The development concept still is being finalized. When it was presented to City Hall a year ago, it included a mixed-use concept with residential above and Tre Ministries among the lower-level occupants, along with opportunity for other commercial tenants.
A final determination for the overall site design hasn’t been made and will depend in part on financing.
The site demolition was funded with support from the city of Sioux Falls. The city has a $500,000 deferred loan at zero interest available to Tre Ministries that allowed the site to be prepped for construction.
The remaining development will depend largely on donations.
As I understand it Tre got a gift or loan from some ‘corn’ folks to buy the property, then the city gifted $500K to tear down the property (0% interest deferred loan) in order to move forward with the project, now they are saying they don’t have enough money to proceed? WTF?
So did the council and administration KNOW in advance that they didn’t have a plan BEFORE they gifted this money? If they don’t even have money to build the place how the heck do you suppose they will pay us the $500K back!?
I TOLD SEVERAL COUNCILORS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS LOAN. I felt the organization was a little shady in what they planned to do, and I was right.
Suckered again by prosperity gospel folks, but no surprise when Pastor Poops is their main advocate, and I bet he knew they didn’t have a plan and hid it from the council. If I was the city council I would declare breech of contract and make them pay the $500K back immediately. Then they can sit on the empty lot as long as they want. We have to stop subsidizing religious organizations like The Dud House who is connected to a church worth BILLIONS and a SD Diocese that spent $16 million to restore the Cathedral. They have the money, and even if they didn’t, taxpayers shouldn’t be funding religious organizations they should be funding a mission. If we need more affordable housing for young folks, build it! If we need more job training opportunities in Sioux Falls, let’s fund it, but we have to realize anyone can accomplish anything with determination and hard work, the Bible is just a nice book to read once in awhile.
Many people showed up to the meeting last night to find out what the real reason there needs to be this ‘lease’. Jordan Deffenbaugh attended the meeting, and his summary is below. I heard from a reliable city official that the plan is to move the Dud to the West side of town near the new Banquet. This neighborhood of course is no better off financially then Whittier (many trailer parks). While it would move people out of downtown, it would just create a problem for this neighborhood. I just shake my head with the lack of vision and foresight our city and non-profit leaders have, just to build a CC we don’t want. I think this is the city’s new soundtrack when dealing with the homeless.
A Response to the Bishop Dudley Block Fence Meeting
First off, I’m glad the meeting happened. The city has been avoiding real public discussion about homelessness for far too long. (And no, the “Homeless Forum last month doesn’t count. That was just city officials standing on a stage at the Orpheum, delivering a one-way presentation with no opportunity for feedback.)
So, unsurprisingly, emotions ran high last night. And also unsurprisingly, the city offered little in the way of actual data, scientific reasoning, or evidence to justify the fence.
The structure of the meeting itself made it clear: this wasn’t meant to be a conversation. Speakers stood at the front with a mic, talking at us like we were a classroom of unruly students. The city billed it as an “Informational,” meaning they wanted a monologue, not dialogue.
If it hadn’t been for my partner Sarah Joy asking point-blank whether there would be public input, the city wouldn’t have even pretended to open the floor. And honestly, bless the acoustics of the downtown library space. At least we could talk loudly enough to make sure we were heard, without waiting for permission to pass a mic.
? This Is Not Public Participation, It’s Informing, Not Collaborating.
The city’s approach to this meeting fits neatly into Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of Citizen Participation,” a framework that describes different levels of public involvement in decision-making.
Arnstein identifies three broad categories of participation:
• Non-Participation (Manipulation, Therapy) ? Where people are given the illusion of input but have no real influence.
• Tokenism (Informing, Consultation, Placation) ? Where people can express opinions, but decisions are still made without them.
• Citizen Power (Partnership, Delegated Power, Citizen Control) ? Where communities actually co-create decisions and policies.
The city’s handling of the fence issue is stuck at “Informing,” the lowest rung of Tokenism. They aren’t interested in genuine community input, only in telling us what they’ve already decided. A true participatory model would involve partnership, where residents, including those most affected, help shape policies instead of being lectured to.
This is why we need alternative spaces where real conversations can happen.
? This Is Not About Safety, It’s About Gentrification.
One Whittier resident at last night’s meeting shared a heartfelt concern:
“My children are afraid to play in their yard. My youngest daughter doesn’t want to be left home alone with the doors locked because of what’s going on in this neighborhood.”
I get it. Parents want their kids to feel safe. But let’s be clear: this fence doesn’t solve that problem. If anything, it could make things worse by pushing unhoused people further into residential areas instead of addressing the root causes of why they’re in crisis in the first place.
And that’s the piece of the story no one in city leadership is saying out loud:
? What is Actually Happening: Gentrification by Concentrated Public Services.
What’s happening on 8th Street follows a well-documented pattern used in cities across the country:
1. Concentrate services in one area – The city designates a single neighborhood as the “service hub” for shelters, soup kitchens, addiction treatment, and other social services. This floods the area with people in crisis while simultaneously reducing private investment.
2. Let conditions deteriorate – By failing to invest in infrastructure (crosswalks, public restrooms, shade, transit access), the city makes daily life in the area more difficult, not just for unhoused residents, but for businesses and longtime homeowners, too.
3. Depress property values – As crime increases due to economic desperation and lack of stability, property values drop. Homeowners sell at a loss, landlords neglect properties, and businesses struggle.
4. Introduce punitive measures – The city implements restrictive policies like fencing off public spaces, increasing police surveillance, and passing ordinances that make it harder for unhoused people to exist in the area.
5. Rebrand and redevelop – Once prices are low enough, developers swoop in, city-backed reinvestment starts, and the area is transformed into an “up-and-coming” district—often at the direct expense of the people who were displaced.
This strategy has played out across the country in cities like San Francisco’s Tenderloin, Los Angeles’ Skid Row, and even Omaha’s Park East neighborhood. In each case, the city claimed it was simply managing homelessness, but in reality, it was facilitating the cycle of displacement ? devaluation ? redevelopment.
? Sioux Falls is Following This Exact Pattern.
For years, the city has concentrated services along 8th Street, while ignoring basic infrastructure needs that would actually help residents, housed and unhoused alike. The area has been allowed to deteriorate under the pretense of “compassionate” centralization. Now, with the fence proposal, they are escalating the process, tightening control, displacing people, and clearing the path for redevelopment.
The fence isn’t a safety measure. It’s a signal, to developers, investors, and political stakeholders, that the city is ready for the next phase: rebranding and selling off the neighborhood.
If Sioux Falls leaders actually wanted to improve safety and stability, they would be investing in:
• Housing-first initiatives that provide permanent supportive housing
• Infrastructure upgrades like pedestrian safety, lighting, and transit access
• Community-driven solutions instead of unilateral, punitive decisions
Instead, they’re opting for a fence. Because the goal has never been to solve homelessness. It’s been to move homelessness out of sight, while setting the stage for profit-driven redevelopment.
? What a Human-Centered Approach Would Look Like?
The fence is not a human-centered design response—it’s a punitive response.
Human-centered design is an approach that focuses on the real needs and experiences of people when creating solutions. Instead of imposing top-down, punitive measures, HCD involves listening to the community, understanding root causes, and designing interventions that improve conditions for everyone, not just those in power.
Cities that take human-centered approaches, like Houston, Helsinki, and Vienna, have used housing-first models, pedestrian safety improvements, and community co-design processes to actually solve these problems. Sioux Falls could do the same, if leaders were serious about solutions instead of optics.
? What You Can Do: Show Up, Speak Out & Email City Council
The next week is critical. If you’re frustrated, you don’t have to sit on the sidelines.
? Wednesday, Feb 26 @ 6 PM – Join the Good NAtured Monthly Houseless Forum (921 E 8th Street) for a real, participant-driven discussion on homelessness.
Unlike the city’s “Informational” sessions, we’re hosting a real community forum, one where participation is not just allowed, but central to the process.
This event will follow the Open Space Technology and Future Forums models, where:
• The agenda is set by those who show up.
• Discussions are participant-driven.
• Everyone has an equal voice in shaping solutions.
? Tuesday, March 4 – Show up to City Council, or join City Council Bingo at Gist Wine Shop
• City Council Meeting @ Carnegie Hall – The fence issue is on the agenda. Public input matters.
• City Council Bingo @ Gist Wine Shop – A fun, engaging way to track what’s happening in local government.
? Email Your City Councilors Today
The city needs to hear from you. Let them know your thoughts on this fence, on real safety solutions, and on what’s missing from their approach to homelessness.
City Council email addresses will be in the comments.
Your voice matters. The only way we change the direction of this conversation is by showing up, speaking out, and demanding better.
Residents deserve to be angry. But they also deserve the full story.
The meeting is to discuss the purpose for the fence at the Dudley House. The meeting is Monday night, starting at 6 p.m. at the downtown library.
I texted councilor Merkouris before first reading asking him who came up with the idea to build the fence and he said it was the mayor’s, but he was supportive. I also don’t think the other 6 councilors that are NOT in leadership knew about it until the agenda was released.
I continue to shake my head that this council allows the mayor to write policy (their job) and not share that with them until the last minute. Poops knew this would be controversial. As one councilor said to me, “Would have been nice to have this meeting BEFORE it got on the agenda.”
UPDATE: During the meeting last night the Chancellor of the Catholic Diocese came up to podium to answer questions. He basically said that the city wants the entire lot (including the building) in 5 years for a construction staging area (to build the convention center). It is always amazing when folks from non-profits come to the podium and tell us the ‘REAL’ reason this is happening. I’m sure it took awhile for him to pull his foot from his mouth and the mayor’s boot from his behind.
The city council in all their ‘wussiness’ deferred the fence to March 4th. Much of the public input tonight was about how horrible of an idea this was and the council knew in all of their weakness if they passed this tonight all Hell would break loose, so they did what a gutless body of government does, kick the can down the road. They like to do this. I call them the ‘Hand Wringing’ council. This is what you get when no one has challengers and they take money from the elitist class. If you think the council works for you, please let me in on the good stuff you are smoking.
They want to have a neighborhood meeting (which is code for we want justification for our YES votes). City government is so predictable I thought about starting an online gambling site betting on their decisions. I would make millions!
But the kicker tonight wasn’t about giving a religious organization worth billions of dollars a fence, it was about a lease deal to take over the property, and guess what that is for? A convention center.
I gotta tell yah Pastor Poops, the Convention Center will fail, HUGE! Why? Because you have never completed anything in the public sector except F’cking things up. You have ZERO leadership skills, and you are kind of a jerk! You are also very angry, which I don’t understand. How is it a family man with a successful business and regular church attendance worth millions can be so stressed? Weird.
So in an attempt to move the shelter the city came up with this complex plan to build a fence.
If I just remove myself from this community and look at this from an exterior lens, it is pretty obvious what is going on here.
It’s not about a fence, it is about the ‘SNAKES’ in city hall trying to shove a convention center down our throats. Any councilor who votes for this will never recover. Trust me on this. Make the BDH pay for this. It is their property and they can do what they want.
That’s a great question, from the last inspection from the private consultant;
As the council votes to give away the collection tonight, in which they will, they have to ask what the Hell was the Zoo doing to eliminate this collection purposely. Also there is a referendum circulating that needs about 7,600 valid sigs in 20 days to save the collection.
Also, I heard 4 councilors were set to save the collection but feared the mayor would break the tie so they just voted YES. WHY?! If you are opposed to something, don’t consult with the mayor, consult with your fellow councilors and VOTE NO. I have always felt a NO vote is way more impactful because you force government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution. So if you feel you need to vote NO, just do it. The public would respect you more if you stuck to your principles.
l3wis 