Entries Tagged 'Mike Huether' ↓

Mayor Huether will probably veto admin building repeal

During Dem Forum today, he brought up the administration building and the importance of the proposed structure, he also ‘claimed’ the last council approved the bonding of the facility. That is not true, it was a 4-4 tie with him being the tie-breaker.

After his words today, I suspect he will veto the repeal.

He also told councilors Neitzert and Stehly that were in attendance today that they need to learn how to work together as a team . . .

I wonder if he will accuse me of being an atheist again?

DemForum20160722

Come with your questions, that he won’t answer, but it’s fun to watch him sweat;

• Are you running for governor?

• Will you veto the admin building repeal?

• Why do you want to limit public testimony?

Councilor Rolfing & Mayor Huether are planning changes to public input

censor

The key word here is ‘planning’. I warned councilor Rolfing last night in public input that he should be cautious about moving forward on changes because he would have a big fight on his hands.

He supposedly cooked up his proposal in the top secret operations committee meeting in the basement of Carnegie on Tuesday. I am unclear what is all in the proposal, but I heard it involves ‘comment cards’.

The plan is to have each commenter sign in with a comment card and write down the topic they choose to speak about. Then the mayor or Rolfing would sort through the cards and pick the commenters they wish to speak by calling them forward.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

While I am not opposed to signing a sheet to say I will comment (it’s good for the clerk to have the correct spelling of the commenter’s name for the minutes and the record) I am not in favor of being called up like I am in 3rd grade speech class.

Picking and choosing the commenters is a blatant disregard for the spirit of free speech and the 1st Amendment. Elected officials are in place to serve us, not the other way around. I often say if they have a problem with that arrangement, do us all a favor and resign.

As I have reminded the mayor and council in the past, if public input is disruptive or offensive, the commenter can be gaveled at that time and asked to stop or even leave. The chair has that power and I agree with that procedure. Some people do get out of control and can be frivolous.

But picking and choosing who can comment and about what is favoritism and goes against transparency and open government as a whole. Something the mayor absolutely hates with a passion.

I know that some other folks in the media are aware of the proposal and won’t stand for it either.

Like I told Rolfing last night, I welcome the debate about changing public input, bring it on, because you are going to lose, and lose big time, and in the process you are going to look very foolish, if you don’t already.

In the dark of the night?

Will Huether veto the admin repeal in the dark of the night, or is he really taking his time to decide whether or not he wants to waste his political capital on a veto? He could also be just dragging his feet to as close to the October due date so the council couldn’t try to stop it again;

On Wednesday, Huether issued a statement saying he will hold off on responding to that vote, though he did not give a specific timeline.

Huether said he “recognizes the interest and importance of the project and also celebrates the due diligence and sacrifice put forth by the city’s project team and the city council.”

Don’t expect a press conference either way.

Potty Mouth Mike?

The Argus published a story online Tuesday about Rapid City’s mayor, Allender’s move to make his emails and other correspondence transparent with the public;

He’s opening up (some) of his emails for public scrutiny. According to South Dakota Public Broadcasting, the city’s elected leader Steve Allender said he will share any “official correspondence” between his office and the city council, be it email or written letters.

The Argus reporter encouraged our mayor to do the same.

(brief pause for intense laughter)

Besides the fact that Mike probably hides a lot of inside deals with his correspondence, his verbiage of choice may surprise a few citizens, especially those who thinks he actually understands the teachings of Jesus Christ or even Dale Carnegie.

While I have never been able to get hard evidence, because people chicken out, I have heard that the mayor has a favorite word that starts with ‘F’ and it isn’t Folks.

There’s been rumors about city employees, road contractors and events center construction workers being on the opposite end of the mayoral ‘bombs’. He garnered the nickname ‘Mayor Meltdown’ at the worksite.

But I think the height of his ‘F-wordery’ was when a former city councilor (term limited) spoke ill of the mayor on a popular local political radio talk show. The councilor, and rightfully so, was upset because the mayor had promised a national search for a replacement for a recently retired department manager, then bailed on it. The councilor unloaded on the show, but mostly because they felt the mayor was their friend and was upset they were lied to. Well it only took a matter of seconds for the mayor to send him a ‘bomb’ littered threatening text message while the councilor was still in studio. The councilor was so upset about it, they felt they were being harassed and asked fellow councilors what kind of ‘action’ they could take against the mayor.

This councilor would not give me the text (I begged, and begged), but I did talk to other councilors who saw it and verified it’s contents.

I have yet to be delivered one of Mayor Huether’s special ‘bombs’, but maybe this is why we will never see Huether’s correspondence.

Mayor Apology?

YouTube Preview Image

A Wink & a Nod

YouTube Preview Image

Few things need more explanation. The end of a July 19, 2016 item #40 Sioux Falls City Council Public Input. A city of Sioux Falls official struck Cameraman Bruce on the back of his head back on April 14, 2015 right after the administration building introduction. Bruce just reminded the Council of why the building has special meaning for him. We’ll keep all informed.

Let the battle lines be drawn

Tuesday night’s city council meeting may be one of the most exciting in a long time, and it comes down to two items next to each other, 39 and 40.

Item 39 deals with the Paramedics Plus contract and rate increases. The city council really doesn’t have a choice on this one. If a majority votes against it, they could be sued by Paramedics Plus, so you ask, what’s the point? Trust me, the councilors have been asking themselves that very question.

But don’t think it will get passed quietly. Many former and current Paramedics Plus employees have been speaking out, so have some fire fighters, and mistreated patients and others with connections to REMSA. Expect to hear some interesting public testimony before the vote.

Then there is that little $25 million administration building, Item 40. Expect to hear more testimony, not only about the proposed building but about the 300 building and other unused space the city currently owns. But even if the council can sustain their 5 votes from last week (I suspect they will) they won’t be veto proof. Or can they get one of the 3 to flip (which is a possibility).

But the bigger question is, will Huether veto the repeal if it gets a 5-3 vote? It’s dangerous territory, he wouldn’t just be vetoing the 5 councilors he would be putting a big middle finger to all the voters who elected them to make prudent fiscal decisions. Four of them this past Spring heard it loud and clear from the constituents, they don’t want to see city government grow, they want their money spent on fixing our infrastructure, not paying another mortgage for a building we don’t need.

I also ask the question, if this building was so important, why didn’t we propose it before the indoor pool? We could have used the levee bond repayment to go as a down payment on this building, but instead we foolishly threw the money away on an indoor aquatic center we should have built with a private partnership.

If the mayor thinks his popularity is getting worse, I can guarantee if he vetoes the council on this one, he can kiss the governorship bye-bye. Because he will own that veto straight through the Fall of 2018.

The Mike Huether Story . . . one more time

You know the story, buck teeth, poor, beer can collecting and helmet hair. Listen here.

beercancollector

Prominent Developer in Sioux Falls sends an email to city councilors ‘whining’ about how he has been treated by the Mayor and the Development Office

IMAG0088_1  IMAG0089_1

The wife of the developer and the mayor having an ‘engaging conversation’ in HyVee’s parking lot (Wednesday morning, 7-13-2016). When was the email sent to councilors? About 2 PM, that same day.

I won’t publish the entire email diatribe from the developer, his name, or the project he refers to, but I will give you some highlights of this seemingly ‘staged’ email.

“The administration eventually conceded that they could provide up to $15 million in bonding authority but “not a penny more”. On December 21, 2015 the City and the 2 private partners received the preliminary budget from — —- Construction. The — —- — structure was estimated to cost $17.3 million . . . . However instead of revising their budget to reflect this new reality the administration insisted that they would require the private sector to give them at least $2 million of the proposed private TIF which left us short by the same amount.”

He was basically saying the project cost jumped $2 million from what was originally proposed by the city, and they were not going to include that extra amount in the TIF. But where the email gets interestingly faux is towards the end;

“For the next 3 months the community develop office worked diligently with us to identify other sources of financing and or grants. We even attempted to find HUD affordable housing funds to help offset the joint budget shortfall.  At that point in late March the Mayor weighed in and decided that any additional monies needed to help offset the budget shortfall was considered “corporate welfare” and asked us to terminate the negotiations immediately.”

Corporate Welfare?! HUD Money?! LMAO! First off, the mayor is the queen of corporate welfare, this is the same guy who gave his tennis center $500K and then slapped his name on it and blockaded the parking lot. Secondly, HUD money for this project IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY AN OPTION!

“As I read this I realize it sounds as though I am whining. And yes I will admit there is a little bit in here. We, as developers, know the risks that every project may not work just like we thought going into it. But I think it is important for you all as policy makers to know the facts of what actually happened and not be swayed by current requests and excuses for an increase in budget. This project is too important for the future of —- to let politics get in the way of it succeeding. Thanks for letting me vent a little and feel free to contact me if you need any more additional information.”

While I will say, he is probably telling the truth about the process and numbers in his email, saying he is whining, is laying it on a bit thick. When on God’s green earth has a prominent developer in Sioux Falls given a rat’s behind about what the council thinks? They have always taken the back door approach through the administration and his minions in the development and planning offices.

Not sure what is cooking, but I suspect the mayor has a few of his ingredients in this stew.