Surplus property denied due to tie vote by city council

The big drama last night at the city council meeting (Item#46) was a debate on whether or not the city could determine a patch of land behind the Huey building surplus property.

Since the mayor was not present he could not break the tie, so if it is a tie without him present it fails. I agreed with 4 of them that it is surplus and they should sell it. They can determine later IMO how it can be used. The plot of land is 33 x 110 Feet directly behind the Huey, the alley would still be available.

But there was some interesting things that happened. First off, no one mentioned ‘air rights’. The Huey developers could just build 12 feet above the property if the city didn’t want to sell to them.

Another unusual twist in the night was private lawyers on both sides of the debate. After they left and went outside to debate some more, cameraman Bruce reminded them it was because of us public input supporters they are now able to come to 1st readings and testify.

Some councilors were also visibly annoyed that our own planning director and assistant city attorney was trying to convince the council to vote for it as surplus. No surprise to me, I say it all the time, developers run the city and often get city directors to do their bidding. Makes you wonder just how many hours city employees spent over the past year helping to develop the Black Iron private development?

The rumor circulating is this item may come back once the mayor can come and break a tie. I still think it is surplus, but what do I know, I’m not a lawyer.


#1 former_band_geeks on 08.08.18 at 10:03 pm

I wonder if TJ Nelson and Green Acre partner Josh Aberson being acquaintances in high school makes any of this seem fishy to anybody else?

#2 D@ily Spin on 08.08.18 at 10:32 pm

Rather sophisticated. As a buyer I’d not be interested if there’s the 12’ vertical restriction. Generally, real estate is ground level into space with aeronautical obstruction consideration and (usually) mineral rights excepted. What can be done with such a parcel? Why is this even offered?

#3 Raul on 08.09.18 at 9:38 am

Why did the mayor miss the meeting?

#4 l3wis on 08.09.18 at 9:49 am

He’s on his 2nd vacation since he took office.

#5 scott on 08.09.18 at 10:12 am

it’s called running the city like you own the business.

#6 matt johnson on 08.09.18 at 1:10 pm

what benefit does it provide the city? if it is surplus property then anyone can bid on it when it is declared so; should it be that important to the people to the north then they should buy subject to easements now existing; there is no reason for city ownership that has been demonstrated

#7 D@ily Spin on 08.09.18 at 4:19 pm

It seems apparent the building to the west had this excepted to avoid per square foot real estate taxes. The west building is the only one who uses it as turnaround. If the city owns it, they should call it right-of-way or quit claim it so that it gets property tax assessment. If the west building refuses it, fence it so they can’t access from the rear.

#8 citizen on 08.10.18 at 9:38 am

appears our new mayor conveniently plans his vacations to avoid controversial situations like…..

pride picnics

potential tie votes at council meetings

he also uses his 2 chiefs of staff as a shield

time to step up to the plate

#9 SD Vet on 08.11.18 at 11:22 pm

Some on here conveniently find a way to dig on the mayor for nearly every move he makes. They have no clue about what is really going on. Nor would they have guts to handle it. PTH is the best thing to happen to Sioux Falls city government in a long time. That is becoming more clear everyday.

Leave a Comment