Besides the full-color campaign like posters and the RSVP requirement, what is the strange part about the State of the City address? Well it was advertised with a start time of 8 AM, but if you look at the agenda (posted sometime between 8-8:30 AM this morning, just in the nick of time) the official meeting doesn’t start until 8:30 AM. So why the discrepancy in time? My guess is that the mayor is planning to have a campaign like event between 8-8:30 AM. Basically using city resources and giving a false time of 8 AM to get people to come early for his campaign event and stay for the SOC. This is unprecedented on many levels and completely unethical.
Paul has claimed several times to the media over the past couple of weeks that since he is the sitting mayor he has the right to use these resources to his campaign advantage, saying his opponents are jealous. There are campaign rules for a reason, and he is flagrantly ignoring them, nevermind the irony of a cheapskate Dutchman using taxpayer money to his campaign advantage.
There is also the question of using city owned property and donated food (from who?) to have a campaign rally.
The “jealousy” angle is something that’s usually used by Kardashian types. But then again, I guess that fits our always camera-ready influencer-wannabe Mayor.
I’m relatively new to this little bitch fest. Curious if there’s ever been a mayor that got your stamp of approval?
This is about an ACT not the person who is mayor.
Why won’t you answer the question? I’m not talking about this specific complaint. Have you ever been happy with any of the mayors? Have you ever been happy period?
Beck’s comments about this issue show how she protects what PTH does, pretty much how Psaki thinks that Biden can do no wrong.
ntnliq…Can’t say I was ever really dissatisfied with any SF mayor til munson came along. That started a string of bought and paid for mayors and more importantly…councilors. I had issues with them all from that point on. For me mike huether was the nadir of SF mayors. Til now. If I had to choose between huether and ten whatever, I would choose huether. At least he had the balls to engage the public at various venues.
There are plenty of happy clappy media venues you can go to, if you come here, I am critical of government corruption and open meetings. I guess you are correct, I am unhappy, when it comes to corruption. I don’t care who is doing it, I don’t like it. I ask the same question, why does open government make this mayor so angry. I love lots of things about SF especially my friends and our parks and live a very satisfying life outside of my blogging. I often think it is funny when someone accuses you of being angry or a hater because you point out corruption. Weird.
We shouldn’t be surprised. ThuneHaken once gave Trump a B+. Ya, the same Trump who used the White House for the 2020 Republican National Convention. They have no shame. Give ThuneHaken another term and he’ll want to invade Brandon or Lennox to “Denazify them”.
“‘Denazify them’?”…. “Just imagine a 40 mile convoy of toolboxes on wheels”…. “(“No wonder they built the Veterans Parkway”…. (“Does that make Tea, Belarus?))”…
Coming from Patrick Starr I just LOL. Didn’t this guy try to jump ship for a cushy County job only to get trounced? Seriously, he’s a total drama Queen. I like to watch him during any council meeting for lessons in faux concern, and to wait for his typical bitçhy comment. I don’t think anyone really takes him seriously
I hate it when Patrick is right, but he is on this one. If this was a once and done, I might let it slide, but it is a trend. Giving away City buildings for $1 to his buddies, the City’s largest TIF ever, backroom land sales, endless selfies, playing up the diversity before an election, taking $1000 donations from children, shameless using his opponents ideas after being elected, the mayor’s insider text messages right before an election and the list goes on.
“Well, maybe it is stupid but it’s also a little dumb.”
– Patrick Star, ‘SpongeBob Squarepants’
I’ll ask the question you won’t answer one more time. Has there ever been a mayor that got your stamp of approval? Your answer about hating corruption isn’t an answer. Pretty clear you don’t like Paul. Has anyone else ever been good enough for you? Like I said, I’m pretty new to this bitch fest. Genuinely curious if some one before Paul got the Scott seal of approval. Be
I know you are going to keep asking the question, so I’m only going to give you an answer one more time since you don’t seem understand the difference from not liking policy over not liking an individual. I can’t dislike Paul because I don’t know Paul personally. I would have to have a personal relationship with him in order for me not to like him. As the mayor and the decisions he makes (or the lack of) I don’t like him. As a person I have no feelings either way. If Paul wasn’t the mayor and I wasn’t a blogger I still think I would never hang with someone like Paul because we just don’t roll in the same crowd. I thought the same about Mike and Dave, didn’t know them personally, never thought about them that way. I know it is hard for you to understand, but you can like people that you disagree with on politics. My BFF is a hardcore Republican, it has never got in the way of our friendship, we just accept we disagree on politics.
If NTNLIQ wants a stake in history to provide reference, might be best to look at charter form of City government, rather than to specific Mayors.
From history – the Strong Mayor charter was placed by a couple of the “chamber of commerce croniest-type” in town to the ballot in 1995 (during the first mayoral term of Gary Hanson).
It apparently took only to Munson’s first term in office for the Strong Mayor form of government to manifest the undesirable qualities to which the blogmaster refers – lack of transparent governance, corrupt dealings with the private sector (the pay-off to the “chamber of commerce-types” for the Strong Mayor Charter).
Recall the kerfuffle which led Munson to withdraw his candidacy to seek a second term? Only to sneek back into candidacy after a spineless Council dropped actions toward sanction/censure (?), thinking pursuit of the matter was a moot point because Munson had dropped his candidacy.
Munson was the first to be influenced by the chamber cronies in town to use the Strong Mayor charter to co-opt City coffers for the benefit of the bourgeoisie class of Sioux Falls.
I don’t understand why you can’t answer a question. I didn’t ask if you “liked” Paul. I didn’t ask if you liked any mayor. I’m asking whether there has ever been a mayor who you thought was doing a good job.
NTNLIQ, there is a difference between friend and acquaintance like there is between leadership and getting along.
Our Sioux Falls city charter makes the mayor’s job an authoritarian almost dictatorial position. Each mayor has taken more and more power away from the Council to the point where our current mayor feels he can do no wrong. The Council goes along to get-along as the mayor takes over, taking away more and more of our rights.
The Sioux Falls Home Charter was a very badly written, cookie cutter document, voted on and adopted in 1994 when there was still some trust in government. Those of us who have watched the government work and tracked our loss of rights are very dissatisfied. As the citizenry begins to notice their rights missing or they get abused or they get thrown in jail on trumpted up charges, who will be left to fight for you?
L3wis is the only media out there willing to continue to trumpet the abuse and ask why they keep doing it. If it were not for Brekke and Starr, the worthless others on the Council would just phone in their support for the dictatorship.
So yes NTNLIQ, there is no support for any mayor or government taking away our rights.Our system of government and 1st Amendment allow us to disagree and report on actions taken by the government officials. Right or wrong, we must always fight everyday to preserve our rights and be ready to get rid of the abusive persons whether you like them cutely playing with kiddos or pretending to be pious.
Could someone explain the relevance of the question as to whether l3wis approves of the acts of a particular mayor?
For arguments sake let us assume that someone is a vegan. They then object to being fed various forms of animal flesh. A carnivore then asks them what is wrong with them since they don’t like any of the animal flesh they are offered.
The aversion to crime (and as a matter of technicality I have been told all ordinance violations are a misdemeanor) doesn’t seem to be different. Some people don’t object to any crimes, some people only object to certain crimes, and some people just don’t like any crime.
To me the more interesting question is why we can’t find a mayor who has an aversion to committing criminal acts. Is it because they are promised they will not be prosecuted? Is it because something in the selection process advantages people with personality traits linked to a propensity to criminal acts? Are they pressured into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise? Do they hire bad legal advice?
Can someone explain this phenomenon?
Munson was the first mayor who used Home Rule Charter against the public. Thereafter, there’s no ethics and what’s normally considered criminal. Munson wanted ice cream bars downtown. Huether built play palaces and his own private tennis club. TenHaken would have been worse but Huether left him with a poor bond rating. This is the age of Credit Card Mayors. There’s a half billion annual budget for a 200k population. Everything is for looks while infrastructure suffers. It’s time for some Mean Girl Mayors. At least then there will be obvious exhorbitant credit card spending that the city will become known for. Rodeo drive seems better than good old boys getting public handouts
It’s not Robin Hood when the rich rob from the poor. It’s taxation without representation. City Hall and Carnegie have become mafia social clubs. Vote for John Gotti or get your arm broken.
Dear Anti-Quotation Boy,
This blog has been around since, when, 2006? Since that time, we have had three mayors who were, or became, products of the establishment in this town. So what is there to love about them?
Respectfully,
VSG
( and Woodstock adds: “I tell you VSG…. You are always way to nice to this guy”….. )
I really do not know if the Mayor has played games with the State of the City Address, unless that can proven in a court of law, really all those types of comments do is create political divide in an already divided political system of where you have “two distinct kindgoms” – Democrat vs Republican.
As for Scott being pro or against Paul Ten Haken and whether or not he has ever had a Mayor he liked or disliked? I think that is an unfair question to say the least. And take it from me, I have had some pretty interesting dialogues with Scott and we sometimes agree, and disagree all the time.
I do not think Scott hates any of our Mayor’s – I think he is simply, like me, simply voicing our displeasure wiht the political climate of today, whether you like this mayor or that mayor, or this President or that President, really is not the issue here.
I think Scott, and he can correct me if I am incorrect – like myself – wants to enforce the Constitution, he wants the ‘government process” to work in the best interest of the people, and he wants to call out issues that may or may not exist within the framework of ‘government’ itself. I mean – that is what the First Amendment is there to protect – the right to:
1) Review Public Policy;
2) Audit the Government itself (taxes, spending, etc)
3) Hold Elected Officials, Officers, Employees Accountable;
4) Enforce our Constitutions (Federal and State)
5) Call Attention to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.
I have had the fortunate chance to speak to Scott, let alone become part of the governing process of attending City Council Meetings, Committee Meetings, to voice the concerns of our community, promote concepts, and to convince the City Council to promote better government. Scott, like myself – do not hate any particular Mayor, Governor, Legislator, Council Member, whomever it may be, its the fact “WE” do what you all should be doing – Holding Government Accountable.
Whereas I go about it in a conservative, mild mannered approach talking softly, Scott uses a more aggressive, carry a big stick approach, but I think he is respectful in his comments, there is no right or wrong approach here.
IF yo are not willing to stand up and speak your mind before Government, that government will run all over you, stealing your rights, thus becoming tyrannical.
I think where myself and Scott have the most in common – is that we both want to call attention to City Policies, Agenda, in order to keep the citizens up to speed on what the government is doing today.
I good friend once told me — “If you want to change the government into one that remains honest, for the people, and a direct representative of the people, you must start with you” – Bill Nees
What my friend meant by that – be the “change” you wish the government to become tomorrow. IF it must be, it must start with you.
Does Scott hate any single mayor, No. I do not get that by his comments, he has said it several times here alone – he is simply calling out what he sees is corruption, ethic issues, and bad government. And that folks – is what “WE” all should be doing today.
– Mike Zitterich
Oh, and before my “friend” gets to it. That’s “way too nice” and not “to nice”…. 😉