If you watch the mayor and representatives from the Riverline District speak at the Downtown Rotary meeting on Monday they seem to be pushing an agenda that the public needs to be SOLD on the idea that we need some kind of sports recreation facility at the location even though the online comments have been strongly against building a stadium in the area.
Once again, supposed leaders in our community know better (that’s how we ended up with an events center in the middle of nowhere) and they seemingly want to just ignore the actual opinion of residents and push another narrative that just doesn’t exist.
One of the panelists said in reference to the negative online comments against a stadium downtown that she wishes the people who approach her in public like at the grocery store (the famous line) and say they want a stadium would express those feelings online. Are Sioux Falls voters really that naive to continue to believe the grocery store poll? Maybe the reason they don’t comment online is that they don’t really exist? And why are people so opinionated at the grocery store?
The group admitted there is challenges in the area including one of the busiest train lines in the city running through it. There is also NO mention of the water issues from Drake Springs (one of the reasons the new Drake Springs pool was built to the North).
Another tidbit that was revealed at the meeting was that earnest money and a purchase agreement has been already drawn up for the land at a cost of around $9 million. What was unclear is where this $9 million was coming from and the mayor leaned towards the taxpayers of Sioux Falls would be picking up the tab. At this point not one single city councilor has spoken publicly in favor or against the project. Where is our legislative policy body on this project? Apparently in the dark. The council is turning into the old dog chained up in the basement. Maybe we should let them roam around the aisles of Sioux Falls grocery stores so they can get a real pulse on what is going on in Sioux Falls 
Remember, this has all been concocted behind closed doors and maybe the reason there is very little buy in from the public is the public hasn’t been involved or informed up until this point. How did we go from 0-60 in a couple of weeks? Because this has been planned in very dark board rooms for months.
But the whopper of the day was when Mayor TenHaken suggested we do like Oklahoma City and propose an extra penny sales tax to pay for a stadium (that nobody wants);
“We are a low-tax state, and we do not have a lot of revenue sources,” he said as he gave potential examples. “I’m nervous, we’re talking about all this. But a baseball stadium’s $80 million, you want an indoor recreation space with 100,000 square feet, that’s $40 million. We’re at $150 million. How are we going to pay for this? No idea.”
First the obvious. Once an extra sales tax is approved, it never goes away or sunsets this is an incredible myth. We only have to look towards the Washington Pavilion and the 3rd penny sales tax on entertainment which was supposed to be sunsetted after the bonds were paid off, they have never gone away, and as of November 2022 the tax raised over $9 million last year. In other words, there is plenty of money in existing coffers to pay off bonds without creating a new tax. I have suggested for years that the 3rd penny be used to pay down bonds on the EC and other facilities instead we squander it on decorations for a roof that nobody looks up at.
But what makes the proposal even more troubling is this;
TenHaken compared the program to a local option sales tax, though didn’t say if he’d want to see the funds overseen by a citizen advisory board, as is done in Oklahoma City.
TenHaken isn’t comparing apples to apples with Oklahoma City which has the public weigh in heavily on the extra tax proposals with extensive public engagement and a public vote (which should be 60% in South Dakota with a taxing/bonding proposal instead of a non-binding ‘advisory vote’ like we did with the EC). Remember, the city council approved the bonding on the EC, not the voters.
What was even more startling was how the panel didn’t seem to concerned about selling the public on their idea.
I go by the old adage that if you have to be sold something you probably don’t need it. It seems the Riverline District reps and the mayor want to sell us on a project they really want (and all of the tax incentives the taxpayers will provide) but the public isn’t to keen on.
I support redeveloping the area, but the city should really only be involved with infrastructure upgrades like utilities, streets and green spaces (not facilities) and let the private sector determine it’s best purpose (which should be housing).
Leave it to an authoritarian like TenHaken to take the beneficial aspects of a bonding proposal and manipulate it to hoodwink Sioux Falls voters into approving another play palace we don’t need.
l3wis 