Entries Tagged 'De Knudson' ↓

KELO-TV’s Don Jorgensen misleads the public about an interview with Staggers

Got Wood?

Don had no problem interviewing De about all things quality of life but when it came to interviewing Kermit, Don had this to say;

I asked Staggers for an interview, but he refused to talk to me on camera about why he’s running again.

Yes, this is true, he refused to talk to YOU! But Kermit did agree to speak with ANY OTHER reporter at KELO. See, Don likes to throw Kermit under the bus any and everytime he interviews him, including the time Darrin Smith fed Don a fake junket story about Kermit (even though the money was already allocated and Kermit was the only councilor that volunteered to go on the trip).

Don, maybe it’s not Kermit, maybe it is you? No wait, it is YOU!

And you wonder why Stormland-TV has to steal stories from the Argus and blogs?

Former city councilor De Knudson to run against Staggers for at large seat (H/T – Shrimp Taco)

That is if she gets the signatures. I encourage everyone to NOT sign her petition. She was one of the most ineffective councilors who whined constantly about the length of meetings and has been caught watching television during those meetings. Do you want her back?

Friends,

Just wanted you to know that I decided VERY LATE last night to run for
the Sioux Falls City Council again!

The election is April 10.  Please join us that evening at our home to
watch election results.

Petitions are due on Friday, February 24.  I need help obtaining at
least 200 signatures by that date.

If you are willing to circulate a petition for me or sign mine, please
let me know asap.

I will be home this evening after 7 p.m. to begin collecting signatures
at my front door!

Also, I can put a petition in the mail to you today if that works better
for you.  Send me your mailing address please.

I would love to collect all the needed signatures in the next 48 hours!

DE KNUDSON

Do you want someone running for council that ASKS you to come to HER to sign her petition? GEEZ. and remember;

De Welch Knudson
You are encouraged to stop by our home tonight after 7 p.m. to sign a petition for me to run for City Council on April 10. Our address is 2100 East Slaten Court — cul de sac off Slaten Park Drive. Phone number 338-9431. I’d love to collect all the needed signatures ASAP. This note does NOT apply to any city employees on my FB account. 🙂

 

The Quen will be missed . . .

JOIN THE CLUB

Print

Another uninformed decision by the SF City Council

This could be us, if we don’t act now. “Heh, Heh, the fishin’ pretty good in Sioux Falls, huh daddy?”

Though it is disappointing that our intitiative bit the dust, I am more disappointed in the seven councilors who voted for the $38 million dollar bond to pay for the levees. Do I think the project needs to be done? Definately. But it all comes down to timing and Federal money, and FACTS, not gut feelings.

Some things the councilors did not take into consideration;

– They could still negotiate with FEMA. FEMA is the federal agency that created this flood plain, it should be the Federal government’s responsibility to fix and pay for the problem and last I checked people in Sioux Falls pay Federal income taxes, the Feds owe us.

– Though it is true we have to foot the bill for the 41st Street bridge ($12 Million) we could have pulled that money from the CIP (where it originally was) but instead it was thrown into the loan so the city could spend the $12 million in the CIP on WANTS. Very, very, fiscally irresponsible considering our interest on the loan will be over $8 million to pay back.

– This city hasn’t had a major flood since the 1950’s and there hasn’t been ANY studies done for at least 20 to 30 years about where we stand for floods. We also have been in a drought for the last 4 years, at least, in SD. (ironically why the Lewis and Clark pipeline is so vital) There have only been two incidents in recent years that had nothing to do with the levees or the floodplain. In 1996 the spillway had to built up because it couldn’t handle the Spring thaw and in 2005 we got two torrential rains that backed up into people’s basements do to inadequate sewer and street drainage. The levees held then too. I have said to this day, that happened because for the past 20 years the city has been putting bandades on infrastructure while going gungho on new development and growth, and they continue this practice to this day. You can thank Steve Metli, former city planner for that.

– Individual property owners are responsible for their own flood insurance, not the city. If they don’t want to pay for the insurance for the next couple of years, don’t buy it or move. Ironically not one single property owner of the 1,900 properties in the proposed floodplain came last night to plead with the council to vote for this loan. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Yet Munson told us there was many concerned citizens, but I guess not concerned enough to show up to this important decision that would affect their property. He also said he “Feels for people” on fixed incomes that may have to buy this insurance. Well, if you are so concerned about fixed income people, stop raising our taxes on food to pay for streets that we don’t need. That’s a start.

– And lastly, my biggest argument why this loan was a bad idea was because once we pay for this up front, what obligation does the Federal government have to pay us back? None. The argument is we would save money on bonds and bids if we do the project now. Which is a dumb argument, considering if the FEDs pay for it, instead of us, who cares what it cost, we won’t have to pay it back. The objective of Obama’s stimulous package is to create 5 million jobs. What incentive does the Obama administration have to create jobs for infrastructure projects in a city that has a low unemployment rate and the credit rating to pay for these projects on their own?

The solution?

Even though Staggers voted for the project he tried to get an amendment to push the bridge back into the CIP (where it belongs) so we could reduce our loan. Nobody seconded the motion.

I think we should pay for the bridge out of our CIP and make cuts to wants. I think we should get on the horn to Ironic Johnny, Timmy come lately and Stephanie Herseth-Sandals Vaction and get them in on the stimulous package to get us Federal aid for the levees.

Of course now it is too late. Councilors voted with their emotions last night (and made me the butt of several jokes about being opposed to it). Councilor Litz even talked about global warming and Katrina (can’t remember the last time we were hit by a hurricane).

In an Argus Leader interview, Councilor Costello, the loan dissenter had this to say;

“You have to measure the risk with the cost,” he said. “We know we have flood protection.”

Of course the AL editorial board gave the decision a big old thumbs up;

And it would be sad if the bond vote-repeal effort connection somehow becomes a campaign issue in the 2010 mayoral race.

Oh, it will be an issue!

Yes, the council has a duty to gather all pertinent information that might influence its decisions, and that includes the effect of the bond vote on the repeal effort.

But given that due process has been upheld, it was appropriate – indeed necessary – for the council to move forward.

Merry X-Mas from SF City Hall

Tax Happy!

What a perfect time to raise taxes, while the economy is in the toilet. That’s our city government, always thinking (about their campaign contributors that is).

KELO-TV does a story;

Eight South Dakota communities will implement new municipal taxes or increase taxes on January 1.

And Sioux Falls is increasing its current 1.92 percent local sales tax to 2 percent.

I would like to thank anyone who signed the petition to lower the sales tax in 2010 to 1.90 this past weekend.

Council refuses to give up on the Event Center pipe dream

from the Argus Leader;

Councilor questions push for tax-hike legislation

 

One of the Sioux Falls City Council’s legislative priorities for 2009 raised a flag for one councilor Monday night.

Councilor Kermit Staggers questioned why the council was supporting legislation that allows cities to enact a local option tax to raise money for a specific purpose.

Staggers said he would oppose the resolution because it’s not wise for the council to advocate such a tax in a difficult economy and isn’t a good message to residents.

Council Chairman Bob Litz said the city has an expected level of service to meet regardless of the economy.

“This doesn’t mean we are going to enact a tax tomorrow. It just gives the city the freedom to do so when it decides,” Litz said.

Other priorities are ensuring adequate transportation funding, enacting a statewide ban on smoking, developing standards to provide equal 911 service to all and encouraging cooperative efforts to improve 911 services and efficiency.

The measure passed 6-1, with Councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. absent.

Trust me, if the state gives sioux Falls the right to raise taxes to build an event center (that’s what this is about) They would do it the next day.

I also like this line;

the city has an expected level of service to meet regardless of the economy

Bologna. This is another scare tactic by Bob ‘Spread Fear’ Litz. An Events Center has nothing to do with servicing the citizens of this community. Want to service us? Trim our trees, stop pushing snow in the end of our driveways, build a homeless shelter, fix our streets, etc, etc.

Bob, you must really think we are dumb.

Sioux Falls new game; Pass the Homeless Shelter buck.

We can’t cut taxes because we won’t be able to help the homeless?!

Now Councilor Knudson is claiming if we drop the 2nd penny tax back down to 1.9 we won’t be able to help the homeless.

(Click on Council/County Joint meeting, November 17 – Starts at 44:00 MIN)

You can also watch Munson do the Mexican hat dance with Commissioner Hajek about funding (50:00 MIN). Which is ironic, considering the county isn’t offering any figures.

First off, De, you told us we had to raise this tax to build NEW ROADS! That’s it! Not for homeless shelters, so cut the crap. As for the homeless shelter, I am 100% for it. I agree with Hajek, that this is an investment in safety and savings to the taxpayers in chronic homeless costs. The longer we dick around with finding a location and funding, the more taxpayers are losing. In fact Councilor Anderson and had a great discussion about it. I told him, and he agreed the best place for it would be next to the Law Enforcement center. Budget the money, stop the pissing matches with the county commission, lock yourselves in a room and negotiate a funding and location solution.

As for where the money should come from? Cut the parks budget to make it happen.

See how simple these things are when you use common sense.