As a commenter pointed out, the irony of code enforcement cracking down on a private business for painting a mural, but allowing students to paint on publicly owned property their religious beliefs and being protected by a ‘disclaimer’ is a bit hypocritical. Could the business owner put a ‘disclaimer’ on the mural to exempt themselves from city code? Besides, the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, it trumps city charter.
Sometimes murals are obvious adverts, but sometimes they can be subtle and quite artistic;
“The purpose of the sign code is so people can advertise their business without overdoing it,” Jeff Schmitt of City planning and zoning said.
In other words, Jeff Schmitt with City Planning and Zoning says a business can have a sign, or it can have a mural, but it can’t have a mural as a sign.
“So is it a mural or is it a sign? Art is art, but a sign is what they put in the mural,” Schmitt said.
While I understand the city’s argument on this, I think it is okay for a mural to be an advertisement for a business as long as it doesn’t use words or lettering and artistic in nature, such as this mural is.
Gaddis, who admits she didn’t check City code, spent a lot of money having the mural painted. Now she’s being told it’ll have to be painted over or she’ll face multiple fines until she complies.
Yeah, Big Daddy doesn’t like it when you don’t ask for permission. I think it is time to get more lax on the mural laws.
The city made a handshake agreement barring overnight RV parking into the permits for both stores, Cooper said.
“If you’re going to occupy a vehicle such as an RV overnight, you are required to be in a campground,” Cooper said. “We have licensed campgrounds and truck stops within the city limits for overnight parking.”
There’s a catch to this “requirement,” however, in that there isn’t actually a “requirement” in a strictly legal sense. There is no ordinance prohibiting RVs in commercial parking lots.
In my opinion, handshake agreements with a municipal government just doesn’t fly. Instead of having Walmart decide who can and cannot park in their lots, the city should either implement a city wide ordinance that RV camping in retail parking lots is prohibited, or have NO ordinance at all.
Either way, I personally think it should be prohibited. We have truck stops, camp grounds and rest stops for that reason. I remember one time I drove past the WM on Louise, and an RV was parked in the lot, they had out their lawn chairs and were BBQ’ing next to the RV. This is silly. How would you feel if you pulled into the HyVee lot and you saw a tent setup with people sleeping inside? How is that any different? It’s not. Community’s have campgrounds for this reason.
He was told it was his responsibility to prove his innocence; which he did five years and $40,000 later in the South Dakota Supreme Court. But in his opinion, it should have never gotten that far.
“The city does not allow appeals in court,” he added, “They make all these rules and they can’t enforce them; they can’t take you to court.”
Barbara and Pierce McDowell and Joseph and Sarah Sapienza entered litigation after the McDowells claim the Sapienza’s home is built far too close to theirs. However, Daily says the frustration should be directed at the city who gave the green light on construction.
“The city by charter is supposed to protect citizens, and they don’t.”
Fiddle-Faddle and the Mayor use the city charter to punish citizens while covering their asses. It is a perfect example of what a charter should NOT look like.
Bad Bad Neighbor or is it Bad Bad Mayor? At what point do the people of Sioux Falls decide they have had enough of the propaganda? Sure, we want a nice, clean village to live in but when will the Minister of Propaganda learn we can accomplish so much more without encouraging neighbor on neighbor violence and property destruction?
The shaming of a property owner on South Main Street shammed the city of Sioux Falls on June 22, 2016. We’re sure most have seen the disgusting display of disgrace toward our fellow citizens shown in the local media perpetrated by the chief marketing officer. He should listen to and take heart the words of his new code enforcement manager Matt Tobias.
This video could have been shot in city hall but instead Mike and Heather produce it in front of the offending property but make it look like the attractive neighboring house is the problem. We did an interview with Theresa Stehly minutes before our view was changed by Heather because of “privacy concerns.” Bulls**t. If privacy was a concern, we would not have had the presser where it was held.
Within minutes of the first presser broadcasts in the local press, vandalism began around the community by our neighbors following the mayor’s lead. Mayor Huether should be ashamed but he does not know shame and this proves it.
When will the code enforcement system of the city of Sioux Falls become constitutional? The way this mayor operates things, never so we’d better get ready for more neighbor on neighbor violence. Thanks Mike.
A foot soldier pointed out to me that he has noticed several political yard signs without a ‘paid for’ on the bottom of them (Paulson & Srstka did not), and he was unsure of others. I know that Stehly, Noble and Neitzert do have the disclaimer on them. But it begs the question if ‘paid for’ is no longer needed on yard signs, there is no city ordinance on the topic, but there is state law, which is about as clear as mud;
12-27-15. Printed political communications to contain certain language–Exceptions–Violation as misdemeanor. Any printed material or communication made, purchased, paid for, or authorized by a candidate, political committee, or political party which expressly advocates for or against a candidate, public office holder, ballot question, or political party shall prominently display or clearly speak the statement: “Paid for by (Name of candidate, political committee, or political party).” This section does not apply to buttons, balloons, pins, pens, matchbooks, clothing, or similar small items upon which the inclusion of the statement would be impracticable. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Signs are not mentioned in the law, so one wonders if they are NOT exempt. Any lawyers in the house want to chime in?
While I find most of it agreeable (or as I have told advocates, it won’t change what it is in my boulevard). (Item #46, DOC; PS_O) The section regarding mailboxes, especially ones that are more permanent (like brickwork) may be a little concerned. As I understand it as I read it below (I think) if a utility company, or the city destroys your structure, you are responsible for the loss, and it also looks like you won’t be able to replace it like it was.
I totally understand in an emergency situation, but if it is scheduled work, there is no reason these cannot be preserved.