UPDATE: Well, I heard a few things from a reliable source tonight that I (we all) have suspected. Basically, BNSF is asking for an atrocious price for the land, I won’t say the amount, but let’s just say it is laughable.

You have to remember, this has been a switching yard for over 120 years, the amount of pollution on that plot of land is probably enormous, on top of the fact it will cost a lot to clean it up. I would compare it to buying a home with a bad roof and broken foundation, you would ask the seller to come down in price, way down.

The kicker though, and I am speculating here, is the first appraisal came in way, way, way lower then the asking price, and I hear the second one wasn’t much better.

Without saying too much I will put it in perspective. Let’s just say the appraisal isn’t matching up with the asking price, by a long shot.

This is probably why the negotiations are taking this long. It would be like you getting a $250 credit limit credit card with $190 dollars in fees on it when you receive it in the mail . . .

I have a feeling the FEDS are probably going to refuse to purchase the land for what BNSF is asking, or already have.

I know, I know, I have asked this question a couple (100) times over the past, I don’t know, 8 years? But the mayor mentioned at his Shut Up & Listen session last Saturday that it is still proceeding, and it has been one of the most challenging projects he has ever worked on (yeah, hoodwinking the Feds isn’t as easy as hoodwinking passive South Dakotans).

Now we have a local developer, and River Greenway welfare queen, Jeff ‘Government Handout’ Cherapa saying this;

Jeff Scherschlight, CEO of Howalt McDowell in Cherapa Place and managing partner of Cherapa, detailed the parameters of the potential changes.

“Basically, they’re going to leave the tracks that are furthest east will still exist,” Scherschlight said. “There’ll be two tracks, and everything from there coming west will be removed. And that is the railroad switchyard, which they’re going to relocate in smaller towns around Sioux Falls, and do their switching there, which is the big advantage that we gain this extra land downtown for downtown development.”

Scherschlight could see his building, Cherapa Place, expand to include a second building, should the current railway switch yard site become transformed into parking. Only two railroad tracks would remain, while the switchyard would be relocated away from downtown.

What I find interesting about this ‘edited’ story is that the original text that was posted last night on StormLand’s website has disappeared (I should have copied it) there was a mention in the original post that said “. . . an announcement could be made as soon as Tuesday” about the progress of the project.

UPDATE: It is in the video though if you listen closely. Wonder why the city didn’t want to do an on camera interview? And what does Jeff Cherapa know? If anything?

15 Thoughts on “UPDATE: What’s going on with the RR Relocation Project?

  1. Dan Daily on December 18, 2014 at 12:38 pm said:

    It’s rare for railroads and the feds to give up right-of-way. Perhaps this is one of those times. I doubt it. What’s happened is abandoned tracks become bike trails subject to future forfeiture. Probably the biggest problem here is utilities and fiber optic cable. Relocation would be costly and (perhaps) impossible considering switches, junctions, and long indirect reroutes. Utility easements are permanent and cannot be built upon. There’s no incentive and relocation expense makes the yards not worth redevelopment. How about the old Sears property on the east side of the 10th Street bridge?

  2. Dan, the issue I have with the RR relocation project is that it has ZERO benefit to local and Federal taxpayers. ZERO. In fact, it will make circumventing the trains around town harder. Besides cleaning up the property for environmental and appearance purposes, I just don’t see a benefit.

  3. Dan Daily on December 18, 2014 at 1:10 pm said:

    I agree but we can’t stop the emperor mayor. If there’s money or credit, he’ll find something stupid to spend it on. There’s no competitive bid process and he gets consideration for everything he steers to insiders. At least he can’t freeze hell and rename it for himself.

  4. Great to see that this valuable downtown land which is freed up by removing the rails is pegged for parking. I don’t know how many times I’ve mentioned it, but SF is absolutely (and harmfully) obsessed with parking. I wonder how many city planners (or citizens) have ever tried to navigate SF without a car for any amount of time.

  5. Tom, Right? I often wonder if people in Sioux Falls even enjoy the outdoors anymore? Just look at this obsession with all these indoor sports facilities. There are so many different things you can do outside in the winter. Granted, there is maybe 14-20 days in the winter you don’t want to be outside, but please, buy a coat and hat and enjoy winter outdoor activities.

  6. Dan Daily on December 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm said:

    There’s a desperate need for parking. The county runs out of social services budget because the city spends it on inside affluent sports box seating or elite indoor baths and tennis. Parking garages are what’s left for street people to survive with barrel fires or die peacefully in stairwells.

  7. grudznick on December 18, 2014 at 8:13 pm said:

    Indeed, Mr. l3wis. Young people especially should get out of the doors and do things even in a town such as Sioux Falls. Better yet go out of the town and do things.

  8. Bill Dithmer on December 19, 2014 at 9:57 am said:

    The very thing that gave the RRs most of their land in the first place looks like the place to start “emanent domain.” After all they are just land owners who stopped using their land for the purpose it was bought. Whats good for the goose is great for the gander.

  9. Dan Daily on December 19, 2014 at 10:23 am said:

    I like your credit card analogy. I’ve attempted land acquisition on land such as this in the past. Typically, they’ll say they’re interested but never enter into an option. They like feeling important when they know they have no control. BNSF may own some track frontage but the right-of-way is federal. There are 4 tracks so most is federal. My experience is that federal land is not for sale. However, use or lease is possible provided there’s no planned permanent structures (ie grazing, oil drilling).
    I tried getting land for cell towers on federal and tribal land. In the end, there ended up being 2 towers on private land at both ends of the boundary.

  10. My Mistake Mike on December 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm said:

    MMM was at KELO’s Minnehaha CC Christmas Party last Saturday night. So when he heard mention of the “Tuesday announcement” he probably jumped on the Bat-phone, talked with his TV friends, and got that mention removed.

    MMM is in for a rude awakening in 2018 when he is out of power and nobody gives two-Schlitz what he thinks any more.

  11. Why the HELL would a news organization invite him to their Christmas Party? And secondly, why would he attend? Unbelievable, too damn cozy.

  12. Yikes – what a lot of misinformation.

    1. There has actually been an environmental assessment done on this property -and it’s in the public domain (I.E., you CAN go read it if you want). No mystery as to the clean-up costs, and as I recall, the land is not very badly damaged – so the clean up costs will be less than you imagine. So, of course, that impacts the land value (as you’ve already acknowledged).

    Next – the property is NOT FEDERAL LAND. It is privately owned RR land. There are “special” privileges associated with the owner being a RR, but in essence, yes there IS a remote (very remote) possibility of the use of eminent domain – but that process would likely end up making the land even MORE costly (legal expenses) than the rumored inflated price the RR is asking.

    But that is only a rumor at this point – isn’t it.

  13. Ruf, you are correct. I spoke with someone today who filled me in with the environmental study, and said that it isn’t that bad BUT yes, after we buy it, we will be responsible for cleanup before re-selling it, which does affect value. Also, you are right about BNSF owning the land, but certain Federal specifications are involved with the sale.

    I think we will hear some kind of announcement next week because the MOU runs out December 31st on the purchase. Which means a lot of different things. An agreement might have been reached (doubtful) or they are going to announce that they will start from scratch come January 1st.

    As I have said, there is ZERO benefit to the taxpayers if we go ahead with this agreement.

  14. Correction -zero immediate – or short-term benefit. Another aspect of running a government that is different to private business is that the focus is more long-range. It’s not quarterly, or annual, or even one-administration in length – it is at least DECADES.

    A week-long visit to our nation’s capitol to allow for sufficient time to reflect on the whole of it will easily result in an understanding of a planning focal length of millennia at work.

  15. Federal State Local Taxpayer on December 22, 2014 at 11:59 am said:

    I saw the initial piece KELO did on this. The reporter said they had spoken with Public Works, but they were unwilling to go on camera.

    They also showed Jeff Scherschlight being interviewed, and interestingly enough they had muted the audio on just his portion. Taxpayers would have liked to hear what Mr. Cherpa had to say, as he often has little or NO filter on his mouth.

    The federal EARMARK for the RR project was $35 million, part of that has already been spent.

    Public Works originally came up with the scheme of using the quarry east of Falls Park and directly adjacent to Weber Avenue as a dumping site for the contaminated soil.

    Don’t be too quick to discount this aspect of the RR Project as NOT being costly, as the “Quarry Plan” was to avoid the high cost of transporting the soil, etc. to the City Landfill. This plan did NOT pass approval.

    When this project was revived, (remember when MMM and his “team” chartered a private jet to fly to Minneapolis to meet with BNSF because the project was on its death bed) they came back with the new plan which included discussion of the City (i.e. that’s us local taxpayers, folks!) taking on some of BNSF’s operating expenses.

    You’ve got to be kidding me! Sioux Falls, South Dakota taxpayers subsidizing Warren Buffet’s railroad operations!!!!!!

    In addition, federal taxpayers (once again, that’s us!) will pay $35 million for less than 10 acres of land much of which will become parking. Also, leaving 2 out of the 5 railroad tracks which currently run through DT Sioux Falls.

    As a taxpayer, is this really a plan that you can support!!!?????

Post Navigation