People who are NOT currently in the city are NOT represented by ANYONE on the council. It is NOT the job of any council member to engage in advocacy for anyone other to RESIDENTS of the city. the job of every councilor is to work for the what is in the best interests of city resident – not for the best interests of NON RESIDENTS.
Rufus, your comment might make more sense if councilors Sellberg, Kiley, and Neitzert were not on a task force that is adversely affecting the lives of so many non residents.
We are responsible on the council to make policies that are fair and equitable to our residents and respectful of our neighbors in the county. We will be voting on implementing annexation measures that could potentially cause severe financial hardship on a homeowner…giving those people information and opportunities to be part of the process is just showing respect for our fellow human beings. The City has been reaching out to subdivisions like Prairie Meadows, Old Orchard Trail and Norton Acres for years. I want these other areas to have the same respectful experience. I spent my own money, and used my own free time on weekends to help inform these people. I felt it was the decent thing to do and I will continue to help people whenever I can. I will make the best decision on this issue when I have heard all sides.
Ruf, while legally, you are correct, they are NOT citizens of SF, yet, they kind of are.
The council has made numourus decisions on joint jurisdiction with the county that IS not in city limits. For example, rejecting the solar farm property that has yet to be pulled into SF city limits.
They will also be deciding on these ‘islands’ as Warren has pointed out, even though they are NOT the councilors of these people.
But more importantly, they pay almost 100% of their sales taxes to SF and some of them property taxes to the SF school district.
The sad part is that they can’t even vote for the very people who will be deciding their fate. If anyone is at a disadvantage, it is these people.
The city is bullying nonresidents. Someone should do something to prevent the torment. However, as usual, the city takes the wrong approach. Councilors for annexation will lose votes from new voters from these areas. Without intent, Stehly (at large) is creating a voting block. Combine these with the 6400 and code enforcement victims, it’s an ideal opportunity to uproot and permanently prevent certain councilors and the mayor from winning elections.
City revenue base is sales not property tax. What’s to be gained from annexation? There’s more infrastructure and services expense. Isn’t this another egotistical Huether maneuver to claim more population, jobs, and growth? Wind farms work here because politicians blow.
It is a well researched and proven fact that so-called “rural residential subdivision” developments, such as those in question, place a disproportionate financial burden on local governmental entities. The people residing in those districts CHOSE a long time ago to engage in a lifestyle that has for DECADES placed a disproportionate financial burden on local government. Goes around, comes around. Payback’s a bit**.
Rufus, in short, you have no idea of what you are saying. You really should research something before you just take mike huethers word for it. Most island dwellers, through township and county taxes pay for fire and policing protection. Most have their own roads and septic systems. Those who are hooked up to city water pay $7.10 per thousand gallons, while city residents pay $4.20 per thousand. Is that the financial burden you are spewing about?
Do you understand the term contiguous as relating to annexation? You really should bone up on it ruf.
Were I resident of Sioux Falls, I would certainly urge Councilor Stehly to consider running for mayor.
People who are NOT currently in the city are NOT represented by ANYONE on the council. It is NOT the job of any council member to engage in advocacy for anyone other to RESIDENTS of the city. the job of every councilor is to work for the what is in the best interests of city resident – not for the best interests of NON RESIDENTS.
Rufus, your comment might make more sense if councilors Sellberg, Kiley, and Neitzert were not on a task force that is adversely affecting the lives of so many non residents.
Keep up the great work Theresa.
We are responsible on the council to make policies that are fair and equitable to our residents and respectful of our neighbors in the county. We will be voting on implementing annexation measures that could potentially cause severe financial hardship on a homeowner…giving those people information and opportunities to be part of the process is just showing respect for our fellow human beings. The City has been reaching out to subdivisions like Prairie Meadows, Old Orchard Trail and Norton Acres for years. I want these other areas to have the same respectful experience. I spent my own money, and used my own free time on weekends to help inform these people. I felt it was the decent thing to do and I will continue to help people whenever I can. I will make the best decision on this issue when I have heard all sides.
Isn’t this an “information meeting” about a proposed policy change?
Ruf, while legally, you are correct, they are NOT citizens of SF, yet, they kind of are.
The council has made numourus decisions on joint jurisdiction with the county that IS not in city limits. For example, rejecting the solar farm property that has yet to be pulled into SF city limits.
They will also be deciding on these ‘islands’ as Warren has pointed out, even though they are NOT the councilors of these people.
But more importantly, they pay almost 100% of their sales taxes to SF and some of them property taxes to the SF school district.
The sad part is that they can’t even vote for the very people who will be deciding their fate. If anyone is at a disadvantage, it is these people.
Wait, what? No one is forced to buy a house. No one is having their “fate” dictated to them.
The city is bullying nonresidents. Someone should do something to prevent the torment. However, as usual, the city takes the wrong approach. Councilors for annexation will lose votes from new voters from these areas. Without intent, Stehly (at large) is creating a voting block. Combine these with the 6400 and code enforcement victims, it’s an ideal opportunity to uproot and permanently prevent certain councilors and the mayor from winning elections.
City revenue base is sales not property tax. What’s to be gained from annexation? There’s more infrastructure and services expense. Isn’t this another egotistical Huether maneuver to claim more population, jobs, and growth? Wind farms work here because politicians blow.
It is a well researched and proven fact that so-called “rural residential subdivision” developments, such as those in question, place a disproportionate financial burden on local governmental entities. The people residing in those districts CHOSE a long time ago to engage in a lifestyle that has for DECADES placed a disproportionate financial burden on local government. Goes around, comes around. Payback’s a bit**.
Rufus, in short, you have no idea of what you are saying. You really should research something before you just take mike huethers word for it. Most island dwellers, through township and county taxes pay for fire and policing protection. Most have their own roads and septic systems. Those who are hooked up to city water pay $7.10 per thousand gallons, while city residents pay $4.20 per thousand. Is that the financial burden you are spewing about?
Do you understand the term contiguous as relating to annexation? You really should bone up on it ruf.