August 2010

If private entities want to pay for public indoor rec facilities, let them

l3wis August 26, 2010 13Comments

This seems like a no-brainer. I think it is fantastic that during the worst economy since the great depression that we have private companies willing to pony-up for public rec centers. But of course our mayor and the AL ed board seem to think that taxpayers should pony up to, because golly gee, we just should;

Since our public facilities require financial investments, there’s only one difference between those venues and the ones we still lack: The ones we need now are indoor facilities.

In a cold-weather state, it’s difficult to understand why some residents fail to see the legitimacy of public indoor recreation.

First off, we don’t lack indoor recreation. We have several health clubs and even a sports dome in Sioux Falls that are being used during the winter by people who want to use them. I am still baffled why the city thinks it needs to compete with these facilities. Taxpayers have made it clear on several occasions – they don’t want to pay for them. If you want to use these facilities, you go to them and pay a fee to use them. What a simple concept, Huh?

Huether seems to understand that it is shortsighted to think that the private sector is solely responsible for bringing indoor venues to Sioux Falls.

Like I said, if Sanford and Avera want to build these facilities for us and plaster their names all over them, let them. I think it is shortsighted to get in their way by saying, “Oh, you don’t have to pay for all of it, we want to give you some taxpayer money to, even though you will receive all the marketing benefits from the partnership.” Let’s just say ‘thank you’ and move along already.

Sioux Falls already is well behind where it should be,

According to who? The AL ed board? For once, I would like to see the ED board backup their generalized statements with actual proof. Poppycock.

So who does Mayor Huether propose pay to remove dead trees on city owned property?

l3wis August 25, 2010 10Comments

Before we get to the ‘tree scam’ proposed by the city, first a little back and forth between the city councilors;

“It’s been embarrassing as a citizen to watch previous leadership,” Councilor Michelle Erpenbach said.

“Last year’s budget was totally ridiculous,” Councilor Jim Entenman said.

“Remember, Jim, there’s a couple people here who voted on that ridiculous budget,” Councilor Greg Jamison said.

Oh, but councilor Staggers was such a bad guy, you know, the boogey man of responsible spending, now all of sudden everyone is a fiscal conservative now that the bottom dropped out of the economy. Yet Erpenbach supports funding the Zoo, and Entenman supported raising sales taxes to build an Events Center. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways. Either you support spending tax money on taxpayer needs, or you don’t.

The first cut the council discussed Tuesday was the elimination of the street tree removal program, which removes dead or diseased trees from rights-of-way.

The $60,000 program will be discontinued under the 2011 budget proposal.

So who does our mayor propose pay for this program? Kinda sounds like he wants to use the same unconstitutional city ordinance that forces people to trim city owned trees to force people to pay for the removal of the city owned trees. So I ask you again, Mike, who do you suppose pay for dead tree removal? The Feds? The County? Because it sure as Hell shouldn’t be property owners who don’t own the property.