It will be interesting to watch how this turns out at the ballot. I am sure if it were voted on today, WM would win, but at least SON will have an opportunity to educate the public on their situation before the election.
City clerk, Lorie Hogstad threw out 1159 of the challenges and said. Â SON ended up with 5343. Â They needed 5089. Â Son ended up with 82% after the challenge, city sample a few weeks ago tested at 86%.
It was quite an accomplishment. The election is April 8, 2014.
Congratulations SON on taking this issue to a public vote!
I know the AL polls are less than scientific, but they are running one on this today.
I don’t care what the argus polls say, I just want Pat Lolly to tell me how to vote.
With friends like the “headline in the Argus today”, who needs a fair chance? Save Our Neighborhood does. The Argus made it all about Walmart with that headline. This is a foretelling of what is to come. SON needs to call the Argus on this biased headline.
The real news was that S.O.N. PREVAILED. Isn’t the headline suppose to reflect that?
Well, it *is* all about Walmart. SON hasn’t prevailed at anything of actual consequence. Also, let’s not pretend that five percent is indicative of anything. This could be close. Walmart could win easily. To the extent anyone has done any early probing at this point regarding the spring election, I’m guessing it’s been Walmart.
The only way SON has a fighting chance here is if they pony up some cash, hire a consultant, let the consultant call the shots, and then shut up and let the consultant work. There are arguments against Walmart that I think could resonate in this community, but I know for sure that a bunch of rich suburban housewives are lousy messengers. These ladies are the Anne Romneys of Sioux Falls.
But to that end, I’ve never been able to discern a clear strategy from SON. Are they truly committed to running the kind of campaign that can win? Or was this petition drive and all the legal hocus-pocus merely an effort to deter Walmart in the hopes that they would pull the plug and consider another location?
I guess we’ll know soon enough whether they have an actual plan or not. But I’m confident that Walmart won’t hesitate to up their ad buys, run more indirect PSA-type commercials about their community involvement, etc. A couple hundred grand to get this store open is a drop in the bucket for them.
The election is April 8, 2014. Let’s assume for a second that it means Walmart wins by a landslide (at least 65% of the vote in favor)… what does that mean for the timetable to build the store?
At this point, moving their plans to another location wouldn’t save them any time because they would have to start over. I suspect they are committed here – and in the scope of things April is right around the corner.
So SON was successful in the one thing they really wanted to accomplish – delay Walmart.
If you guys knew anything factual about SON’s efforts you would know that this is NOT about Walmart for them. This is purely about zoning. Even if Walmart moves to another location tomorrow, SON is still in the same position–the highest allowed commercial zoning directly adjacent to their single family homes. The fight is still the same for them, Walmart or not. I am confident SON will be launching a well organized campaign in the next few months. I know for a fact that they had a meeting with a very respected campaign manager just a few weeks ago and I would bet the ball is already rolling. And let’s not forget the pending lawsuit with the SD Supreme Court regarding the annexation. If the sioux falls voters do decide to uphold the zoning decision, would the city and WM really be dumb enough to break ground on this project with this lawsuit pending? If the Supreme Court sides with SON (which is very possible) it would take this project back to the waaaaaay beginning with the land zoned as agriculture.
Both the AL’s publisher and the reporters who cover local politics are all new to Sioux Falls.
It’s going to be interesting to watch over the next five months as they report on the hot-button issues of snowgates, swimming pools and Walmarts!
It will reveal the direction the paper is going to take under new leadership…..
“If you guys knew anything factual about SON’s efforts you would know that this is NOT about Walmart for them. This is purely about zoning.”
You’re right… that is why they were all so upset when Walmart wanted to build at 69th and Cliff and why they all joined the opposition to prevent it from happening – because they just care so much about zoning that they could never remain silent when a big box stores wishes to build next to a residential neighborhood.
Oh wait.
Craig
You are really out of touch on this issue.
The SON that opposed the 69th & Cliff is a different group of citizens. They were the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding that piece of land.
When the 85th & MN announcement was made last spring, the residents of THIS neighborhood started their own SON group. Not really sure why they chose the same name…but none the less, a different group of people.
As I said…”NOT about Walmart”
The SON group has said numerous times, if Walmart would merely jump across the street, on the east side of Minnesota Ave, they would not oppose it.
They would however continue on the same path they are currently taking in order to stop the decision to rezone land directly adjacent to their single family homes as high density commercial.
Maybe I will repeat if one more time Craig…It’s NOT about Walmart!
In my opinion, one problem is there is a “certain segment” that wishes to define the SON group as something they are not.
For the life of me, I cannot wrap my brain around the idea of putting a C4 biz in that very spot. (Walmart or not.) I look to poor City Planning as the issue–not Walmart per se. Again, I reiterate, it is not about Walmart! In order to deal with this issue, one has to deal with the “Walmart plan.” That doesn’t mean it *is* about Walmart.
“I am confident SON will be launching a well organized campaign in the next few months.”
They don’t have a next few months. The time for them to launch a well-organized campaign was when they started taking out petitions months ago. Likewise, that SON lawsuit is going to get laughed out of the appellate court the same way it got laughed out of the lower court.
Finally, to tag onto Craig’s point, the “our” is Save Our Neighborhood is their subdivision. That’s abundantly clear from the inconsistency of their involvement on the Walmart issue. Likewise, I’m guessing the 69th and Cliff crowd doesn’t much care about this Walmart going in at 85th and Minnesota.
This is, was, and always has been a NIMBY issue. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure, there were definite differences in compatibility between those two locations, but it’s definitely not some broader commitment to the direction of land use policy that’s driving any of this. It’s a bunch of rich, unsympathetic housewives who don’t want the hoi polloi shopping near them.
I’m not saying you couldn’t make other arguments against Walmart locating there, simply that it’s not those arguments motivating that neighborhood. When they talk like this, it’s just a transparent, ex post facto effort to find a better rationalization for their motivation than their real motivation – which is a perfectly understandable motive but one that generates a lot less sympathy.
It’s never been merely a NIMBY issue; rather it’s an intelligent development issue. It’s a community stewardship issue. It’s an issue about real tax revenue, real jobs, and minimizing costs to the city.
Read: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/walmart_an_economic_cancer_on_our_cities/ – then research the studies underlying it. Generally a downtown development yields 7 times the property tax per acre, 12 times the number of jobs per acre (and jobs paying much better), and about 10 times the total revenue to the city’s economy.
Then read: http://wyofile.com/samuel/a-memo-from-minnesota-cities-need-to-rethink-growth/
Slow down and due the math. Otherwise folks; step right up here and get your Ponzi starter kit – free from the banksters, developsters, and your friendly Wal-Mart.
@ neighbor: We’ll see how out of touch I am on April 8th.
@ 123annonymous: I see you missed my sarcasm, but yes as hornguy has already pointed out, my prior comment was designed to highlight the fact that SON might act as if this is all about zoning and that they are so concerned that this might happen elsewhere, but the fact is, to the best of my knowledge, not a single member of SON was involved in stopping Walmart from building at 69th and Cliff.
So if we are honest for a moment, it might not actually be about Walmart, because they are perfectly content with Walmart building anywhere other than next to them. However, it really isn’t about zoning either – at least in general terms, because if it were they would have been vocal when Walmart wanted to build at 69th and Cliff.
What it really is about is NIMBYism. In fact, certain members of SON have suggested numerous other locations – several of which have single family homes directly adjacent to them. So at least for some of them it isn’t about C4 next to residential, but rather C4 next to their own personal homes.
This gets back to why SON should have had someone controlling their message months ago, because several of their members have been off message numerous times and have diluted SON’s credibility. They might be trying to say this isn’t about Walmart now, but when their members suggest a Trader Joe’s or “Bridges-Like” development is ok while Walmart is not – what message do you think they are sending?