from the Argus Leader;

Councilor questions push for tax-hike legislation

 

One of the Sioux Falls City Council’s legislative priorities for 2009 raised a flag for one councilor Monday night.

Councilor Kermit Staggers questioned why the council was supporting legislation that allows cities to enact a local option tax to raise money for a specific purpose.

Staggers said he would oppose the resolution because it’s not wise for the council to advocate such a tax in a difficult economy and isn’t a good message to residents.

Council Chairman Bob Litz said the city has an expected level of service to meet regardless of the economy.

“This doesn’t mean we are going to enact a tax tomorrow. It just gives the city the freedom to do so when it decides,” Litz said.

Other priorities are ensuring adequate transportation funding, enacting a statewide ban on smoking, developing standards to provide equal 911 service to all and encouraging cooperative efforts to improve 911 services and efficiency.

The measure passed 6-1, with Councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. absent.

Trust me, if the state gives sioux Falls the right to raise taxes to build an event center (that’s what this is about) They would do it the next day.

I also like this line;

the city has an expected level of service to meet regardless of the economy

Bologna. This is another scare tactic by Bob ‘Spread Fear’ Litz. An Events Center has nothing to do with servicing the citizens of this community. Want to service us? Trim our trees, stop pushing snow in the end of our driveways, build a homeless shelter, fix our streets, etc, etc.

Bob, you must really think we are dumb.

Now Councilor Knudson is claiming if we drop the 2^nd penny tax back down to 1.9 we won’t be able to help the homeless.

(Click on Council/County Joint meeting, November 17 – Starts at 44:00 MIN)

You can also watch Munson do the Mexican hat dance with Commissioner Hajek about funding (50:00 MIN). Which is ironic, considering the county isn’t offering any figures.

First off, De, you told us we had to raise this tax to build NEW ROADS! That’s it! Not for homeless shelters, so cut the crap. As for the homeless shelter, I am 100% for it. I agree with Hajek, that this is an investment in safety and savings to the taxpayers in chronic homeless costs. The longer we dick around with finding a location and funding, the more taxpayers are losing. In fact Councilor Anderson and had a great discussion about it. I told him, and he agreed the best place for it would be next to the Law Enforcement center. Budget the money, stop the pissing matches with the county commission, lock yourselves in a room and negotiate a funding and location solution.

As for where the money should come from? Cut the parks budget to make it happen.

See how simple these things are when you use common sense.

From time to time I agree with Councilor Knudson, but too often not for the same reasons.

At the Charter Revision Meeting yesterday, (scroll down to the October 28, meeting, De speaks at the beginning) De suggested we move our city elections to June to save the city money and have a bigger voter turnout. I couldn’t agree more, because it would line up with the state primary elections.

De says she couldn’t understand why voter turnout was so low in the last city election compared to 2006.

Knudson cited preliminary statistics on voter turnout for city and special elections. In April 2006, 37.1 percent of voters cast ballots in the joint city/school election, compared to 14.1 percent for the city election last April.

Two words; Super Precincts.

The change to Super Precincts hurt voter turnout big time. Some people who intended to vote showed up to their old precinct and never voted. Others were so confused by it, they said the Hell with it. I can’t understand why some councilors are in such a state of denial about the super precincts debacle. Admit the mistake and move on already. Seriously.

Councilor Jamison was opposed to the move saying the council candidates would get lost in the shuffle. Bologna. I could see that if the election was during a presidential/national election but not a primary.

There was also mention that the city elections were bi-partisan. That one made me laugh. While there is members of both political parties and one independent (that I know of) sitting on the council, I can assure you that the councilors are very involved in their political parties.

Not sure who the author of this letter is, but I think many people are thinking the exact same thing, including myself.