Entries Tagged 'Costello' ↓

Staggers gives Costello a little ‘friendly advice’

A4250CFBE87E412683645280619B3CAF-1.ashx

Sioux Falls City Councilor, Kermit Staggers responds to Councilor Costello’s attacks and gives him some advice;

Now is the time for Pat Costello to break out of the Sioux Falls City Council’s “artificial world” and to see what the rest of the world is like. He should start by going door to door in the neighborhoods and get in touch with the people who are suffering during this economic recession.

Or serve them hamburgers with all the fixin’s.

And the winner is, Costner . . . NUTS!

COSTELLO

Finish the caption • Forrest Costello

COSTELLO

City Survey conveniently leaves out the rest of the council

As you can see from the graphics below, the city survey found the need to include the signature of the council chair, Costello, who just happens to be running for mayor. Not only on the postcard ‘Warning’ you about a survey to come, but on the survey letter also. Nothing like a taxpayer funded endorsement of a mayoral candidate.

Scan10004

1010091314

Councilor Costello running for mayor. This means there will be four council seats up for grabs

This of course means not only will the mayor be new next year but we will get four new councilors, because Costello cannot run for Mayor and council at the same time.

soo_costello_081809-1

Councilor Borrowed BuckRuckers might run for mayor

d305edaf732f4fe3aed365ecd8ef0361ashx

About time an accountant turned bar and burger shack owner runs for mayor.

Well, it hasn’t been a big secret that Pat might run, and I actually think he would be one of the stronger candidates;

City Councilor Pat Costello is the latest potential candidate considering a run for mayor in 2010. Costello, who currently is a councilor at large, told me Tuesday where he stands in his decision-making process. ”An endeavor of this nature is a big process, and I just want to make sure I have a strong team to help me do it right,” Costello said.

but after I have seen him trying to coverup some information at council meetings and his business partnerships with the SF Storm owner I have changed my mind about how effective Pat would be as a mayor. First off, I am a big opponent of businesses owners who associate themselves professionally with tax evaders. Not sure if Pat knew the details, but guilty by association can kill a political candidate really quick. Just look at Daschle’s perceived association with his wife, nail in his coffin. I also don’t take kindly to elected officials who tolerate or participate in censorship, we have had enough of that crap over the past seven years, it needs to end in 2010.

I also see that Gerald Beninga is probably not running for mayor – Mr. Berate councilor Staggers and citizens at council meetings as much as he can;

Meanwhile, though it’s not official, it is believed that Councilor Gerald Beninga might seek a seat on the Minnehaha County Commission instead.

Good place for Gerald, he’ll fit right in with those back biting brat kids over there. You need to learn to pout and blame others for your mistakes. You also need to learn to talk smack about other elected officials of the opposite political party when they are not around to defend themselves.

Another uninformed decision by the SF City Council

This could be us, if we don’t act now. “Heh, Heh, the fishin’ pretty good in Sioux Falls, huh daddy?”

Though it is disappointing that our intitiative bit the dust, I am more disappointed in the seven councilors who voted for the $38 million dollar bond to pay for the levees. Do I think the project needs to be done? Definately. But it all comes down to timing and Federal money, and FACTS, not gut feelings.

Some things the councilors did not take into consideration;

- They could still negotiate with FEMA. FEMA is the federal agency that created this flood plain, it should be the Federal government’s responsibility to fix and pay for the problem and last I checked people in Sioux Falls pay Federal income taxes, the Feds owe us.

- Though it is true we have to foot the bill for the 41st Street bridge ($12 Million) we could have pulled that money from the CIP (where it originally was) but instead it was thrown into the loan so the city could spend the $12 million in the CIP on WANTS. Very, very, fiscally irresponsible considering our interest on the loan will be over $8 million to pay back.

- This city hasn’t had a major flood since the 1950′s and there hasn’t been ANY studies done for at least 20 to 30 years about where we stand for floods. We also have been in a drought for the last 4 years, at least, in SD. (ironically why the Lewis and Clark pipeline is so vital) There have only been two incidents in recent years that had nothing to do with the levees or the floodplain. In 1996 the spillway had to built up because it couldn’t handle the Spring thaw and in 2005 we got two torrential rains that backed up into people’s basements do to inadequate sewer and street drainage. The levees held then too. I have said to this day, that happened because for the past 20 years the city has been putting bandades on infrastructure while going gungho on new development and growth, and they continue this practice to this day. You can thank Steve Metli, former city planner for that.

- Individual property owners are responsible for their own flood insurance, not the city. If they don’t want to pay for the insurance for the next couple of years, don’t buy it or move. Ironically not one single property owner of the 1,900 properties in the proposed floodplain came last night to plead with the council to vote for this loan. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Yet Munson told us there was many concerned citizens, but I guess not concerned enough to show up to this important decision that would affect their property. He also said he “Feels for people” on fixed incomes that may have to buy this insurance. Well, if you are so concerned about fixed income people, stop raising our taxes on food to pay for streets that we don’t need. That’s a start.

- And lastly, my biggest argument why this loan was a bad idea was because once we pay for this up front, what obligation does the Federal government have to pay us back? None. The argument is we would save money on bonds and bids if we do the project now. Which is a dumb argument, considering if the FEDs pay for it, instead of us, who cares what it cost, we won’t have to pay it back. The objective of Obama’s stimulous package is to create 5 million jobs. What incentive does the Obama administration have to create jobs for infrastructure projects in a city that has a low unemployment rate and the credit rating to pay for these projects on their own?

The solution?

Even though Staggers voted for the project he tried to get an amendment to push the bridge back into the CIP (where it belongs) so we could reduce our loan. Nobody seconded the motion.

I think we should pay for the bridge out of our CIP and make cuts to wants. I think we should get on the horn to Ironic Johnny, Timmy come lately and Stephanie Herseth-Sandals Vaction and get them in on the stimulous package to get us Federal aid for the levees.

Of course now it is too late. Councilors voted with their emotions last night (and made me the butt of several jokes about being opposed to it). Councilor Litz even talked about global warming and Katrina (can’t remember the last time we were hit by a hurricane).

In an Argus Leader interview, Councilor Costello, the loan dissenter had this to say;

“You have to measure the risk with the cost,” he said. “We know we have flood protection.”

Of course the AL editorial board gave the decision a big old thumbs up;

And it would be sad if the bond vote-repeal effort connection somehow becomes a campaign issue in the 2010 mayoral race.

Oh, it will be an issue!

Yes, the council has a duty to gather all pertinent information that might influence its decisions, and that includes the effect of the bond vote on the repeal effort.

But given that due process has been upheld, it was appropriate – indeed necessary – for the council to move forward.