More citizen advocacy after out of touch SF city council decision
l3wis 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.
