Come live in Sioux Falls and work for nothing!

Untitled-2



17 comments ↓

#1 Ghost of Dude on 04.13.09 at 10:36 am

Nice.
I suppose some idiot’s gonna try and argue our cost of living is lower here, but aside from housing, what’s cheaper?
The best case scenario here is if businesses move here and employees only come with them on one condition – they keep their better pay.
I just wish there weren’t so many local folks around here who are OK with selling themselves short in the pay department.

#2 Warren Phear on 04.13.09 at 10:47 am

Hope you don’t mind l3wis. I’m spreading your tune around.

#3 l3wis on 04.13.09 at 11:07 am

Warren, I don’t think you want to spread my ‘tune’ around, I can’t hold a note. But you are free to spread my ‘toon’ around (snark)

I emailed the LA Times about the story, maybe they will let me have an op-ed;

Dear sirs-

I found Nicholas Riccardi’s column in your Sunday edition about Sioux Falls, misleading and full of inaccuracies. As a resident for nearly 18 years I have found living and working in Sioux Falls to be a struggle. Especially for a working class man or woman, it would have been nice to write the story from our perspective instead. The mayor of Sioux Falls isn’t the ‘best source’ when it comes to the reality of what goes on here. Special interests have him under their thumb.

The inaccuracies-

– SF tax rate was increased to 6% on January 1st. The increase was a split vote on the city council with the Mayor breaking the tie. The increase was for a $5 million dollar handout for developer roads.

– Citi has laid off way more than 122 people in Sioux Falls. They slowly lay off people each week in order to cover up the real numbers. And if they sell part of the company to an Indian entity, as they are planning, the layoffs in SF will be substantial.

– The Planning department said last week that construction value for the first quarter in 2009 is down $38 million from last year (last year it was at $78 million for the first quarter of 2008.)

Some Facts;

Most jobs in SF pay around $10-$12 an hour with no or few benefits.

Almost 50% (40% white) of school children in SF live in poverty and get free or reduced lunches. In fact, the Superintendent of the SF School district doesn’t like to have late starts due to weather because she fears those kids would go without breakfast. The qualification for poverty in SF is a family of six living on or below $30,000 a year.

Homeless numbers have doubled in Sioux Falls since last year, with 25% of them being children.

Unemployment is actually close to 6% in Sioux Falls, with underemployment at or around 15%. Most Sioux Falls working class residents have at least two jobs to make ends meet.

You can read more on my blog where I follow state and city politics very closely
Southdacola.com

Thank you for your time,
Scott L. Ehrisman

#4 Warren Phear on 04.13.09 at 11:52 am

l3wis says:
April 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Warren, I don’t think you want to spread my ‘tune’ around, I can’t hold a note. But you are free to spread my ‘toon’ around (snark)

Oh shit! My Bad

#5 Costner on 04.13.09 at 12:23 pm

As a resident for nearly 18 years I have found living and working in Sioux Falls to be a struggle.

You’re a patient man. I tried to sort my MP3 collection based upon genre and gave up after a couple of hours. I can’t imagine living somewhere for almost two decades and still struggling with it.

No offense, but if living and working here was half as hard for me as it sounds like it is for you… I’d move.

#6 l3wis on 04.13.09 at 12:39 pm

Well it hasn’t been ‘easy’ so to speak and I am single. I can’t imagine what it is like for people with kids. I probably would do better in another location, but at this point in my life, it would have to be a pretty good offer to get me to leave. The nice part about SF is that you can take a couple hour drive and enjoy ‘big city’ entertainment and come home without the ‘big city’ drama. That’s what always makes me shake my head about special interests and city hall, they want Sioux Falls to be a ‘big city’ when I think it is perfect size right now. People move here all the time from MPLS because they are tired of those hassles. I think if SF would adopt a ‘slow growth’ mentality, wages would be better and so would the quality of life.

#7 Ghost of Dude on 04.13.09 at 1:01 pm

I think if SF would adopt a ’slow growth’ mentality, wages would be better and so would the quality of life.

I think well-planned growth would be an even better change. Paving over endless cornfields and pooping out beige tract-houses and strip malls onto them is poor planning.

#8 Angry Guy on 04.13.09 at 1:12 pm

But the roads leading to those paved cornfields are the best in the nation.

#9 l3wis on 04.13.09 at 1:37 pm

Welcome to SF;

http://www.heightsarts.org/files/NewsArchives/2007news/may28-2007_files/Emerald_City_3.jpg

#10 Ghost of Dude on 04.13.09 at 1:47 pm

Actually, we’re hte “Queen City”, which could become a tourist draw of its own…

And there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the fundies.
On the bright side, usually when a neighborhood gets revitalized in most parts of the country, the gay folks are the first wave, followed by hipsters, and then yuppies. Pettigrew heights could pay off after all.

#11 Costner on 04.14.09 at 7:08 am

Paving over endless cornfields and pooping out beige tract-houses and strip malls onto them is poor planning.

And the reasonable alternative is what exactly? Multi-story structures downtown ala New York City? Glass domes straight from an Isaac Asimov novel?

Let’s face it – when land is selling for $3500 an acre as opposed to $3500 / sq ft, urban sprawl is inevitable. Cost is the true motivator, and people desire a home of their own on their very own slice of land. Heck even twin homes are less popular because people are ‘forced’ to share a wall.

A WALL MAN! THEY HAVE TO SHARE A WALL! OH THE HUMANITY!

#12 Ghost of Dude on 04.14.09 at 7:15 am

Here’s an idea: Develop the land that’s already well-inside city limits. There’s lots of it.
Endless development to the horizon will only lead to streched services and infrastructure, which will either lead to poor city services, or higher taxes to pay for it all.

#13 l3wis on 04.14.09 at 7:46 am

They just completed a new fire station.

#14 Costner on 04.14.09 at 8:44 am

So what land within city limits would support this level of expansion? Sure there are chunks here and there, but eventually it all gets eaten up and developed. Short of razing existing homes and redeveloping the area (which is obviously costly) I’m not sure what else the developers can do and still meet the demand for housing.

#15 l3wis on 04.14.09 at 9:05 am

Costner- It is really about profit margins. They make more money digging up cornfields.

#16 Ghost of Dude on 04.14.09 at 11:08 am

Well, Hell, I’m happy if they make a profit developing any land. Nothing wrong with that.
My problem is with the utility of the whole thing and how we as a city want to grow. The city needs to put in place more incentives for people to buy and renovate old properties (without developers involved) to make them more attractive to potential buyers than a treeless, windswept beige tract house on the edge of nowhere.
It’s in this city’s best interest not to let the core rot.

#17 l3wis on 04.14.09 at 11:29 am

You should listen to the Economic Forum. They have audio of it now on the city website. I started listening to it this morning.

Let me give you an overview of the first 33 minutes:

GROWTH, GROWTH, EVENT CENTER, GROWTH, GROWTH, PARKS, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH.

Not sure what the other 70 minutes will hold, but it’s kinda like a bad movie, I gotta tune in and see.

Leave a Comment