March 2011

Does the city of SF have too much debt to support bonding an Events Center?

They often tell us we can support more debt but one wonders after such slow growth;

The city’s primary operating fund, the General Fund, ended the year with an unreserved fund balance of $41.7 million, an increase of $0.6 million.

The city’s primary capital fund, the Sales and Use Tax Fund, focused on the city’s significant investment to rebuild, repair and replace core infrastructure. It ended the year with an unobligated fund balance of $3.8 million.

The city ended the year with total outstanding debt of $277 million.

Build an Events Center and we could see ourselves inching to a half-billion dollars of debt. In a community where most people make under $30,000 a year. I’m no economist, but if we want to fund an Events Center, we need to do it in a different way. A corporate entertainment tax and advertising tax is what I would like to see.

While Mayor Transparency toots his horn . . .

The Argue Endorser fails to publish a letter to the editor online about Mike’s lack of transparency. I’m getting the original version from the author;

Dear Editor,

I attend City Council meetings on a regular basis. Documents supporting the Council’s agenda for that day are always readily available before the meetings. However, twice in the past several months, I have been denied access to public documents. Both incidences involved the Mayor’s events center update.  Instead of the documents supporting his presentation being readily available to the public, they are tightly controlled by his executive assistant who is present in the Council chambers. On two different occasions, before the Council meeting began, I made a direct request for the supporting, public documents. Both times, I was denied, and told all copies were for the media only. This is a violation of South Dakota’s open records law.

In addition, the Council has requested that the events center documents be made available to them no later than the Friday preceding the Monday council meeting. This is not being done.

Our City’s top elected official speaks continually about open government. Is what I have described transparency?

Sincerely, Cheryl Rath

It talks about the refusal of information from the Huether administration. No surprise, but what surprised me was his bullshit double speak in the AL today about government transparency. Get out the 5-Buckle overboots and scoop shovels:

I come from corporate America. We always valued opinions, valued dissent.

You valued making money, that’s it. dishonesty was the fucking cornerstone of the business you were marketing, and you know it.

In the events center discussion, sincerely we are going way above and beyond in terms of communicating with the public about this unbelievably convoluted project. But because it is so convoluted, every time we talk it creates more rumor, speculation, innuendo, posturing and politics.

Convoluted? Who is making it convoluted? Let’s first start with the first task force, then the second, then mayor Munson, then you. It doesn’t have to be this way. Put a funding source on the table and let the public vote. As for rumors, you are the one who is creating them by your secrecy. If someone told me they had a big dick, I would say, “Show me.” Want the rumors to end? Show us.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_6mYBwsVI[/youtube]

Councilor Jamison calls out Councilor Rolfing when he lies during an informational meeting

BUSTED!

At the SF city council informational meeting on Monday they talk about the Land Use Committee meeting where councilor Rolfing shuts down The Build it Downtown group from doing a presentation. Rolfing blames it on BID having old information from 2005, even though Rolfing did not know that until after the meeting, and councilor Jamison calls him out on his lie. I hope Rolfing doesn’t get his suit all wet from carrying all that water for the mayor.

(The discussion kinds starts at 46:00 but you can FF to 1:04:00 to see the call out)