effect on the area as an Interstate with limited points to cross it. When #100 comes and it will, development will accrue where access is not limited beyond reason. The sewer needs to be installed there first, after that look for a huge explosion of growth in that area. Putting WM on the South side of #100 is the best option for the long term big picture view for Sioux Falls and would allow it to breath, but WM would need to wait or build a temporary sewer lift station.
“penned in”… wrong… rezone… correct?” No, the Dawley Farm/Walmart development has 2 controlled access points onto 10th and 1 onto #100, that’s 3 great ways in and out. Bring that good planning and layout to the area in question and you could only apply it on the South side of #100. The 85th & Min. corner blocked in with #100 to the South and with limited access onto Min. is too small for good planning to apply.

#65 hornguy on 07.13.13 at 7:18 pm

That’s all fine and well, Galt. Just recognize that you’re changing your argument now. Your initial argument, the one to which I responded, was:

“A Super WM needs room to breath, it will draw in other business, it will be the catyalst for new growth in the area just like it did at the Louise location and like it did on the East side. I say give a Super WM all the room to do what they have done for Sioux Falls in the past, 85th & Minn is not big enough.”

You argued only that there wasn’t enough space in that area to accommodate peripheral development around the Walmart when compared to the existing Walmarts, neither of which truly allows for any kind of significant retail expansion when compared to opportunities south of town. Now you want to talk about access points, sewage, basically a bunch of stuff that wasn’t your original point. But fair points, to be sure.

The reason nobody’s built there? I’ll go with because everyone’s waiting for a major store to serve as a traffic draw. How many small business owners have the resources to launch down there and lose money for years waiting for a larger business to give them the visibility they need to be successful?

#66 Who is John Galt on 07.13.13 at 8:40 pm

Hornguy – “The reason nobody’s built there?” In my opinion; no controlled access onto Min., elevation and sewer ability problems (WM will need to raise their entire building more than 3 feet just to get waste water to flow East into the city’s system) they are trapped in by #100 to the South, you can’t use this corner lot area like it was used at the Dawley Farm development or even like most other corner lots. #100 causes many more problems than most people realize when it crosses so close to the intersection of 85th and Min. Consider the effect #100 will have on 85th going to the East of Min., that point will be an even bigger problem for those landowners as no access onto #100 will be allowed from 85th. Plus, now look at all the undeveloped land at 85th and I-29 or at 69th and I-29, once and if an interchange with access to I-29 is approved for either place or for both, that new access will unlock a gold mine for those land owners, until then it will continue to have problems with ever doing anything big.
Check out the development that has occurred along Min. to the North of here at the intersections of 69th and at 57th, I can see that similar pattern of growth continuing up to #100 but not past it. After #100 and a new expanded sewer service is in place then BOOM! I would love to be able to speculate with the land at Min. and 271st, it should be huge!

#67 hornguy on 07.14.13 at 8:07 am

I hear you on how inelegant that crossing of SD100/Minnesota and SD100/85th will be. I’m not a traffic engineer so I’m not going to pretend to know a good answer. And amen to the wealth that some of those landowners south of 85 are going to stumble into.

IIRC, 85th and I-29 is targeted as a regional commercial center, but like you said, that’s not going to happen until an interchange is built. I suspect, however, that there are going to be more retailers like Walmart who aren’t going to want to wait until that happens. There’s a lot of economic potential in that SD100 corridor. Some infrastructure issues to address, as you pointed out, but a whole lot of soon-to-be commercial land in proximity to a whole bunch of neighborhoods with high median incomes.

#68 Poly43 on 07.14.13 at 11:14 am

After watching the Moose Lodge L&L session I was leaning towards the city’s take on this. Now after reading much more here I gotta take sides with the SON’s. Just hope this does not change anything about the north end WM plans. Hundreds of vehicles come into SF from the north to go to work in the Citibank area. Those commuters would love a Wally World, plus I see no real nimby issues in that location.

#69 OleSlewFoot on 07.14.13 at 11:45 am

If you were looking at the corridor map made 6 years ago, there are no housing development within 1/2 mile of 85th st to the north. So the argument of who was there first would be – The plan to build a major throughway would be first with the obvious plan to put major commercial/retail around it.

I would have to believe the next major segments of Hwy 100 will be Minn Ave to the Tea Exit if they have secured land rights. That is only a two year project. Hwy 11 from 57th to 69th has already been widened so I am wondering if the rest of that section will be last. There is really no development/traffic between there and Minn Ave. The state has also committed to finish Hwy 100 north to I90 within 5 years. The state also made a commitment to fund/finish the whole project last year when the city took over ownership of 25 miles of state highway.

#70 Pathloss on 07.14.13 at 12:01 pm

Wow, lots of constructive comment here. Certainly much more informative than the Argus and better reported than the networks. I suggest some of you donate to Southdacola so we can continue to get real news, truth, & unedited (undoctored) freedom of speech.

#71 anonymous2 on 07.15.13 at 9:22 am

I think “OleSlewFoot” may have been misinformed/misdirected by the map he is using as a reference in his discussion. It appears to me that although that document was released in 2007, the corridor designations have been super imposed over a much older satellite map. Basically, this map is not even close in “real time” as to what the neighborhood looked like in 2007. It does not show the actual extent of the development of the area at that time. The detail on the map is difficult to identify; BUT as I look at the Heatherridge II development and precisely where we built in 2005, I see that our location appears not to have established houses yet. And in fact, from what I can discern in the pic, I don’t think the base street for our area was put in. I think the land is in the stage of grading, developing the lots and a rough outline of the streets. Thus, from my perspective, the underlying base map is probably pre 2005 because we built (contracted it ourselves) in March of 2005. I believe there was curb and gutter when we started.

This exemplifies that unless one is well versed in every detail of the development of this area and unless one virtually has first hand knowledge of every detail, some information can be misleading.

#72 anonymous2 on 07.15.13 at 9:45 am

Regarding my just posted comment: Perhaps this is the same satellite map the “city” used when they started developing the Comprehensive 2035 map in 2007 which was approved in 2009. Maybe they didn’t actually come out and get the “lay of the land” when they decided to put the green dot at the corner of 85th and Minnesota. For those who may not have an understanding about this issue, the green dot placement is at the heart of the issue. Perhaps they were using a satellite map that was 2-3 years old. This referenced map is a perfect example of flaws that happen in these situations.

This issue is not about Walmart. That is the No.1 thing to understand.

#73 anonymous2 on 07.15.13 at 10:04 am

Hopefully, last post: Upon closer inspection, I see that the Braxton Drive location on the map does not have any houses!! And I know there were houses (or in construction mode) on Braxton Drive in Summer 2004. That makes the underlying map at least as early as the beginning of 2004. Using that map is flawed planning. It is ridiculous. We have a NATIONALLY RENOWNED, premier satellite mapping agency 30 miles from Sioux Falls.

#74 anony on 07.15.13 at 1:32 pm

I looked at the corridor map as well and estimate it to be from late 2003 to early 2004. Many of those lots north of 85th were platted in 2004 and grading/road layouts were being completed that summer. Leave it to them to use an aerial 3-4 years old in their study.

#75 Craig on 07.15.13 at 3:42 pm

I know this subject has been a dead horse for so long even the flies are avoiding it at this point, but I have but one question.

If Walmart doesn’t build on the corner then what will go there? They have suggested a development like the Bridges at 57th, but I’m not certain that area can support such a development at this time. Not to mention we know Walmart wants to go somewhere as they have been trying for several years – so where do they go?

No matter what goes on the corner, if the state won’t allow access directly from Minnesota you will end up with the same issue along Audie. Even if Walmart moves 1/8th mile further South and there is a retail development similar to the Bridges right along 85th as a ‘buffer’, the amount of vehicles entering and exiting 85th will still be very high.

Like it or not, eventually 85th is going to be a very busy road, and that intersection is going to see a steady flow of traffic through it on a daily basis. The only possible way I can see a way around that is to only allow residential or multi-family housing South of 85th – but again all you are doing is pushing the retail/commercial further South which still has to use Audie as an access point if the state won’t allow access directly from Minnesota. So what is gained at that point?

By the way – as has been said 100 times already, Walmart has no interest in building in Harrisburg nor do they want to be South of SD100, so you airchair land developers who think you know more about prime retail locations than the world’s largest retailer are probably wasting your time.

#76 anonymous2 on 07.15.13 at 9:55 pm

Craig, you are right. Dead horse talk: Really, “what else would they build there?” Is that the best you can do?

Walmart type store is the maximum intensity and everything else is downhill from that. I think it goes without saying that leaves many, many options that would not include truck after truck rolling down 85th and a steady stream of car after car. And that is distinctly different than 85th Street being a busy main arterial street, moving traffic across the city.

I don’t profess to be a airchair land developer. I’ll leave that for you. You did a good job with your response. By the way, if you don’t have any skin in the game, why should you fret and worry about what goes there anyway?

#77 rufusx on 07.15.13 at 11:28 pm

anon2 – go to Google Earth, enable the historical image feature in the view menu and check your memory. In June of 2007 – grading hadn’t even started yet anywhere south of Shady Hill street – 1/2 mile North of 85th and Minnesota.

#78 anonymous2 on 07.16.13 at 6:44 am

rufusx: I have known instances when Google Earth and Google map was not current. Despite that, Shady Hill is not anywhere near this project at 85th and Minnesota. It is off 77th Street and North of there. I have been living in Heatherridge II since 2005. My evaluation of the corridor map along with “anony” STANDS. That means our assessment is quite accurate. I used to work at EROS so I have moved beyond Map 101. I don’t know what W. Shady Hill has to do with this discussion anyway. Nothing like throwing in red herring to muddy up the waters.

#79 OleSlewFoot on 07.16.13 at 8:10 am

I pulled up the homes for sale in that area. There were homes about 2-3 blocks north of 85th built in 2005-06 for sale. The 2005 Google Earth map shows the lagoon but no streets near 85th. Just development about 1/4 mile north. And the development was completed on Audie by 2010.

Traffic will increase no matter what is on that corner as it will be something that is a destination store just because of the location.

#80 Testor15 on 07.16.13 at 8:32 am

“Nothing like throwing in red herring to muddy up the waters.”

I’ve noticed a lot of fishing for bullheads in this discussion just to get the waters muddied.

#81 Craig on 07.16.13 at 8:46 am

anon2: “Is that the best you can do?”

It is a sincere question. I’m legitimately interested in what options SON believes would be acceptable. I’ve heard they are ok with a “Bridges-like development” which isn’t reasonable to expect within the next five years, and other SON members have said they are ok with multifamily housing.

What other options are ok? Is it really just big box stores they don’t want or is it any 24 hour business which happens to draw a lot of customers? Would a 24hour McDonalds be ok with them?

anon2 “many options that would not include truck after truck rolling down 85th and a steady stream of car after car.”

Here is the problem – SON members have suggested other locations for Walmart would be better and they include Cliff and 85th. So they are saying all that truck traffic and “car after car” are ok with them provided they land somewhere else even if it means taking the same road.

The fact that 85th is actually a gravel road over there doesn’t seem to bother them, or the fact that there are several homes along that stretch of 85th which would be no further than some of the homes located on Audie from the proposed location.

Another location they have suggested? 69th and Southeastern – so I guess all the people who live along 69th or along Southeastern should all just suck it up with the truck traffic and steady stream of cars because SON knows better than Walmart where the store should go and being five minutes from an existing Walmart is a solid strategy apparently.

The truth is the truck traffic argument is silly. We aren’t talking about a truck stop or freight terminal where hundreds of trucks will be in and out daily.

Now I understand SON has concerns with safety for their children but this comes back to the argument of why they opted to build along a major road if they were concerned with traffic. 85th is only going to get busier and busier and is already graded and ready for two more lanes. We aren’t talking about a road where Wayne and Garth could play hockey here – it is major road which will likely see hundreds upon hundreds of cars daily within a few short years (with or without Walmart).

anon2: “I don’t profess to be a airchair land developer.”

Hopefully you can look beyond my grammatical error as I meant to type armchair – and I still find the humor in the fact that everyone seems to know a better location for Walmart than the highly paid analysts and consultants that do this for a living.

anon2: By the way, if you don’t have any skin in the game, why should you fret and worry about what goes there anyway?”

Like it or not, a development of this nature affects everyone who lives, shops, or works in Sioux Falls… not just those who live within 350′ of the entrance.

The actions being taken here even impact many other projects due to the vote on Shape Places, and the decisions made here will impact development as our city continues to expand. Wherever Walmart lands, it will have an effect upon urban sprawl and will spur additional development.

#82 Detroit Lewis on 07.16.13 at 9:40 am

Something SF doesn’t have that would be perfect for that location would be an outlet mall. While that may bring the same amount of traffic, their hours of operation are usually limited and not 24 hours, they also bring in a diversity of stores, restaurants and bars. I am not a fan of the mall, and to be quite honest with you it is too expensive. I also am not a fan of large stores, whether that is Target, HyVee or WM. Diversity is the key to making that development better. This hillybilly, one-stop shopping attitude in SF has got to get better. One of the biggest complaints I hear from my ‘professional’ friends is that there is no good clothing stores in SF and they buy most of their clothing in Mpls. Bigger isn’t always better.

#83 anonymous2 on 07.16.13 at 10:18 am

Look, Craig, I am not going to answer your question about what should go in there so you can then call me an armchair developer and put me on the defensive.

But common sense tells me that there must be SOMETHING ELSE (quite a few something elses) besides a big box store that could go there that would not create the same degree of intense traffic.

As for Walmart, it is abundantly clear that they have the ability to find a right location–the 60th Street North is a good choice. My suggestion is that they should look for another like that. That is not getting into armchair development; it is called common sense. Plan ahead. That is what a lot of businesses do.

I began my initial post on this thread because the “city” ( is posting a map that is FLAWED. It is holding out a corridor map dated 2007 as if it is based on 2007 satellite data when in fact it is primarily based on development status in the area as it was in the 2003/2004 time frame. To me that is a huge misrepresentation. My 2005 house is not in the 2007 corridor map so I know the map is flawed.

I think there are some people reading this post that really don’t understand that the map is FLAWED.

So I have to ask myself, were they using that satellite map to develop the 2035 comprehensive plan map?

If people REALLY want to know what this area looked like in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, they need to get satellite maps from the Data Center. It appears that one cannot rely on the city data to be accurate representations.

#84 Detroit Lewis on 07.16.13 at 10:55 am

Kinda looks like they expect WM to move in no matter what anyone thinks;

#85 Craig on 07.16.13 at 12:28 pm

DL: “Something SF doesn’t have that would be perfect for that location would be an outlet mall”

Most outlet malls are near Interstates highways or major highways, and most stores in outlet malls are required to be X number of miles away from the non-outlet versions of their stores so they don’t compete with one another which is why you find outlet malls 20 or 30 miles outside of major metro markets.

Needless to say, 85th and Minn is not a suitable location. I will agree with you that diversity is nice, and a development like the Bridges would be great… but I’m not sure that area can support it yet. The problem we have in Sioux Falls is an overabundance of available retail and commercial space. There are strip malls all across town that have been vacant for months or even years – so securing financing for a series of strip malls would be difficult.

The reality is everyone has these brilliant ideas for what to put on that corner, but you don’t see any developers clamoring to buy the land and do something, because the market won’t (yet) support it. Walmart is the only player who has expressed interest so if they aren’t allowed to build there… then where will be they be allowed to build? Keep in mind we can’t annex land that isn’t contiguous with city limits, so we can’t easily push Walmart a mile further South.

anon2: “But common sense tells me that there must be SOMETHING ELSE (quite a few something elses) besides a big box store that could go there that would not create the same degree of intense traffic.”

I’m sure there are… I’m just curious if SON has any specific ideas since they seem to want to dictate what landowners are allowed to do with their own land.

Come to think of it, the land is zoned agricultural… so maybe someone should build a hog confinement operation!

Kidding of course – but several SON members have admitted they shop at Walmart, so they are ok with the traffic being in other neighborhoods… just not their own. Minnesota is a major arterial roadway meant for high volumes of traffic. 85th is also a major arterial roadway designed to be expanded in phases to handle a high volume of traffic. If two major roads are not a sufficient location for a major retailer, then where is a sufficient location for a major retailer?

Every other location proposed by the SON group is either so far out of town that Walmart would not be interested, or they are in an area which impacts others rather than the members of SON.

Let’s be realistic. Walmart doesn’t want to build in Harrisburg nor Tea. They want to be within a few minutes drive of the highest number of people possible, and that requires them to be in some fashion connected to Sioux Falls either in an existing area or in an area which will be developed within the next few years. They tried 69th and Cliff but were shot down for many of the same reasons people are bringing up here, and now SON is suggesting they go back to 85th and Cliff because and intersection of a two lane road and a gravel road is apparently better suited for high volumes of traffic.

Any way you slice it, it boils down to a select group of individuals who failed to account for future development, and now their failure to plan has drove them to wish to control expansion and development after the fact. They can use arguments about traffic or safety of their children or noise from trucks or light pollution or whatever – but if you boil it down it really all comes down to them not being cognizant of what type of development might occur at the cross section of two major roadways.

#86 Detroit Lewis on 07.16.13 at 1:39 pm

So Craig, you are basically saying that if a WM or other large store like a Target or HyVee doesn’t go there, nothing can go there? I don’t believe that. The SON people have only had two requests of WM. Smaller store not open 24 hours, and if WM doesn’t want to do that, what is there from stopping another retailer willing to do that from moving in there?

#87 Craig on 07.16.13 at 3:18 pm

No not at all – I’m merely asking two primary questions.

Number one, what types of things would they find acceptable, and number two (and more importantly), since we know Walmart wants another store in the area… where should it go?

I’m sure they would love that property to remain a cornfield for the next decade but that isn’t realistic, and the fact is with the announcement about the development further South on the East side of Minnesota, it somewhat makes it less likely that we will see a “Bridges-type” development there.

As to Walmart – they need a large piece of property, and they historically don’t want to build outside of town but rather on the edge where additional development will occur around them and where their customer base will surround them rather than having to drive to them as a destination. So where can they go where we have the infrastructure to support such as store and that makes sense from Walmart’s perspective?

SON (and many others) seem to think they have the answers, but when pressed for detail they offer locations that aren’t feasible. They have suggested building it in Harrisburg and even the Tea Interstate exit as if Walmart wants to be in the middle of nowhere. They have also suggested Cliff and 85th which is several years behind 85th and Minnesota in terms of development. They also suggested 69th and Southeastern which not only puts it a few minutes away from an existing Walmart, but it also puts it near other existing residential (which I thought was the major complaint about 85th and Minn).

Their preferred location for Walmart is Hwy 106 and Minnesota Ave which puts it one mile further South in the middle of nowhere and which has existing homes which are in closer proximity to the intersection on all four corners than what those who live on Audie are to 85th and Minnesota.

So again – it seems Walmart isn’t the problem at all provided someone else has to live by it.

#88 Scott on 07.16.13 at 6:15 pm

I have to agree with Craig on one point. The only kind of retail that could work this is sadly a big box store; a destination type of store. People do drive out of their way to go to a Walmart, Target, or HyVee. They won’t for a Lewis or Zandbroz. Hell, even stores just a few blocks south of the mall have trouble making it. That’s why I laugh when people tell me my family should built at certain sections of town, or neighboring towns. While it may be convenient for them, all of these suggestions are for places that people drive away from, not to. That’s the problem here.

#89 Testor15 on 07.16.13 at 7:01 pm

DL, all the talk about nothing south of SD100 is bunk as usual. WM is being built by Lloyd on Lloyd controlled land. If Lloyd had the options on the land south of SD100, it very likely would be there in a heartbeat.

#90 rufusx on 07.17.13 at 12:26 pm

The initial development of SD 100 began way back in the late 1990’s. The version posted dated 2007 is simply the final alignment map – there were multiple alignment possibilities being studied over the course of about 10 years before the final decision was made. By 2003, the general alignment was already known – just not the specific details – foot-by-foot, relation to intersecting roads (down to the foot), where stream/drainage crossings would be – PRECISELY, etc. etc. To say that where HWY 100 would run (within a couple hundred feet anyhow) prior to 2007 is simply disingenuous. The alignment near 85th/Minn. has not changed since 2003, some other segments (particularly North of Madison, crossing Rice, and at the junction with SD 11) have. The biggest alignment changes however, have been on the WEST side segment (west of I-29) where it is now more than 1/2 mile variant from the earlier iterations.

#91 carhart605 on 07.17.13 at 4:13 pm

If SDDOT saw fit to make alignment changes on the western segment of SD100 why can’t they do so on the southern flank of SD100?

No where in Sioux Falls has growth been as explosive as it has in the southern part of town. It seems to me that a plan that dates back to the late 1990’s could never have envisioned the amount of growth that southern SF would have. The SD100 plan is outdated as growth and development has already caught up to and surpassed the SD100 southern corridor.

As I understand it, most of the necessary easements haven’t even been purchased yet. The SDDOT needs to move SD100 1/2 mile south to 106 where easements already exist. It would save use (taxpayers) money and time, not to mention make a hell of a lot more sense.

#92 rufusx on 07.18.13 at 12:31 am

Because carhart – they’ve already acquired the rights of way based on the 2007 alignments. I.E., spent your taxpayer $$$. the land on either side of the alignment has been gobbled up by various developers who already have plans/potential buyers working for those locations/ tons and tons of engineering design $$ have been spent. It’s not a frugal taxpayer $$ responsible idea at all to now abandon the alignment and seek a new one. That’s why they plan things out and acquire rights of way DECADES in advance. Cost savings for the taxpayer. But who the hell gives a crap about the taxpayer? – certainly not self-centered NIMBYs.

#93 carhart605 on 07.18.13 at 3:31 pm

Missing the point Ruf. Those same rights of way that were aquired “based on 2007 alignments” that were done decades ago surround the entire city. If you can change the west side, you can just as easily change the south side. Additionally, not all of the necessary easements have even been purchased yet. Using coming sense and stating the facts, doesn’t make someone a Nimby or self-centered. Informed is a better word.

Leave a Comment