Why does the official webpage of the City of Sioux Falls only highlight Huether?Look at the page, it states RECENT VIDEOS but Huether’s Shut up and Listen should actually be third on the list by “recent” order. Doesn’t RECENT order mean the newest videos should be highlighted?
Why is it always about Huether and no one else? Oh yea, I know why…
Mayoral candidate and delicious vegan cookie maker, David Zokaites spoke at public input this past Tuesday, and he asked an interesting question, that I have often pondered myself, “Why don’t we fix the roads in SF at night during the summer.â€
Other major cities do this with some success, but the cons seem to outweigh the pros;
Safer for workers (and commuters) some argue that it isn’t due to impaired drivers on the road at night.
Less delays for commuters during day
Less hassle for businesses on route
Cooler to work (avoid UV rays, skin cancer)
Less time for partying (not sure if there is any research on this, but I do know road construction people like beer)
Instead of paying out bonuses, use extra money to pay differential and setup flood light systems.
During David’s testimony, the Mayor’s mic was hot, and you could over hear him mocking David’s proposal. This of course would probably require an ordinance change, which is kind of like pulling teeth. As councilor Stehly recently said, it seems our ordinances (and charter) are setup to protect the city from citizens instead of protecting citizens from the city(s abuse).
I think this is worth the city experimenting with.
This didn’t turn out so good;
Incumbents Linda Heerde and Mike Knudson held onto their seats on the five-member board, beating out Jennifer Greco.
Greco, who entered the race in part over concerns that high school students in the traditional learning program are treated unfairly compared to students in the district’s controversial customized learning program, pulled in 229 votes.
Knudson netted 425, and Heerde led the pack with 494 votes.
As I warned, when you are a single issue candidate, people see thru your whiny stances and dismiss you. While I will applaud anyone willing to run for public office, I encourage you to get your poop in a group and study ALL the issues, instead of blathering away on Facebook about how your little Johnny isn’t being taught properly.
The HR director of the city of Sioux Falls, Bill Dah’Toole, says Sideras gets his full pension. (Watch all 3 of KSFY’s videos) While I understand getting his ‘vested’ pension, I question if a terminated director who is accused of child pornography should receive one more penny of tax dollars with his pension or extended healthcare. But the bigger question is, was he terminated or did Huether ‘cut a deal’. Notice Huether NEVER said he fired Jim, only that he ‘in-acted’ the process. As I understand it, if you are terminated, you only get your vested pension.
It is very suspicious, and certainly not right.
Also, I find it interesting that they are only interviewing internal candidates, some of the same people who have invested with Sideras on lake front property. Isn’t this a gigantic conflict of interest? Of course the mayor needs to hire someone internally so he can keep the conflicts and internal scandals at bay.
Makes you wonder if the Mayor shares any investments with Sideras or his lake front buddies?
UPDATE: I guess by city ordinance, there are no rules against Sideras receiving his pension, no matter what he did after his eligibility. At the age of 60 he will get his pension and health benefits (or his wife).
There were two letters to the editor today in the Argus Leader over Legacy’s relationship with the city.
First from a constituent;
Hultgren Construction, co-owned by Aaron Hultgren, was fined by OSHA for work it was doing on the Copper Lounge building at the time of its collapse. Asked whether the city reconsidered partnering with Legacy as a result of these fines, Darren Ketcham, community development manager for the City of Sioux Falls said, “Hultgren Construction is not part of this project.†That statement could be misleading if Legacy is linked financially to Hultgren.
Nevertheless, Legacy Development is ultimately responsible for the safety of everyone living and working on their property and safeguarding the integrity of what was once a contributing building to the Downtown Historical District. It failed at both. How then did they become the city’s choice as its partner in the proposed parking lot and how does the city justify their decision?
Nutty? Right? How does a development company that has ran roughshot over DT development get awarded such a RFQ without greasing some palms?
Councilor Stehly also responds to concerns over Legacy;
This proposal would be a unique collaboration, with tax dollars supporting the parking ramp and a private investor (Legacy Development), building the outside retail structure. We have been told that the city’s share in this could be more than $18 million. We have also been told that it could create 200-300 new parking spaces. This is a very expensive parking proposal. There are questions about who will maintain the structure of this building and what liability the city would have if the private businesses would not be able to support their part.
Even if we did get 300 spaces for public parking, that is 3x more then what a normal parking ramp space costs (Aprox $20K). Even with all the controversy surrounding Legacy, why on earth would taxpayers want to pay $60K per parking space, when the going rate for a stand alone parking ramp is $20K.
The Sioux Falls city council (6 of them) need to wake from their deep sleep and realize this proposal is bad for tax payers in every shape and form. It costs too much, it’s the wrong location, the funding effects our 2nd penny, and the developer may be sued in a wrongful death suit. Any councilor or elected official who would vote for such a horrible plan has to be stark raving mad.
l3wis