Bunker Ramp

Bunker Ramp Bum who bilked taxpayers wants a building permit

If this city council approves this project by this developer, they have lost their frickin’ minds;

The 10-story property at 141 N. Main Ave. was purchased by an investment group this summer and will be redeveloped by Lamont Cos. Inc., an Aberdeen-based developer with more than 50 franchised hotels nationwide.

I think the project idea and remodel is a good one, that building has immense potential. My aunt actually worked on one of the top floors of the building in the 80’s and the views when I visited were amazing. If this was ANY other investor group I would be all for it. But permits can be denied based on the (business and ethical) character of a developer or contractor. I think sticking the SF taxpayers with a $26 million dollar empty concrete block then getting a check to boot from us for your ‘troubles’ would mean your character ranks right up there with Homer Simpson. It will be fun to watch how the Planning Commission and Council handles this. Let the Weaseling begin!!!!

RIVERLINE DISTRICT GETS PAUSED

No surprise since they have identified ZERO funding sources;

But now things are coming to a pause. The committee said three of its objectives: creating a timeline, designing and pricing a new convention center, and timing out a public vote, are yet to be done. But they voted Monday evening to pause their work, claiming that no more progress can be made on those objectives as things stand right now.

I said from the beginning the only way to move forward on this is selling the public on a funding source instead of playing reindeer games with the legislature and trying to ‘trick’ us into a new tax. Complete stupidity. You need to show 2 things; 75-90% private investment and an ROI for taxpayers (not just the city coffers and private hospitality industry). Instead they showed us the shiny ball first and nobody cared.

As all of this discussion takes place, the clock is ticking on something to be built on the 7.2 acres on the east bank of the Big Sioux River. As a part of the City’s purchase agreement, State Partners, LLC has the option to repurchase the land if no construction starts in five years. Almost 11 months have passed since the City Council adopted that agreement.

This was also dumber then a mud fence. They thot they could sucker us into the new building since we already owned the land. You don’t buy a lot to build a new house without having the finances in order to pay for the construction of the house.

Do we need a new Convention Center? Sure. But I look at this two ways; 1) We can expand at current location by making the Arena a multi-level complex (the main reason we built the Denty at that location was so we could use it for convention center space). OR 2) Have a private hotel and convention center move into the Riverline space. We would lease the land for FREE for 99 years and we would give all BID tax revenue to only be exclusively spent on marketing.

We can make this happen, but not by increasing sales taxes or having expensive bonds that take 30 years to pay off. I look at the convention center business as a private one, and I think SF should make the bold move of letting this being taken over by private industry. You could actually model it after the Pavilion, which probably would be fine now without public money.

But the Banksters and Bondsters in town need a constant loan on the books to justify their bond commissions each year, and this was just another one of their ‘commission’ projects.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE BUILT AT 8th and RAILROAD?

While the bunker ramp bum is trying to get a permit, the Riverline committee Petered out, Tre Ministries has been less then transparent and we have no idea why the Dusty Monkeys were shipped out of town and we still have no idea what is happening with a project that got millions in a TIF. Obviously if this project ever comes to fruition (I think it is dead) they will have to reapply for the TIF due to time commitments. Why did this fail?

Ironically another well know developer* in town with close ties to the city and state government put forth a plan that was rejected. It was almost entirely affordable/workforce apartments and almost 100% local investors. I asked some people why they think his idea was rejected over the Iowa development? They laughed and said, “Politics.” The irony is this project would be already done if they would have picked this developer, but hurt feelings over local politics killed it. This is what happens when you bring politics into a simple planning and zoning matter, we all lose.

* This is NOT Billion. Billion attempted to make the first go at the project but concerns with underground parking and investors had them pull out, which created a new RFP.

Do ALL Downtown SF Businesses support Saturday metering?

The short answer is NO, and probably why they skirted this move administratively instead of bringing it in front of the council where DTSF businesses could air their grievances in the public square. I supported this based on 1) That DTSF (the org) reassured the council that DT businesses support this* 2) it will ONLY be on Phillips and you can still park for free in the ramps (which I think will gradually be used more due to the Saturday metering on Phillips).

*At first glance I am hearing that only about half of DTSF businesses support this, the rest are ‘wait and see’. This of course is from random conversations I had with DTSF business owners, workers in DTSF and some city staff. Nothing scientific.

I have no idea what kind of support it has.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Besides being the council’s duty to vote on new taxes and fees, and a First and Second reading would have allowed people who own businesses DTSF and work DTSF to share their opinions. Maybe most of them support it? I don’t know, and we never will because the process was not followed and the council, once again, allowed a precedent by the mayor’s office. Tsk! Tsk! I sometimes wonder if Trump is our shadow mayor.

Update: Did the Sioux Falls City Council approve Saturday metering in DTSF? Nope.

Update: I talked to some attorneys about this and they all disagreed with me on the tax issue. One attorney said it was a ‘government services fee’ basically you are leasing the space from the city so it is a fee. But they all agreed with me that the council really should have approved it in a 1st and 2nd reading so there would have been a public hearing before its implementation.

—————-

When I saw the story yesterday that they were going to start metering on Saturdays I wondered when the city council approved this. Well, they didn’t because they did not have to. According to charter, ordinances 77.080-77.082 gives the parking director and strangely the city engineer the authority to determine when they can charge these fees. A few months ago when they banned monster trucks in DTSF the council did discuss Saturday metering but never gave a timeline or even voted on it, so I was expecting a vote this Spring. But I would argue that it DOES NOT give the director the authority to make this move;

The director of public parking facilities shall establish the hours during the day and night when parking meters or gates must be used and when the time limitations shall be effective, 

Notice it says the director can determine the TIMES during a specific day, but it DOES NOT give him the authority to pick the days of collection, which he did here, SATURDAY.

I would encourage an attorney with some free time to go DTSF and park at a meter on a Saturday, receive a ticket then challenge that ticket in court by saying the director didn’t have the authority to pick a NEW day to start metering.

There is also the labor involved. Obviously they had to hire some new people to watch the meters. Was this in the budget? Did the councilors approve that? I doubt it.

This is a MAGA move by our Mayor. You don’t have the authority to start TAXING constituents on a new day without the approval of the policy body which makes taxation decisions, because as Staggers once said, you can call it a ‘parking fee’ but let’s call it what it really is; a ‘tax’.

The parking division also has a revenue issue putting most of their yearly earnings into bond payments for that color fart bunker ramp. The parking division needs more money, and they are coming for yah. I have contended that the city make ALL parking DTSF FREE, 24/7 except meters on Phillips, I would have them running non-stop, 7 days a week, and I would charge $5.00 an hour. If you want people coming DTSF to shop, may I suggest more FREE parking in ramps.

I guess Mayor TenHaken is paying the bonds on the Downtown Sioux Falls Bunker Ramp

I guess now he is just going to tell FLAT OUT LIES;

The city’s parking ramp on Mall Avenue also remains a prospective redevelopment site.

“It’s not costing the taxpayers a dime to have it sit there, so we’re not in a huge rush to have something,” TenHaken said. “The time will come and the market will change, and it’s still a valuable piece of land. We still get interest and inquiries.”

Maybe it was Poops attempt at humor at the end of the year, but it’s not funny, and it is definitely NOT FREE. In fact a major chunk of the parking department’s revenue goes towards the bond payments, there is also maintenance and paying workers to maintain the facility. I figured a few years ago about 60-80% of the years total revenue in parking goes towards the bonds and maintenance on this ONE facility which takes away from other parking upgrades downtown.

It’s costing us . . . a lot.

Poops knows he f’d this up and he could have stopped it but he cowered to the bondsters and gave in (because he is an extremely poor leader). He could have gained support on the council to cancel the bond but he did what he normally does, ignore the gorilla in the room hoping they will go away. Many want to blame Huether, but old elbow assaulter didn’t sign off on the bonds, Poops did. This is all on him. I still laugh at the presser he gave with Lamont saying he was good for the investment because he gave the city a letter saying so (a last will and testament on a bar napkin would have more legal precedent). Poops does everything by the seat of his pants and wonders why they turn out the way they do, then lies about the result. Here’s the deal, PAUL, we are paying dearly for your F’up, DEARLY, but instead of taking the blame you just lie. When you call yourself a Christian, I just shake my head. I attended Catholic and Lutheran services growing up, and I never recall a minister or priest saying it was okay to lie as long as you are covering up a screwup. You are a fraud.

It only took them a year and a half to do an article about this

Besides myself, who broke the censored mural controversy, only one other journalist has really poked around on the topic, but someone must of went over to the newsroom and woke up one of their jokalist’s to write an article. It is actually a pretty good article on the insight of what the artists were going thru, but not very timely;

Would they ever work with the city again on a project? They’d never completely count out the idea, the artists said.

But, Hernandez added, “the experience was pretty horrible.”

These fine young artists aren’t the first and certainly won’t be the last to suffer the consequences of ‘horrible’ city policies and leadership and blatant CENSORSHIP.

There is also another concern. Do we have RACIST elites in this community influencing city hall policy?

Speaking of suffering, the city has asked the courts to dismiss the Federal housing discrimination lawsuit. Just your typical dragging out the clock games they play. Of course, we know that is likely NOT going to happen. They have an incredibly solid case.