Wasn’t quite sure what I was witnessing last night, but there was the smell of burnt chislic in the air.

When the only two councilors to vote against the $90K Legacy money grab are the most conservative and the most liberal, one has to scratch your head a bit.

Councilor Starr questioned just how much parking we would get, and if this is just subsidizing the developer’s property and not really a benefit to ‘public’ parking.

Stehly had even more questions;

Stehly is concerned since Legacy Development owned the the Copper Lounge Building, which collapsed back in December. She wants to wait until the OSHA investigation is done.

She’s also concerned with not knowing who the investors are in the project, and using the 2nd penny sales tax as collateral.

While both Starr and Stehly make great points (and why they voted against the project). There are also many questions about the location and timing?

But even ‘IF’ we had all of the answers above, what baffles me even more is why isn’t Legacy paying these expenses? If they want the city to invest with them, then shouldn’t they be the ones to pony up?

And lastly, in reference to the lost sheep of the council, I actually expected a 4-to-4 OR 5-t-4 vote on this with the mayor fiddling around with a VETO or tie-breaker vote. Maybe that is why the council just gave in, they are getting tired of dealing with the VETO controversy. Which is disappointing, since it seems it only took 2 vetoes to whip the council back in shape.

Then there is the history of projects like this, like a lost sheep, they seem to have a short memory on how the administration has been able to ram-rod this kind of crap through. Always putting the cart in front of the horse and financing all the planning before a bond is even taken out. I told Neitzert if your family was planning on building a new home, you would go to the bank first and see what they would be willing to loan you and what you could afford before you ever met with a realtor or architect, unless of course you are independently wealthy and don’t care. Which is kind of the mayor’s mentality when it comes to taxpayer money.

The council certainly looked like lost sheep last night following the wolves into the forest. With so many unanswered questions and history behind this project, I can’t imagine any other reason they would approve something that was so obviously wrong.

Watch the full discussion. Second to last item on the agenda.

17 Thoughts on “Sioux Falls city council acts like lost sheep

  1. Who are Legacy’s investors? That is the question which needs to be answered regardless of OSHAs eventual findings.

    It’s a private matter, which has become legitimately a public one and is paramount to any true transparency in this town….

  2. North West Sioux Falls on March 15, 2017 at 8:17 pm said:

    I find myself disappointed in Counselor Neitzert. I started off voting for him but he is turning out to be just a little better version of what we had before. He has fumbled some key moments when instead of hunkering down and playing politics he just chickened out. I have been very surprised and happy with the way Starr and Stehly have been performing.

  3. A copy of “Animal Farm” should be given to every newly elected official to read……Has Neitzert ever read it?

  4. Northwest, I’m in agreement with you. Greg has become a disappointment. He was so promising in the beginning and appeared to be focused on the needs of the average citizen. But, alas, he has fallen away and listens to other voices. Common sense seems to have left his thought process.

    I also support your opinion of Starr and Stehly. These are two good heads with courage and common sense.

  5. I have to disagree greg neitzert is a fair person not everyone will agree on every decision greg has made or any other council members .i like greg theresa pat and marshal after talking to them several times i may or may not agree with there thinking or thought process sometimes but i accept it.siouxfalls needs a change in government for the good and these 4 are making it happen

  6. Talking to greg and know personally hes background on how he grew up he is for your average citizens .he has walked in other peoples shoes and hes been there done that.he can relate to the average citizen.get to know him before you critize him thats all im asking

  7. North West Sioux Falls on March 16, 2017 at 12:06 am said:

    Sierra, you could make that argument for any member of the council. But the fact of the matter is Greg willingly sought out the position he currently holds. He ran for the position one way and is now acting another. Now either he meant what he said before he won and is now backing down or he never meant it in the first place.

    Let’s look at the administration building. He campaigned saying he would fight to stop it. When push came to shove instead of playing the Mayors game and forcing his hand Greg backed down. When the city was looking at new LGBT ordinances, Greg decided to take the concerns of a recognized hate group over those of the citizens. The list goes on. I gave him a chance. I only give a few.

    I will agree at least two of the people you mentioned are fighting for change. The Democrat and the Republican make an unlikely duo.

  8. anonymous on March 16, 2017 at 5:59 am said:

    Councilor Neitzert over analyzes things, not necessarily a positive.

  9. Greg Neitzert on March 16, 2017 at 8:37 am said:

    I respect everyone’s opinion, including those that disagree with me.
    You learn pretty quick that with just about every decision you make, you are going to make a number of people mad and annoyed. Some will agree and think you made the right decision, some will disagree. All I can do is try to make the best decision I can. For me, I take each item as it comes and decide it based on the merits. I try to make a fact-based decision. I do a lot of research and try to make decisions based on what I’ve learned. As it regards this proposed ramp specifically, the main questions I’ve been asking, and researching, are the following:
    1. Do we need it?
    2. Is the location right?
    3. Can the enterprise fund afford it?
    Those were the same questions I asked about the administration building (replacing enterprise fund with second penny as the funding source in that case).
    In the case of the admin building, at least 2 of those questions were a NO for me.
    There are a lot of other issues to consider with this being a mixed use project and the dynamics that go with that, but the main questions are what I listed above.
    I won’t go into a detailed discussion of all of those here, but I am looking at those as well.
    I’m not going to knee jerk oppose everything this Mayor or administration brings forward. That’s not right and it’s not what the vast majority of citizens elected me to do. I believe most citizens want us to ask the tough questions, to gather the facts, and not to be afraid to stand up and say no if we don’t get answers or the facts don’t support a proposal. But I don’t believe on the other hand that they want us to oppose policies, proposals, or projects based solely on who brings them forward. With this ramp, any particular rezoning, or any other policy, I endeavor to look at each based on the merits. That’s all I can do. Again, totally respect everyone’s opinion, including those that think I’m doing the wrong thing on any particular subject, but wanted to be clear I take each issue with an open mind and a fact based decision making process. Good people can disagree.

  10. l3wis on March 16, 2017 at 8:46 am said:

    Fair questions;

    1. Do we need it?
    2. Is the location right?
    3. Can the enterprise fund afford it?

    I would say a resounding YES to 1 & 3 and a NO or Maybe to 2.

    But those are only three questions.

    Is it right to borrow against the 2nd penny when we are using a enterprise fund?

    Should taxpayers invest with a developer that is under investigation for accidental death of one of it’s subcontractors?

    Is the location good? And if so, how many spots will we really get?

    Who are the private investors and why are they not putting THEIR money up with these preliminary designs?

    It’s easy to get a YES to your questions Greg when you only propose the ‘right’ questions.

  11. We see too often in Sioux Falls government the hiring of contractors, designers and consultants in general who are ready and willing to give a green light in their report giving the answer they were hired to give….. In other words, you buy the report writer who can produce the expected report.

    The park department gave us a swimming pool based on report written in direct contradiction to all other reports the same group had produced before for other similar towns.

    We have an events center because our “leaders” had a report writer hired to create an events center the way our thrifty mayor wanted it. In a bad location, with crappy finishes sucking the financial lifeblood out of the community.

    So now we have a Walker parking ramp report created about 4 years ago before we had the Railroad project signed, the Levitt shell project, the north Phillips Ave redo, Jeff Hazzard’s new loft project and more driving a new resurgence of growth stretching out downtown with no place to park.

    Take time to read the Walker study and find out how out of date it is. Why should we spend an additional $8.4 million for a out of date ramp design so a company can build a building on top of it? This is plain stupid.

    Look at the plans. If you know anything at all about design and construction you will see once again there is something smelling real bad in this project.

    Go take a tour of the parking ramps downtown like I have, see how inflated the occupancy rate numbers are. There are numbers being given to justify this project not based on anything other than out of date plans.

    Once again we are buying the services of a consultant who does not care about anything other than the report they are being paid for for the client who wants a report with a preconceived result.

  12. The D@ily Spin on March 16, 2017 at 10:31 am said:

    Perhaps 6 of the 8 councilors don’t live in Sioux Falls! They act like it. Given all of the debt from extravagant overpriced Huether projects, can’t this wait until there’s an accurate audit once this mayor gets run off? There’s major debt. It’s foolish to build a parking garage when there’s a mass exodus of retail, banking, and business. We’re using Uber. Why do we need more parking.

    Give the 6 councilors their uninhabited unproductive offices at Sanford now. They can stay home and leave Huether a stamp pad with a YES stamp. I agree that Neitzert is a disappointment with new Rolfing and Erpenbach kiss ass character.

  13. To Councilor Neitzert on March 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm said:

    Perhaps it would be best to vote as your constituents desire you to vote, and not as the city desires.

    You campaigned door to door out here, and you said you were in agreement with our desires. You stated you understood our needs. Reign in the spending!!!!

    Always,always vote to support the average citizen on all issues!!!

  14. Not all of the facts are in yet, and one should always be supportive of the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but when it comes to the City and Legacy, that relationship should currently be one analogous to what is often called “administrative leave.” But instead, it is business as usual…..

  15. anonymous on March 16, 2017 at 7:27 pm said:

    Why is it so difficult to name all investors who are part of Legacy Development?

    They’ve repeatedly accepted tax dollars through the Facade Easement Program, TIFs, etc…….

  16. North West Sioux Falls on March 16, 2017 at 9:48 pm said:

    Maybe Greg could work on getting that information. I’m sure it wouldn’t be to hard to trick a member of legacy into showing up and then laying that line of questioning on them.

  17. possum jenkins on March 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm said:

    i am detecting sock puppets
    iaal
    obg

Post Navigation