Am I the only one that thinks this whole problem could have been solved with something so simple?

Karmen Groos, the mother of an eighth-grader, said she didn’t want potentially intoxicated men staring through the windows at her daughter and the other students.

“This is a huge concern for me because her classes are going to be some of the later classes,” she said.

There also were concerns about parking and the safety of students in the parking lot with drivers who might have been drinking.

Last I checked, drinking and driving is illegal.

But Jim Dunham of Dunham Cos., which owns the building, said the vast majority of the people in the area wanted the business. It would only serve beer and wine, and it would be a full-service restaurant.

“I guess I take a little offense that all bar patrons are pedophiles, but I guess that’s just my perspective,” he said.

There are a few things that concern me here;

First off, without taking sides, I want to say that a conditional use permit is just that ‘conditional’ if a new business violates certain requirements they can be shut down. In other words, besides labeling all adult men who drink beer as perverts, there really was no good reason to not let Bogey’s open their restaurant/bar. This shows me one of two things; The new council and mayor are very inexperienced in zoning matters and the extreme nanny-stateism of the current council (especially Vernon Brown). While I find it perplexing why a bar/restaurant owner would want to open next door to a dance studio I still feel there really is no good reason to prevent it from happening (The Top Hat downtown is right next door to a church). If Bogey’s violates any stipulations of the use permit or zoning permit, the council can shut them down – in other words give peace a chance.

But I also agree the dance studio has rights, but it seems some of these things could have been worked out. We put doors on restrooms for a reason and I guess if you don’t want people staring through your windows at you, you can always pull the shades.

“I’m not saying any of their clients are bad people, but it only takes one, and then we’re going to have an issue,” Anderson said.

Anderson joined his seven colleagues in rejecting the request.

So now the city council is basing their decisions on things that ‘might’ happen? Why even have a city council? Why not just replace them with a Magic 8-Ball?

Mayor Mike Huether thanked both sides of the issue for airing their views, calling it a “great, great night for Sioux Falls.”

“This is what city government is all about,” he said.

A great night?! The only thing that was accomplished was an act of fascism by the city council.

2 Thoughts on “Ever heard of window blinds?

  1. l3wis on June 8, 2010 at 5:49 am said:

    You gotta watch the testimony, classic ‘what about the children’ BS. It is almost comical.

    http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1151

  2. Plaintiff Guy on June 8, 2010 at 10:25 am said:

    The council makes noise but has no power. Mayoral tyranny decides everything (Home Rule). They can stay home on monday nights. We’ll keep paying them so they’ll shut up.

    These matters are decided by HLD (Hegg, Lloyd, Dunham). By now, Huether knows who pads his pockets. HLD owns the city. They spend public taxes on inflated projects yet also hold citizens for ransom in the form of fines/fees.

Post Navigation