Moving Sale?

5/17/2018 (c)


#1 Matthew Paulson on 05.17.18 at 2:21 pm

Oh man, that judge is done with the Sapienza’s stall tactics.

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 05.17.18 at 2:49 pm

It might have been the Perrier bottle…

#3 D@ily Spin on 05.17.18 at 3:41 pm

What I still can’t understand is the city approved the design. Why does the Historic Board have power over the city and why is the city released from this matter?

#4 Bruce on 05.17.18 at 9:08 pm

Daily Spin, this is a case where the court is following federal law. The city should be held liable in this but there might have been a filing error letting the city off the hook. This is a federally protected historic district which over rules city ordinances and state laws.

#5 Anthony Renli on 05.18.18 at 9:58 am

In this case, the plans that they filed with the city and the plans that they built were two different things. The designs submitted to the city followed the height and setback rules for the district.
So, as much as I hate defending city hall, in THIS particular case, I don’t think the City is at fault. The contractor, on the other hand…

#6 D@ily Spin on 05.18.18 at 12:38 pm

Thankyou for clarification. What will probably happen is a mysterious fire burning it to the ground with the owners making an insurance claim.

#7 hornguy on 05.18.18 at 3:59 pm

If there’s one thing that all residents of Sioux Falls should learn from this entire fiasco, it’s what a total clown show your city’s building approval process is, and how none of them seem to understand which rules and guidelines apply in historic districts. We could all stipulate that the Sapienzas are shysters, but it doesn’t change the fact that the prevailing theme through all this is that nobody at the city or on the historic preservation board seems to know their head from their you-know-what.

That should be kind of terrifying to citizens, considering how much authority they have over you.

#8 anominous on 05.19.18 at 4:16 am

Leave a Comment