‘Save YOUR Neighborhood’ Ballot Committee filed today w/the Clerk’s Office



A new ballot question committee, Save Your Neighborhood, registered with the City Clerk today.  The Save Our Neighborhood group submitted the registration under a slightly different name, Save Your Neighborhood, to reflect the fact that the issues it faces and have addressed, affect neighborhoods throughout the City.

Save Your Neighborhood’s aim is to educate the public on the FACTS surrounding the rezoning of the land at 85th Street and Minnesota Avenue.

While Save Your Neighborhood lacks the financial resources of Walmart, it encourages the citizens of Sioux Falls to look past the vast funds that Walmart is expending to influence the voters’ decisions.  The group encourages citizens to discover the FACTS regarding the rezoning of this area, including the impact that rezoning of this area will have on the residential area next to it and the impact that the City’s decision will have on neighborhoods around the City.  If the City allows Walmart to buy zoning to allow it to build a commercial development next to this residential area, it makes every neighborhood in the City susceptible to the whim of developers.
Save Your Neighborhood is not opposed to the City’s growth, but maintains that such growth must be logical and consistent.  Further, the group welcomes commercial development and a Walmart to the south side of the City, but maintains that a large commercial development is inappropriate at this particular location.  There are far more appropriate building sites in southern Sioux Falls for this store.  Those locations would replicate the same proper buffering and improved access that our fellow citizens will soon enjoy at the new Walmart at 60th & Marion.
Save Your Neighborhood urges the citizens of Sioux Falls to send the City a message:  that our neighborhoods are not for sale to the highest bidder and zoning in this City cannot be bought.  Vote “NO” on Referred Law 4.

While I think there is many good things about Shape Places, I am also encouraging a “No” vote. Why? I believe if Shape Places fails, it doesn’t mean we have to shelve it and start from scratch, it just means we can tweak it. First thing I would like to see is it split up into sections, and have the council amend it (require CUP), study it and discuss and debate it in these sections. And instead of voting on all the sections at one meeting, Break the sections up into several meetings, so the council has time to focus on the different areas of Shape Places. Presenting an over 300 page document at two meetings then expecting the council to vote on the entire thing in one quick swipe was short sighted. Most of them confessed they didn’t read most of it because of it’s size. Of course, I believe that the Planning Department did this on purpose so the council wouldn’t bother with amendments or actually studying the document, I guess they were depending on good old apathy from the council, as usual, and the bigger rubber stamp, except, they didn’t count on SON referring it. I hope they learn a lesson from this and presenting legislation in such a half-ass way.


#1 rufusx on 02.25.14 at 11:15 pm

Identity crisis.

It’s OURS!
No – wait – it’s YOURS!
I mean – it’s not theirs, err, ours, no, no – I mean ……

#2 carhart605 on 02.26.14 at 7:36 am

I love the comparison using the new store going up at 60th & Marion. Go to that location and see for yourself that it’s over a half mile away from the closest single family residence and has 3 FULL access points. There aren’t 3 schools within a mile of that location either.

The store at 85th & Minnesota has 1 FULL access point off 85th St. (right across the street from the Schwan residence…oh wait, they moved it 200 feet to east…big deal) and a right in & right out off Minnesota Ave. That’s it folks, 1.5 entrances. Can say traffic jam? Also, Journey Elementary, Endeavor Elementary and the North Middle School are all within a mile of this site. That’s just bad planning on behalf of the city.

As a west-sider, this new store makes sense and that is why no one was opposing it. As a someone who appreciates smart growth and common sense (I guess that makes me a SON’er now), the south-side store is a boon-doggle and as Gary Hanson said at one of the council meetings, “When I was Mayor of Sioux Falls, this plan would have never even made it to my desk.” I guess that is the difference between good leadership in city government and what we currently are blessed with.

#3 circulator on 02.26.14 at 8:11 am

GRASSROOTS at its finest!!! Go Save Your Neighborhood Go!!!

#4 Testor15 on 02.26.14 at 8:27 am

Your right Ruf, it is every neighborhood

#5 Blue Bunny on 02.26.14 at 9:17 am

Let’s just name it what it really is – PBSPV – Protect Bonita Schwan’s Property Value.

I might start my own group – WNPAWWNOUCATL –
Why not put a Walmart where none of us can afford to live?

#6 Tom H. on 02.26.14 at 9:18 am

Man, I would be so ecstatic if there was a single neighborhood in Sioux Falls that looked like the graphic there. You know, like, a real neighborhood?

#7 SSS on 02.26.14 at 10:45 am

To Blue: “Where none of us afford to live?” Really?
When I bought our house 4 years ago it was reasonable price,mid-level home, and the same price as houses on East and West Side SF. Just because there are some nicer homes in the neighborhood, please don’t stereotype the neighborhood. I bet my house might be nicer then some in SF, but everywhere in SF there are nicer homes the some homes. Don’t just assume because people live South of 69th that they live in a high priced house. There are plenty of house on West side and East side that are way more expensive then some parts of that neighborhood. There are apartments, twin homes and mid-level single family homes mixed through that whole neighborhood.
This Vote is about putting a C-4 building across the street from a Residential neighborhood. It has nothing to do with Walmart, or Bonita Schwan. Walmart just happens to be the company that wants the land and Bonita Schwan just happens to be the closest Residential Home.
Nobody is denying that commercial stores are coming to 85/Minnesota, but what they are saying is make it like 57/Western, 69/Minnesota, Heck even 26/Marion and, 41st/Marion don’t have a C-4 on the corner.
There are so many things in the City Planning that don’t fit this C-4 location, but the Planners and City council just ignore stuff that doesn’t fit their ideas or wallets.

#8 rufusx on 02.26.14 at 12:04 pm

No – you’re wrong testor – it definitely doesn’t belong to THOSE people. You know -THEM (wink, wink).

#9 Ray G on 02.26.14 at 1:49 pm

Has anyone checked into if Walmart is getting a
deal as far as breaks in there realestate tax , like
some are getting in the down town development .

The 1.5 million tax revenue would most likely be
from sales tax , but did they figure that other stores
in the area would lose sales to Walmart and the
other stores would collect less in taxes. So what
is the net gain?

#10 OldSlewFoot on 02.26.14 at 7:11 pm

Net gain is the sales tax that will be taken from outlying towns and brought into Sioux falls to “build our Events Center off the backs of the working poor” as I saw Poly43 say earlier.

#11 Lewis on 02.26.14 at 9:30 pm

These are interesting stories;



#12 rufusx on 02.26.14 at 10:23 pm

Right – because we all know there are only “x-1” dollars in the whole world and there are and never will be any more. Dollars are physical things after all, they banks don’t just make them up out of thin air. (BIG eye roll).

And NO MORE PEOPLE will ever be moving to SF in the next 4-5 years – NONE – ZERO.

#13 rufusx on 02.26.14 at 10:26 pm

Oh -and nobody moves here from other parts of the world or the country either – they ALL come from a 50mile radius. And NOBODY that lives out side of that 50mile radius EVER buys anything from SD – or from SF. We eat all our own – exclusively.

#14 rufusx on 02.26.14 at 10:27 pm

Sioux Falls has an economy that is CLOSED to outside effects.

#15 Craig on 02.27.14 at 9:18 am

First, Walmart isn’t getting any TIFs so let’s be clear about that.

Second, unless Sioux Falls or the surrounding communities stop growing the day that Walmart opens its doors, aside from the initial short-term period their sales taxes will be a net gain. Yes the first day they open much of their revenue will be offset by reductions elsewhere, but over time the city grows, jobs are created, the tax base is expanded, and arterial development generates even more revenue.

It doesn’t matter what type of retail store is built whether it is a Walmart, Shopko, Target, Lewis, or Jim Bob’s Clothiers… when they open they are ‘stealing’ revenue and sales taxes from other stores… you don’t get all the benefits immediately, but as the city grows they become obvious.

The fact is, Walmart wouldn’t build another store if it wouldn’t increase their bottom line, and they understand their other two stores will likely see sales reductions after the third and fourth stores open, but that is a temporary issue, because when you have 20 people moving to Sioux Falls or the surrounding areas each and every day those people need places to buy things – and the cycle continues.

Third, I don’t really care about Walmart, but if you are going to build a big box store it should be at a location that makes sense. The intersection of a four lane divided state highway and a soon to be four lane divided roadway both of which will be within a 1/3rd mile of SD100? Yea that makes sense.

You know what doesn’t make sense? Building a $850,000 house on a road that was slated to be a connecting four lane divided road between I-29 and Minnesota Ave, which also will be across the street from office buildings, apartments, or multi-use, and which sits directly across from land which was currently zoned agricultural while thinking there is no possibility it could ever be zoned to allow a Walmart, Home Depot, Costco, or Billion Automotive.

My suggestion – build a fence and the next time you decide to build a home, try to find a developer that isn’t lying to you about what was originally supposed be built on your lot and a builder who isn’t known for cutting corners on his $115,000 starter homes. As to the rest of them, they back up against a mosquito breeding pond with a beatiful view of a future four-lane, 45mph road. A Walmart is the least of their concerns.

#16 rufusx on 02.27.14 at 3:23 pm

THIS bears repeating:

“You know what doesn’t make sense? Building a $850,000 house on a road that was slated to be a connecting four lane divided road between I-29 and Minnesota Ave, which also will be across the street from office buildings, apartments, or multi-use, and which sits directly across from land which was currently zoned agricultural while thinking there is no possibility it could ever be zoned to allow a Walmart, Home Depot, Costco, or Billion Automotive.”

And THEN blaming “the city” for your having made that decision. Hmmm – I wonder who’s “fault” the divorce was?

#17 85th stuckee on 02.27.14 at 6:48 pm

Nice Craig. Glad you did your homework. The city still has links to 2009 gis showing all as residential and light commercial on links such as parkwood ests not the mess they created now Why should it be expected to be Bonita’s fault. The city issued the permit for single family. Don’t blame her for mmm ,homans and Lloyd for being do frickn greedy. The pond gets sprayed too

#18 Craig on 02.28.14 at 12:24 pm

“Why should it be expected to be Bonita’s fault.”

Are you suggesting she bears none of the blame? She selected the development, the specific lot, and the builder. Yet I know she has complained about traffic and had to put up a fence so her son didn’t run out into traffic while chasing a basketball.

If this isn’t a lack of research what exactly is it?

#19 85th stuckee on 02.28.14 at 8:35 pm

Zoning is to provide a solution to conflicts in land use. The city permitted the lots up to 85th prior to 2035 plan Just like 57 and 69. Why won’t the city follow its own rules and protect single family residents Fences are used all over. Looks like Bonita’s is a sport court

#20 rufusx on 03.01.14 at 5:36 pm

85th – Do Single family residential zones take priority over all others? Is there a hierarchy of zones?

Commercial zoning is considered “transitional” and a buffer BETWEEN industrial uses and residential uses.

#21 rufusx on 03.01.14 at 5:37 pm

If commercial zones should not abut residential zones what zone should?

#22 rufusx on 03.01.14 at 5:50 pm

BTW – Bonita’s lot was NOT zoned single family when she decided to buy it and build on it.

#23 85th stuckee on 03.01.14 at 7:40 pm

It is now no one has said there would be no commercial at the corner. 185000 sq ft is not appropriate adjacent to residential no buffer and how do you enforce cond use. I believe residential was accorded the most protection in city’s zoning

#24 Craig on 03.03.14 at 9:13 am

stuckee – you do realize Walmart won’t be sitting directly against 85th right? The most recent proposal included several outlots which would hold smaller retail or office space. If those areas were zoned seperately – they wouldn’t be C4. They would likely be C2 since that would allow retail or office buildings up to 20,000 sq ft. However C 2 would also allow on-sale alcohol sales, a car wash, or even potentially “adult” uses.

So one has to wonder what is worse – a Walmart on the other side of a few small retail/office buildings, or a car wash and a bar directly across the street. I know someone that lived near a carwash once – and the sound of those blowers cycling up every few minutes would surely send potential buyers running faster than a Walmart 3/4 of a city block away would.

On the otherhand, SON has stated they would be ok with a design such as the Bridges at 57th and Western, which would again allow no “buffer” between it, and their neighborhood. So it really isn’t about having multi-family housing as a buffer or any opposition to retail. It is simply about an opposition to a certain kind of retail. So a collection of 15-25 small retail shops, bars, or even a filling station with a car wash is ok, but one big box store isn’t?

Not sure I understand that reasoning, but all I can say to SON is… be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Leave a Comment