As you may or may not know, the city council approved a new truck wash in Monday’s meeting (Item #16 FF: 25:00) A concerned citizen sent me this email shortly after the decision.

My wife and I have lived in the center of Skyline Heights for the last seventeen years. We moved there because we got tired of the small lot and neighborhood covenants that choked us when we lived in Sioux Falls. We wanted something with a little more privacy on a larger lot. Hence, Skyline. We have over an acre, and good neighbors. When we moved there we were not looking to somehow screw the system. We still spend a lot of money in SF and we, along with ALL those that live there feel impacted by decisions made by our city leaders. We have been promised a lot by the city with regards to how the land east of Flyin’ J would be developed. Bottom line in all this? This land was going to be residential, the Flyin’ J being the LAST exception. So we were told, time, after time, after time by Mike Cooper. Personally I got no problem with Flyin J. The noise has been no issue for us. The decibel levels are still much lower than when we lived in Sioux Falls.

The only real noise pollution we have comes from J & L’s Harley beer parties every weekend thru the summer. Even at that, no real big deal, cuz we’re rarely around on weekends in the summer anyway. But I can assure you big trouble looms in that area. Already the corner of Granite Lane and North 60th Street (Flyin’ J entrance) is a major safety concern. There are accidents there that are outside the norm because of slow moving trucks and overzealous car and bike riders. One biker has already been killed at the J & L intersection. Adding another clot to the Flyin J  intersection spells only one thing for that area. More travelers of the roadways are going to continue to be in accidents in that area. Slow moving trucks negotiating turns, car drivers in a hurry to get to or from work, and partying Harley riders is a perfect storm for a tragedy to happen at that spot. MARK my words. It’s gonna happen. The council and mayor were made well aware of that, but somehow ALL they are interested in is the prospect of a few more minimum wage jobs that are going to be the economic engine that drives our city.

I find it amazing that traffic and safety concerns were never discussed.

20 Thoughts on “Concerned citizen writes to me about the recent approval of the Empire Truck Wash near Skyline Heights

  1. Costner on December 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm said:

    There are ways to address the traffic and safety issues without simply suggesting we cease all development in the area. What does this person suggest as an alternative? Should we just prevent any development on any of the land in that area? Because any level of development will increase traffic, and development of any sort isn’t bound to solve traffic and safety issues.

    Frankly it boils down to zoning, and since the area is zoned for commercial it seems obvious it will eventually be developed. That entire stretch is ideally suited for retail and commercial / industrial and obviously it is less suited for residential. Plus, with a busy road like 60th street which is scheduled to be widened, and with more and more development happening farther East, the traffic will be increasing either way.

    Besides… wasn’t that accident that killed the biker due to someone blatantly running a red light? I don’t think that is a safety issue – it is just due to a bad driver (unless I’m thinking of another accident). I will agree they need to do something at the intersection of the actual truck stop though – trucks have a hard time turning in and out during the “rush hour” times of day, so they should consider putting in stop lights at that spot to help truckers. That will only be more of an issue if they continue to add development.

    By the way… follow that road that goes by Flying J up to that hotel and that is the area that the developer wants to build a big water park. His plans were put on hold when the economy went South, but eventually it is possible that entire area will be developed and none of it will be residential.

    That is the risk you get when you buy in an area that is outside city limits… you just never know what the surrounding areas will hold after they are built up.

  2. People can’t drive and have little regard for safety beyond their own noses, and even then that can be lacking. What is there to discuss?

  3. I’m on both sides of the fence. I these people were promised residential, that is how it should have been developed. But you are right, the traffic issue is a totally different deal. More stoplights could help. They should have cops sitting there after the Harley beer parties let out nailing drinking and driving bikers. But when you sit on the city council and Sanford Health’s board of directors, you are pretty immune to stuff.

  4. Con_Cit on December 8, 2011 at 10:56 pm said:

    the issue is what the city promised us over the years. first it was residential. then it was office and multifamily. now it is light industrial. next it will be olivias 2. the real issue is how the city plans to handle traffic. there is no way to properly cue trucks coming off the interstate heading for the truck stop. something they should have thought about when they build it. they want to route truck traffic to 60th and north kiwanis. then route it north to a street called 61st street. then into the truck stop and truck wash. makes for much longer cueing. the developers of redstone want no part of this plan. watch the entire channel 16 segment.

  5. Zoning is a delicate business – but I will say this – that area is highly conducive to commercial development. People have invested in that property with the expectation that they will be able to develop that land as it is zoned. the zoning has been in place there for a LONG TIME. Granted, Skyline Heoights was developed first – in fact, as I recall from when I was a kid – pretty much BEFORE the Interstates were even built. BUT, anyoine who has purchsed any property there since around 1960 or so (when the 29-90 intersection was completed) would have to be awfully danged dense to have not been able to foresee that there was NO FUTURE for residential housing there.

  6. Lemming on December 9, 2011 at 1:00 am said:

    Dont move to the beach if you don’t want sand in your shoes…I”m sorry, but if you choose to move out to the boondoggles, prepare to suck it up. Quit yer belly-aching and be glad you dont live 10 feet from a hillbilly redneck with 3 barking dogs like most of us ‘city-slickers’ do.

  7. Or a casino, liquor store, c-store, mechanic shop, hospital heli-pad, 4 very active rail lines and the airport landing flight path like I do 🙂 Not to mention a block off a major roadway in the city. And people wonder why I sleep in the basement.

  8. Tom H. on December 9, 2011 at 9:38 am said:

    Frankly, large-lot semi-rural zoning will ALWAYS result in traffic problems and conflicts with neighbors. People who live in these developments live there because they want privacy, a natural setting, but still want full urban amenities. These conflicting desires could (sort of) coexist during the cheap oil bonanza of the past 70 years, but eventually reality sets in. The isolation of these developments requires driving everywhere; driving everywhere requires wide paved roads; wide paved roads require income from property taxes, but these sprawling developments (by virtue of their low densities) can’t produce enough revenue per acre to pay for their own needs.

    The fact that pretty much all U.S. cities have been built after this model since WW2 goes a long way toward explaining the economic unsustainability of our cities, counties, states and country.

    Here’s an alternative:

    http://www.strongtowns.org/

  9. Here’s an alternative:

    http://www.strongtowns.org/

    Very good link. Thank God mayor mike has the same vision with our new EC.

  10. Alice15 on December 9, 2011 at 10:18 am said:

    I will agree with the writer in one instance – with the magnitude of the highway/street/intersection out there – it is one massive accident/tragedy waiting to happen. The couple of times I have pulled out from the Flying J – I have never felt overly safe. Traffic is moving pretty quick and your room for error there (ie not moving fast enough immediately when you enter the intersection) is slim. You have a lot of different entities (ie residential traffic/commercial traffic/bikers) entering this area and it always seems its like frogger. Hey – just like it will be on Western Ave when the new EC is built. Hop, hop, splat!

  11. rufusx on December 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm said:

    Here’s another good link:

    http://www.cnu.org/

  12. Tom H. on December 9, 2011 at 3:18 pm said:

    I didn’t know there were other new urbanists around here! They seem kind of invisible in Sioux Falls.

  13. Thanks everyone for including Strong Towns in your conversation.

    We are going to be visiting Iowa sometime in January and February doing many stops over the course of a week with our Curbside Chat presentation. I’d love to include Sioux Falls as a stop on either our way down or our way back. I’m aware of some of the issues you are discussing and think that we could help your conversation. Plus, I’d love to meet all of you that have been so involved in what we are doing at Strong Towns.

    You can email me or get a hold of us through our website if you are interested in scheduling something. Keep working at important things.

    -Chuck

  14. Tom, New Urbanism holds about as much sway in SD as does the progressive wing of the Democratic party. But BOTH are around if you look.

  15. Chuck, that sounds great. I will shoot you an email soon.

  16. Analog Kid on December 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm said:

    I think a bigger story is the danger of the food served at the Flyin J and the Dennys there. More people have been struck ill than all of the hogs in the trailers passing through or the morons riding the hogs from J&L.

  17. If you are eating at a Flyin’ J, you need to get your head examined, and probably your stomach.

  18. Analog Kid on December 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm said:

    Well my friend Ken begs to differ. Says the Chicken al la King draws in the transcontinental haulers as reported on Channel 19. Break-Break. 10-4?

  19. WTF is that sauce anyway on Al La King?

Post Navigation