Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Jan 14, 2020

City Council Operations Committee • 2 PM

I was surprised on Friday to see that these meetings will now be opened to the public. The chair had this to say;

That’s why Council vice-chair Greg Neitzert, who presides over the operations committee, decided to start letting sunshine into the meetings beginning this month.

“I’ve thought they should be open for a long time,” he told the Argus Leader. “It just created this aura that there was this big thing going on behind the scenes and there’s not. So why not just open it up.

“It’ll be just like any other committee,” he added.

While this is a good move, it should have happened 4 years ago when Neitzert got elected. The timing of this just a couple of months away from the city election is an ‘interesting’ move since Greg is up for re-election. The 2 PM time on a Tuesday afternoon is also ‘interesting’. Much like the CRC meetings, at a time that is NOT convenient for people to watch live or attend in person. But, I will say it is a good move, better late than never.

They will do a Review of the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual and the City Council Reference Manual

Informational Meeting • 4 PM

They will have presentations on (no supporting PDF docs yet);

• Sioux Falls Skate Park (this is exciting and hope they are getting closer to their fundraising goals to start the project).

• Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan – Preliminary Recommendations

• National League of Cities Trip Update

Regular Meeting • 7 PM

Item #14, 1st Reading, Yard Sign regulations;

Noncommercial yard signs. Noncommercial signs shall not exceed 9 square feet per sign in any residential parcel

They are looking to delete the line ‘with two signs allowed’. While I don’t take issue with the proposed change, I don’t think it should be implemented BEFORE the April city election. This seems like a sneaky attempt to put up as many large political yard signs as possible before that election. I would encourage the council to defer this until after the election. In its current trajectory it would become in effect in February.

Staff is looking to remove the limit of two non-commercial yard signs allowed on a single residential parcel. Property owners would be able to display as many as they would like. Finally, we are looking to increase the amount of time each sign can be placed on a property from 60 days to 90 days.

Item #15, Resolution, agreeing to allowing refugee resettlement. I totally agree with this resolution. America was built on immigrants, and I don’t think our values should change.

Item #16, Anti-Hate resolution. I also agree with this, but think it should be amended to include ALL groups that are discriminated against, including sexual preference. I also think it should include city funding of public service announcements and education seminars about why we should accept those that are different to us. The issue I have with this resolution is that it would be hard to prosecute people for practicing their 1st Amendment rights. You may not like it that people HATE others for whatever reason, but you can’t criminalize ignorance. It is what it is. But you CAN hold out a hand, give them a hug, and explain to them why what they are doing is wrong. Prosecuting ‘Haters’ will only inflame them and make them more bitter. Working with their ‘attitudes’ and changing their opinions should be the ultimate goal. You only eliminate hate thru love, understanding and education.


#1 Reliable Voter on 01.11.20 at 6:59 pm

So Neitzert can see the light when he feels the heat.

#2 D@ily Spin on 01.12.20 at 9:29 am

Signs, immigrants, and hate. Is this a Klan rally?

#3 "Very Stable Genius" on 01.14.20 at 12:19 pm

The regulation of political signage on private property is a 1st Amendment issue.

The 1st Amendment allows you to put as many, and whenever, political signs on your property.

The city’s attempt to regulate and police this is itself a contradiction of what is being attempted to control, while allowing it to be.

Unlike seeking a permit to protest on public grounds, placing political yard signs on your own property is not something that should be regulated at all.

Didn’t there used to be a lady, I believe in Crooks, who used to paint the side of her house with protest comments about Janklow? I am sure the house was not pleasing to the neighborhood, but wasn’t that her right within her own property?

Does the Euclid decision from years ago really allow local municipalities to trump 1st Amendment rights in their purist and rawist forms? I don’t think so.

Because when you have laws to protect civility, which limit a civil act or right, then what are you protecting?

Leave a Comment