I guess a pitchfork flyer was being passed around at the annex meeting on Wednesday. I am assuming it was in response to the mayor’s comments on the B-N-B show on Tuesday that the citizens who attended the first annex meeting were trying to cause a ‘crap storm’ by bringing their ‘pitchforks and torches’ to which Greg and Mike had a good chuckle.
As I have been told, this was a CITIZEN’s idea that did not come from anyone on the city council, or for that matter from me or Cameraman Bruce. I had to quell those rumors, since it seems someone in the administration is spreading a little ‘crap’ themselves.
(I am trying to get a picture of the original flyer)
UPDATE: Even though there was 28 citiations worth $100k handed over to Hultgren, it seems Legacy is probably off the hook due to being a LLC. It doesn’t mean there still couldn’t be civil suits against Legacy or even the city for that matter (for having knowledge of what was going on). Either way, IMO, the city should not allow Legacy anywhere near a public partnership with the city. Just by showing bad judgment in allowing such an unsafe construction company to work on it’s projects (several of them) tells me we need to send Legacy packing on the parking ramp and all future projects. We will see if the council has the cojones to see the same thing.
Well time is getting close. What time is it? Well there will be more said in near future but this public input session of the April 18, 2017 Sioux Falls City Council was informative on many levels.
Da mayor of all he sees did three grand proclamations before public input. After we were introduced to baby George, beautiful dogs and public service da mayor decided to do a proclamation on a serious topic, assault. It stirred a painful memory Cameraman Bruce has had since April 14, 2015 when he was criminally assaulted during a City Council Informational meeting. You might remember it as the surprise construction announcement meeting by da mayor for a previously unknown city need, the Romantix Annex administration building.
Cameraman Bruce reminisced before mayoral candidate David Zokaities spoke of the upcoming Earth Day celebrations and then Tim Stanga got Council Chair Rex concerned about potholes. Enjoy the video ending, our Council Chair decided to make a cameo appearance. What more can we say but enjoy the festivities.
The ghost of Q-Tip is still haunting us at Sioux Falls City Council. Let’s see how many years has it been since he quit the Council to join the Boom Town mayor’s administration so he could quit there to now lead the Pavilion? Does it matter? Not really but here is the old proposal to allow the town’s code enforcers to abuse citizens and property owner’s Constitutional rights preventing unlawful searches. You know unlawful seizures get to follow, just because they can.
Have you heard our esteemed code enforcers are back searching property when no one is home just because they can sneak in? They got caught by Cameraman Bruce illegally standing on a 6′ ladder taking pictures over a 6′ privacy fence one day. The judge was none too happy by this crap. These fine upstanding quasi-legal (or are they quasi-illegal) government employees don’t care when they get slapped down in court by a judge as long as they have the city attorney’s blessing to keep do that thing they do. Oh well, just another day at the office.
Listen to the public and several Council members sink this current proposal just by asking very legitimate questions. If a property owner signs up on this list so it is easier to contact the owner, why do the enforcers ignore the information they seem to have in their own files and require owners keep up to date?
Who is the list actually compiled for and why?
Why bother being legal when we have great apologists ready to change laws to justify the bad behavior. The proposed ordinance was set aside for now in the City Council Land Use committee on April 18, 2017 because it was both illegal and stupid. It was nice Michelle Erpenbach and committee Chair Rick Kiley set aside and allowed the public to speak, another precedent knocked down.
The next day, Lein was back at his desk, arm in a sling, hugging students and fostering the “Harrisburg Strong” mantra.
And Lein himself has been strong in the face of a group of Harrisburg High School parents rooting for him to leave.
The “Parents for HHS Change” Facebook group had about 150 members as of Wednesday morning.
The group is rooted in opposition of MOD classes and administered by Jennifer Greco, who is seeking a seat on the Harrisburg school board in the May 9 election.
“There is a little faction that exists of parents that were upset and certain folks that definitely had an ax to grind with (Lein),” Knudson said.
Greco said the main feeling among group members Wednesday was that Lein’s resignation was a positive for students who don’t participate in customized learning. She hopes to see change in what she calls a divided culture at Harrisburg High School between traditional and MOD students.
“Dr. Lein is clearly very invested in making customized learning work, and that’s fine,” Greco said. “But I just also want to make sure the traditional program works.”
Kind of wonder if Jennifer sent any middle of the night ranting email to Lein about her military service and sick kids like her husband did to Cameraman Bruce 🙂
Many know that my interest in running for a seat on the Harrisburg School Board was sparked by concerns about the divisive culture in the high school. After meeting other parents and hearing their concerns, I am afraid a similar atmosphere is permeating throughout the district as new curricula are being introduced in our other schools.
To run for an elected office focusing on ONE issue is never a good idea, but it seems South Dakota voters continue to elect those kinds of people (Republicans, Guns & Abortion). Hopefully the good people in the Harrisburg School District realize that ONE-ISSUE candidates are not qualified, kind of like a retired military official running a city clerk’s office, I’m just saying.
During the land use committee meeting today several councilors and citizens (landlords) questioned the intent of the proposed ordinances and sent it back to the drawing board. One of the major questions ‘what is the incentive’ for signing up. City Attorney Paul Bengford could only offer that they could get in trouble if they don’t.
Wow, and they are all scratching their heads wondering why no one wants to sign up.
How about offering incentives for sign-up, here’s a few suggestions;
• Lower interest rates on community development loans for landlords trying to fix up properties.
• A possible TIF program for landlords.
• Better and brighter lighting (LED) around properties that are being upgraded and registered.
• A priority on street and curb repair around said properties.
See, that was not so hard. You can catch more bees with honey then with vinegar. If you want landlords to come in the fold, offer them a little something besides punishment.
Citizens asked at the first annexation meeting how they could try to protest or stay out if the city tried to forcibly annex them in. A reader also asks this on your blog. Here is the answer Councilor Neitzert I was able to get.
If a landowner or group of them object to a FORCED annexation (city initiated) they have a few legal options (three specifically below).
1. Put the resolution of annexation passed by the city council on the ballot. This would be very similar to what happened with Walmart, Shape Places, and almost with the administration building. The only difference is the 5% of registered voters who have to sign the petition are the sum of all of those in Sioux Falls plus all of those in the newly annexed area, so if there were 120,000 registered Sioux Falls voters, and 100 registered voters in a newly annexed area, there would need to be 5% of 120,100 registered voter signatures on a petition collected by 20 days after publication of the resolution. That would put the question on the ballot and there would have to be an election. That process is explained here:
SDCL 9-4-4.5. Petition for submission of annexation resolution to voters. The required number of voters residing in the combined area of the municipality and special annexation precinct may file within twenty days after the publication of the annexation resolution a petition with the municipal finance officer, requiring the submission of the annexation resolution to a vote of the voters of the combined area of the municipality and special annexation precinct for its rejection or approval.
SDCL 9-4-4.6. Contents of referendum petition–Signatures–Verification. The petition shall contain the title of the resolution or the subject of the resolution and the date of its passage. The petition shall be signed by at least five percent of the registered voters residing in the combined area of the municipality and the special annexation precinct established pursuant to § 9-4-4.8. The percentage shall be based on the number of voters in the municipality at the last preceding general election. Each voter shall add to the voter’s signature the voter’s place of residence, including street and house number, if any, and the date of signing. The referendum petition shall be verified in the same manner as a petition to initiate a law except that the person verifying shall state that each person signing the petition is a resident and registered voter of the municipality or special annexation precinct. No signature on the petition is valid if signed more than six months prior to the filing of the petition.
2. After a resolution to annex goes into effect, and a group is now IN the city, they can attempt to petition OUT. Note that this is NOT the same as a zoning protest petition where a group of landowners can force the council to revote on the same ordinance (like the Brett apartment rezone). This is after the original resolution has passed and gone into effect. If there were 75% of landowners of equity and registered voters of a block that was annexed, they can force the council to vote on a resolution to exclude (remove) them from the city. That vote is a simple majority vote of the council. If the council does not vote to remove them from the city, state law says they can bring that to circuit court (see SDCL 9-4-8 and 9-4-9 below). Another way to take a group out of the city is by a two-thirds vote of the city council, which would be unlikely if they had just forcibly annexed the same group.
SDCL 9-4-6. Exclusion of territory from municipality on petition or by vote of governing body
Upon a two-thirds vote of the governing body, or on petition in writing signed by not less than three-fourths of the legal voters and by the owners of not less than three-fourths in value of the property in any territory within any municipality being upon the border thereof, the governing body may by resolution exclude the territory from the municipality. However, if all the land sought to be excluded is more than one-half mile from any platted portion of the municipality, the petition must be signed by the owner only.
SDCL 9-4-7. Publication of petition for exclusion of territory
No final action shall be taken by the governing body upon any petition presented in pursuance of the provisions of § 9-4-6 until notice of the presentation of such petition has been given by the petitioners by publication at least once each week for two successive weeks.
SDCL 9-4-8. Petition to circuit court for exclusion of territory after refusal by governing body
Upon the failure of the governing body to grant the request contained in a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of §§ 9-4-6 and 9-4-7, for thirty days after the last publication of the notice or upon a refusal to grant such request, the petitioners may present their petition to the circuit court of the county in which such municipality or the greater portion of it is situated, by filing such petition with the clerk of courts.
SDCL 9-4-9. Service of notice of petition to circuit court–Hearing at term or in vacation
Notice of filing pursuant to § 9-4-8 shall be served by the petitioners upon the mayor or president of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, together with a notice of the time and place when and where a hearing will be had upon such petition, at least ten days before the date of such hearing.
The hearing on the petition may be had by the court at a regular or special term or in vacation.
SDCL 9-4-10. Court order for exclusion of territory–Dismissal of petition
If upon the hearing the court shall find that the request of the petitioners ought to be granted and can be granted without injustice to the inhabitants or persons interested, the court shall so order. If the court finds against the petitioners, the petition shall be dismissed at the cost of the petitioners.
3. Some other sort of action in circuit court objecting to some legal aspect of the forced annexation or the process in which it was done.
Once again our esteemed Sioux Falls city administrators have bungled an event. If da mayor ain’t there, the kids even screw up the use of the only recording device they are allowed to play with, the city’s baby monitor. Do they think we will not notice their lack of transparency? How does da mayor think it’s alright to take away property rights as long as they do it with a baby monitor?
We have a prime example of why we bring our Handicams to Sioux Falls city meetings. If the administration isn’t physically assaulting citizens who attend meetings they are doing it to their sensibilities. This meeting was called after Council members started rejecting the illegal manner the Sioux Falls Planning and Zoning department was pushing through annexations.
• First the meeting was held at 2:00pm on a Tuesday when citizens can’t leave work.
• Next the meeting is planned for the downtown main library where everyone who attends has to pay about $1.50 in parking meter fees, and $10 for a ticket.
• While they were at it, they originally set up a room for 25 people, as if they could hold it in secrecy or in a room so small the peeps would just leave when they couldn’t get in.
• Who on God’s green earth thought this was a good idea, to use the room without microphones and the overhead speaker system? It is one of the worst rooms to hear anything in.
• To make the event very transparent, da mayor of all mayors needed the CityLink cameras for a retirement BFF ceremony in City Hall, so the kids who put on this meeting got only one baby monitor to record the event.
You can kind of guess by now, we showed up and so did about 200 more because Councilor Theresa Stehly let those affected by the 60+ annexation issues know the meetings were happening. The room had to be increased and it was still standing room only with people outside the door trying to get in.
In the end, the baby monitor failed just like the event planners. This is the only full recording of the event. Cameraman Bruce thanks the Sioux Falls citizens who showed up with their own recorders and caught the action he was not able to. The April 11, 2017 library meeting was a joke in so many ways but the citizens were there in such force the powers that pretend to be, had to pay attention.
Theresa Stehly the citizens thank you for your hard work. If not for your hard work talking to people ahead of time, this meeting would have been a sham like so many others.
The son of a man charged with making a terrorist threat at an anti-Islam event earlier this month says he and his father have lost everything over charges that amount to political fearmongering by a gubernatorial candidate.
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) – Judges are sealing warrants that let police obtain blood and urine samples from “The Bachelor” star Chris Soules and to enter his home after a fatal Iowa crash. Two orders released Friday say the release of warrant materials could jeopardize the investigation into Monday’s accident and undermine Soules’ right to […]
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Sioux Falls Police released surveillance video Friday from a robbery at Voyage Federal Credit Union that took place late Thursday morning. Police say the robbery happened just after 11:30 a.m. at the bank on 10th Street and Kiwanis Avenue in Sioux Falls. Footage shows the suspect entering the bank, where police […]
FILE - This Feb. 1, 2016, file photo provided by the Nevada Department of Wildlife shows a Nevada game warden displaying the carcasses and wings of two golden eagles and a hawk seized from an Arizona man accused of killing…