Once again, as if the city’s legal department didn’t learn a lesson when the SD Supreme Court and Open Meetings Commission handed them their asses in three major cases and an open meetings violation, they continue to make crap up as they go along;
City loses access to Tuthill Park Hills drainage project
Oct 5, 2013 • J.L. Atyeo • Argusleader
Residents along a backyard creek in southeast Sioux Falls have halted a drainage project for now by showing the city does not have access to their land.
The city had planned to address an erosion issue in the Otonka channel, where increased flows have cut steep banks and threaten to topple trees. A group of residents in the Otonka Trail area didn’t like that the plans involved removing trees that create a natural oasis in their urban neighborhood.
They had lawyer Mark Meierhenry review the original 1964 plat for the Tuthill Park Hills Addition, and he found the city has no easement rights to develop the drainage channel.
Given that the city has used the channel for drainage for the past 49 years, assistant city attorney Paul Bengford said the city could have developed prescriptive easement. Others argue the channel never was meant to be used for drainage.
To clear things up, the city could ask residents to sign a new easement, but gathering support probably would be a challenge.
“We can’t really do the project without getting everyone on board,†said Andy Berg, the city’s principal drainage engineer.
Jarrod Edelen, who lives along the creek, said he’d rather maintain the channel himself. He’s been talking with neighbors about what they could do to preserve the area.
He doesn’t deny, though, that there is a drainage problem. He and the city disagree on its source.
Some residents say flows increased when land along 49th Street was developed, causing water to be sent downhill toward Otonka.
The city’s Public Works Department is researching the issue. Director Mark Cotter said they plan to update residents next week and hold a follow-up meeting.
“We certainly want to work with the neighborhood,†he said.
The easement issue came up during a meeting the city hosted Sept. 26. Before public works officials could present project plans, Cindy Ahrendt-Sivesind, a resident who has been vocal in her opposition to the project, handed out copies of Meierhenry’s opinion that says the city has no drainage easement.
“They’ve got a problem,†she said.
Some complained it was unnecessary to have two police officers present at the meeting. Cotter said it’s common to have an officer at a public meeting, and there were two at the Otonka Trail meeting because one was a training officer.
Here we go down the same path where when the city wants something they get their ‘crack’ legal team on it. Say what you will about Meierhenry, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar, a former AG knows a little bit more about city and state law then Mr. Code Enforcement city attorney Bengford, who consistently twists city ordinances so much they look like the nipple of a sow who just had 20 piglets.
As for the coppers at the meeting. WOW. Talk about intimidation. So now we need a police presence when people talk about ‘drainage’? Next time I advise the group to all be brandishing pistols on their hips when they attend a public meeting. Pretty ridiculous? Right? Just as ridiculous as having a couple of pigs attend a meeting about ditches.
Wonder if police officers attend meetings with developers when they are asking for bulkheads and TIF’s from the city? Or if they are just handed a thick envelope and go merrily on their way to a hospital lunch counter or fast food parking lot.
The “pigs” comment is a little undeserved, don’t you think? Do you know these officers? Did you talk to them? Did you ask them if they had any additional information which required their presence at this meeting? I didn’t think so! All they were doing was acting on orders from their superiors. How dare you treat these officers with such disrespect. I’d would venture to say you wouldn’t have the intestinal fortitude to address them in such a manner to their face. As for these fine young men I’m sure they would have much rather been somewhere else. As is generally the case, if something were to happen at this meeting requiring police attention and they wern’t present you would wonder why and where the they were! And another thing I think it is about time we give the men and women of our PD the credit and thanks they so rightly deserve, after all it is because of them that we have the safe community we do.
“I’d would venture to say you wouldn’t have the intestinal fortitude to address them in such a manner to their face.”
Kinda like you commenting on a blog without using your real name?
Trust me, this isn’t the first time I have seen officers at public meetings being used for intimidation. And yes, I know they are following ‘orders’. I think it is a very, very, very sad day when public officials are so paranoid of the citizens that pay their wages they have to bring police protection with them. So I am sorry for calling them pigs, maybe the real pigs sit in the city’s attorney offices.
“I think it is a very, very, very sad day when public officials are so paranoid of the citizens that pay their wages they have to bring police protection with them. So I am sorry for calling them pigs, maybe the real pigs…”
This reminds me of Kristi Noem not having public events because someone might ask her a question. The answer will rest between the blank stares and “ahh” “ahh” “Oh, gotta go…”
When I read they had officers attend the meeting, I could not believe what I was reading. Well, do you suppose city officials are getting paranoid b/c they are getting so much blow back from the citizens–over one thing or another? Hmmmmm….what does that say, if anything, to them?
I think the pig thing was “not so good” b/c it diminished the value of all of the rest of what you had to say. I’ve screwed up too in something I wrote.
Actually, I have yet to have a good experience with a PO in SF. So by using the word ‘pig’ I am being nice.
l3wis, I have been driving in this town for over 40 years, never been stopped for anything. I have also had plenty to say about red light cameras and permissible speeds our traffic patrol ignores. If I were to use my real name, I am certain I would have been stopped several times over the last few years. Prolly the only reason I lay low low about my user name.
Have you ever wondered if you are being harassed because of this blog?
I have not been harrassed, and I can’t even remember my last ticket. But I have some ‘experiences’ over the years. I sometimes wonder if SF officers have to go thru some kind of citizen relation courses?
While I think calling our PD is not at all earned, what I have read about this drainage ditch fiasco the city has certainly acted quite boarish.
The city tore up their lawns, cut down their trees and did very little to explain their intent. Now to find that there is no city easement. This is a huge F@^k up. Why is the city screwing around with a drainage issue in a citizens property?
Heads would roll in city hall if I had my say. Way too many high paid dumb asses.
Notice how Stormland had Cotter on last night with the happy-clappy home owner? I didn’t notice a homeowner who wasn’t happy their yards are going to be used to drainage for the upstream out of town businesses.
I am so confused!
On October 7, 2013 Detroit Lewis wrote:
Detroit Lewis on 10.07.13 at 1:41 pm
Actually, I have yet to have a good experience with a PO in SF. So by using the word ‘pig’ I am being nice.
But on August 27, 2013 the same Detroit Lewis posted this:
#11 Detroit Lewis on 08.27.13 at 4:18 pm
I would agree, I am not saying our PD do a bad job, in fact I often tell people our too greatest public assets are our parks and our police force (public safety). I just wonder sometimes what our protocol is when it comes to responding to these types of calls. If officers 1, 2 and 3 are responding, why do 3 more show up?
I can only come to 2 conclusions. #1 Detroit Lewis is bi-polar. #2 Detroit Lewis doesn’t know the difference between two and too (see the August 27 post).
First off, thanks for correcting my typo. If I had a dime for every typo I made on this site, I would be a rich man 🙂
Secondly, this thread is about the paranoia that exists among our city directors that they have to bring police protection to a public meeting. It has nothing to do with the police themselves. So I called them pigs, I often do. I don’t like cops, plain and simple.
As for public safety, I think the SFPD does a good job, that being said, I think they need to work on how they interact with the public, and I think there needs to be a proper procedure put in place to file a complaint against a harassing officer, currently there is not. Treating everyone like a criminal is not the right approach when they see something suspicious. I still remember the jogger that was jogging at night in the winter and they suspected him to be a burglar. That is ridiculous.
No one who hasn’t got a negative intent in the motives should be intimidated by the presence of a police officer. Myself, when I attend city meetings and a police officer is present – and I attend quite a few – and challenge the city hierarchy quite a bit – I’m pleased to se them there – not intimidated – as police officers make EXCELLENT witnesses to crimes/event that may their presence. For example – city councilors that violate city ordinances. If you think you’re on the RIGHT side of the law (which you seem to think a lot DL) those folks are on YOUR side. You should learn to recognize who your allies are.
PS – IMO the “paranoia” you sense in city officials is YOUR projection onto them. This site is stuffed to the gills with all sorts of paranoid conspiracy theories – REALLY. Take a close look at it sometime without taking sides with one strain of poster or other. You’ll see a lot of frightened folk.
Likewise – treating every act of government like its some sort of crime is not the right approach.
Hype on – it’s almost like the “main stream media” here – focus and spin on the sensational -= boosts the “ratings” (page views).
I would agree there is a need for officers at certain public meetings, like the city council meetings or planning meetings. But I have never seen the officers used to ‘protect the public’ they are specifically their to protect the mayor and council, which is fine. I remember one meeting where someone speaking their mind during the 5 minute input had a officer walk up behind him and act like he was going to arrest him, and the next week when I came to speak out about it, an officer followed me to my seat. It is intimidation. They know who butters their bread and they know ultimately who they have to listen to, their bosses.
Let’s talk about some of my conspiracy theories and paranoia.
Remember my theory about the Dems helping De Knudson run for council against Staggers, oh wait, that turned out to be true. Then there was the one where Powers was running a campaign business while working for the SOS, oh, wait, that turned out to be true. Or the SFPD chasing petitioners in a public parking lot (that was truly public)That was also true. Pretty ironic isn’t that the PD weren’t there to protect the interest of the citizens, they were summoned by a private baseball club manager. Have my theories always been correct? Nope, but a lot of the time they lead to the truth thru the discussion on this blog. I suppose if I had an inkling something corrupt was going on, I could just keep my mouth shut, but that has what has kept the Republicans in power for 35 years in this state, an ignorant and apathetic public.
And, councilor Erpenbach just said something very telling during the CC info meeting, Staggers asked about the PD being at the meeting during open discussion and Erp said if was ‘the sign of the times’. How ironic, citizens not trusting public officials and public officials not trusting citizens. Maybe they should work on that. I’m just saying.
If you think you’re on the RIGHT side of the law (which you seem to think a lot DL) those folks are on YOUR side. You should learn to recognize who your allies are.
Ruf….how fricking naive can you possibly be on this issue? You’re right on some , but dead wrong on this one.
My major issue with the SFPD is safety. They ignore posted speed limits and hide behind bushes ticketing red light runners because they were going so fast they ran a red. My perception? They encourage speed to write more tickets. Look at any grade school. Where are they? Hiding behind a bush on a side street waiting to nab the speeder who is going 20 in a 15. How many ticket would they write and how much SAFER would it be if that patrol car were parked in the open by a school?????
Another example. About 20 years ago my son had a 1970 Ford Mustang muscle car. He worked hard to buy it and he loved it. For his senior prom he asked me if he could drive my car. My car? A vehicle designed for taking six kids to a volleyball game? I asked why? He said he was being harassed by SF’s finest. We swapped vehicles that night. He got by fine. Me….not so much. I drove that vehicle down Minnesota Avenue at 11 pm being very careful to follow all the rules. Sure enough, about 30th and Minnesota I picked up a tail. And when I say tail , I mean tailgating by a patrol car. I was eventually pulled over. He was surprised to see an adult and finally asked if I’d been drinking. I asked why. He said I was swerving???? After I passed all the blow and balance tests I was sent on my way.
So ruf….is there a built in prejudice with our “finest”?
God damned right there is.
Yes, they are taught to use a form of profiling (stereotyping) as a part of the way they do their jobs. My approach – rather than to fear and avoid, has been to introduce myself – get to know the officers. Then the stereotypes fall away – because you become a real person -not an anonymous one. At least – that’s the way it works in “small towny” cities like SF. I never get hassled – by cops – but I do by “citizens”.
In the real big city(s) – not so much – but then – I don’t match the “trouble-maker” stereotypes there either. I only get hassled when I am associating with the “wrong people” for a particular neighborhood – if you get my drift.
When’s the last time you saw a beat cop – an actual cop, walking a neighborhood, talking to people? Nowadays, the biggest cost to hiring new officers is not salary, not benefits, but a cruiser.
How much safer could we make our older (walkable) neighborhoods if we reinstated beat cops, and how much more cheaply could we do it? Not to mention, walking, talking officers tend to be more involved with and sympathetic to the neighbors concerns than Speed Trap Johnny out at 57th & Cliff.
Tom, they’re afraid to get out of their cruisers and get exercise.
Go to google. Search for “Walk A Block Sioux Falls”
http://www.ksfy.com/story/22380740/walk-a-block-with-a-cop-program-to-begin-in-pettigrew-heights
http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26891&Itemid=57
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DF&Dato=20130609&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=306090802&Ref=PH
Just another casualty of our suburban experiment.
Ruf – what kind of ‘profile’ did petitioners fit when they were asked to leave a public parking lot? If anything the PO’s should have came and saw they were not breaking any laws, told the petitioners they could stay as long as they stayed in the lot and went to the club manager and said, “They can stay they are not doing anything wrong.” Isn’t that the job of an officer? To uphold the law?
I can’t wait for the part of this saga in which a highly compensated employee in the city legal dept farms this issue out (for a high level of remuneration) to an outside legal team for action.
… same way the highly compensated employees in the city engineering dept farm everything out (for high levels of remuneration) to engineering consultants.
Well said Guernsey…..They get paid to read emails and hire contractors, that’s it.
When is the last time our city engineers actually engineered anything other than a cluster fuck.
The petitioners “profile” in the parking lot was COMPLAINTS about their behavior.
How is asking a registered voter to sign a petition on public property ‘harrassment’ or better yet against the law? I am willing to guess the manager of the baseball club pulled this card out of his ass while talking to the PD. But of even more concern is why didn’t the officers realize they were not breaking the law, and they could continue? I may sound like a broken record, but this crap goes on constantly in this town. A PO’s job is to uphold the law, he or she is not judge and jury, they are to uphold the law, and if a citizen is not breaking it, they are not to create some bullshit scenario.