SouthDaCola Podcast 21: School Bond Vote

We were joined by Mortgage Banker Craig Markhardt. and Peter Pischke. Listen HERE.


#1 JKC on 09.10.18 at 8:32 pm

But the value of a home at $ 185,000 is not a constant. Everyone admits in town, that contractors are not building new median priced homes, yet, this town continues to grow leaps and bounds. So that $ 185,000 home will continue to see about 12%+ increases in value on a yearly basis for years to come; which is what is happening to homes right now in that price range in this town.* So what some call a $ 24 per year increase, due to the proposal, is merely part of the story, because with a 12% annual increase in median priced homes, then we are talking about a $ 360 per year increase and not just $ 24.** And where is the $ 334 of that $ 360 going to? Is it being used to offset the actual costs of the $ 190 million proposal, which could hopefully make the proposal less expensive? Is it being set aside, or is it being used for pet projects?

No one is talking the hyperinflation of median priced homes in this town relative to this discussion. I know why the Board is not talking about this, because it offers a slushfund opportunity that they don’t want to admit, but why isn’t everyone else screaming about this that have concerns over this proposal?

* Base on my own experience of watching my 2016 $ 165,000 home now having a market value of $ 206,000 in 2018.

** Based on a $ 2400 property tax bill for a $200,000 home.

#2 anonymous on 09.11.18 at 9:43 am

In addition to new elementary, middle and high schools, the 190m includes 40m in extra projects


Based on enrollment numbers, they will be forced back to the drawing board to come up with a more reasonable request from taxpayers.

Vote NO.

#3 l3wis on 09.11.18 at 3:51 pm

Argus did a pretty good job of covering all the aspects of the bond;

Too bad they didn’t mention the election is a sham.

#4 Matthew Paulson on 09.12.18 at 8:35 am

What makes the election a sham, precisely? Everyone has the opportunity to vote just as they would in any other election. They’ve done a great job of publicizing the date and how to vote. I think the voting centers idea is great, because it makes voting more convenient (assuming the tech works on Election Day). They have also done a good job of publicizing early voting. Looks pretty well run from the outside to me.

I think this is another example of Scott attacking the process because (A) he does not like the outcome that this process is likely to generate (B) he thinks he is an expert about how elections should be run and that he “knows better.”

#5 JKC on 09.12.18 at 10:53 am

Matt, how do “Super Precincts” make it “more convenient,” when in most cases, the old precinct site is much closer than any of the “Super Precinct” sites for most people?

Plus, the old precinct sites were prepared to handle a 100% voter turn out in theory. Can any of the “Super Precincts” handle having all the voters show up at that one “Super Precinct” site?…. I don’t think so…. “Super Precincts” are merely voter suppression and an obvious attempt to manipulate the outcome. It’s sad that the one governmental entity which directly deals with the concept of enlightenment would also be the one governmental entity which does not cherish democratic thought and traditions….

Oh, and when the Mayor moves to DC someday, will you be traveling with him?

#6 Matthew Paulson on 09.12.18 at 11:37 am

JKC – Super Precincts are more convenient because I can now vote wherever I am at during the day and not just at the place that’s close to my house. I’ll probably vote at the voting center closest to downtown, since that’s where I’m likely to be most of the day.

Also, I have no desire to move to DC or be professionally involved in federal politics (ever). If I ever run for anything, it will be city council or school board when my kids are older and don’t care if I’m around as much.

PTH is doing a great job as mayor. You must be doing an amazing job when even Scott Ehrisman is saying you’re doing “pretty good.”

#7 JKC on 09.12.18 at 2:50 pm


“SP” are nothing but voter suppression. The “convenience” argument is merely attempted spin. One begins their day and ends their day closest to their old precinct site. Need I say more?

Oh, I wasn’t questioning the Mayor’s abilities or successes. I was just talking about the future, because there is a direct correlation between his political presence and yours on this blog site….. #JustWondering….. #AttractiveArticulateSpokesmanForTheOne%

#8 Peter "Mega" Pischke on 09.12.18 at 3:35 pm

Mathew, In theory the Super Precincts would be a great idea.

However, their history in Sioux Falls isn’t good. Their software failed multiple times and the stats don’t show an increase in voter turnout.

Let me ask you this question: If you are the average voter who basically only looks into these things the wee k of, or more likely, the day of the election. Do you think they will be go to another voting center after they go to their regular one and it is closed?

This combined with not printing the centers location in the papers and moving the vote to September doesn’t bode well for the ethics of the vote.

The district has a history of fighting to put any voting to coincide with the general. Be it school board member votes, public referral, or in this case; a bond vote. Sioux Falls has an atrocious voter turnout in November.

Does making it in September increase or decrease the vote. Be honest.

Mathew, You can agree with the policy (the bond itself) and find problems with how the school district is going about with the vote itself.

#9 Peter "Mega" Pischke on 09.12.18 at 3:37 pm

I’d like to add that I watched last weeks 1 Million Cups, and really appreciated you asking about why the School Board choose to the the lump sum for the loan versus the pay as you go method.

Thank you for asking that,

#10 Peter "Mega" Pischke on 09.12.18 at 3:38 pm


Everyone please take a chill pill.

We all want what is best for our schools. The majority of both sides of this issue want our schools to be paid for and buildings enough to hold our staff and students.

We just disagree with how this particular bond is being handled,

To be honest, our disagreement isn’t worth any vitriol.

#11 Matthew Paulson on 09.12.18 at 9:58 pm

Thanks Peter. I believe the “why not borrow a little at a time” question has largely been answered because it sounds like bonds will be put out over a five year period as these projects come to fruition. Craig also made a great point that rates are almost certainly going to go up and it makes sense to lock in a historically low rate now (4%). If someone wants to loan me 25 year money at 4%, I’d gladly take that deal.