Why is the city trying to change the zoning of Planned Parenthood?

by

pp

If you dig in the Planning Commission meeting agenda, Item #7, which is titled ‘Various Re-zoning’ and sponsored by the city, you will see the last item on the list;

REZ-1878-2014: REZONE from the RA-1, Apartment Residential-Low Density District to the O, Office District for allowed forms. Location: 6501 W. 41st St. – southeast of S. Sertoma Ave. and W. 41st St. Applicant: City of Sioux Falls

Purpose: The zoning map for 6501 W. 41st St. where an office to the west currently exists and vacant land to the east exists was incorrectly identified as RA-2/MD2 Form which does not allow offices in the zoning district. The city is proposing to rezone the property to the O/BCF1 Form where offices are permitted.

First, let’s just say that I am just asking the question, and not speculating. While it makes sense that they would want to rezone the property East of PP (to build offices) I’m curious as to why they are including PP in the rezoning? Since PP does medical procedures at their location, which most are not abortions, they should be zoned INSTITUTIONAL, not OFFICE.

Is this being done to force PP from that location? Or did PP say they were already moving? If so, who would lease to them?

And why is the city sponsoring this move? Who put them up to it?

UPDATE: Compromise on Snowplows?

by

They are going to use a disclaimer. Sorry, but this won’t hold up in court. Huether give it up.

Here is a copy of the letter the attorney from Freedom From Religion Foundation sent to the city attorney: Freedomfromreligion

As you can see, he states several cases that show this is unconstitutional.

disclaimer

A little inspirational reading for the mayor (click to enlarge):

jeffersonreligion5

plow

IMAGE: READER SUBMISSION

Heck, with a snowplow like this, the snow would melt at impact!

As any intelligent person that understands the US Constitution and 1st Amendment, and Jon Arneson would know, you can see where this is headed;

Arneson believes having those painting on city property puts the City into a corner where, by law, it would be seen as an endorsement of religion. He says U.S. Supreme Court rulings dealing with religion and government over the past 30 years support that.

Duh?!

I guess we are supposed to hear a resolution today from the city, I suspect if we don’t hear one by the weekend, that the city decided to quietly paint over the plow blades. We will see. I did notice it is already circulating the national news that our Mayor is Constitutionally inept. There was a blurb about it in the USA Today.