Sioux Falls Planning Commission Member Ervin suddenly concerned about Public Input

While it is no surprise the Planning Commission approved (6-0, 3 absent) the ridiculous Med MJ zoning ordinance with comments about the ‘Safety of the Community’ even though a large majority of Sioux Falls voters supported this, the most humorous statement was from Sean Ervin who suddenly seemed to be concerned about having public input on zoning and planning issues when it comes to selling a harmless plant. In reference to the conditional use process these dispensary owners will have to go through he said this;

‘ . . . there is public input. That’s a real important step for the city of Sioux Falls, it allows people to come and address us . . . and wisdom that comes from this public input for these officials who have to make these tough decisions (councilors) for the whole community, we are trying to protect the community . . .’

I found it a bit ironic that when it comes to a law that was passed by over 70% of Sioux Falls voters and is only approved for medical use, they seem to be trying to ‘protect’ someone with this process. Who?! Yet when it comes to TIFs, tax rebates and handouts and letting developers build whatever they damn well please, where are those protections?

See, Sean, you can’t have it both ways. If you are for Public Input, let’s do it all the way, why not make every single business in this town whether they are selling Med MJ or Cotton Candy come in front of these two bodies and beg for approval, you know, for the safety of the community. I would even argue that Cotton Candy is probably more harmful than MJ.

The rank hypocrisy I see at some of these city meetings is mind boggling. Ironically, I just told Sean and the rest of the Commission at last month’s meeting that their meetings are just some kind of rubber stamp circus, and they didn’t disappoint tonight.


#1 Ogre Rants on 08.05.21 at 12:01 am

Very disappointing tonight. Lots of younger people on the committee who just rubber stamped the zoning department. If this is the upcoming leadership, heaven help us.

#2 D@ily Spin on 08.05.21 at 9:13 am

There’s no doubt the city disrespects democracy and the constitution. They get away with it because of Home Rule Oligarchy. If we live here, we must accept the ‘Wall at Carnegie’.

#3 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.05.21 at 12:52 pm

The LAW you voters voted on allows each sub-division whether it be a County, School District, Municipality, Townships, right down to your little “property domain” to regulate as you choose.

Local Ordinances are just like state statutes, they do not go into effect until “consent’ is given by the people, and one way NOT to consent to such ‘ordinance’ is to go thru the referrendum process of referring it to the voters.

IF this ordinance went before the voters, how many would vote YES to keep it, or vote NO to trash it?

IF no one refers it to a public vote, then “YOU” or better put, the PEOPLE have consented to such ordinance.

Lets remember – “WE” have NOT 100% legalized Marijuana, as I have stated prior, 70% of the legislative districts, 86% of the Precincts collectively voted NO on legalizing Marijuana for recreation, this shows a clear understanding of where ‘yes votes’ came from, and where the people who opposed the amendment also live.

I believe, the people want this “Medical Use” of Marijuana heavily restricted, that is just “MY” opinion.

#4 l3wis on 08.05.21 at 2:14 pm

In an election the minority of the total vote are called the losers. The losers don’t make the rules.

#5 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.05.21 at 5:09 pm

Wrong – if the LAW is passed by the voters, it takes both sides as you want to call them, “winners and losers” to now sit down and create the rules as such to now govern the activity as such, so our property rights are protected, the public health and safety are protected, and that criminals do not go around breaking down doors.

In the case of AMENDMENT A – the so called “winners” screwed up, they used the wrong process, their style and form was all screwed up, and they ended up losing the battle, as well – 70% of the State Population has said the Amendment is not correct.

The “losers” as you want to call them, have the same equal rights now under I.M 26 to play a part in creating our ZONING RULES to protect our Land Rights, Property Rights, ensure the Public Health and Safety of all concerned and to #1 – Protect our Commercial Interests of the City.

Set Up your Medical Marijuana Establishments all you want, keep them out of the “Core Neighborhoods”, away from Public Schools, Churches, and Parks.

Remember – IF you do not like the Ordinance, then work together to “refer” it to the Voters to vote YES or NO on the Ordinance. And I am quite sure this could very easily happen in the next couple of weeks. I know there is a group looking at doing so.

I also know there is a group bringing forth a “2nd Ordinance Proposal to the Council” as well. So there will be two such documents to be discussed soon.

IF you do not consent to the proposed ordinance, be prepared to refer it to a public vote, and then, we shall see who the true winners and losers really are.

#6 l3wis on 08.05.21 at 6:18 pm

There have been NO court challenges to IM 26. It stands as the law of the land. Like it or not, the losers don’t get to make up the rules.

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.06.21 at 5:45 am

I think you are wrong, but it is what it is. The “losers” as you want to refer to them, by the way, all you are doing is creating enemies, and that will not help your cause – your so called “Losers” have every right given to them by the State Constitution to play a role in shaping our “ZONING LAWS”. I know you like to say they do not have this right, but they do. YOU cant simply walk into someone’s commercial or residential zone and break their rules, if they want to ban “Marijuana Sales” in their area, they have that right.

I can make a rule within my Place of Business that I do not want people to smoke tobacco, marijuana, or drink alcohol anywhere near my property, let alone in my place of business, my Neighbors have the right to restrict Marijuana activity in our “city block”, and my landlord has the right to ban Marijuana on his land.

THe LOSERS as you like to say, have every equal right to play a role in shaping our ZONING LAWS whether you like it or not.

SDCL 34-20G that you all like to promote so much, gave the so called “LOSERS” that right.

But then again, I would never call anyone a so called “loser”, that is a very disrepectful way of creating a discussion.

#8 D@ily Spin on 08.06.21 at 12:57 pm

Generally, across the US, retail marijuana is not a good business. Mostly, because of excessive taxation, regulation, and restrictions. There will be cheaper better tax free pot privately. A profitable business to consider is marijuana cards to show police if caught making a street purchase. Oklahoma has more of this type service than retail outlets. It’s important to keep local government busy with irrelevant legislation so we’re not bothered with usual nonsense. I’ll smoke to that.