2011

Dan Daily vs. The city of SF

Public Comment – City Council Meeting – December 19, 2011 (transcript)

I’d like to remind you I have 5 minutes presentation for this unconstitutional illegal public assembly.  Please don’t interrupt.  What I have to say here is the truth and nothing but the truth.

My name is Daniel R. Daily.  I’m a disabled combat veteran and a citizen of Sioux Falls.

I sued the city and won in Circuit and State Supreme Court.

Initially, the matter was a concrete pad that (per city ordinances) is legal without a permit.  After 4 city hearings, I constitutionally challenged city civil procedures in court.  The city process was abhorrent.  I received 4 repeat citations (quadruple jeopardy).  They were not presented in person (improper service).  I’d not seen them when the city code enforcer bouncer knocked and blocked my front door at 8AM on a Saturday morning.  There was one hearing I arrived for that was last minute city hall cancelled.  I attended one hearing with 5 directors the city said never happened but I proved did.  One 8 hour hearing was recorded.  The city attorney stated he had no recording but was heard on the presented tape asking to change his tape for his recording.  I was not allowed to present evidence and forced to testify against myself (unconstitutional).  The city process violates all state civil procedures and 2 amendments to the US constitution.

There were 4 Circuit Court dates.  At one, the city showed up without subpoenaed witnesses arguing they were not served at the city PO box.  Prior witnesses appeared when they were served at 224 W. Ninth.  The judge awarded me $1300 the city has never paid.  There was no representation at one hearing because the assistant city attorney was ill.  When called at his city office, he answered.  The city presented a form I’d signed.  However, there was a fabricated 2nd page with architectural lettering I’d not seen and didn’t sign or initial.  This, the only city evidence was inadmissible.  The city cited one 1800’s Minnesota case while I cited 30 South Dakota cases.

The city lost in Circuit Court and appealed to State Supreme Court.  They left out the concrete question and the matter became entirely constitutional.  The city cited 6 cases while I cited 70.  I’d like to thank 3 law firms and the school of law for their pro bono participation.  My attorney fees had reached $50K and these patriots recognized I needed help.  Yes, I won in State Supreme Court.  Everything the lower court ruled.  Justices scolded the private attorney.  City tax dollars are wasted fighting against your constitutional rights with expensive private attorneys.

There’s federal law that protects me from local government malicious litigation.  The city, as defendant, has no complete record for this matter.  They’ll have to use mine.  Constitutional law requires they keep a thorough file.  The federal case warrants a jury trial with damages (actual, punitive).  The city tortured me 8 years.  I lost my house and my spouse of 27 years.  The Veterans Administration treats me psychologically.  My issues are PTSD and Agent Orange.  I’m seeking financial reimbursement and 6 figures I can devote to a mayoral candidate who will repeal home rule.  If you don’t know who she is, you’ll find out.  See you in court.  No questions.

 

PARKING, SCHMARKING!

A South DaCola foot soldier sent me this today, and I found it interesting (sorry, I cannot link video to the city website right now, because it is down);

At the planning commission meeting on Dec 7, 2011, a zoning change was approved that is up for first reading tonight (12/19 city council meeting) as the council has to approve any rezone or major amendment (change to a zone). It is in regards to the Sioux Falls Plaza planned development district. This is the arena/baseball stadium/Howard wood, CC/EC property. This property is in a PD, which I assume you might know some about zoning, but is a custom zoning district.

As it stands today, parking at that site is simply as required by the parking section of 15.55 of the zoning ordinance.  Section 15.55 lays out required parking for various land uses.  One of them is arenas/stadiums which requires 1 space per 4 seats, which would be 3,000 required spaces presumably for a 12,000 seat event center. This would seem sensible, 4 people per car.

The proposal up for first reading tonight makes two big changes worthy of notice:

1. In this PD, the parking requirement is amended so that the required parking is based on a study done by the city and approved by the planning director.

2. The language that requires a 10 foot landscape setback between lots, buildings, and the street, is stricken, the ’10 foot minimum’ is stricken and it just says ‘landscape required’. No mention of a minimum. Again based on the cities decision.

I’m thinking this is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse and the study will magically show that whatever parking they provide is enough.

I can’t remember how much they proposed, but I don’t think it was near 3,000 new spaces. I think it was 700 or something (???) and was only by tearing out grass landscapes and cramming it in, and going across the street to the ballfield.  If that is right, that would be 17 people per car.  I remember back at the location debate Steve Metli made reference to the proposal and some number around nine per car…

CLOWN CAR ANYONE?

The other concern is if this is a case of the city doing something they would never allow a private developer to do (way too little parking and no landscaping, just a sea of asphalt).

THINK ABOUT THE NEW ISLAMIC CENTER, WHICH A BUNCH OF ‘GOOD CHRISTIANS’ WERE PETITIONING THE COUNCIL TO NOT ALLOW IT DUE TO INADEQUATE PARKING.

I’m withholding a little bit of judgement until I hear some commentary from the planning director tonight and any discussion, but lets just say it has me concerned. Maybe there is something I haven’t heard yet that will answer some questions, elliviate my concerns, but I doubt it.  Will be interesting to see what might come out tonight.

I happen to think it probably will be approved at by least 5 or 6 yes votes, and they’ll say its enough parking and then later of course they’ll say oh, its not enough, we have to spend millions on the ramp or viaduct.

I think its worthy of paying attention too. It at least deserves scrutiny I think from the public.

Here is a portion of what I sent to some city councilors last week:

Hello,

Item #3 at the 12/7 Planning Commission that will be coming to the city council for final approval is very interesting.

It’s a major amendment to the Sioux Falls Plaza PD which is the zoning district for the Arena/Conv Center/EC/Pheasants Stadium property.

Among the most interesting of changes to the zone, it adds the following to the parking regulations:

PARKING REGULATIONS. Parking shall be regulated in conformance with the

provisions of Chapter 15.55, Appendix B of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance).

**Exception: Parking shall be based upon the results of a parking study conducted

for the area, including landscape parking lot standards and setbacks.**

The text with ** ** around it is the new language.

Also added is:

** Parking and parking lot landscaping shall be permitted in accordance with

the Sioux Falls Plaza Parking Master Plan approved by the Planning

Director. **

And also all references to a 10 foot minimum landscape setback around parking lots and structures is stricken and it just says landscape setback with no minimum.

At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I would guess the parking study is going to say whatever they need it to say, which is whatever plan is in place is adequate.  By adding this language, they probably get around having to provide the required parking as set forth in Chapter 15.55.  And there will be a sea of parking lots with most of the green space and landscaping removed to cram as much parking in there as they can.

I sure hope this isn’t a case of the city going forward with a site plan that they would never approve a private developer to execute if it were just on some project that wasn’t the event center.  I have my doubts though.

I’m sure it will pass handily, but it might be interesting if it is at least questioned.

I guess Mike Huether disagrees with the Ethics Board

Strange that Huether would disagree with the ethics board’s decision on about property values adjacent to the Events Center (AL):

Huether acknowledged property along Burnside is on a new course for development as hotels, bars, restaurants and retail expected to grow up in the shadow of the events center will need building sites.

“Your property is going to be a lot more valuable,” Huether said.

Huh?! I thought Councilor Entenman was let off the hook for conflicts of interest because his property values would not increase? But the mayor says that is not true. Can the complaint be refiled?