South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

Riverline District

Downtown Sioux Falls Riverline District Sioux Falls

Why has the Riverline District gone silent?

l3wis 6Comments

I get nervous when the administration drops grenades then retreats.

After the big reveal of this district there seems to be little public discussion about what next steps are.

I have no doubt that after most of the comments came back negative to building a baseball stadium and the council knowing nothing about the proposed purchase agreement, that the committee has decided to pull back and work on a better messaging strategy.

It seems the truth really does hurt in this case.

There is also the question of the city getting involved with a purchase agreement. I would hope the city council had the 5 votes to kill this but I doubt it.

Rumors circulating that after January 1st the administration will ask for the quality of life bonds which will be about $30 million for pools and another $20 million for ‘other stuff’. Don’t hold your breath now, but I bet your bottom dollar that the Riverline District will be a part of this bond.

We are going to get that baseball stadium whether we want it or not.

Developers Development Downtown Sioux Falls Riverline District SF City Council Sioux Falls

What is really going on with the Riverline District?

l3wis 13Comments

GeoTek surveying the Riverline District Property • 2/7/23 (H/T to a South DaCola Foot Soldier for providing me the links)

That is an excellent question with few answers and a whole lot of speculation.

If you do a little research on the Minnehaha County GIS you will see where the current SD Social Services building is sitting. That property is NOT owned by the state but an LLC called ‘State Partners LLC’. The listed business address for the LLC is 101 South Reid Street, Suite 201 which is the exact same office address of Lloyd Companies in Downtown Sioux Falls.

While the information I provided above is factual, the rest of the story is purely speculative.

So why would a developer who already owns a huge chunk of this property (there are other individual owners for the smaller parcels) want to sell it to the city which passes it back to the development foundation and potentially SECOG then turns around and pitches it to the very developers who sold it to the city to begin with?

I know, baffling, but you know there has got to be a catch.

Now for the speculation; It could be that the developer is going to make money on both ends – current LLC sells high to the City; new LLC controlled by developer buys cheap from SF Development Foundation, after one or both suck TIF money for the project (and various other grants and tax rebates they can conjure up).

The other reason for city involvement could be in order to facilitate a land trade – offer city park and greenway property in exchange for land on which a stadium and parking would be placed (sound familiar)?

I really have no idea what path this project is taking, but we have to keep a close eye on the players and the conflicts of interest if taxpayer capital is involved. Just like the Bunker Bridge the council will probably only have a couple of hours to decide on this project.

« Previous Page

You Missed

1st Amendment Bob Trzynka Downtown Sioux Falls Elections SF City Council Sioux Falls

Bob is right, a lot of work needs to be done over Smithfields

1st Amendment Downtown Sioux Falls Mayor TenHaken Sioux Falls The Link

Mr. Mayor, we need to have a discussion about addiction and bigotry

1st Amendment Bike Trail Downtown Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Peeps still complaining about E-Bikes

1st Amendment Elections SF City Council Sioux Falls

Where we stand on the city election