So tonight I guess two volunteers were asked to leave a PUBLIC PARKING lot at Canaries stadium for collecting signatures with NO explanation. Here is how this works folks, public parking lots are free game for referendum signatures.

Explanations please, and thank you.

By l3wis

32 thoughts on “SON gets the shakedown at a baseball game.”
  1. Maybe Mr. Potter has found his way to stop the citizens of Bedford Falls from interfering in his plans to take over the savings and loan.

  2. I’m confused. I thought city-owned property was fair game. However, I wonder if a private entity is leasing the facility that they have some say over who is allowed to engage in those types of activities.

    This reminds me of a case I heard about a few years ago when a protester was forcibly removed from the grounds of the Alaska State fair. At first everyone was up in arms claiming it was public property, but later it was discovered that the land the fair was held on was actually private property managed by the state or something to that effect (similar to the situation we have with the Sioux Empire fairgrounds and the Lyons family).

    I’d love to hear more from somebody who really knows for certain one way or another what is legally allowed in the situation.

  3. The removal was from the parking lot to front entrance area where petition gathering is legal. This is just like when the petition gathering is done at the doors to the Arena, county admin building, city hall steps and other public property.

    This was not done inside the facility.

  4. They really opened a can of worms on this one. That parking lot belongs to the taxpayers!

  5. @Testor: So, they weren’t really asked to leave, they were asked to move? Not so conspiratorial when you put it that way.

  6. I would agree with Craig in wondering whether this has something to do with a private entity renting or using the space. If I rent a park shelter, For instance, Joe Schmoe isn’t free to sit under it and solicit me all day because it’s public property. It’s public property to which I have been granted exclusive use, which presumably includes a right to determine who uses it and how. If the Canaries don’t want their patrons bombarded by solicitors, I totally respect that.

  7. The Canaries rent the stadium, not the parking lot or public sidewalks outside of it. Just as The Storm renting the Arena, the sidewalks out front of the Arena are public access.

    If the petitioners are polite as they are, the police, CVB, stadium or Canaries management cannot ask citizens to leave the property.

  8. City councilors should be there to see this. This is the city government interfering in the public’s right to petition their government. No matter their feelings toward the petition movement in this town, this could affect their ability to gather their own petitions next year.

  9. The Canaries may have certain rights surrounding the parking lot too, just as they could over the concrete entrance to the stadium and any non-perimeter sidewalk that isn’t bordering an actual street.

    I’m sure part of their lease includes certain rights surrounding the parking lot, because this prevents the city from leasing the parking lot during any of their games. For instance, imagine a scenario where the city leases the lot for a festival like Ribfest on the same day that the Canaries are playing a home game. This would give visitors to the ballpark nowhere to park, so I’m sure they have certain provisions that lease a portion of the lot along with the stadium.

    I’m going to withhold accusations of wrongdoing here until we learn more. Either way this wouldn’t prevent SON from gathering signatures outside the County building or even on the sidewalk along West Ave if that is what they wish to do.

  10. My understanding is that one of the petitioners (who has collected many different petitions over the past 4 years) has successfully in the past collected signatures in the Arena parking lot w/o trouble.

  11. There is no charitable or private entity having an event can prevent access to the parking lot in the city inventory. The reason the softball organizations have ‘donation’ buckets at the entrances is for ‘donating’ to the privilege of parking close to the event.

    The only way the police could probably prevent their use of the public open spaces at the Arena complex was if an emergency was declared. Now I suppose a citizen petition collection could be considered an emergency to Mr. Potter and MMM.

  12. I do know for a fact that SOME (not all…but some) of the lease agreements for the Arena complex do include the parking lots.

    Anybody who remembers the cluster-fuck that was last year’s UND game @ Howard Wood knows what I’m talking about.

  13. DL: “I have seen petition gatherers in front of the Arena several times, and no one was chasing them away.”

    Not sure that is very telling DL – I get away with exceeding the speed limit a few hundred times a year, but that doesn’t mean much. I’m pretty sure if I told a cop that I’ve done it many times before with no hassles he would just laugh in my face.

    Testor: “There is no charitable or private entity having an event can prevent access to the parking lot in the city inventory.”

    I may not be reading this correctly, but I believe you are mistaken. If someone leases space, they have rights to keep others out even if the leased space is “city owned”. Just ask the organizers of Ribfest – they can charge admission to that slice of parking lot and there isn’t anything you can do about it. I’m also pretty sure they wouldn’t allow people to collect signatures inside the area.

    Safe to say these issues are more complex than simply saying all city property is fair game.

    Let’s not just assume someone was picking on SON here. For all we know the new ownership of the Canaries are just more strict about these types of things than the old Pheasants ownership was.

  14. Craig, the Ribfest organizers have specifically rented the parking lot and fenced it in. The petitioners could stand outside of the gate and collect signatures.

    The SON people were not collecting in the Canaries rented space. Like many petitioners, they ran into some connected people who ran into stadium managers trying to slow down an effort. My back needs scratching…

  15. Checked into the leasing agreement. The Canaries DO lease some parking closer to the stadium, but very little, otherwise most of the lot is public parking. But I don’t think this had to do with the lot, it had to do with someone telling the PD that they were ‘harrassing’ people.

  16. One person’s solicitation is another person’s harassment, no matter how polite the manner in which it’s being done. The Mormon kids are awfully well behaved too but I don’t know many people who are racing to the front door to greet them.

  17. The city has torn up the parking lot getting ready for the EC. The rules they have negotiated for petitioner access are actually funny at best. I would like to see the emails circulated. Sure the Canaries have a contract stated a few spots for their ‘officials’ but not a contracted number for the ‘crowd’. The normal sidewalk access is limited due to the construction. the petitioners ended up with more signers just because the word had already spread of the Thursday night mess.

    Whoever ‘negotiated’ the limited petitioners access had never seen the area or had ever passed a petition before. The management of the canaries was always vigilant in looking at the gatherers and ready to call the police if a petitioner stepped out of line. Pathetic.

    Even with the oppressive nature of the stadium management, the petitioners still gathered enough signers to stay on target. Thank you Sioux Falls!

  18. By the fifth paragraph they come off as a bunch of conspiracy theorists, then Huether and Entenman politely ridicule them, then the Canaries tell them to keep their politics out of a family event, and way at the very very end there’s some meek response by Jamison.

    I suppose next will come the assertions that Ellis is on Walmart’s payoff list too.

  19. Petitioners were told by a city employee and his wife at the stadium Friday night they are not allowed to sign petitions. Once again this was said many times during the snowgate petition drive.

    The only city employees who should not sign the petition are probably the employees of the city clerk’s office. The ethics of approving a petition and signing it would be a problem for most. Someone(s) at city hall seems to be once again sending out the message: you sign, you lose.

    Any citizen, no matter what their job is or relationship to a government employee has the right to sign a petition.

  20. Petitioners Asked To Leave:

    SIOUX FALLS Stadium, part of the new Events Center Complex

    Fawick Park, SIOUX FALLS PUBLIC PARK

    Harrisburg PUBLIC School

    ALL PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS.

    As co-chair of a previous successful initiative, I can tell you this kind of CITY CRAP absolutely does occur!!

    They are not only attempting to impede a democratic process, but they are also sending the message to the public…..

    To any one who attempts to use the initiative or referendum processes in the future……

    This is what you can expect.

    I hope all of this has the opposite effect, and citizens sign the petition in the remaining few days.

    WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF A PUBLIC VOTE ON ANY COMMUNITY ISSUE?????????

  21. Testor15

    We were repeatedly told the same thing by city employees during the Drake Springs petition drive.

    City employees told us that Directors actually told them this in meetings.

    Also, in the months leading up to the election, Mayor Munson and several City Councilors wrote personal checks to support the opposition.

  22. Regardless of his thoughts on the petition, our Man Mike has an obligation to offer a better explanation than a shrug of his shoulders. I was embarrassed by his comment in the paper today. He should have stated that while he’s against the petition, he will look into the situation to verify that the Canaries and the PD took proper action. He’s not just the Mayor of those who support his side.

  23. Petitioners get pushy with people just trying to take in a game in a family environment. They complain to management and mgt calls Police. Police tell them to not be pushy or harass people and keep their space. That ain’t a conspiracy folks; that’s common sense. Stop taking yourselves so seriously! If SON wants a vote then they should get one. They probably won’t like the result though. Not many people in SF feeling sorry for them.

  24. Belfrage interviewed Dana Palmer, SON spokesperson, this morning.

    Sounds more like the City has been “harassing” those carrying the petition, than the petitioners harassing the public.

  25. Of course she would say that… they feel they are ‘oppressed’. However there are two sides to the story- and I know of two people who have stated they were ridiculed for NOT signing the petition after it was shoved in their face.

    These stories are nothing new – anyone who has ever been involved in a petition drive has experienced many of the same things, and anyone who has ever been to an area where people were collecting signatures has probably felt that side of it.

    The truth is there is conflict – the petitioners want to collect as many signatures as possible, and many people don’t want to be bothered (regardless of what the petition is for). Some people get upset, some get angry – and people start to see what they want to see. There is a natural bias.

    However I have heard of one new tactic which could derail future petition drives. People are starting to sign with fake names and addresses rather than just saying “No Thanks”. They will sign every time they are asked, but it will be a different fake name.

    So when the petitioners turn in their signatures and they are reviewed, many of them will be rejected. This could result in a petitioner thinking they have enough signatures only to learn a large number are fake or fraudulent. Just wait -this will become an issue in the future when people who are against the petition realize they can seek these petitioners out and use fake names to screw with them.

  26. I know it actually happened DL. I won’t say it is widespread yet, but I know someone who has signed a petition with a fake name and admitted they will sign every time they are approached – but using a different (fake) name every single time. When people have dozens of different people collecting signatures it isn’t like they are going to notice the same person who happens to come back time and time again.

    Just think about a group of people who is on the opposite side of an issue. This has the potential of being a real issue.

Comments are closed.