Development

Excuses are like . . .

l3wis January 2, 2014 11Comments

Director of Excuses for the city of Sioux Falls, Darrin Smith, seems to think adding a couple of pages to the TIF application form would be to difficult to do;

“It’s one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but it’s very difficult to do in reality,” Community Development Director Darrin Smith said of the requirement to list investors.

He said the city asks who the principal investors are, but it would be burdensome to list everyone and keep the list up to date as more investors sign on as development progresses.

As mayor Huether would say, “That’s a bunch of crap!” First off, it wouldn’t add any extra processes to the application process and secondly, as other councilors have pointed out, we need transparency on these matters;

Councilor Kermit Staggers sides with Jamison. He said city officials should not be invested in local development projects.

“We have to keep in mind when people are involved in investing in a project that has a TIF, they’re getting a government benefit, and the public should be aware of that,” he said during council discussion this fall.

Councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. also voiced his agreement. “I just feel if you’re asking for public money, we should know who you are,” he said.

And my favorite (LOL) line of the article;

“As a development (Lloyd) company, these investors are very near and dear to our heart, and we consider their names intellectual property,” Koepsell told the council this fall.

Intellectual property!? Have you been getting law advice from FOX news and Citizens United?

First off, if there is nothing to hide about a project you are investing in that may get tax benefits, who cares if your name is on a sheet of paper filed in the planning department’s file cabinet? I have never understood this secrecy boloney when it comes to development investing in this community. Nobody cares if you have the money to invest in these projects, privately. But once you start asking for government handouts (really what they are) then you need to be transparent. Are these investors ashamed they are asking for a bailout, like a single mom using her SNAP card at the grocery store?

And the excuses are abound, leave it up to councilor censorship, Erpenbach to defend the practice;

She wouldn’t want to discourage investors from signing on to TIF projects, said Councilor Michelle Erpenbach.

Remember, we must shield the public from the truth and transparency. Erpenbach’s stance doesn’t surprise me one bit. Besides, I doubt this would discourage anyone, in fact, I think receiving a TIF for a project you are investing in would make that investment more NOT less appealing. And let’s face it, full disclosure isn’t going to stop or slow development in this town, just read this SFBJ article;

“It will be all over, on every side of town,” said Mike Cooper, the city’s director of planning and building services. “We’re going into 2014 much like we ended 2013, with a significant amount of interest in all areas of development.”

Replicating the record-setting pace of 2013 will be tough. Building permit valuations surged toward $600 million, and there was growth in nearly every category, from commercial to residential. Businesses continue to look at relocating or expanding in Sioux Falls.

I did appreciate a little bit of honesty in the article by one realtor;

From Michael Bender’s perspective, however, the outlook is “kind of tepid.”

“We’re certainly busy and there seems to be activity … but it’s mostly corporate. It’s more bigger deals than local deals,” said Bender, the principal of Bender Commercial Real Estate Services. “It’s a bit of moving forward, and there are people doing that, but there are a lot of people saying, ‘Let’s slow down a bit.’ ”

Bender makes a good point, while the big boys in town and out of state corporate interests are going big in Sioux Falls, the average lowly resident taxpayer of Sioux Falls is picking up the tab for infrastructure for this growth, which I believe is unsustainable when you factor in the low wages in Sioux Falls. And even planning director, Cooper admits just who is ‘building’ in the private sector, and it ain’t the poor hump working at some cubicle Hell job;

“But what we’re missing is the entry-level housing,” he said. “We’re not building those anymore. It’s the upper end of the market.”

So Sioux Falls is all well and dandy, as long as you are rich and keep everything a secret.

Take a gamble, build a house in a new SF development

l3wis December 27, 2013 6Comments

I don’t agree entirely with this letter writer, but they make some good points;

The city of Sioux Falls has sent a clear message to potential homebuyers. The planning commission and city council have made it clear that you had better not buy or build a house in a newly developing area unless you are a “gambler.”

It seems that when a developer goes into planning and zoning to change things, the city planning staff goes to work for the developer to help get it done. Planning commission members call the developer by their first name and assure us all that the developer has met all the requirements set out by staff and ordinances.

I have seen attitudes on both the planning commission and City Council that were condescending toward the citizens of Sioux Falls who had done their due diligence and thought they had built in a single-family neighborhood. Now we know that building in these new developments is a gamble. The message from our city government is to build or buy in an established neighborhood or roll the dice. Shame on our city leaders.

I do know that not all developers in Sioux Falls are treated equally. Some don’t even bother building in Sioux Falls because of the multitude of zoning ordinances. I also think that developers do have property rights, and to some extent can build just about any thing they want to within limits and respect of their neighbors. The homeowners must also understand that when you build in a newer part of town, and their is an empty lot next to you. Things may change. But in the case with RMB, this had already happened, and the homeowners had already agreed to zoning changes just a few years ago. But with the change in the economy it seems instead taking a hit (like a lot of homeowners did during the recession) RMB felt they needed the rules changed due to their poor investment. In this case, the neighborhood was handed a raw deal because of the out of options property owner. This is neither fair nor right. The sad part is that this should not have even made it to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning department should have looked at the petition had the city attorney deny it. This is actually done quite frequently. The zoning change had already been made, RMB should have stuck to it.

Looks like the only winner here is the house (City Hall).