SF rapid and reckless growth is going to end up biting us in the ass

cartoon_dog_biting_a_mailman_in_the_butt_royalty_free_clipart_picture_090720-055246-021042

We also should have been spending more money on maintaining existing infrastructure instead of squandering it on $3 million dollar streets to nowhere;

The next mayor of Sioux Falls could face some tough decisions unless sales tax revenues begin growing at a healthy pace by next year.

Even rosy revenue forecasts call for the city to use a generous amount of reserve funds over the next several years to keep up with growth in the city’s general operating fund, which pays for basic services such as public safety and snow plowing. A new mayor takes office next spring.

And Finance Director, Eugene ‘Montgomery Burns’ Rowenhorst wants to give his advice to the next mayor;

The city’s revenue forecasts call for a 4 percent rate of growth in sales taxes next year, and 6 percent each year following 2010. Absent that type of growth, city Finance Director Eugene Rowenhorst predicts the next mayor will be forced to find “expense controls.”

Thanks, Gene. Maybe if you and Dave would have been doing your jobs we would not be in this mess. It’s called being ‘fiscally responsible’ – But what do you expect from a couple of Citibank pencil pushers.

Kyle Helseth, deputy director of the Minnehaha County Equalization Department, notes that there is an upside to slower growth in building permits. The city would have to spend less on new streets and utilities.

I have said all along that I’m for growth, but you should do it slower and wiser not fast and reckless. Since we grew so fast it may come to a steaming halt and then the shit will hit the fan affecting more then just property tax revenue.
the next mayor, who will be elected in April, could face the prospect of making painful cuts.
Could? More like Will.


10 comments ↓

#1 John2 on 08.10.09 at 9:45 am

This “develop-at-all-costs and in-every direction simultaneously” is unsustainable. Major world cities, i.e., in Europe, etc., that have existed for 500 or more years purposefully do not develop in this manner because it’s very expensive and inefficient to deliver services in such a mindless sprawl environment. The SF (and US) developers do not pay for the establishment or delivery of these services – rather they (and their bankster buddies) socialize the cost to us taxpayers.

#2 l3wis on 08.10.09 at 9:48 am

Wait until we have to start maintaining all this new infrastructure. You will see property taxes and fees go through the roof.

#3 Ghost of Dude on 08.10.09 at 10:50 am

Actually, those cities developed in compact, smart ways in the middle ages because there was a real threat that someone’s army would attack them, steal their shit, kill them all, and burn the city down. It had to be small enough to build a wall around.
What that translates to in modern terms is that the cities are dense enough to be either walkable or support much more robust mass transit than american cities, which tended to be built with the automobile in mind.

#4 l3wis on 08.10.09 at 11:03 am

“which tended to be built with the automobile in mind”

Which I don’t understand. You can get anywhere in SF on a bicycle within 30-40 minutes, tops.

Silly.

#5 Ghost of Dude on 08.10.09 at 12:22 pm

Sure you can. But do you trust the motorists on most of our streets not to run you over?
If a place isn’t close to a bike trail, I’m a little leary of riding there.

#6 Costner on 08.10.09 at 12:25 pm

It also has something to do with a lifestyle difference. People in the US like to stretch out and everyone wants to own their own little piece whereas people in Europe are more than happy to live in a densy populated urban setting with flats that average 400 sq feet and in a building no less than 3 or 4 stories tall.

The day you figure out how to change the mindset so people would rather live in condos or apartments instead of single family homes, you will have solved the whole ‘urban sprawl’ issue. In the meantime, ask the developers of that tower on Kiwanis how well that is working out for them.

#7 l3wis on 08.10.09 at 3:46 pm

Costner, funny you bring up Europe. I was reading something a few years ago that Europeans also stand closer to each other when talking. It said something like when Europeans talk their faces are about a foot apart, while when Americans talk they are about 3-4 feet apart. When the owner of Touch of Europe husband was still alive he always used to greet me with a kiss on the cheek instead of a hand shake.

#8 John2 on 08.10.09 at 4:28 pm

Ghost: nice start, though the Europeans invented the car at the same time it was invented over here. They could have easily gone into the stupid sprawl / suburb model but wisely chose not to.

#9 l3wis on 08.10.09 at 4:37 pm

They also build the best cars in the World. Go figure.

#10 Ghost of Dude on 08.10.09 at 8:54 pm

Hey, man, if I had a speed unlimited roadway system, I’d build awesome cars too.