The vote went like this;

Jamison; NO

Anderson,Staggers, Aguliar, Entenman, Karsky, Rolfing, Erpenbach; YES

There was incredible debate tonight. I watched half of it playing out on my phone, thanks to Guest Poster and the other half at home in the comfort of my office. I have a feeling if I would have shown up, I would have went off.

I knew how this was going to roll, we know who owns our council now. I wonder if Lloyd companies will get them all complimentary polo shirts and WM smocks for future council meetings.

42 Thoughts on “Council approves SE Walmart 7-1, 9:55 PM, 8/6/13

  1. Craig on August 7, 2013 at 8:37 am said:

    Why is there always this desire to paint our city council as being ‘owned’ by someone when they happen to support a project?

    I don’t think this was about scratching anyone’s back, and I don’t think it was a handout to Walmart. It was a simple zoning issue – and if you ignore Walmart and look at it from a zoning perspective, all that happened last night was a piece of land was rezoned from agricultural to commercial. That is something even SON admitted in the past was expected although they would prefer it be smaller stores, strip malls, or a “Bridges-like” commercial development.

    Frankly, there was no reason to NOT support the rezoning. The real debate shouldn’t even exist until the Conditional Use permitting process. Of course last night SON repeatedly told us this wasn’t about Walmart, yet in the past they have openly admitted they expected commercial development in the area…. so once again we find SON being inconsistent with their words and actions.

    This was the right decision. It is the right place for commercial development (with or without Walmart) and thus the rezoning was the logical call.

  2. Guest Poster on August 7, 2013 at 8:40 am said:

    There was no debate. Our form of city meetings in Sioux Falls could and should never be confused with debate. There was a time to express views. The Mayor kept trying to shut down the process but was not successful because he know DL would bit his ass. He kept being surprised at the civil tone, yea like a group of middle class professional people were going to riot.

    The whole process was a sham to make it look like the process was open.

    The only thing the middle class business owners and professionals saw Tuesday night was how the system is stacked against even them. I really enjoyed seeing a few break their smiles (or was it smirks) when a neighbor said they were business owners. Not the chamber kind of language the council wanted to hear.

    As usual the council was primed up by the city hall managers who in turn were getting their marching orders from Lloyd. BTW, where was Craig Lloyd? Oh that’s right, his shills from the city were there for him.

    Another observation, it was interesting to watch the WM reps sitting behind Cooper, making sure coop was on message. Nice touch Cooper, you could have had a little more distance if for nothing more than the perceptions.

  3. Craig on August 7, 2013 at 8:55 am said:

    That’s exactly what I mean… we see phrases like “marching orders” and words like “shills” anytime a vote doesn’t go your way.

    Sorry – logic doesn’t back you up on this one, and all I see are excuses and accusations. It was a zoning issue – nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t personal, and nobody should make it personal just because it didn’t go their way.

  4. anonymous2 on August 7, 2013 at 9:11 am said:

    You know, Craig, you just don’t get it. Sorry. It appears you like to try to set up false, argumentative positions for those opposing the 85th Street proposal. Oh…..of course, shame on me, you have superior logic. Excuse me!

    What was sad was that it appeared that most had made up their minds before the evening began: Asked just the right questions afterwords to support their due diligence and to get the answers they wanted to get on the record. The first questions “out of the box” from a councilor was pathetic–a planned script.

  5. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 9:24 am said:

    Something you will never see on Citylink or Sire…..

    Every time Craig Lloyd has an agenda item he wants passed, he stands in the back of the Council Chambers, doesn’t matter if there are 10 people in the room or if it is packed with citizens.

    This puts him directly in the line of vision for Council members and the Mayor.

    A subtle (or not so subtle) form of pressure….

    I’m sure he thinks no one in the audience notices!!!

  6. Testor15 on August 7, 2013 at 9:26 am said:

    Craig, We Appreciate The Attempts At Logic. In A Real Debate Logic Works But We All Knew The This Was Never Even Going To Be One.

  7. Craig on August 7, 2013 at 9:43 am said:

    “You know, Craig, you just don’t get it. Sorry. It appears you like to try to set up false, argumentative positions for those opposing the 85th Street proposal. Oh…..of course, shame on me, you have superior logic. Excuse me!”

    So you have the ad hominem logical fallacies covered, but you haven’t said anything that counters my points.

    As far as making up their minds before the meeting – isn’t that expected? I for one hope my city councilors are WELL informed about the issues they are voting on prior to the actual vote. If they waited to hear testimony before at least starting to form their opinion, it would suggest to me that they failed to do their homework.

    That isn’t to say they can’t be swayed one way or another, but they should have a grasp of the issues and know the key points long before walking into that room. When an issue is important, an hour or two of discussion is never enough and there are obvious biases from both sides that need to be researched in advance.

    Besides, it seems DL knew Jamison had made up his mind before the meeting as well – so is it only sad when the minds happen to disagree with you, or is it sad no matter which way they happen to vote?

  8. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 9:52 am said:

    Craig on 08.07.13 at 9:43 am

    As far as making up their minds before the meeting – isn’t that expected? I for one hope my city councilors are WELL informed about the issues they are voting on prior to the actual vote. If they waited to hear testimony before at least starting to form their opinion, it would suggest to me that they failed to do their homework.

    This is exactly why public input needs to occur at the first reading rather than at the second reading which is when the Council vote occurs.

    They have very little time to process public input as part of their decision-making process when that input happens only minutes before the actual vote.

  9. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 9:58 am said:

    In today’s AL….

    The neighborhood group is considering referring the council’s decision to a public vote, Palmer said. To do that, the group would need a certain percentage of the total number of registered voters in Sioux Falls to sign a petition in a matter of weeks, before the rezoning officially takes effect. (End)

    SON originally used the referendum process in their battle with the City. That process only allowed them 20 days to collect the necessary signatures.

    Now that the Council vote has occurred, I believe they can use the initiative process if they want this issue on the ballot. That would allow them six months vs. 20 days to collect the signatures.

  10. Jackilope on August 7, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

    Interesting watching facial expressions on Sue A.’s face last night during comments from the citizens. Not a poker player face.

  11. Jack, was she eating doo-dads?

    anon – I hope they refer this to a vote, I have often felt that was probably only going to be their last option.

    “and I don’t think it was a handout to Walmart.”

    LOL! The millions in infrastructure upgrades subsidized by taxpayers isn’t a handout? Is WM offering to reimburse us for these upgrades? Not.

  12. Jackilope on August 7, 2013 at 10:46 am said:

    Scrolling and disengaged at times with animated facial tics followed by sideline conversation with neighbor after Emmett Reistroffer spoke.

    Some timely Walmart news:

  13. Guest Poster on August 7, 2013 at 10:49 am said:

    It was telling to hear Cooper state we will try to get the developer to help with infrastructure costs on 85th.

  14. ‘We will try?’


  15. “LOL! The millions in infrastructure upgrades subsidized by taxpayers isn’t a handout? Is WM offering to reimburse us for these upgrades? Not.”

    How is this different from ANY development ANYWHERE in the city?

    Whether they are building homes, strip malls, or new Walmarts, they still need to extend water and sewer lines and in some cases widen streets to accommodate the development. The developer is commonly tasked with inter-development costs, but if a road like 69th has to be extended or improved the cost always falls upon the city.

    Remember a few years ago when the city had to pay millions to extend sewer lines to the East all so some homes could be built out there? Was that a handout to the homeowners who now are connected to city sewer?

    Just another example of people thinking Walmart is being given special treatment when that isn’t the case.

    Again – this isn’t about Walmart. It was a zoning issue. That is all.

  16. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 11:16 am said:

    Craig Lloyd owns over 5,000 rental units in SF, is the developer on almost every DT project and is recipient of four out of the last nine TIFs…..

    Some of his most recent projects:

    CNA Surety

    Hilton Garden Inn

    Uptown at the Falls Lofts

    Main Street Lofts

    Good Sam project on Main Avenue

    Proposed condos on South Phillips Avenue


    Walmart at 85th and Minnesota.

    Guest Poster on 08.07.13 at 10:49 am

    It was telling to hear Cooper state we will TRY to get the developer to help with infrastructure costs on 85th.

    The operative word here being “TRY”!

    Question: Who is really running this town…..MMM or Craig Lloyd!?!

  17. Titleist on August 7, 2013 at 11:17 am said:

    Routine zoning issue. Fully expected for many years. That’s it. The added bonus is the strain it will take off of Louise and 41st traffic.

  18. Craig, the difference is that WM owns this entire lot, the 4 roads that surround that development will benefit them mostly.

    As for homeowners getting sewer hookup, many times they have to pay for that.

  19. Guest Poster on August 7, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

    Notice another agenda issue last night who is doing the YMCA rebuild, one guess? OK too easy, its Lloyd.

  20. Do you think it is an accident that one of his best friends is the former city planner?

  21. hornguy on August 7, 2013 at 12:54 pm said:

    As I raised on another thread here yesterday and as Anon #8 mentioned, the time for public input isn’t the public comment section at the meeting where the body makes a decision; making comments then is pointless. The time to involve yourself in the process is in the months before at committee hearings, etc. SON did that, by and large. I’ll give them credit for that.

    Also, to Anon #9, SON would still have to use the referendum process since they’re referring an action already taken as opposed to initiating a new ordinance or policy. And just because someone might be wondering about it, decisions on conditional use permits are considered administrative decisions and not legislative decisions and aren’t subject to referendum.

  22. Craig on August 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm said:

    “Craig, the difference is that WM owns this entire lot, the 4 roads that surround that development will benefit them mostly.

    As for homeowners getting sewer hookup, many times they have to pay for that.”

    This is no different than any residential development. If the city approved residential on that property, the developer would be responsible for interior streets, water and sewer etc. However the perimeter enhancements such as new traffic signals, perhaps an extra lane on a roadway etc fall upon the city.

    So in this case I would fully expect the developer (and ultimately Walmart) to pay for connecting into the city sewer and the costs to bring water lines from the nearest connection (whether that is 85th or Minnesota or wherever). However they are not responsible for the costs of getting those lines to the property line.

    I purchased a blank lot at one point and the developer had to pay for all of the curb & gutter, streets, water and sewer. However when the city improved the two roads that adjoined the property the developer wasn’t expected to pay for it. Of course the developer ultimately rolled his costs down into the price of the lots, which is why a small piece of property is so expensive – but my point is how is Walmart unique here?

    In some cases the city incurs extra expense if they have to add infrastructure where it currently doesn’t exist. For example lets say they have to add a sewage lift station to support growth on the edge of town or if they want to add storm sewers to an area which currently doesn’t have any. I just can’t say if that applies here considering we know we have existing infrastructure directly across the street in both directions – so what the costs are to connect new development to that is anyone’s guess.

    I’ll support the notion that Walmart should pay for everything inside of their property line, but should they help to pay to add two lanes to 85th if traffic expectations warrant that? I’d love to say yes, but if this was anyone other than Walmart going in there nobody would expect them to, so why treat them any differently. There are costs associated with growth and we as taxpayers obviously bear some of those costs, but the increase in the tax base will more than make up for this in a very short time – especially when you consider much of the money spent at that particular location comes from outside of Sioux Falls.

    I know I’m guilty of repeating myself, but if this was a non-Lloyd project where some unknown company was building 200 new apartment units and another small unknown company was putting in a strip mall with a gas station on the corner, and if a third company was putting up a new Hotel and a fourth company was building a new Applebees… do you honestly feel there would be all this outrage about infrastructure costs?

    I mean surely DL would complain about the lackluster tastes of Sioux Falls citizens needing another Applebees (and who could argue with him) – but would the issue of infrastructure even come up? I think we all know the answer, and we know this because nothing has been said about any of the dozens of other developments currently underway within Sioux Falls that aren’t connected to anyone who has a last name other than Lloyd or Dunham.

  23. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm said:

    hornguy on 08.07.13 at 12:54 pm

    Also, to Anon #9, SON would still have to use the referendum process since they’re referring an action already taken as opposed to initiating a new ordinance or policy.

    Hornguy, according to the South Dakota State Constitution, I believe this is incorrect information.

    Case in point, in 2006 the City Council voted in favor of a $12m indoor pool to replace the outdoor pool (Drake Springs) in Nelson Park.

    The initiative process was used to refer this issue to the voters in April 2007. The process allows six months for the collection of signatures.

  24. hornguy on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm said:

    Courtesy of the Secretary of State:

    Municipal Initiated Measure: This is a petition to propose an ordinance or resolution.

    Municipal Referendum: This is a petition requiring the submission of an ordinance or resolution which has passed the governing body to a vote of the people before the measure may become effective.

    9-20-6. Time for filing referendum petition.

    The required number of voters residing in any municipality may file within twenty days after the publication of any ordinance or resolution subject to referendum a petition with the auditor or clerk, requiring the submission of any such ordinance or resolution to a vote of the voters of the municipality for its rejection or approval. If filed on the twentieth day after publication, such petitions shall be filed no later than normal closing hours of the city hall or city auditor’s office on said twentieth day.

    There is no specific language in the constitution regarding initiative and referendum other than that they are generally allowable. The language that prescribes procedure is statutory.

    I believe the distinction you’re missing (and our host can correct me if I’m wrong since Drake Springs happened around the time I moved here) is that the Drake Springs initiative prescribed funding for the construction of an outdoor pool at the park. That would be the same approach as is being used with Spellerberg park – prevent in a de facto sense the construction of an indoor pool by requiring the city to allocate funding for an outdoor pool at the location instead.

    I suppose SON could perhaps, through initiative, try to force some other type of zoning on the property, to the extent that would be considered permissible by a court. My gut tells me that there would be a whole lot of due process issues wrapped up in that on the part of the landowner. But the city would be under no obligation to halt any kind of approval on the parcel in question while signatures are collected. Like I said, unlike with a referendum, where petitioners have a time limit, there is no time limit on circulating petitions for an initiative – only language that signatures aren’t valid after six months. Parties aren’t obligated to halt action just because people kinda maybe sort of might want to possibly turn in some petitions sometime.

  25. Lamb Chislic on August 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm said:

    MMM in full campaign mode today:

    It only runs 4 minutes. Put on your waders, because the $h!t$ deep, and listen to the end when MMM takes a shot at Jamison, without naming him. I hope the gadflys stay out of this race because one-on-one it could become very entertaining and enlightening.

  26. ‘The Big Kahuna.’

    Was he talking about the turd coming from his mouth?

  27. Staggers agrees with the vote. All the others voted for the zoning change except Jamison. Was Jamison’s vote only to put him on the opposite side as Huether? Is he going to vote against everything that Huether wants and a minority group doesn’t want?

  28. hornguy on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm said:

    “Whether it was Walmart or Lewis or Hy-Vee, that discussion would have occurred later, but the issue last night was regarding zoning and allowing for commercial use on that corner (of 69th and Cliff). And I think that’s completely appropriate, it’s perfect.”

    – 2012 Greg Jamison

    Barely a year ago, Jamison was the only vote IN FAVOR of a rezone that would have, on Walmart’s behalf, stripped out the *only* transitional zoning on a much smaller parcel directly across from a school, backing up to a detention pond, and directly adjacent to and across the street from housing for which there would have been zero buffer of any type. He referred to that as a “positive sign for growth.” (KELO)

    2013 Greg Jamison is super concerned about a Walmart that as the crow flies is a quarter-mile from the nearest house, has acres upon acres of transitional zoning between it and the nearest residential development, and is being built adjacent to a multi-lane restricted access state highway. He’s worried about making sure that we’re growing intelligently and arguing against the mayor’s “boomtown mentality.”

    2012 Greg Jamison said to hell with transitional zoning, let’s do whatever Walmart needs to wedge that store on that lot. Walmart cramming a store of identical size on a parcel half the size of the one at 85th and Minnesota was a “positive sign for growth.”

    2012 Greg Jamison was just another yes vote for the mayor’s growth agenda.

    2013 Greg Jamison is running for mayor.

    And if I’m the mayor, I’m going to bludgeon Jamison to death as a two-bit flipflopper who was happy to sell the kids of Sioux Falls Christian down the river but is more than happy to stand up for the desire of snotty south siders in half-million dollar homes to keep the “white trash” (our host’s words) away from their estates.

    Feel free to hate the mayor’s growth strategy, but at least he’s consistent in the relentlessness with which he pursues it. Jamison’s just a hypocrite who’s changing his tune because he’s desperate for an issue.

  29. anonymous on August 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm said:

    MJL, anyone who follows the Council closely, knows Staggers will almost always vote in favor of the landowner in property rights issues.

    Also, Jamison has never wavered in his position regarding protecting a neighborhood with the proper transitional buffering.

    There are several other Councilors who talked out of both sides of their mouth during this months long debate, who ultimately voted YES last night in favor of rezoning the property at 85th and Minnesota to C-4.

  30. anonymous2 on August 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm said:

    Yes, there is a certain amount of decision making that must be done prior to the actual council meeting. But then again, Lincoln County Commissioners made an appearance and specifically asked for BETTER LONG RANGE PLANNING. Some lame effort was then made to address their concerns by asking SF City personnel how this could be addressed. And again, when City personnel were questioned on who was going to pay for what infrastructure upgrades–they danced around that artfully. They did not worry about getting this pinned down.

    So from my perspective if issues were raised, they were ignored, and they simply stuck with what they came with in their brain.

  31. rufusx on August 7, 2013 at 8:04 pm said:

    Craig – here’s what’s up.

    “Conservative” minded – “small government” ideologues, “libertarians”, TEA partiers, “local control” supporters, “property rightsers”, “right-wingers” – whatever you want to label those with a generally anti-government mind-set have been researched as to personality types/preferences vs. “liberals”, “socialists”, government supporters, etc.

    The “conservative” psyche tends to frame situations in personal, emotional terms. It is more likely to place a context of personality and emotionality around an issue. Logic and intuition tend to take back seat in their approach to understanding the world.

    Now, some of the people taking their consistently anti-government stance here will deny that they are any of those things – even claim to be liberal, Democrats, etc. But their behavior says otherwise. I think they are in denial in service to the part of their psyche that wants to identify as being “rebellious” – and so they need to identify with the political minority in SD. But really – they are just DINOs.

  32. Appears to this former resident that one problem occurred here, and other SD cities (Rapid, Spearfish, Brookings) – that lack of an adequate comprehensive urban plan. This leads to ad hoc, developer-centric unplanned “development. The result is urban doughnuts with rural enclaves; ad-hoc cities with lousy traffic flow and inadequate infrastructure.

    Sioux Falls residents lost this city vote and will pay and pay again for this ad-hoc development. If development paid for itself then large city taxes and living expenses would be less than in small cities and towns.

  33. hornguy on August 8, 2013 at 1:45 am said:

    “Also, Jamison has never wavered in his position regarding protecting a neighborhood with the proper transitional buffering.”

    To Anon #30, I will presume that as you wrote your comment ten minutes after mine perhaps my comment hadn’t loaded before you wrote yours. If there’s one thing Jamison hasn’t been on the Walmart issue, it’s consistent. I’ve outlined that clearly in #29.

    Last year Jamison was happy to take a parcel half the size and in closer proximity to both residential property and a school and strip out the only non-commercial zoning so Walmart could have an in/out for loading. This year, it’s a whole new tune.

    The only way Jamison’s been consistent on transitional buffering is if you’re unaware that Greg Jamison existed before 2013.

  34. Craig – In regards to WM paying for infrastructure. The annexed land is considered Tier 3 land and wasn’t supposed to be annexed into the city within the next 16 to 25 yrs according to Shape Sioux Falls per page 26 in Chapter 2 (not to be confused with Shape Places that was referred earlier this year). However, if Tier 3 property is annexed, then it is appropriate to have the developer pay for infrastructure costs.

    Per page 26 in Chapter 2 of Shape Sioux Falls: Allow development agreements in tier 2 or
    tier 3 future urbanized areas that allow
    expansion of the urban growth area only if
    the developer pays for all infrastructure

    I’m sure the city will be all over this and send bills promptly to WM and/or Lloyd (sarcasm).

  35. rufusx on August 8, 2013 at 9:30 am said:

    John, Sioux Falls and the surrounding communities each have and have had comprehensive plans in place for decades. The problem is that regular residents DON’T PAY ATTENTION to them until they are affected by that primary lack of attention. The are at 85th/Minn. has been designated for major commercial development for DECADES in the comprehensive plan.

  36. rufusx on August 8, 2013 at 9:31 am said:

    ba – Why are you referring to SHAPE in making your argument? The city has not used and cannot use SHAPE in making determinations – because SON has referred it and thus the city is still operating under the 28-year OLD guidelines.

  37. Guest Poster on August 8, 2013 at 9:48 am said:

    Shape Sioux Falls vs. Shape Places

  38. Rufus – Did you even bother to read my whole post?

    As Guest Poster notes and I even noted in my post, Shape Sioux Falls is different than Shape Places. Shape Sioux Falls is the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

    Here is the link:

  39. OldSlewFoot on August 8, 2013 at 10:40 am said:

    If you look at all the different development maps in the Shape documents, there are some inconsistencies. Some show infrastructure (water,etc) at that corner would be done by 2015, some show development/annexation much later.

    We have been told that our neighborhood will probably “never” be annexed, but one map shows us being annexed in 12 years.

  40. Rufus – 28 year OLD guidelines? We all know there have been updates to those ordinances over the years. Please stop spinning.

  41. l3wis on August 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    Like I have pointed out, they just changed the notification process a few years ago to certified letter because people complained in the Sanford neighborhood were unaware of a rezoning.

Post Navigation