Don’t believe me? You should watch the public testimony last night where existing property owners testified that they are being forced to build sidewalks at their expense. All of them testified that when they built their homes they were told that no future sidewalks would be need to be put in on the backsides of their properties. So they planted trees, landscaped, put in sprinkler systems, etc. So not only is the city making them pay for city owned property, they have to pay to have other stuff removed too. And as far as I am concerned, if the city lied to these people, they shouldn’t have to follow the ordinance.
The second person to testify gets pretty irrate with the mayor, and says something to the affect that the little guy gets forced to pay for this stuff and all that it benefits is the big developers. Munson got a little irrate back at him and says he will not tolerate him making fun of city officials and ‘Fat Cats’.
The circus starts at 1:00 Hour into the video.
So the homeowners were “told that no future sidewalks would be need to be put in on the backsides of their properties”.
Who told them this – the developer? The builder or real estate agent who worked the deal?
Did they bother to get this in writing? I’d bet not. That is sort of like arguing a parking ticket in court and claiming “that one guy told me it was ok to park there” even though it was directly beneath a no parking sign.
I realize it stinks to have to pay to put in sidewalks, but this sounds like more of an issue with the developer than the city. It is widely known that sidewalks in Sioux Falls are to be built on both sides of the street and that applies to all roads whether they are in the front or rear of a person’s property.
If you want the city to start paying to install and maintain the sidewalk systems, be prepared for your property tax and frontage assessments to double. I think I’ll go ahead and maintain my own thank you very much.
Actually, you should watch that part of the meeting, which is about 13 minutes long. Councilor Anderson brings up a good point. “Why does city enforce sidewalks on both sides of the street in ‘some’ neighborhoods but not others.” The canned answer from the city official was 1) I’m just following ordinance 2) It is on a complaint basis. I guess my beef is that it is not like these houses have been there for 15-20 years. Most of them are 4 years old. How can the city project 5 years ahead in their CIP budget, but can’t tell property owners or developers whether or not they will build sidewalks in 4 years. I find it hard to swallow. I think most of the property owners wouldn’t have a problem with putting in the backside sidewalks, their beef is why weren’t they told when they built so they could have done it did. I just think it is a little fishy when 1) the homes are pretty new 2) the city applies different standards to different parts of town. If the city wants to continue charging homeowners to build their infrastructure, they need to be consistent on enforcement, not just willy nilly. That was one of my biggest beefs with Project Trim, they target certain neighborhoods but not others.
I did watch the video, and I understand the argument about this being unfairly applied, but that doesn’t mean these people shouldn’t put in sidewalks just because there are other properties in town that don’t yet have them.
There is a slight difference though. The city ordinance didn’t exist when some of the older areas of town were developed, but it has been around for at least 15-20 years and it states sidewalks need to be on both sides of the street, therefore a newer development such as this has no wiggle room.
The fact Vierick was involved in the development doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, but I have to be honest I think you open up a larger can of worms if you tell these people they are exempt from the city ordinance when others are forced to abide by it. Next thing you know anyone with a sidewalk on the rear of their property will be complaining there is a double standard.
And about that Van Beek guy….what a tool. How many times could he say “that’s what I’m trying to say” in a four minute timeframe? I’m not Munson cheerleader, but Dave was right to call him out of line when he started getting upset and saying damn this and damn that. I listened to the guy talk but he never made a clear point and just rambled.
He made a very clear point from the beginning. He said the ordinance read that the sidewalk ‘benefits’ the property owner. Van Beek said a sidewalk behind his house doesn’t benefit him in any way, just the city and the developers. He is right. As for swearing at Munson, trust me, I have been there, it’s like talking to a brick wall. As a person who believes very strongly in dissent of our public officials it is very frustrating when Munson tells you to shut up. If he can’t take the criticism, he needs to resign. He seems to think he is immune to people criticizing him, like he is the king on his thrown. As long as people are not dropping F and S bombs and threatening the mayor with physical harm, they should be able to say whatever they want to him. And if he wants to debate the facts, fine, but just telling people to sit down or shut up is not fair to a citizen. I suggest Munson reads the 1st Amendment before each council meeting.
I could understand if Sioux Falls was flat broke that they would expect their citizens to build and maintain city owned infrastructure, but that is not the case. If the city has money for monkey crappers and football fields, it should have money to build sidewalks and trim trees. That’s my point. It’s about prioritizing spending. Any city that would be stupid enough to buy $800 cement planter boxes obviously isn’t fiscally responsible enough to figure out how to budget for infrastructure.
Well sorry to say people pay for their own sidewalks in the vast, vast majority of the cities in this nation. You can’t justify the city having to finance sidewalks just because they spend money foolishly elsewhere. The two concepts are in no way linked. On one hand yes the city blows money on things both you and I agree are wasteful, but that doesn’t mean the city should start financing sidewalks simply because developers want to save themselves a few bucks.
Weren’t you the same guy who said the developers should be paying for the roads instead of the city? Same concept here…and don’t think for a second if the city started paying for sidewalk installations that the developers would reduce the cost of the typical home by a few grand. The difference would likely go directly into their pockets.
As to the argument about sidewalks benefitting the property owner, an argument could easily be made that it does. It allows children a place to play and ride their bikes away from road traffic. It prevents people from walking on lawns and damage turf. It creates a friendly neighborhood by allowing people a place to have recreation. It eliminates traffic delays caused by pedestrians on streets.
I could go on and on, but it is pretty easy to make an argument that sidewalks benefit homeowners if for no other reason than they benefit everyone – and everyone includes homeowners.
The primary reason people don’t like sidewalks (Staggers included) is because they cost money to install. Some people think snow removal is a hassle as well, and there are rare cases that it reduces the amount of lawn space a property owner has (such as the case with people in the video) but 98% of the time the real issue people have with sidewalks is that they cost money, and that should fall back upon the developer – not the city.
Vierick pulled another fast one on the city and skimped on $10k worth of concrete. Now he invokes these magical conversations where he claims he was told he didn’t need to. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not in the slightest. To think a developer would do anything without getting it in writing is just plain silly.
The fact Vierick was involved in the development doesn’t surprise me in the slightest
Me either.
Oh trust me, I’m not a fan of Darrell.
As for all of the benefits of sidewalks, you make great points. So why didn’t they install them when the developement was built?
“Weren’t you the same guy who said the developers should be paying for the roads instead of the city?”
You make a great point. New homebuilders are expected to put in sidewalks at their expense, but developers expect the city to pickup the tab when they want to build a new development. Is that fair?
You make good arguments as to why homeowners should pay for the sidewalk, but my biggest beef is the consistency of how the city applies its ordinances.
I just think it is hypocritical to ask property owners to pay for and maintain city owned infrastructure, then turn around and build football fields that will be used by kids that don’t even live in our city or have parents who pay property taxes here.
In other words if the city is asking us to chip into the infrastructure, fine, but they should chip in their fair share to before building more monkey crappers.
I think the smartest way to build sidewalks in this city and share the cost would be for the city to build the sidewalk themselves and tack that cost onto the property owners’ property taxes.
“So why didn’t they install them when the developement was built?”
Well if you ask Vierick, he was told he didn’t have to. Whether you believe that is another issue.
The larger issue here might be – why the hell did the city allow him to continue developing and why did they allow owners to occupy the dwellings before the sidewalks were complete? They dropped the ball no doubt, but that doesn’t mean the ordinance shouldn’t apply.
“I think the smartest way to build sidewalks in this city and share the cost would be for the city to build the sidewalk themselves and tack that cost onto the property owners’ property taxes.
Well if the person refuses to put one in, that is pretty much what they do. However I don’t think that is necessarily the smartest or easiest way to go about it. When the contractor handles it, the process is actually pretty easy because the same concrete company pouring the driveway will do the sidewalks too. It is actually pretty efficient.
It is only when a developer tries to skirt the system that we have issues. I can see the arguments from old developments that have been around since the early 1900s, but for a development that is less than five years old there is no excuse.
If you ask me, the developer should be held liable for excluding these sidewalks instead of the homeowner – and the developer should have to pay the costs to put them in since they were the ones who ignored the city ordinance the first time. If the developer refuses so be it, but make sure they aren’t allowed to develop any land within the city limits until they do.
Problem solved.
“The larger issue here might be – why the hell did the city allow him to continue developing and why did they allow owners to occupy the dwellings before the sidewalks were complete?”
Because big developers like Darrell run city hall.
“Well if the person refuses to put one in, that is pretty much what they do.”
Then it is a code violation, with fines and a bill from the city to put in the sidewalk. And since home rule doesn’t allow due process there is no recourse. Like I have said before, it is about the city forcing property owners to pay for there infrastructure. You can’t refuse.
I might have more sympathy if the ordinance wasn’t clear or if it was passed a year ago instead of 15 or 20 years ago.
Granted people aren’t aware of every city ordinance, but you know what they say… ignorance is no defense. People shouldn’t assume what their developer or builder tells them is true when it conflicts with city law.
The law says sidewalks on both sides of the street, so they need sidewalks on both sides. Just because some old timer doesn’t want to have to remove snow from his property because it is a “burden” to him is no justification to ignore said law.
“Granted people aren’t aware of every city ordinance”
Neither are city officials. I found that out with the tax petition drive.
So if the city doesn’t even know their own rules how can they expect the citizens to know them?