Joint Minnehaha County / Sioux Falls Planning Commission votes against small addition to wedding barn due to city greed

An official called me Monday night after the joint meeting in which the commissions were voting on an additional building to be added to the property of the wedding barn by the Veterans Cemetery. The applicant wanted to add a smaller building to the property for smaller receptions for funerals at the cemetery.

The MCC voted unanimously to approve, the SF Planning voted 3-2 to not approve because they felt the applicant needed to pay multiple platting fees for the building on one piece of property.

Commissioner Johnson made the same motion for the city planning commission to approve the
Rezoning #21-01 request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kittams. Commissioner
Luetke commented that he would be voting against the request because he believes everyone
should go through the same process. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was rejected with
3 votes against the motion and 2 votes in favor of the motion. Commissioners Norman, Luetke,
and Paulson voted against the motion and Commissioners Johnson and Kittams voted in favor of
the motion.

You must also remember this is in the joint jurisdiction area and many city services are NOT provided out there. The multiple platting fees would make sense if this was a well developed area, but it is not.

It is time for Minnehaha County to revoke their joint jurisdiction agreement with the city and let county residents who don’t live under the dictatorship of the City of Sioux Falls to be FREE.

The item will move onto the full council and commission.



8 comments ↓

#1 Corrupted and Broken on 07.30.21 at 6:29 am

Is it greed or just plain consumer abuse fraud? If a landowner never receives city services how can the city corruptly extort money from a small business?

Do you think if Amazon was building in the 3 mile jurisdiction the city would extort the same fee? Doubtful

#2 D@ily Spin on 07.30.21 at 8:20 am

City oligarchy is not in the interest of residents. This is and has been true. Home Rule Charter makes the mayor a dictator with a few developers pulling puppet strings. Some of Lincoln County is in city limits. Otherwise, it’s become time to merge city and county government(s) into one of/by/for the people. Democracy, remember that?

#3 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 07.30.21 at 9:51 am

If people would just go to church, then we wouldn’t need these barns. Barns are where children are sometimes conceived and not where they are supposed to be legitimized.

#4 Further Fear & Loathing on 07.30.21 at 10:21 am

If you are married in a barn, then it makes it more tolerable to play country western music at your reception/dance.

Can we build modern log cabins where married women, with the help of a midwife, can give birth to their offspring, too? #LetsKeepThisThemeGoing #MaybeBookAnAmishPastorAsWell #HoeDownWeddings

#5 *** NON GERMANE WARNING *** on 07.30.21 at 1:32 pm

So who are these dumb asses who are protesting in front of Sanford, who work there, but they don’t want to get their covid vaccinations?

Why would anyone want one of them to give you a shot, take your blood, evaluate your blood tests, or help with a procedure, if they don’t have any faith in science?

Hell, they work for an institution which is based on science. Science is to Sanford what the combustible engine is to Ford.

They claim its personal choice, but I bet most of them with those signs aren’t into choice when it comes to reproductive rights.

Their choice should be to quit their job. Heck, everyone pretty much already knows that most other employers in town have better health care insurance for their employees.

My God, working for a health care system but not wanting a vaccine, or believing in them, is like working at Hooter’s and not being on the pill, or wanting to be.

#6 "Woodstock" on 07.30.21 at 1:49 pm

“Say, I used to have a cousin who worked at Hooter’s”… “She wasn’t that cute, so they made her a cook”…. “But I think even she was on the pill”…..

#7 The Guy From Guernsey on 08.01.21 at 7:48 pm

“The city wants that process to be followed, so that all the [insert sny business type here] are treated the same.”
Albert Schmidt, City of Sioux Falls Planning, paraphrased in the meeting minutes.

hmmm, need to remind the Mayor, the City Council and economic development and planning “staff” of these words each and every time in which they are breathlessly advocating to hand out government welfare in the form of TIFs preferentially to certain businesses/developments/developers.

#8 The Guy From Guernsey on 08.01.21 at 7:49 pm

Another Planning Comission meeting in which only 5 of 9 members attend. The result – 3 votes from the scant attendance are able to Approve / Deny applications.
Unacceptable. Show up! Or resign!
Imagine a real estate agent and a land surveyor voting against this spplication. John Paulson saw fit to recuse himself from a previous vote involving the reduction in parking in a lot at the location of a Sanford clinic, but doesn’t see fit to recuse himself from the vote on the application of a competitor to Sanford Show Barn?!?! WTF!