Sioux Falls City Council & City Boards Agenda for the week of August 9, 2021

While all of these meetings are important, I was troubled by this in the consent agenda of the city council;

Health, COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy Study Agreement. Augustana University, $50K

So while we will have a half-ass education program on getting vaccinated, blow $50 Million on crap unrelated to Covid, we will spend this kind of money asking the public why they won’t get a shot. I think we know the answer. It was the Butler in the Kitchen with the Knife in City Hall.

Item #12 should have an exemption for the Parks Department since I heard they have NO minority employees in that department.

Item #14 has $6 million in Covid money going to the Pavilion. Because when you think of helping people with Covid, think the arts, or should we say fixing a roof?

Item #15 isn’t much better with $7 million going to the River Greenway Project that just got a $25 million dollar tax break in the form of a TIF and a land transfer of a park that didn’t exist, but we will never know because that is confidential information.

And you wonder why no one is getting shots?!



12 comments ↓

#1 Very Stable Genius on 08.08.21 at 6:17 pm

Augie is where they turn to in studying the obvious. #HousingCrisis

#2 Very Stable Genius on 08.08.21 at 8:50 pm

Gee, do you think having political leaders waffle on whether people should be required to wear masks during a pandemic might also lead to people being hesitant to get a shot to ward off a virus?

( and Woodstock adds: “They should do a study as to why politicians waffle”…. (“Although, I guess that’s already obvious, too”… ))

#3 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.09.21 at 1:05 pm

I think most of you know that a LAW is only as strong as there are willing participants. A LAW must be consented to. The CITY could at anytime propose Vaccine Mandate or a Mask Mandate, but lets be clear, any such law would have clear the “referrendum period” and if there are a number of residents willing to sign the petition, and place it on a public vote, to strike it down, that means the PEOPLE do not “Consent” to such law, and when this happens, government has no power, nor authority to enforce such law. The LAW is null and void.

YOU are seeing this happen with Amendment A as it has gathered the support of many Citizens of State to create the Challenge in the Supreme Court.

YOu are seeing his play out in the Zoning Discussions, many people do support the cities Time, Place, and Manner, and for those who do not, most likely will take it to a public vote – then ‘we’ see how much support the law truly has or not.

#4 l3wis on 08.09.21 at 4:10 pm

One person challenged Amendment A, Noem, and she admits it, using our tax dollars. If citizens were truly concerned they would have sued as individuals with their own money and lawyers. I don’t believe for a second that Noem is doing this on behalf of concerned citizens, it’s just more theatre.

#5 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.09.21 at 4:43 pm

I believe more than one person led the effort to challenge Amendment A. The Governor cant make that decision, she has backed by a slew of supportors who ask her to challenge it

#6 l3wis on 08.09.21 at 4:51 pm

Besides the 2 Clem’s she recruited merely for their signatures, I have heard zero public vocal opposition, after the election.

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.09.21 at 7:14 pm

I have heard quite a few who are against Amendment A, mostly outside the city, but that counts to.

#8 l3wis on 08.09.21 at 10:07 pm

So why haven’t any of these people signed onto the lawsuit or separate lawsuits with their own money? Oh, that’s right, because they do not exist.

#9 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.10.21 at 1:14 am

I am pretty sure in the 50 Legislative Districts that voted NO against Amendment A, there are plenty of people who have lobbied hard to ‘challenge’ the Amendment. They have done so tirelessly by speaking to their “representatives” whom are working thru committees and talking to the administration. Again, I do not think Gov. Noem challenge the Amendment if she believed she had no support. Just cause you do not hear about it in the media, does not mean it does not mean, those conversations do not exist.

#10 l3wis on 08.10.21 at 7:23 am

When Noem has been asked about it she said she is doing it to uphold the S.D. constitution, no mention of these mysterious concerned citizens who seem to have no faces, no voices and no money.

#11 D@ily Spin on 08.10.21 at 10:36 am

COVID money gets spent on other than COVID. The federal government should intervene. The pandemic is coming back and measures meant to prevent it aren’t happening.

#12 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.10.21 at 1:55 pm

Kristi Noem challenging the Amendment in defense of the State Constitution is all she has to say to begin with, for the “Districts” and those who reside within are pushing her to do so. She is speaking up in defense of them.

Daily Spin – where is your proof that COVID money has been spent on any non-related covid items. The federal law that governs the money strictly allows for Government, Businesses, and Individuals to use such funds where the so called Pandemic has threatened them natural right to live, work, and prosper.

The Care Act Funds given to the State or City are used to fund contractual obligated projects where the tax revenue no longer supports the projects due to less taxes coming in over the previous 12 months.

It was the same logic used when the FEDS gave out the $1,400 dollar checks, the $600 dollar checks to the “Citizens” directly to be used by “YOU” to pay for Housing, Electricity, Food, whatever necessary to live, work, and prosper the so called Pandemic affected your natural right to Life, Liberty, and Prosperity.