Sundance believes that Mayor Paul TenHaken or one of his staffers with the City was retaliating against them for seeking to terminate the restatement agreement as it conflicted with TenHaken’s “2026 Housing Action Plan” focusing on accessible housing, a key element of his 2022 reelection campaign and one of the four areas of TenHaken’s One Sioux Falls framework, the lawsuit states.
What do we mean by “accessible housing?” #OneSiouxFalls
Posted by Paul TenHaken on Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Ogborn echoed this.
“They (the City) wanted to get back at Sundance leaving the program because the mayor had not met his goal of providing affordable housing,” he said. “Sundance pulling out of the deal was another hit to that program, and at the end of the day, the City was going to exact retribution.”
TenHaken, according to The Sundance Group’s lawsuit, allegedly directed city officials to prevent the company from selling the units to force them into default with lenders. This, allegedly, was done to allow the City to acquire the project below Sundance’s development costs, enabling the City to sell the units under its affordable housing program and meet public housing targets promised during TenHaken’s campaign.
I have been salivating about a jury trial against the city for years, it may happen. I’ve been told by sources familiar with the suit that the judge may have agreed to a jury trial a few weeks ago but awaiting confirmation of that.
If this does go to trial, I think I will attend the proceedings, it is rare when the city gets sued that it goes to a jury trial, so this will be an exciting one to watch. It also scores just how corrupt this current mayor and his minions are. The city may just pay the settlement to avoid a trial, but I would demand the trial anyway, even if you may lose. The public needs to see how this administration operates, and it would be on full display in this case. I hope this leads to other corruption and fraud suits. Corruption must be punished, severely.
TenHaken told Sioux Falls Simplified that the cuts are strategically aimed at impacting the average citizen. He said if he just “lays off people behind the scenes,” no one will notice, and it won’t mean anything. But if someone who’s used to going to the story hour at the library at 9 a.m. doesn’t get to do that anymore, they’ll notice and ultimately call the mayor to complain.
First off, a municipal government can’t just lay off people behind the scenes (that may be illegal). You CAN and SHOULD tell constituents about the layoffs. I think most people would support a handful of overpaid middle managers being laid off opposed to cutting services. It only makes sense. But not to this guy who is worried a handful of city employees will be mad at him. I am hoping the city council has the courage to make the cuts to salaries (the council doesn’t have to instruct the admin to lay off anyone, but what they can do is force his hand by cutting the salary budget by $3 MILLION a year, which would force the mayor to lay off managers.
Jennifer Sigette had this to say;
“I’m really curious to know what the public’s going to say,” Sigette said. “We tend to hear from some fo the same loud voices. I’m hoping, since these are things the broader community uses, we’ll start hearing from people who don’t necessarily typically reach out to councilors.”
The public won’t say anything because they won’t know because city government has no transparency, as for the ‘loud voices’ comment, I’ve calmed down a bit, so I will just be to the point. Those people who come each week are actually representing folks who either can’t make the meeting or are afraid to publicly speak. Tim represents the Whittier neighborhood and Sierra is the president of the Pettigrew Heights association, I have a blog that has 5-10K readers a day and get many emails from constituents. We are LOUD because we are speaking on behalf of others. You really don’t get it? Do you? This is what happens when you elect someone with ZERO percent of the vote.
UPDATE: So I came to the presser today a few minutes late, and the door to the media room was locked so I asked the security guard why it was locked and he told me it locks automatically, and did not assist me in getting in. I asked a reporter after the presser about it and they told me they always have it locked and you have to wiggle the handle and they will let you in. WTH? This is an open to the public presser, paranoid much? More closed government BS from the king of closed government.
As for the presser, very interesting. It was obvious the mayor was fed a bunch of this information and just repeated it. He even said that SF citizens should elect better legislators. I would agree, but with gerrymandering and moving district lines, it would be hard to get a near perfect representation, but when it comes to property taxes, they did the right thing.
The mayor also concluded that the City doesn’t have much leverage when it comes managing what can be collected for property taxes (state legislature). This is patently FALSE. The council approves a tax increase every year since I can remember and having the power to institute TIFs without the approval of the counties and school district is a massive property tax restructuring that only increases taxes on the rest of us. If you stopped further TIF’s, our taxes would go down without legislation.
Now, Paul is correct, property taxes fund operating costs, but funds CAN be moved around to different departments. There are also quite a few operating expenses we could eliminate that wouldn’t have an effect on service. Paul suggests we cut essential programming instead of other cost cutting measurements. If we stop funding all the non-profits in town unless they are directly contracted by the city to provide professional services (Like the Link) we could easily save millions. But, Megan from SF Simplified had an even better suggestion, she asked why employee cuts were not looked at? I told a recent mayoral candidate that I would terminate all non-union middle management, not only would the cost saving be great (wages, benefits, retirement) they are NOT needed. The candidate laughed at me, but I told them, ‘Really? You have a director who gives an order to a supervisor below them, usually the assistant director, and takes those orders to union management. Silly. There is NO reason the director can’t instruct lower management, there is NO need for a middle man.
GREAT QUESTION MEGAN!
I heard that TenHaken is having a presser this morning (even though I can’t find any media alerts on FB or on the City’s website). I know, shocker, with all the openness and transparency with this admin . . . never mind.
He is going to discuss the city ‘losing’ $26 million in revenue over the next decade due to property tax cuts. Him and his lapdog finance director have been pushing this BS narrative for a week.
First the obvious, you are not ‘losing’ revenue that was never owed to you. The tax formula changed. So that means you change your budget forecast modeling after the new tax code and budget accordingly (in other words make cuts to capital programs).
Secondly, there will be NO cuts to regular programming (Fire, police, public works, etc.) that’s a false flag they are promoting. Who will take the hit? Mostly capital programs. In other words we may miss out on some park expansion and rec trail expansion, but these cuts wouldn’t affect regular services and they know it.
Thirdly, it is incredibly disheartening to see a lame duck promote higher taxes instead of cuts.
Lastly, I have maintained in my 18 years of blogging that TAXES are for essential services and not play things and entertainment venues. We have over extended ourselves on play palaces.
My first suggestion would be to cut MOST capital programs that are NOT essential the next 5 years. You would be SHOCKED at the tax savings, I would suggest it would be a heckuva a lot more then $2.6 million a year.
Also, I find this resistance to tax cuts insulting. As constituents we have had to cut back on stuff since Covid, and the Trump economy is making it worse, as I predict a full on recession by the end of the year.
I’m sorry, but when I am struggling to maintain my household expenses, I could give two-sh!ts about a new parking lot at a tennis court.
South Dakota values fairness, family, and freedom. However, the current property tax system, is broken and threatens these core principles. While assessing property based on its potential sale price may seem logical in theory, its real-world application disproportionately impacts residents.
Consider the case of “Janet,” an elderly South Dakotan on fixed income. Janet and her late husband built their home 60 years ago, where she raised three children independently after her husband’s unexpected passing. For decades, Janet diligently maintained her home, paid her mortgage, taxes, and lived within her means. However, in her 80s, she was forced to sell her beloved home because her property taxes nearly doubled when she missed the elderly tax freeze deadline, becoming unaffordable. Mary’s situation highlights a systemic failure, not an individual one.
Currently, properties valued under $250,000 have experienced the most significant assessment increases, often doubling their tax burden. In contrast, some multi-million dollar properties have been assessed as low as 60% of their recent sales price. This discrepancy often arises when local assessors claim insufficient data to support recent sales/purchase prices, despite state law clearly stating properties must be assessed at fair market value (FMV). According to Cornell Law School, FMV is the price an informed and unpressured buyer would pay to an informed, unpressured seller in an arm’s length transaction, where the price is based solely on the property’s value and not by a subjective individual (assessor).
While well intended, SB216 missed the mark both on property owner relief and placed significant burdens on vastly growing cities/townships and a reform to the property tax law is still necessary. The best laws are simple laws and I propose basing assessed value on the purchase price of the property established in an arm’s length transaction, rather than an assessor’s determination for residential and agricultural properties. Additionally, I would recommend capping annual increases in assessed value at 2%. Upon the sale of a home, the assessed value would reset to the new purchase price.
This approach offers several benefits:
Stability for Property Owners: It provides predictability for families, and retirees allowing them to plan their finances without the risk of sudden, substantial tax increases.
Reduced Administrative Burden: By tying assessed value to transaction prices, the need for extensive assessor and/or County Board of Equalization interventions may decrease, potentially leading to budgetary efficiencies.
Predictability for Local Governments: With a predictable assessment increase, municipalities can better forecast revenue, enabling more stable budget planning.
Given that South Dakotans reside in their homes for an average of eight years, this proposed system offers a reliable and steady path forward for both homeowners and municipalities. This solution applies to residential and agricultural, emphasizing fairness and stability and could be easily implemented towards commercial properties.
By implementing these changes, we help can prevent our neighbors from being displaced by uncontrollable tax hikes and protect working families striving to build their futures. This straightforward and equitable approach will ensure that South Dakotans can remain in their homes.
*This post was provided by a Sioux Falls Real Estate Company
As you know I have been encouraging the city for over a decade to tear down the MX liquor property at 15th and Cliff. I was happy to hear they were finally moving forward. They tore down MX and an abandoned house but gave the property owner a couple more months to fix up the two remaining houses. He has done nothing, and the deadlines have passed and the houses still sit there rotting (literally).
On top of that, I have contacted 3 city councilors and someone at public works (demolition) about why these properties have NOT been demolished yet . . . crickets. Which tells me they plan to do nothing. And they wonder why I call them incompetent?
But it gets even better.
(Yes, the power pole is hanging at an angle with extremely heavy transformers on top)
One of my neighbors noticed that a tree in the backyard of one of the dump houses broke and landed on the garage and a power pole, bending the pole and some of the equipment on the pole (this pole provides power to Century Business Products). So my neighbor, being the good gent he is, called the non-emergency police line to tell them about it and his concern for a fire being sparked. So a couple of minutes later he was standing in his front yard and he saw a fire truck pull up, the driver pointed out the window, talked to the other firefighter for about a minute and drove off. My neighbor was called back and told that Excel and the SFFD can’t do anything because it is on private property. HUH? Excel OWNS the pole, not the private property owner. They have a thing called an easement.
It’s time to bulldoze these places before an electrical fire, or worse breaks out. But I am not holding my breath. I told my neighbor we may wake up one morning and the houses will have collapsed into the basements and it would take another 10 years before the city would come and clean it up. If you ain’t in the Jones neighborhood in Sioux Falls, yah don’t matter.
l3wis 
