Was our local newspaper turned into a Pro Events Center propaganda piece today?

“A downtown events center will benefit not only downtown businesses, but also all businesses that are along the main roadways into downtown. The more options you give people in and out, the more they will explore them. This is where we will miss out if we build anywhere but downtown.” – Dave Syverson

Like we didn’t hear enough about the Events Center during the campaign, we get to hear about it more today in the Gargoyle Leader. And I’m not talking about couple of stories, I’m talking about SEVERAL stories.

Here’s one about building it Downtown.

Here’s another about the low-ball cost.

Here’s yet another about the private meetings.

This one is about readers spurting off;

And this one is about all the questions that still remain.

Tired yet?

Well my favorite (that really doesn’t have to do with the Events Center) is Beck’s editorial about Mayor Hubris.

For one thing, like our friend The Road Runner, he comes across as self-assured to a fault. Back in July, meeting with the board of directors of the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, Huether asked them to imagine what could get done in Sioux Falls if there were “two of me.”

Yes, just imagine.

And occasionally his self-analysis seems, well, a bit generous. As he told our reporter Megan Luther: “The one comment that I hear over and over again is, ‘Mayor Huether, man, you are getting things done, and we really appreciate it.’ ”

He shouldn’t be so hard on himself.

The only thing that was missing is a comment about his perfect hair.



20 comments ↓

#1 Scott on 09.12.10 at 6:30 pm

Disgusting, and filled with more lies. 50,000 people at the Parade of Lights??? lolz

#2 l3wis on 09.12.10 at 6:37 pm

What’s up with this issue? I read it first online, and got a bit confused, because there was so many stories about the EC, then when I bought the dead tree version, I got even more confused. They chastise Huether for his hubris and having private meetings then turn around and say the $500,000 should be spent on his idea. WTF. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. If Huether is being nefarious in the process he doesn’t deserve one single fucking penny for his plan.

#3 Buzz Evenrude on 09.12.10 at 10:56 pm

Wow, Randy B obviously wants something downtown

#4 Costner on 09.13.10 at 6:06 am

Ok all that is fine and dandy, but why is there a picture of Brendan Fraser on this post (and man has that guy let himself go since George of the Jungle).

I’m just sayin’

#5 Angry Guy on 09.13.10 at 6:24 am

South DaCola, now 20% douchier!

I kid.. I kid… Slick Dave has a couple decent points..

I will refrain from commenting further on the pic for fear that someday I’ll piss DL off enough to have him post a picture of my stupid fat face on his blog.

#6 Sy on 09.13.10 at 7:24 am

Somone needs to kick that Fraser lookin’ d-bag out of town before everyone outside of the AL starts agreeing with him.

#7 Ghost of Dude on 09.13.10 at 8:37 am

It will be interesting to see what Mikey does about this. His opposition to the downtown site is all politics – old people are afraid to go downtown (not that they regularly go to the current arena anyway) and they vote.
Do us all a 50-year favor, Mike, and join the push for a DT event center.

#8 John on 09.13.10 at 9:01 am

You guys are missing the point. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that Hildebrand is out pushing a downtown location? Remember during the campaign everyone thought Mike and Hilde were going to take over the world. Now they are publicly fighting. So much for taking over the world pinky!

#9 Costner on 09.13.10 at 9:26 am

How about we stop arguing about where to build it and just figure out if we actually need it.

I still say if you put it to a public vote it would go down in flames. Doesn’t do much good to argue about specifics and spend millions on studies and surveys and planning when the citizens don’t even want the thing in the first place.

#10 Detroit Lewis on 09.13.10 at 9:42 am

I’m with Costner on this one. Define a funding source and let the voters vote on it. If approved, then plan the place.

#11 Sy on 09.13.10 at 9:58 am

I don’t think we need another big concrete box between the Sheraton and Howard Wood, especially if we do the project in this half-assed manner that will lead to it becoming a self-fulling prophecy of failing to live up to how it was pitched.

However, I do think we need a bigger and better facility than the Cities we compete against. I think we need to boost downtown devlopment since it will make a more balanced City. I think this City badly needs a shopping/entertainment district to feed off the EC and vice versa. I think we need to think long term to when Morrell’s is gone, the tracks are moved, and eventually you have 10K people living downtown.

Here’s the rub with what you propose Costner, people want to know what it will cost and how & how long will it be before that cost will be recovered. You can’t answer any of those questions until you nail down a site, and what costs are associated with it. 1st rule of real estate is location, location, location. It makes or breaks your ROI.

For example, in the Mayor’s plan, we lose a bunch of ball diamonds. As the debate about Harmodon showed, we are also behind in that area too. They will need to be replaced and those are part of the hidden costs. Maybe we have excess ground to build them on, but right now that’s a big question mark. If we don’t & have to go out and buy land for them, it will easily push the costs over the $100 million mark, or it will mean scaling back the project even more.

What we really need is an objective, detailed analysis of Plan A vs. Plan B. Treat it like a primary, and give the Voter a chance to vote in the Spring of one, the other or none of the above. If there is a clear majority, you are done. If you’re split you take the top two answers & return in the Fall for the final push.

#12 Scott on 09.13.10 at 10:39 am

We’re behind in ball diamonds? Maybe that money pit of an complex near my house could have been used to fund twice as many fields with half as many bells and whistles.

#13 anominous on 09.13.10 at 11:19 am

Build 2 of them in separate locations, connected by a skyway.

#14 Costner on 09.13.10 at 12:09 pm

We’re behind in ball diamonds?

Probably because they keep tearing them out for things like new swimming pools.

The ballfields over by the Arena are junk though – it wouldn’t really be a loss to turn them into a parking lot.

#15 Poly43 on 09.13.10 at 3:26 pm

l3wis. I don’t think any serious discussion about a DT site should be even considered until this whole piece becomes required reading. It spells out exactly block by block, dollar for dollar, and SAFE walking distances in our climate for EVENTS.

http://www.siouxfalls.org/Parking/related_documents/parking_needs_assessment

Here are also some good points in the Argus comments on this issue.

http://www.argusleader.com/comments/article/20100912/NEWS/9120310/New-push-for-downtown-events-center

Sy. You best stay away from the cookie jar. (Like I should talk.)

#16 Steve on 09.13.10 at 7:56 pm

It must be nothing more than a coincidence that Steve Hildebrand (who was instrumental in Huether’s mayoral campaign) has now decided to be the Number one cheerleader for a downtown location.
I’m sure that Hildebrand doesn’t have any political motivations to leading the campaign to build it downtown . Purely coincidental.

#17 l3wis on 09.13.10 at 8:39 pm

As I told a council insider today on the phone. “There was a lot of horse trading going on.” And you can guarantee that is what is going on with Hildy.

#18 Steve on 09.13.10 at 8:53 pm

So what does Hildebrand get out of the deal? Is he campaigning for a a downtown events center on behalf of himself or on behalf of the mayor or someone else?

#19 l3wis on 09.13.10 at 8:57 pm

Not sure. One wonders? Maybe he is cheerleading for it, for the same reason I think it is a good idea; It will increase our DT resident values.

#20 Sy on 09.14.10 at 8:18 am

I think he’s on board because it comes down to a simple choice: Invest $100+ million in an area they admit has been maxed out for potential or go where there’s at least a decent chance of tens of millions more in new & redevelopment to help support it.

Again, look at it objectively and it’s a no brainer.