During the SF city council informational meeting today, Director Kearney told councilor Staggers that they pretty much don’t have a MOU, and when asked if they intend to get one, he said they feel it is ‘Not Required’.

So in other words ‘NO’.

Erpenbach chimes in and agrees with Don saying since the city owns the land the agreement is not necessary. I guess that Michelle has a degree in Federal property law, I was unaware, I sure feel like a jackass right now 🙁

We all know who advised them on NOT getting an MOU, Mr. Loophole David Fiddle-Faddle. And he probably didn’t have a choice, my guess is that the VA blew them off, and for good reason. How would it benefit the VA to have an agreement? It wouldn’t. Now if they need more parking, they have the quit claim deed on their side, the MOU would only weaken their control of Spellerberg Park. I don’t blame them for not participating in an MOU.

All and All, I don’t give a damn either way, never have.

This comes down to the continual broken promises, stonewalling and flat out lies from the administration and directors. The Mayor, the city attorney and Don have all said they were in ‘discussions’ with the VA about the MOU. It is pretty obvious they were lying once again.

They should have just told us from the freaking beginning, “We are not getting an MOU, and never intend to.”

Instead, Lies, Lies, Lies.

7 Thoughts on “Sioux Falls Parks Director, Don Kearney, says MOU with VA is ‘Not Required’

  1. Dan Daily on April 28, 2015 at 6:19 pm said:

    The next mayor will be looking for ways to tame the debt. Some of Huether’s follies or the Pavilion must be transfered or closed. The best option is to save the major expense for aquatics center maintenance and donate the facility to the VA for veterans therapy. Parking is for the public. Parking at the VA is often full and I’ll park at the water feature.

    Thank you Sioux Falls. It’s very generous of you to donate 300 million for VA therapy & parking.

    You’re right, best to ignore the MOU thing. It’s going to end up a VA property anyway.

  2. rufusx on April 28, 2015 at 6:35 pm said:

    “All and All, I don’t give a damn either way, never have…..”

    “…..Lies, Lies, Lies.”

  3. Winston on April 28, 2015 at 9:52 pm said:

    Well, the presumption is that all is fine. The City is not going to open-up a can worms over this issue. Thus, it is their public opinion that there is no need for a MOU – you never help the otherside in a legal matter unless it is court ordered.

    Here are my questions, however. How soon can this pool be built to make the remedy too punitive for the defendant (Sioux Falls) to incur? Are we sure the Democrats will control the White House after January 20, 2017? Would or could a Republican administration in 2017 embarrass the City of Sioux Falls with a Veterans Affairs inquiry over the alleged issues with any potential MOU to further embarrass a particular first tier 2018 Democratic candidate for governor? And finally, at what cost could this potentially be to the citizens of Sioux Falls?

    I say, get the MOU unless you can some how fiat Hillary’s election in 2016 in the meantime?

  4. Swimmer on April 29, 2015 at 9:11 am said:

    If the pool was never a problem for the city they could have said all along “We don’t see it as a necessary to get VA sign-off”. How easy life could have been for them by now on this project. This being said consider the reverse.

    If the VA was giving up the need for future permission not being necessary the deed would have been a Warranty Deed giving full ownership and control to the City of Sioux Falls. The Quit Claim deed as written reserved a right to the VA to control future development and use.

    All the Save Spellerbergers and the rest of us taxpayers wanted was a guarantee in writing the VA would not seize the property back when they completely run out of space for patient care. They begin to consider the non park use of the south end with the retention pond (now known as the sledding hill) and then how the city ignored the warnings of parking lot violations hindering their clients.

    Those of us who have paid attention to the “sledding hill” all these years remember when the Sioux Falls City Police department was sent out to prevent the kids from sledding on this hill for fear of damaging public works property. Public Works claimed property not city park property. The backlash was tremendous and forced the City to back down on their threats against the kids.

    Now we are left with possibles as the City continues looking for forgiveness rather than permission.

    Bingo we have a seizure process started by the long arm of the federal government for violating a clause in an old document our current administration feels to incompetent to get a simple answer to.

    Will the city get forgiveness when the time comes?

  5. Dan Daily on April 29, 2015 at 10:48 am said:

    Simply, we’re one pool short this summer. Huether robbed funds from vital projects to build this but there’s no budget for expensive annual operations and maintenance. Stop now. Build another outdoor pool that’s 5 times cheaper and one fourth the annual expense. Another pool that meets present zoning both legally and via statute of limitations.

    When God made man, some got away before he installed brains. They couldn’t find purpose so they became politicians.

  6. Blasphemo on April 29, 2015 at 4:24 pm said:

    We may all recall the “miracle” indoor aquatic center funding resources announced by Tracy Turbak right after the April 8, 2014 Municipal Election. This miracle suddenly made a multi-million dollar bond to fund much of the construction cost “unnecessary”. Is it not entirely possible the city could NOT secure a bond without an MOU…and had scramble at the 11th hour to save face? After all, what bonding organization would lend million$ for major construction on property with questionable property rights?!! Oh noooo, Fiddle Faddle, MMM & DK – there’s no value in obtaining a silly little MOU to provide greater protection for the taxpayer’s investment of million$. No financial expert would EVER insist on such a thing…right? Ha.

  7. Enough of shape places and mmm legacy on April 29, 2015 at 10:33 pm said:

    Blasphemo. That’s it. There is no bonding company that would touch it without a valid mou. They might make bonds available but the cost would be out of site. Add in the fact that mjdalsin was screwed on the ec who would bid low. I bet it will cost 30 million. I can’t understand why the truth is so hard for mmm and company to do business above board. Lies lies and more lies. It just doesn’t sit well thinking we have more debt than the state and our council is so inept to stop the bs. Now we have a bond to repay at 11million And borrowing at least another 13 million from the grange and 12th bridge should do a big favor for us all. Maybe mmm will run for governor based upon the fact he did a number on us all and just maybe the rest of the state will laugh at us and vote for the goof. Just saying Just think a southside Walmart will fix it all. Can you hear mmm with the sales tax predictions and turbak bobble heading. Haha

Post Navigation