I am not surprised this happened. Over the past decade I have watched the integrity of the legal descriptions in ordinances deteriorate substantially and it seems almost weekly the council is amending some mistake or typo (Item #96);
This would have been quite the boo-boo.
This past year the Building Services manager had to apologize to the city council for screwing up on a fee adjustment that wasn’t caught by the council or attorney’s office but by a contractor.
The BID Tax increase was deferred because a couple of DTSF business owners cried. I don’t see any amendments and I don’t expect any tonight, this will pass easily. The Billionaire Italians bitching about this increase can afford it, oh, and will DTSF hang some damn xmas lights at Sunshine already!
Nice Catch, I did not even notice this from the 1st Reading, the typo. That will be huge. But agree, it will pass, none of the other property holders except for Sunshine Foods and Ravens stood up against the proposal. Perhaps more will show up tonight, who knows. But, if the majority of property holders are in agreement, the other two, while have a voice, simply need to make a decision on their own in private. This was one of the reasons for the Home Rule Charter – to allow for “people” making up the city itsef, the PEOPLE to be able to self govern themselves as they wish. They can at anytime form the “ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY HOLDERS” to tax themselves, and because they are only taxing themselves, there is no state law that stops that. State law would only interfere whereas they were attempting to impose ‘direct tax’ on ALL Residents/property holders of the area.
Now, you can make the argument, that any of conduct business in Downtown Sioux Falls. However, you are NOT forced to directly pay the ‘tax’. You indirectly pay the tax as you conduct business with a Downtown Company.
Now, Raven’s and Sunshine Foods, if they continue to oppose such arrangement, will have to make a choice, stay Downtown, or transfer their ‘residence’ outside of the boundaries of the Business District. They may actually do that, who knows. That would be bad for Downtown, cause Ravens is by far the largest property holder in Downtown, and the one who has invested the largest sum of investment along the river other than Sioux Steel.
I would love to hear from other “property holders” of Downtown, but if like 1st Reading, they never showed up, which by passive consent, they agree to be taxed.
If adopted, the majority of Property Holders have 20 days to challenge the ordinance to strike it back down.
Authoritarianism at its finest. Raise tax a lot but lower a little before an election in order to say it got lowered. Why is there a bid tax? City contracts are awarded cost plus without competitive bid process.
Higher bid tax for a contractor to add back in. Sophisticated churning?
You can’t make this sh!t up if you tried. Just now at the regular council meeting the councilors just had to amend a licensing agreement because it had the wrong year on it. Just like clockwork.
I wish Aldi/Trader Joes would buy the Sunshine property and put a Trader Joes there. I heard they can afford there own xmas decorations.
The fluoridation of our water system has finally begun to bear tainted fruit.
AND, “Aldi/Trader Joes”?… Do you mean I would have a choice between whether I wanted to pay too much, or not?