I saw this coming a mile away.

When the program got reinstated earlier this year I knew what was up. Councilor Soehl pushed for reinstating the program while his campaign’s treasurer was restoring a building in Pettigrew Heights. Look who got a grant, item #6, sub-items #4-5;

Conditional Façade Grant Agreement for building commonly known as 100 South Grange Avenue, Boulevard Properties, LLC, $95K

This is for the proposed coffee shop at 9th and Grange that already got special zoning and street parking. This is a massive conflict of interest on Soehl’s part and he should be charged with an ethical violation. It is the epitome of quid pro quo.

And it seems the mayor’s very special campaign donors are getting some facade monies;

Conditional Façade Grant Agreement for Lucky’s at 224-226 S Phillips Avenue, Blackstreet Partners, LLC, $25K

This of course is part of a conglomerate of investment and development partners who have given thousands of dollars to Mayor TenHaken’s campaign and pro-Haken candidates.

Gee? I wonder why the facade grant was reinstated? Ethics be damned!

7 Thoughts on “Is the revamped Facade Easement program just political payback?

  1. Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on October 14, 2022 at 10:47 pm said:

    That’s it. That’s what’s needed for the Bunker Ramp, a good facade. Ethics or not. But what about bad siding? Wouldn’t that be an example of unethical facading. So, you need to be careful when facading, that what you are covering-up is ethical, even if the covered isn’t (?).

  2. Well, it looks like the Mayor is sharing his special talents with Soehl. Perhaps grooming him for a Mayoral campaign in three years.

  3. D@ily Spin on October 15, 2022 at 7:37 pm said:

    A sign at a church wasn’t allowed yet this is ok. Hypocrites?

  4. A historic old “neighborhood corner store” I used to walk past every day on my way to Jr. HS. There used to be a lot of these little enterprises scattered around in SF’s MORE WALKABLE community. For example(s), the old OK Grocery at 14th and Summit; Pinard Drug at 18th and Minnesota, and plenty more. It would be great to see more of this sort of thing come back. You immigrants have a hypocritical attitude on this. On the one hand you whine about all the auto-centic expansion around the outside of town, and on the other hand you cry “corruption” when someone endeavors to make the “INNER CITY” more walkable/livable. it’s like you’re just more caught up in the whininess to anything. Any excuse to moan. Bad habit.

  5. ACinSFSD on October 18, 2022 at 8:43 am said:

    The new owner’s insistence that the restaurant needs street parking – over the objections of the residents who actually live in the area – suggests that people won’t be walking to this place.

  6. ZDakota on October 18, 2022 at 10:17 am said:

    Like Tupy really needs a handout with all those Verizon dividends coming in.

  7. rufusx on October 19, 2022 at 9:06 am said:

    ACinSFSD – define “in the area”, and walkable distances. I will wager that the complaining residents all live within 300 feet and none of them walk to any of their usual dining destinations – EVER. You can’t have it neither way. Pure Nimbyism.

Post Navigation