Development

So who does the City of SF Planning Department work for? ALL property owners and developers of SF? Or the mayor?

LCN

Would you borrow your car to this guy?

Well, it took long enough to get this story out, but I am at least grateful it finally did;

Mayor Mike Huether’s investment in a private real estate development in southeastern Sioux Falls has raised concerns of a citizen group fighting against a similar proposal because of ties between organizers of both deals.

Huether confirmed this week he is one of 38 limited-partner investors in an existing apartment complex called The Villas at Canyon Creek on East 54th Street.

But it’s a separate apartment complex planned at 85th Street and Western Avenue — in which Huether does not have a financial interest — that brought the mayor’s investments into the public eye.

As South DaCola reported back in May of 2012, the mayor has been participating in questionable development projects for quite awhile (2011);

As you may or may not know, Mike is an investor in many projects around the city (or should we say, his wife is – LOL). The speculation is that she is an investor in many of these kinds projects around town. No biggee, except, maybe the mayor should have excused himself from this vote (or supervising the vote), which he did not.

The running joke around city hall was after the meeting he was asking people if what he did was proper. It is kinda like asking if peeing your pants is okay.

UPDATE: HE DID HOWEVER COME TO HIS SENSES BEFORE THE CITY SIGNED OFF ON THE TIF (This document shows Cotter signing off on the project FOR the mayor): TIF 11

Do you think it is proper for the mayor to be investing in development projects around town? Better yet, do you think it is proper for these developments to be asking for TIF’s?

It is also no secret, as I have been told by former city employees, that Huether has asked developers in developer/planning meetings at city hall about ‘getting in on investing’ in their proposed projects. Not outside in the back alley of city hall, IN CITY HALL, in front of city planning employees.

No surprise that Huether feels no guilt or shame;

Huether likened his role in Canyon Creek to buying shares in any other investment. And he said that elected officials, including city councilors, governors, county commissioners and mayors, should be able to invest their money.

“Come on, you’re telling me that Mayor (Dave) Munson, Mayor (Gary) Hanson, Mayor (Rick) Knobe — mayors before me — never invested in things?” he said.

If they did make investments, it wasn’t in real estate, say the three former mayors cited by Huether.

Sorry Mike, there is a difference between investing in stocks and other money market investments and development in the city you manage. Who does the city planning department report to? YOU! This is why it is a bad idea, any way you look at it. But none of this comes as a surprise for a man who sold subprime credit cards as a living.

I warned you Sioux Falls about Huether, never trust a salesman. I liken electing Huether as mayor to hiring a gambling addict to manage your investments or borrowing your car to a demolition derby driver. Hopefully Sioux Falls will wise up before the mayoral election this Spring.

More citizen advocacy after out of touch SF city council decision

I watched in disbelief when only two councilors voted against the RMB project;

Neighbors of an apartment housing development planned in south Sioux Falls are challenging the city council’s decision to allow for more apartment units at 85th Street and Western Avenue.

Original plans were for a village-style development with retail shops on the main level and housing on the upper two levels. Owners RMB Associates instead want to build three-story apartments with a total 182 living units instead of 40 or 50.

The council approved the change with a 5-2 vote Nov. 5. Neighbors who say a large apartment complex does not fit the area are asking for another vote, having filed a challenge petition Friday, Nov. 29.

The city GIS department will verify the number of landowners within 250 feet of the property. Signatures from at least 40 percent are needed to prompt a second vote. In that vote, at least six of the eight councilors would need to agree to change the plans for the development.

As I talked about in the past, the council’s decision was not motivated by property rights, if it would have been, the neighbors would have won this decision, hands down. The land was already zoned properly for commercial use, which the neighbors approved of, but when the landowner realized they made a bad investment decision, they wanted to change the use of their land to all apartments.

Agree or disagree with me on that is really not the issue here. The issue is simple, the neighbors agreed to a particular retail setup of the area, they were on board, they were there first. The council had a simple decision to make, denial of the amendment. Denial would not put RMB out of business. They would simply have two options, develop it the way it was zoned originally or sell the property. But they made it sound like you are in dire straits, hardly the case, FREE enterprise only prospers when their is competition and government, especially local government, stays out of your business.

There is too many private developers looking to get bailed out from the city. So I ask the question, who does the city council represent? The private citizen? Commercial developers? or both? It is obvious in this case, the citizen’s concerns outweigh the developers, but once again, if falls on the deaf ears of the council.

IN OTHER city development news, I noticed that former city planner, Erica Beck, who worked on the Sanford Sports Complex TIF, is now working for Lloyd (Item #16). Interesting, but not surprising.

Why TIF’s are hurting us . . .

This quote from County Commissioner, John Pekas, pretty much sums it up;

“We are the constant underfunded entity in the state of South Dakota,” Pekas said. “This is the perfect poetic situation. The state has a surplus, the city has a surplus and we are out of money.”

I have often felt that there should be a shift in property tax dollars towards the county, I have also felt that the School Board, the County Commission and City Council should all have to approve a TIF with a 60% majority.

Trust me, if the law changed to allow this kind of approval process, no more TIF’s would be approved, and ironically, development would continue.

Hotel at the Elmwood site

I guess there is several ways to look at this, so here we go.

This is what we know so far, the city is going to put out an RFP for a Hotel on the Elmwood Golf Course property, the contract deals are not final, but the city is looking at leasing the land and maybe profit sharing with the hotel.

Some questions;

• Why doesn’t the city just sell the property to a potential hotel and stay out of a private/public partnership?

• This is a precedent because the city has never, as I can recall, gotten involved with a partnership with a private lodging business. Why now?

• Our recent track record of providing lodging DT resulted in millions in river landscaping and even more $$$ in property tax cuts. How is the taxpayer going to benefit from this,

• And how much investment will the city make with a private entity that provides lodging?

There are some positives here. The EC task force said that another hotel would have to be in that area to support lodging for the new EC. But why not closer to the EC? And what about David Graham’s empty lot that he has been trying to sell for lodging? The city has harassed him several times when it comes to code enforcement of his property, why not encourage him to build a hotel?

Is the city doing this to prove they have potential prospects when it comes to building more hotels in the area?

While I am all for more hotels in the area, I am a bit leery about us partnering with a private business for lodging. It is not in the taxpayer’s best interest to make sure visitors have a place to stay. Hotels are private enterprises, they should stay that way.

More taxpayer incentives for the DT Hilton?

hilton

Just when you thought the incentives for the DT Hilton couldn’t be anymore, in steps Dakota Business Finance, (look at the board of directors.)

There is a sign outside the Hilton that says basically says this;

Financing Provided By
Dakota Business Finance
SBA 504 Financing
20 Year Fixed Rate
Low Interest Rates
So not only did the Hilton get taxpayer subsidized landscaping and bulkheads, property tax cuts in the form of TIF’s, they also received SBA funding?! All for a ‘luxury’ hotel. Folks, I wish I was making this shit up.