The city (more specifically the mayor’s office) is proposing this (Item #13);

Updates city ordinance related to the sale of and application for on-sale and off-sale dealer liquor licenses by replacing the liquor license lottery procedure with a sealed bid process. Additionally, updates city ordinance to allow for on-sale liquor licenses at various municipal-owned facilities to reflect changes to South Dakota Codified Law that becomes effective on July 1, 2023.

Since there has been NO presentation to the public OR council (they found out Friday morning) there seems to be more questions about this POLICY change then answers;

• Why is the mayor’s office directly sponsoring policy that by charter should be introduced by council?

• Does the city NEED more then $240K per liquor license? Where do licensing fees go? To alcohol compliance with the SFPD? As I understand it, all licensing fees go directly into the general fund.

Recently PTH did an interview on one of our 30 second news clip TV stations and proclaimed that MJ is a gateway drug to other hard drugs like opioids. While any kind of drug use can lead to doing other drugs, there is often a connection between alcohol use in minors and using harder drugs like opioids. While MJ is a lot stronger then it used to be and is classified as a narcotic, it doesn’t have the addictive qualities that alcohol or opioids may have. Many long time suffering alcoholics and opioid drug addicts have actually used MJ to beat their opioid and alcohol addictions.

So are we using these licensing fees to combat alcohol consumption in minors?

My bigger concern besides policy disputes, compliance and speculative budgeting is the obvious; putting local business owners in competition with large investor groups and national franchises will virtually eliminate their opportunity to buy a liquor license in this town. While the lottery system is messy (I don’t approve of it) it is still more fair then giving licenses to the highest bidder.

I really don’t know why this change is being suggested besides the GREED of the big guys and their firm grip on city hall, there really is NO other explanation.


It hasn’t even been a week since the mayor mocked a former city councilor while mumbling into his microphone like an old man waiting in line for his prescription at Lewis Drug and we have this from the supposed fiscally restraint administration;

But the new project timeline also means the city will have to pony up its portion of the $16.5 million endeavor sooner than expected, however. The donations are contingent upon the Sioux Falls City Council approving an additional $3 million for the project, which will bring the city’s commitment to about $8.5 million. The Council will consider a request from the mayor’s office to supplement the city’s 2023 budget next week.

So a project that was going to originally cost taxpayers $2 million (capital costs) has ballooned to 4X that!? I thought the city doesn’t have cost overruns? LMFAO!

Of course the administration has tried to cleverly hide the cost overrun with this ordinance (Item #12);

Notice how they packaged the supplement as helping out several departments. But does the Fire Department really need another $500K to finish out the year?


While there is a part of me that laughed when I read this ordinance (Item #16), it is not such a bad idea;

The proposed ordinance adds $50,000 to the Police budget for a community awareness campaign to remind the vehicle owners in Sioux Falls to lock their vehicles.

In the late 1980’s I moved to live with my dad in a large West Coast city. While I was living there I got my first car and learned very quickly if you don’t lock the doors on your car you can expect just about everything to be stripped from the interior of your vehicle in the time it takes you to pick up a soda at Fred Meyers so it has often baffled me that people will leave valuables and especially loaded guns in unlocked cars. I think a great PSA would be a dramatization of a criminal stealing a loaded gun from an unlocked car in an affluent neighborhood and using the weapon in a crime.

After the Bonus Round bar closed by my house a new owner took over the Cliff avenue establishment. They went through the normal process of applying for a license. They were going to be a casino with off-sale beer. The next thing I know the place closes after just a few weeks and re-opens with no video lottery and only a walk up counter to buy small plastic package liquor and beer (they also sell vape products).

A city councilor told me that since they already approved the alcohol use the business owner can change that use however they want to.

While you would think I would welcome a liquor store in my backyard it’s a little more complicated then that.

The Get N’ Go at 14th and Cliff suddenly closed on May 1st. They sold the single malt beverage cans. Essentially the closure is pushing the alcohol sales to this liquor store.

I think in the future if an alcohol establishment presents a business plan to the council when applying for a license they should have to stick to that business model for at least 12 months or self-termination of the license.

Isn’t it ironic all the tears shed over MJ yet getting alcohol in this city is a walk in the park.

Of course they are. They don’t understand it (we will get to that in a moment) and they don’t want to ruffle feathers. It reminds of what Greg Belfrage said this morning on his show, about talking about politics at family events, he says he doesn’t. I believe him, because he doesn’t know a damn thing about politics and he is probably afraid he would embarrass himself, and he couldn’t hide from his liberal uncle by hanging up the phone on him while passing the gravy.

Many in the media have chosen to not talk about the open meetings violation because they have told the complainant that it is ‘too complicated’. A city official said that it is NOT a big deal and just an ‘ordinance violation’.

First it is NOT complicated and secondly, an open meetings violation is a big deal.

The city is required to have public input on items that are pulled from the consent agenda. Now mind you, if it is about spending $33 on a squirrel feeder at a park, probably NOT pressing, but still required, but this was about a liquor license for a bar with several questionable police calls and underage violations (the real story here), and the fact that the complainant had told many city officials she was going to speak about the item when pulled days in advance. I think the Chair of the meeting, Mayor Paul TenHaken did not call public input on purpose, because he didn’t want to hear what she had to say.

This is why this is IMPORTANT and should be shared in the media. You may not always agree with freedom of speech, but it is equal for all of us whether you want to talk about a gun stuck up your butt all day, a fertilized egg that has a heartbeat, that AR-15s are standard for EMTs, defunding the police or bars that are allowing teenagers to get pistol whipped when they illegally came into the adult establishment.

The simple, real story here is that the Mayor, Paul ‘Poops’ TenHaken violated the law by not allowing public input and a bar skirted any public rebuke because of a lazy, cowardly city staff and council and an oblivious media that doesn’t want to work to hard, if at all.

Is the infrastructure bill and January 6th investigations complicated? YES. And we have thousands of reports about them we can read every day. Is censoring public input complicated? F’CK NO! And we should have at least 2-3 local media reports about it. But we don’t.

Maybe if the meeting was held in a food truck?

Sioux Falls Ethics Commission met today, but we don’t know why

It says in the agenda;


This could be anyone with the city, employee or elected official. Since it is confidential we will never know. I think even if these meetings are in private, they should at least release the question and the decision without exposing who is asking. How do we know if the Ethics Commission made the right decision if we cannot watch the proceedings?

Will the Washington Pavilion be hired to run the Ice Ribbon?

With the new ice ribbon set to be built soon down by Falls Park, some are wondering if the Parks Department has what it takes to run the paid admission facility. Since they will have to have a ticketing booth and some kind of staff to assist people, they will likely have to hire a contractor to do it. While I am sure the Pavilion could handle it, what I don’t understand is why can’t the Parks Department? Oh that’s right, besides the department being ran by a two-faced liar, they can’t even hire part-time lifeguards, now try to find part-time ice guards. Maybe we should just let the Pavilion run our entire parks department, they are already draining our entertainment tax fund every year, might as well put them to work.

Available Liquor Licenses in Sioux Falls

After the 2020 Census, Sioux Falls has become eligible for more ON and OFF-SALE liquor licenses, I am awaiting the official numbers from the city but what I have heard unofficially is there is 27 additional Package (off-sale) licenses and 19 Retail (on-sale) licenses available. Not sure how many are already spoken for. Once I get more information I will let you know.

The Curbside Garbage ordinance is already on next week’s docket

I can almost guarantee the Rubberstamp Council will pass the curbside garbage ordinance and allow haulers to charge extra for valet service:

The Sioux Falls City Council will likely consider an amendment to the city’s garbage ordinances that could allow garbage haulers to require curbside placement of garbage cans for pickup or charge extra to continue valet service.

It should be up to the consumer if they want to do it and there should be NO extra charge for the service. But it sounds like the hauler wants the city to force the consumer to do it, and if they don’t want to, they will be charged extra.

Whether the city council will support the move is another issue. In his Facebook post, Neitzert said he was “torn on this issue,” and asked for feedback from residents, and Councilor Rick Kiley said earlier this year he’d be against any such change if haulers weren’t planning on lowering rates for reduced service.

Councilor Janet Brekke has also regularly expressed her support for the current ordinance and how it keeps trash cans away from the street, improving the city’s aesthetics.

You never know, it might come to a tie vote with Poops siding with the haulers, we will see. You know my feelings on it, I think the city should contract with 4 major PRIVATE haulers and divide the city into 4 sections and pay our garbage bill with our water and sewer. We already own the landfill, why would we charge tipping fees? Yesterday while driving to work thru Cathedral neighborhood I saw two trucks parked next to each other from different haulers collecting cans at the same time on the same street. Dumb.

Oh, and let’s hear about 3 city councilors who profess about apartment dwellers being great for a neighborhood, but don’t live next to them. I do, and I love apartments, but I love my house more.