Citizens push back on the IM 26 Task Force Recommendations

At the Sioux Falls City Council Informational Meeting yesterday Councilor Neitzert (who was chair of the IM 26 Task Force) gave his analysis on the recommendations for zoning of Medical MJ dispensaries. Besides the possible licensing fee of $140K (that is still being negotiated by the county) there is a 1,000 foot setback from daycares, parks, churches, schools AND single family residential. This of course is ridiculous on many levels. First off, as several commenters pointed out in public input, this is MEDICAL marijuana, not recreational, so essentially these facilities are pharmacies, and secondly it is pretty discreet. Just like going to a Walgreens you will get your prescription and take it home to use. There won’t be people hanging out in the lobby and in front of the dispensaries getting high. Besides, most of Med MJ is in edible form, so you won’t even see people using it.

One cannabis advocate, Emmett Riestroffer pointed out he could only find 2 locations in Sioux Falls you could have dispensaries if this zoning was permitted. One spot was North of the airport and the other was by the wastewater treatment plant. But more importantly Emmett pointed out why they were trying to limit it, because of Mayor TenHaken’s involvement and direction. By charter this is a violation of his legislative duties.

Many advocates came up and talked about the missed business opportunity, the limited access and pending lawsuits. I talked about how the task force met in early morning during the work week at the Downtown library where you have to pay parking. The meetings were NOT recorded, so if you did not attend we have no idea what was talked about.

I think I have a theory of why they are trying to limit access. It’s all part of a bigger effort by the Municipal League to ONLY allow municipalities and counties to own and operate dispensaries. They will likely hire private contractors to run the facilities (friends and business associates of the elected officials) and keep all the profits to themselves shutting out private industry.

You have to remember when it comes to governing in our state, especially locally, it’s always about greed and the connected making money. While they may blame the morality of using MJ (it’s a harmless plant folks) it’s really about control and the authoritarians got there marching orders from the dictator in the corner office.

The Sioux Falls Planning Commission will vote on the proposed ordinance at their August 4 meeting.



32 comments ↓

#1 Very Stable Genius on 07.28.21 at 3:17 pm

“You have to remember when it comes to governing in our state, especially locally, it’s always about greed and the connected making money”….

Boy ain’t that the truth. A good Democrat once told me that the only reason the Democrats controlled Pierre in the 1930s is because the Republicans no longer had an interest in state government because they couldn’t figure out how to use it during a depression to make money for themselves, and I think he was right.

I also think it is the same reason that for years the SD GOP allowed Democrats to win congressional races so they could bring home continual and more aid for the South Dakota farmers, which was a position the GOP in South Dakota felt awkward promoting until federal deficits became less of an issue in the last twenty years.

#2 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 07.28.21 at 3:29 pm

Airports have always been a good place to get high.

#3 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.28.21 at 4:48 pm

Funny you bring up the 1930’s – it was one of the decades in our nations history where a corrupted government saw the greatest expansion of the central government ever.

Not since the decade of 1865 to 1875 – where the country was going thru the “Great Reconstruction of America” did the federal government steal more rights of the States and of the People…

Whereas, The “Great Reconstruction of America” over saw the International Bankers and Foreign Investors placing America back together in “Their Image” passing the 13 and 14 Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts supported by the Republicans, let alone the Corporate Organic Act of the “DISTRIST”, the States pretty much become ‘contracted’ to this Corporate Charter which placed the Central Government in the hands of the International Bankers, Foreign Investors, and the Lawyers.

A period of ‘deflation’ began to take hold between 1880 to 1930, so much so, the bankers were beginning to reap all the benefits, so much so, they convinced Congress to create the “Private Central Bank”.

This BANK then proceeds to deflate the “Currency” between 1920-1930 restricting the Currency, so much so, no one could get their hands on the currency, there were NO JOBS, people went broke.

You also had the “Dust Storms” harming the farmers.

This all led to the “Great Panic of 1929”

What followed was the “Greatest Expansion of the Federal Government” during the 1930’s led by the Democrats.

They engineered the Bankruptcy Act (1933), they Stole Our Gold (1933), and the created Social Security (1935) in order to trick the Americans into giving up what little sovereignty they had left, forcing them to pay a ‘tax’ for a false hope of security.

Congress passes a resolution – “IF You call yourself a U.S Citizen today, you no longer own property to Person, Property, Land, for all property now vests in the name of the State”

Thanks to the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, the States have contracted themselves to the Federal Reserve System, and with that, anytime you temporarily give up your property to borrow money, the State now takes ownership of the property, places a lien on the property in the name of the LIENHOLDER…

Ultimately, you are now granted USER RIGHTS via the Certificates of Birth, Property, Land Deeds, Marriage, and Death Certificates, while you now have ‘permissions’ to obtain a driver license to drive on public roads.

the 1930’s – A TOTAL SCAM PUT FORTH ONTO THE PEOPLE

The Federal Income TAX = BIG SCAM – no one really owes the federal income tax if they know how it really works.

#4 Emmett R on 07.28.21 at 5:36 pm

Thanks for speaking out Scott, and thanks for providing the only media coverage of the meeting. Disappointed Argus, Kelo, DNN etc., couldn’t make it. Clearly the people are ready to fight back against bad government. I believe Neitzert will listen and offer a better approach, but hopefully the rest of council cooperates.

#5 l3wis on 07.28.21 at 6:07 pm

The sad part is that Greg knows better, as a guy who championed Shape Places, he should know that the zoning is too limited. This is the reason why my relationship with Greg has fractured, because he was once a person who used common sense when it came to zoning issues and he threw it out the window to become a boot licker to the development crowd that runs this city.

#6 D@ily Spin on 07.28.21 at 6:09 pm

It’s not that far to Flandreau. If pot is legal, there’s gonna be stoners coming back when they could have gotten it close and used at home. If the city doesn’t want it, Flandreau could use the business.

#7 PORTER H LANSING on 07.28.21 at 8:56 pm

Once mmj is safely within the municipal control, it’s logical to put the dispensary in the police station. That way every patient can be logged, laundered, and surveilled. Just in case someone gets the entrepreneurial desire to sell to their friends.

#8 l3wis on 07.28.21 at 9:12 pm

Porter, good idea, maybe we should do the same thing with hotdogs.

#9 D@ily Spin on 07.29.21 at 8:35 am

The PD is where you meet when you have a buyer for Craigslist. It can also be the place for dope deals.

#10 Very Stable Genius on 07.29.21 at 10:38 am

If medical marijuana is a legitimate form of treatment, then shouldn’t it be made available at every pharmacy, but only pharmacies? Do we have OxyContin dispensaries? Why is mm being treated like a debate about where tobacco shops should be located? AND, if many are in pain, then where are the swarms of protesters at city hall?

#11 Very Stable Genius on 07.29.21 at 11:05 am

What about the Trilateral Commission? Can’t we blame them, too, Mike? You must have something on them. AND, if land deeds are merely “user rights”, then why can’t the city take back Seney Island?

#12 Emmett on 07.29.21 at 1:44 pm

I have to correct myself because my previous comment was a knee jersey reaction. Argus was indeed there and as many of you can see today they did a great job covering what happened!

#13 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.29.21 at 2:40 pm

Greg always listens, he has shown to be willing to compromising..

Emmett – do you think one of the reasons they be over restricting the rules is to start at 100% while loosening up the rules as we go on, I think they may be pushing the envelope to see how far they can go, before the “State” fights back.

Keep in mind, AMENDENT A is not yet done, if this AMENDMENT suceeds, there is a section that allows the LOCAL GOVT to ‘ban’ marijuana, this means this 1000 feet rule aligns with that “ban” … think about it.

Because 70% of the Districts (the people) voted NO on the Amendment, the City and Council may feel that justifies “banning” Marijuana within the City.

So restricting the Medical Use of Marijuana to 1000 feet between Establishments effectively conforms to the “Ban”

Think about that for a second.

#14 l3wis on 07.29.21 at 3:35 pm

Mike, your county argument didn’t make sense when you first blabbered about it and it still doesn’t. They both passed by a wide margin. Period. Elected officials most important job is to honor the will of the voters no matter their feelings on a law.

#15 D@ily Spin on 07.30.21 at 8:32 am

I’m thinking pot business should form a joint lawsuit against the city. Then, what the voters mandated will happen almost immediately. The city knows they can’t win in court. Should the case make it to state court, there will be an end to Home Rule. State court would supervise a return to a democratic form of government. It’s become time to take back government.

#16 Mike Zitterich on 07.30.21 at 3:40 pm

Scott, relax. Amendment A did NOT pass by a wide margin, it was 54% to 46%. You say my argument does not make sense, but yet, it shows a clear understanding that “WHOLE STATE” is very mixed on the Amendment A issue. You claim my argument does not make no sense, but yet, it was the exact same ‘vote’ that occurred in the legislature a few years ago, where it passed successfully in the HOUSE, but failed by nearly the same 70% vote in the Senate. So how does my argument not make sense?

There are 70 House Districts (35 Senators) – 70% of the Districts voted against Amendment A.

Do you not believe for a minute that the COURT sees that result?

IT shows a clear understanding that the people thru out the State is very mixed on Amendment A. Take the blinders off for a split second and look at it for what it is.

This is why it should have went to a CONVENTION, where it could be debated, discussed, changes made, arguments heard, and amendments made to the proposal. But then again…no one understands the Constitution.

#17 l3wis on 07.30.21 at 4:40 pm

Let’s simplify this Mike. A majority of the vote passes initiatives and refs in SD. One person, One vote. You argue this like we decide this by electoral college. We do not.

#18 Further Fear & Loathing on 07.30.21 at 6:30 pm

The electoral college is the only way a white man can survive.

#19 i12doit on 07.30.21 at 6:40 pm

I believe there is a fear that South Dakota will become liberalized with the go ahead nod for weed. One thing, the draconian laws will be changing due to the will of the people. The booze-brained politician’s will eventually submit to the commie plot. The road is long, the fight is hard but, I see a lit joint at the end of the tunnel.

#20 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.30.21 at 10:59 pm

Scott, NO – you are missing the point I am making as if its going right over the roof of the Carnegie Town Hall…

I am showing the fact here, that the vote shows that the STATE is very bit undecided, it shows that a large majority of our CITIZENS do not like the Amendment as written.

IM-26 was the opposite, 70% of the Districts voted YES to allow Marijuana to be used for Medicine Purposes.

THEY, do not so much support Recreational Marijuana, let alone something in the bill just did not agree with them.

The popular vote was only 54% YES of all voters who voted, BUT I will prove that a large majority of Citizens DID NOT like the Amenmdnet and voted NO.

“YOU” simply had enough YES VOTES in 10 Most Populated Districts (Sioux Falls, Rapid City, , Aberdeen, Yankton, , Huron, Brookings, Mitchell, Watertown).

I BET 100% the people in the RURAL DISTRICTS all voted NO, but thanks to cities like SIOUX FALLS who has a largue population, they squeeked out a popular vote….BARELY

IF this was the legislature, the AMENDMENT FAILED.

#21 l3wis on 07.31.21 at 9:20 am

The only thing your analogy proves is that rural SD residents continue to be ignorant dolts.

#22 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.31.21 at 12:30 pm

Do not attack South Dakota Citizens, Please. “WE” are above that, it is what makes South Dakota such a vibrant and independent “State”. Yes, we may only have 885,000 people, but we are a “sovereign people” who have taken it upon ourselves to balance our State Budget, maintain a sense of control, and create tons of great paying jobs. Sure you can argue all day whether the wages are good or bad, but yet, you cant argue the fact we are practically at “Full Employment”.

The State does not carry tons of debt, our Counties, Cities, Townships, to Individuals tend to ‘manage’ the debts they do take on, and most importantly, we do not strip anyone of their basic rights (Life, Land, Water).

Now that you finally admitted the ‘fact’ I have been attempting to raise is true, that 70% of the districts (86% of the Precincts) collectively voted ‘against’ Amendment A for one reason or another, you now learn the truth – that regarding Marijuana, South Dakota Citizens are very perplexed on whether to give you the right to smoke Marijuana or not.

Truth is – do you not believe for one second that Governor Noem, the Legislature, the Courts, even the cities ‘see’ this vote the same way I do?

I mean, when you analyze the actual vote count from the popular vote, the district vote, the precinct vote, you see the reality here – South Dakotan’s do not want to simply legalize Marijuana cause they fear some of the negatives it will bring, yet alone the crimes associated with Drugs, Alcohol, and the Behavioral Patterns of those who partake in the activities.

BUT – collectively speaking, they, South Dakotans willing to give you the privilege to “use” marijuana for medical purposes of it helps South Dakota become a more healthier ‘state’.

That is the role of the Governor here – to protect the “WHOLE” territorial land mass of which our citizens encompass, all of which have the basic inelienable right to Life, Liberty, Property, Prosperity. She cant simply side with a “small minority” of citizens in 10 Large communities, she has to look out for the WHOLE POPULATION and what they feel is best for them.

Thank You For Understanding..

Relax, Enjoy Life, Have Fun.

#23 l3wis on 07.31.21 at 12:40 pm

I never said what you were saying was not factual, it’s just not the way elections work. As I pointed out, this is why VL never gets voted out, because the ignorant rubes in rural areas who don’t have to put with the crime from it vote to keep it. If it were up the cities to govern VL instead of the state, VL would have been gone from SF a very long time ago. This is why we have a state government ran almost exclusively by one party (Think communist China) because the rural voters continue to vote against the interest of the urban areas and elect hillbilly Joe to the legislature who win strictly based on having an ‘R’ behind their name. Don’t believe that the rural communities in SD make bad decisions? Look at the fiasco in Scotland, SD (where half my family grew up) where the city council voted to allow a racist organization sponsor a street dance. If my grandparents were alive today and still living there they would be utterly embarrassed and disgusted. I never heard them say one racist thing their entire lives. The conservatives of today have brain rot, and you proved it when a majority of these ‘counties’ voted against the legalization of a harmless plant. And these folks are supposed farmers???!!!

#24 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.31.21 at 3:47 pm

“WE” govern based on Individual Property Rights and to ensure prosperity and liberty to make our own free and independent decisions.

BILL OF RIGHT #1:

Inherent rights. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Cannot pass a law that is not equally applied to all people of this state, and that ‘all’ the people have the same equal ability to have a say in how we govern the whole ‘state’.

Our 18th Most Important Bill of Right – “Equal privileges or immunities. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens or corporation, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.”

Those “RURAL CITIZENS” you call out so much, have the same EQUAL RIGHT to their property, beliefs, and concerns – as do the “URBAN BASED CITIZENS of the 10 Large Demo-Graphic Based Citizens do.

NOW LAW can be passed that effects all the residents without first allowing every single citizen to ‘consent’ to such law.

“WE” pass laws in two manners – One, we vote by popular vote, and Two – the properties of said people shall be equaly protected as such, they are separated by Districts and Precincts.

#25 l3wis on 07.31.21 at 4:54 pm

Mike you are correct. They do have rights. It is called the ballot box. One person. One vote.

#26 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.01.21 at 3:48 pm

Scott, you are correct, the People have the ability to go to the ballot box to vote, 1 person 1 vote. However:

This is the responsibility of Governor (State Level) and the Mayor (City level) – to be our “AT LARGE REP” to protect property rights of the people.

In reality, that is the role that “AT LARGE REPS” play in this system whether it be the Senate or the At-Large Reps on the City council – their job is maintain a sense of order against “MOB RULE”

There has to be a sense of balance – if we are to maintain our “Sovereign Property Rights”.

10 People cannot over step 1 person who owns the Land. The Land owner still has equal say, its his land.

#27 l3wis on 08.01.21 at 4:01 pm

So if a dispensary owns the lands it sits on a neighbor who is 500 or 1,000 feet away can limit what they can do on that property even if the voters approve what is being done on that property. You know how ridiculous you sound. My neighbor can’t even tell me what kind of plants I can plant in my backyard. I believe in property rights, within reason.

#28 l3wis on 08.01.21 at 4:03 pm

You also keep arguing the ridiculous point that since a handful of voters in boondocks county hundreds of miles away from SF (the minority) are against this they can tell us where dispensaries can be in our town. The more you argue the point, the more I LMFAO. I still don’t understand your reasoning.

#29 Fearing the Fuhrer & More on 08.01.21 at 4:51 pm

Maybe he’s an Anglophile, thus, counties matter.

#30 Bumbling Biden on 08.02.21 at 10:21 am

This issue is SO stupid! Why are we even having this discussion? Weed is a FEDERAL issue, why won’t the dumbocrats take the bull by the horns and just get rid of it as an illegal drug? But NO, instead they are wasting time trying to ram through trillions of $$$$ that they can then funnel to their “voters”. Criminals all.

#31 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.02.21 at 1:02 pm

Scott,

The 10 Largest Cities (Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Watertown, Yankton, Huron, Mitchell, Chamberlain, Brookings) are NOT the majority.

Those 10 cities effectively only have 46% of the State Population, they are the minority. More than 54% of the State Population reside outside those 10 Cities.

There are 588,211 registered voters in South Dakota making up 66% of the state population.

A mere 54% of those voters voted YES on Amendment A or 317,600 people; that is a clear minority of our population. Despite the fact they all voted YES.

Where do the largest chunk of these 300,000 voters reside?

I am taking no position on Amendment A either way, I am simply showing you a large ‘majority’ voted NO on the Amendment, let alone did not vote at all.

And yes – IF the LAND OWNER owns the “land” and he is leasing to 5 people the land allowing 5 people to live on his land, the LAND OWNER sets the rules, and he can restrict your ‘use’ of Marijuana.

The AT LARGE REPS are there to protect the “LAND OWNER, period.

#32 Bumbling Thoughts on 08.02.21 at 4:02 pm

So the Feds should regulate Mary Jane, but not guns? Scalia would have said neither is mentioned in the Constitution. Does making Mary Jane legal at the federal level make it legal, or just then up to the states?