Argus Leader ’100 Eyes’ Guest TODAY (2/27/14)

100eyelogo

Get your questions ready, I am the guest for Today’s show. I’m sure we will be talking about DaCola and city politics. Pretty excited about it.

I might even talk about how a former city councilor told me tonight that I ‘Chickened Out’ running for council.

13 comments ↓

#1 tara volesky on 02.23.14 at 9:09 am

Ask them when are they going to start interviewing the senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial candidates.
Also are they going to question anybody from the GOED or Joop Bollen or the attorneys involved.

#2 pathloss on 02.23.14 at 9:56 am

You didn’t chicken out. Everybody knows a majority on the Council votes as Huether and developers wish. It’s a tie – in that’s business or bribe related. Who could sit on a council where your vote makes no difference. It’s public solitary & you get the blame even tho you voted against the nonsense. Councilors can be named in civil rights lawsuits. Their bond is excepted and you could lose your assets.

This council is the herd headed over the cliff blindly following the mayor.

If I grew up to be a politician I’d want you as press secretary. You’re good at screening out human flaw and polishing bad news. Your background here is what’s required for such a resume.

#3 Winston on 02.25.14 at 11:23 pm

Ask Montgomery when he is going to write and publish his piece about Berez, which he promised to do on “100 eyes’ back in November.

Berez is the former Chief Adjudicator for the USCIS, which oversees the EB-5 programs nationally, who after leaving DC at the end of the Bush43 administration in 2009 came to SD to work for the SDRC along with Bollen and Brenda, only to then leave sometime in 2011/12.

As the Chief Adjudicator he had complete reign in deciding the job creating multipliers which would be assigned to Regional Centers.

How these multipliers work is that they literally multiply the number of $ 500,000 foreign investment into a Regional Center you can have based on job creation. For instance, if the combined RC investment project creates, let us say 100 jobs, but the multiplier is 29+, like the one which Berez authorized for the gaming RC in South Dakota, then that means that actually 2900 and not 100 jobs were created, which means you can continue to mine for investors through this RC until you max-out at 2900 jobs or indirect jobs created, and with each $ 500,000 investment assigned to the creation of ten jobs then that means that the multiplier and not the realistic expectation of a given project determines the value of the given project in terms of job creation making the multiplier grantor key and crucial to the ability of a RC to raise capital.

Under Berez, it was also ruled that even if the total EB-5 investments into a given project represent only, let us say, 20% of the total investment into a given project, that the EB-5 investors still get credit for 100% (plus the multipliers as well) of the total job creation from a given project to justify their investment and additionally other future investments as well.

Then after all of this, he came to South Dakota…. Mr. Montgomery how is the story coming along?

#4 Sy on 02.27.14 at 12:13 pm

Ask them if we legalize Marijuana would they change the name to 100 Red Eyes?

#5 Progressive cents on 02.27.14 at 6:34 pm

Scott,
Just listened to you on 100 eyes. Wanted you to know that the document that has federal government contingencies on the land at Spellerberg is real. “Save Spellerberg”members obtained it from court house records. It is dated Nov. 17th, 1955.

It states that the park is “to be continuously used only as and for park and recreational purposes in a manner in which, in the judgement of the “Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs ” or his designee, will not interfere with the care and treatment of patients in the Veteran’s Administration Hospital, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

This is why a previous park board member with a strong legal mind told us they never even considered doing any major changes to the park because of the quit claim deed.

It goes on to say if the land is not used in this way that “all right, title and interest shall cease and determine and the United States of America shall have the immediate right of possession thereof”.

There are parking issues already at the VA ….not all Veterans can find a spot in the lot NOW and already have to park on side streets. Ask a veteran or someone who drives their veteran to appointments!

Increased traffic from the Aquatic Facility and Swim meets will certainly make parking more difficult. The VA is a hospital, so to think no one comes to visit their friends and families on the weekends is unrealistic. Who will patrol where non-VA visitors park in the event of a large swim meet?

Do we really want to mess with a legal agreement with the U.S. Government?

I believe this is an issue that has been grossly overlooked in the Spellerberg debate. The mayor is aware of this document and previous administrations have honored it. He should have realized the potential hazards of placing this facility on federal land in the first place.

Vote “yes” on April 8th to replace the outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park!

An FYI: Both Costco and the proposed Aquatic facility have the same square footage foot print! Can you imagine a facility the size of Costco at Spellerberg, if not….come and look at the park!

#6 LJL on 02.27.14 at 10:08 pm

OMG… I didn’t think it was possible but Lalleys webcast is worse than his articles.

I can’t imagine what it would be like working for that puerile fool.

Set this imbecile free and give Ellis a shot.

#7 Jace on 02.27.14 at 10:52 pm

Yes, the quitclaim deed is real. Its authors were intuitive enough to foresee problems that would deny veterans access to their healthcare. It’s not up to veterans and the federal government to provide parking for any city amusement facility. When city leaders make poor business decisions selecting a site that international aquatic experts say will not succeed, then city leaders should correct their mistake. Maybe the city should build their indoor pool on land next to Sanford or Avera and let them know the city will be using their parking as needed and for swim meets. We know that would never happen but they’ll do that to veterans.

It’s unfortunate city officials have no regard for veterans or the military, much like some of our local media. They seem to think this is all a joke and belittle veterans with pseudo humor. I’ve heard the mayor has told people that it doesn’t matter how the vote turns out, he can do what he wants. If the no vote wins 8 April that does not guarantee the indoor pool will be built at Spellerberg.

#8 Johnny Roastbeef on 02.28.14 at 8:11 am

Nine one Scott!

#9 Sullivan on 02.28.14 at 12:00 pm

Progressive – you have revisited highly credible issues about which I’m in agreement. However, I suggest “Save Spellerberg” take the high road where measurable site comparisons are concerned. According to the figures I’ve seen, Costco is 148,000 SqFt under roof situated on 15 total acres. The Indoor Aquatic Center is planned to be 69,900 SqFt under roof – admittedly a VERY large and imposing building. However, the remaining 69,100 SqFt of the proposed 139,000 total SqFt indoor aquatic center is not elevated structure that necessarily blocks sight lines in the same way an enclosed building does. Yes, it’s likely asphalt and concrete that covers surface green space, but the impact on open vistas is not as acute as with a building. So, I think comparing the entire proposed indoor aquatic center footprint with the Costco building is a little misleading. I simply suggest not making assertions the indoor pool proponents can discount. Nevertheless, vote “YES” April 8!

#10 Sy on 02.28.14 at 1:23 pm

Everything the indoor opponents have said has been “a little misleading”.

I also believe the plan to use or share parking with the VA has been scrapped. They will develop their own spaces and there won’t be any impediment to a Vet getting their health care. The Aquatic center and the VA will have two totally different peak usage times, when one’s busy the other won’t be.

#11 anonymous on 02.28.14 at 4:21 pm

This is the information I believe many voters will be basing their April 8th decision on.

All information has been taken directly from the consultant’s report (see siouxfalls.org).

Page 28: This is the scenario the consultant has recommended:

Option 5: Large Indoor 50 meter by 25 yard competition pool with springboard diving and a separate 3,750 sq. ft. indoor leisure pool with current channel, and waterslide.

Page 38: Capital Cost of a Large Indoor Pool

Project Cost $18,519,000 (this has increased to 19.4m per Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney-Council Work Session, July 17, 2013)

Attendance:

80,104

Operating Costs:

2013

Revenue 355,823
Expense 1,048,552
Operating Cashflow -$692,729

2014

Revenue 364,598
Expense 1,074,766
Operating Cashflow -$710,168

2015

Revenue 373,483
Expense 1,101,635
Operating Cashflow -$728,152

2016

Revenue 382,477
Expense 1,129,176
Operating Cashflow -$746,699

2017

Revenue 391,582
Expense 1,157,405
Operating Cashflow -$765,824

The capital cost of the indoor pool ($19.4m) will require bonding.

According to the consultant’s numbers, the operating costs for the indoor pool for the first five years alone, will be $3,643,572.

As a way of illustrating this number, our community could have SEVEN new neighborhood parks for the $3.6m!!

#12 Progressive cents on 02.28.14 at 8:13 pm

Sullivan,
Thank you for your concurrence on the potential consequences of building this on federal land may have. To me, this is something many people may not realize as they consider their vote on April 8th.

Thank you for clarifying the footage comparisons between Costco and Spellerberg. Certainly the building and the asphalt/cement areas are different in affecting the vista of the park and I appreciate your pointing it out. However it is still a loss of green space when one loses the “green”of up to 100 trees. Thank you for your input and indeed; vote “yes” to keep an outdoor pool at speller berg Park!

#13 Scott on 02.28.14 at 8:56 pm

Oh Sy, everything both sides have said can be called a “little misleading”.

Leave a Comment