Entries Tagged 'Michelle Erpenbach' ↓

The ONLY garbage coming out of Carnegie, is coming out of Rex Rolfing’s mouth

During the debate over the election threshold to 51% (FF 1:00), Rolfing called public input ‘Garbage’ than went on to say that he felt ‘sick’ as well as councilor Erpenbach because SEVEN years ago they didn’t get 50% of the vote.

Stehly pointed out that if they felt so ‘sick’ about it, why did it take them SEVEN years to propose this. She also pointed out she has heard NOTHING over the past SEVEN years that this was a problem, from either Rolfing, Erpenbach or the public.

It of course passed, 4-5. Selberg, Rolfing, Erpenbach, Kiley and Mayor Huether voted to make our elections more expensive for candidates and taxpayers because Rolfing’s tummy hurt over the past SEVEN years.

I have seen councils pass some pretty crazy sh*t over the past decade but this takes the cake. It is a gigantic slap in the face of past councilors who have served since 1996 who didn’t get over 50% of the vote and a slap in the face of the taxpayers who have to fund additional unneeded elections that they most likely WILL NOT attend.

In fact, councilor Neitzert put up a graphic showing voter turnout over the past decade(?). Guess which municipal election had the highest turnout (41%) the Event Center. Which was only an advisory vote that didn’t have any legal precedent.

I said during public input that maybe instead of spending $80K on a runoff election, we should spend it on promoting municipal elections. But what do I know, I’m just a pile of garbage.

Let’s just stop pretending citizens can be involved in the process called city government.

A RexCam exclusive for you. Sioux Falls City Council members Rex Rolfing, Michelle Erpenbach and Rick Kiley making fools of themselves on September 12, 2017.

Why would we place such authoritarians in office? Why should we respect people who want to take away the rights of average citizens because they could not get their own way in an election?

We are seeing voters being purged from the rolls.

We are seeing intimidation being used to keep people from voting.

We see areas with no voting location.

We see voting locations moved from one location this election to a different location in the next.

These things are not happening in far off lands, these are thing happening right here in Sioux Falls.

The vote taken to change the way elections are settled in Sioux Falls is a way to restrict our access to the process. Listen to the buffoons talk about how illegitimate they felt when they won their first elections. Feel the pain two of them felt on their 2010 election nights. Why did they wait 7 years until their friend lost an election to decide to change the rules? Those of us who pay attention to these things know when to poor the barnyard out of our boots. We need to make sure one of these buffoons knows what it’s like to lose in 2018.

The mayor of Sioux Falls believes he is right as right can be, to limit the average citizens participation in the process. This is another reason why the mayor should NOT be sitting in Council meetings and breaking ties. If a tie vote happens, the proposal should just die until a majority compromise happens along. What do you think? Let’s band together to fix this Huetheristic mess called strong mayor government.

These people are pathetic, never let them return to elective or appointed office. They do not deserve the honor of pretending to represent us. I did this video to let all know how those leaving office want to put a lasting stamp on the process so we can’t be part of it.

Why would we want to make it harder for people to run for city council

I got an up close experience a few months ago with how big money corrupts local elections. Randy Dobberpuhl who placed 2nd in the school board election was out spent over 6-1 by Cynthia Mickelson who won the seat. The other two candidate who spent nothing or very little were creamed.

The rumored proposed amendment by Sioux Falls city councilors Rolfing and Erpenbach to garner 51% of the vote in a general election for city council or go to a runoff is a ruse to eliminate the grassroots candidates that don’t have deep pockets.

What is astonishing is that just less than two years ago, Mayor Huether, in a press conference with former city councilor Kenny Anderson Jr., he was begging for people to run for city council;

“I would like to encourage our citizens to get involved in public service. It will make a wonderful difference for our town,” says Mayor Mike Huether.

At the time it seemed MMM was concerned there would not be any candidates for council. We should be doing everything possible to make it easier for regular people to run for office instead of making it more expensive not only for the candidates but for the taxpayers. If we want to make real change, the city needs to do a better job of educating people about upcoming elections instead of playing this game with money.

I’m hoping Kenny Anderson and Randy Dobberpuhl will attend this Tuesday’s council meeting to speak out against the money grab, and all other candidates considering a run this Spring.

Are Sioux Falls City Councilors Rolfing & Erpenbach trying to pull a procedural trick?

If you look at Item #50, it seems harmless enough. They are changing some language pertaining to elections;

Notice there is NO change to the 34% threshold. So why not? With all the talk about councilors Rolfing and Erpenbach changing this, why wasn’t it changed in this 1st Reading?

Because the plan that is rumored they are going to use is a procedural trick. Basically they will wait for the 1st reading to pass, and when it comes up for a second reading they will offer and amendment to the 34% threshold to 51%.

Why would they do that? Because public testimony would be closed before amendments would be offered.

I am still hoping that with the media coverage of this proposed change will get them to back off on the amendment. I guess we will all have to wait and see just how brazen they want to get with our election rules.

Sioux Falls City Councilors Rolfing & Erpenbach may be proposing election changes

Yeah, worked for me, but I still want to ruin it for everyone else.

The rumors I am hearing from my Carnegie Hall moles is that this set of councilors want to change the 34% threshold to be elected to a council seat in a general election to a 51% threshold like the mayor. Not sure where this is even coming from, considering myself, or even other councilors, or the media have never thought there was a problem with the current threshold. In fact, maybe the better thing to change is to have the mayoral percentage match the council’s.

Before I get into the multiple arguments against this, let’s face it, this was cooked up by the mayor to make it harder for grassroots candidates like Stehly, Starr and Nietzert to run for office. Let’s say you win in the general but only get 40% of the vote and 2nd place has deeper pockets than you, guess who will probably win? This is clearly an elitist move, the public is certainly not that naive to think otherwise.

But let’s throw a little common sense behind this;

• A runoff election in NON-mayoral election years could cost taxpayers an extra $80K.

• It is already difficult enough to get people out to vote during a general muni election, think about getting them to come back 2-3 weeks later for a run-off.

• The state legislature, school board and the county commission all go by top vote getters.

• Ironically the two that are proposing this change are out the door this Spring and benefitted from the current set of rules. Rolfing won his first term in 2010 with 45.34% of the vote and Erpenbach won her first term in 2010 with 48.96% of the vote. If you look at other races since the 2000 municipal election, you will see that 7 other councilors won by receiving less than 51% of the vote. (DOC: runoffs)

Like I said, this is a ploy to keep the working class grass roots candidates down and the elitists with deep pockets or donors with deep pockets on the rubberstamp council.

Hopefully Rolfing and Erpenbach will have a change of heart and pull this ridiculous measure from future agendas, or they can face the music.

It’s called ‘Pay to Play’ stupid

I only use campaign donations to line my kitty litter box

I agree with Sioux Falls city attorney, Fiddle-Faddle that there is nothing illegal or any conflicts voting on items that affect campaign donors (Protected free speech). But, for elected officials to say ‘Oh Shucks’ about it, that is another thing;

“If somebody was walking into the election year and handing you $50,000, it’d be hard to argue that doesn’t influence you,” Selberg said. “But there’s no issues here.”

Yeah, it’s just pretty much the company I use to broker homes, I can’t see a conflict? Wonder if Mashall also got a handy blindfold with his donation?

Councilor Michelle Erpenbach, who received a total of $700 from the Lloyds for her 2010 and 2014 races, said when she receives campaign contributions, she offers nothing in return but to be the best leader she can for the city.

“I have never had Craig or Pat call me and say, ‘Hey, I gave you that check,'” Erpenbach said. “I would be in their face about it, and I’d write them a check back if they did.”

Sure you would. And I’m a fairy princess.

Why do you think he gave you a donation? Oh, let Mr. Potter, uh I mean, Mr. Lloyd explain;

“You can’t buy anybody for $500 or $1,000,” Lloyd said. “If anybody wants to take the time and effort to run for the position — because I don’t want to take the time and effort — and has a positive attitude to move Sioux Falls forward, I’ll give them money any day.”

Hmm? Positive attitude? That’s nice. What about ethics? Morals? Integrity? Are those worthy attributes to contribute to? Apparently not, because councilors Stehly, Starr and Neitzert never got a check from the Lloyd family tree. C’mon guys, start working on your positive attitude, like voting to give massive tax discounts to multi-millionaire developers. They need your ‘Positive’ help.

I guess the Constitutionality of searching landlords leaky toilets stands

Grumpy Councilor blames it on the ‘Fake’ City Charter

Seems councilor Erpenbach had a change of heart, and decided that searching un-registered rental properties and charging them for it, probably doesn’t pass the smell test, OR the Constitution test. Seems the DRAFT ordinance has a couple of changes (DOC: rental-register). It seems the ‘Search and Destroy’ portion of the DRAFT ordinance has disappeared.

I didn’t know Community Gardens were controversial?

John Hult did a story about how to fight city hall. He called me about the story (I didn’t make it in) but I did say a good way would be to ‘Start a Blog’. I think I have gotten a lot of things changed in our community by blogging about them. It also would be nice to have someone else in town doing it.

Some of the other things are obvious, like lawyering up, which is expensive and you may not win. Would have liked to see more advice about how to fight them economically.

I got a good laugh out of what Erpenbach said when she was developing community gardens;

It’s also a useful strategy for starting something new. Councilor Michelle Erpenbach wasn’t a politician when she began asking the city to build community gardens.

She worked behind the scenes, talked to council members and drew supporters together before making the pitch. A strategy of “more flies with honey than vinegar” is a good way to start, Erpenbach said.

“I didn’t come in and start yelling at people and saying ‘we don’t have community gardens and by God we’d better have them right now!’” she said. “It helps, in anything, to use professionalism and build a relationship.”

I never remember much opposition, if any, to community gardens. And it certainly wasn’t controversial, it just made sense. But when it comes to crime, drugs, human trafficking and human, civil and property rights, a little shouting does help, just hope Michelle has removed her ear plugs, because she certainly doesn’t respond to emails or phone calls.

Fiscal Meeting NOT RECORDED again

There will be no camera’s, no audio and no Fancy Feast at this meeting.

Sioux Falls city council’s fiscal meeting, chaired by Councilor Erpenbach will not be recorded for a second time.

**This working session of the Fiscal Committee will be held in the Carnegie Town Hall Multipurpose Room adjacent to the Council Chambers. The working session will not be audio or video recorded.**

It really makes no sense, because they have the meeting right next to the main hall where it could be recorded. As you know from OUR recording of the last meeting, nothing ‘special’ took place in the meeting for it not be recorded and live streamed on CityLink.

I’m not sure what point Councilor Erpenbach is trying to make by not recording these meetings, but this anti-transparency movement by her, the mayor, Kiley and Rolfing is just starting to look like childish games.

Sioux Falls 2018 Mayoral Race

Anybody but this guy is fine with me

To be quite honest with you, I may stay out of endorsing or helping a candidate this time around. I had a discussion this weekend about the candidates possibly running;

Kenny Anderson, Greg Jamison, Jim Entenman, Darrin Smith, Rob Oliver and Michelle Erpenbach. I have also heard of about 2-3 ‘ghost’ candidates. Even disgraced former Deputy Secretary of State is getting into the speculation game;

But what I do keep hearing – and did so again tonight – is that former Republican Legislator Christine Erickson who had said “no” before might be softening her no into a “maybe.”  And it might be a strong maybe at that.

I’m glad Pitty Pudge could put down is double whopper for a moment and get with the times. I asked Christine about a mayoral run several months ago, and her response was that she was going to ‘keep her options open’.

It’s not that I don’t think any of these people are qualified for the job, I just don’t think any of them really stand out. And councilors have a horrible track record of winning the mayor’s seat.

I think the next mayor is going to have to be a true populist with economic savvy and an appetite for transparency and someone who is willing to invest in rebuilding our core while putting urban sprawl on hold. While the race is technically non-partisan, I don’t think a Republican or a Democrat can manage a city that way, it will take an open minded independent who is willing to listen to all sides of the table. They are going to have to also deal with the financial mess credit card Mike has left behind.

But to anybody who is willing to run, I wish them luck.

Some say simply ‘questioning’ Wiley’s business practices was out of line. Really?

What short memories people have. Only four years ago, the city council threatened to pull a license for the Vault and put them on warning with a deferral when similar things were going on (city council meeting) and (My post on it) at their establishment that have been going on at Wileys. In fact, after watching the meeting (the discussion went on for 35 minutes), besides the diddling on the cars, the things going on at the Vault pales in comparison to Wileys. It came down to basically not supplying adequate parking. How many private parking spots does Wileys have? I count ZERO. It is also important to note that the Vault had 154 police calls in a 12 month period. In 10 months of this year, Wileys is up to 182 calls. The deferral meeting is here (FF: 11:00). If you watch the meeting, you will see councilors had several meetings with the Vault and the Police department before the vote. Councilor Jamison went on to say that these kind of ‘reviews’ of the establishments was important to establish a public record of the concerns. The council voted 7-1 to renew the license, Rolfing was the dissenting vote. I believe the Vault went out of business in 2013.

Also during the meeting, they try to beat down an immigrant c-store owner in Pettigrew Heights for letting people drink 40’s beside his store. The mayor even said this to the c-store owner’s attorney during the meeting;

“. . . it is the duty of the city council to review all liquor licenses that are up for renewal. If they want to complete some additional due diligence on any of these, whether it be the Vault, whether it be the Mercato or any of the other establishments that serve alcohol in this town, they have the ability to do that. In this case they wanted to ask some questions or do some additional due diligence on the Mercato before they make a decision on that, so before you start to accuse a councilor, or someone else for doing something that is appropriate or not, I would encourage you to use caution. .  .  . I would encourage you to tone it down a bit, the council has a right to ask questions.”

What a short memory our mayor has.

They also beat down a tattoo shop owner for simply wanting a beer license so he can sell during art opening events. And how many complaints has the shop had in the past four years? Not sure. But I would assume if it was major, we would have heard about it by now. I have displayed art at the shop and have attended many other events there. It was no different then an art opening at the Pavilion (which sells alcohol at their art openings). The council voted 4-3 to approve the license with Karsky, Rolfing and Aguliar dissenting.

Seems a bit hypocritical of Michelle and Mike to say they were embarrassed about the very short discussion last night, in which in the end 7 councilors voted to let them keep their license. Let’s talk about embarrassment. It’s embarrassing our city officials have such short memories when regulating liquor licenses.

I also find it ironic that Wiley’s attorney, Drew Duncan is a well known Municipal and State government lobbyist. Seems this story is a lot deeper then we may ever know.