SF City Council

Community Forum to Discuss Local Economy

Civic and business leaders will meet in a community forum to generate ideas on how to sustain and possibly boost the local economy.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 21, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Carnegie Town Hall, 235 W. 10th St.
Working together as a community will not only enable us to maintain what is working right for Sioux Falls, but will also allow us to jumpstart our local economy, said City Council Member Greg Jamison, who organized the meeting.
“As a City Council member I wanted to make sure we’re doing everything right to maintain our great community,” he said. “Sioux Falls is better off than a lot of other places in the country.”
Mayor Dave Munson will be present along with representatives from the City Council, city administration, the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, the Homebuilders Association of the Sioux Empire, the South Dakota Banking Association, Associated General Contractors of South Dakota, Realtor Association of the Sioux Empire Inc., Downtown Sioux Falls, and others.

The public and other business groups are invited to attend and participate in the discussion.
Contact City Councilor Greg Jamison at 310-1930 for more information.

I think a Forum like this is a great idea, in concept. I don’t have a problem with the groups that were invited but am wondering why community and grassroots groups were not invited to? Like Bread for the World, for example. As usual, our opinion does not count. Maybe they don’t want us doing ‘I told you so’ dance a couple of weeks after the meeting when we are right.
The businesses listed are the same group that lobbied for a second penny tax increase, that’s why I am suspicious. Anytime groups like this get together and share ideas it seems the average taxpayer gets screwed in the end. Their solution to every economic problem is tax us more so they can get freebies and handouts from the city. Most of them are self-serving, especially the Chamber and DT SF.
We’ll see what comes of it, but I will keep my expectations low. I’m just hoping that Carnegie doesn’t get flooded with too many bad ideas on Saturday, remember, real people die in floods and hopefully the bad ideas will too.
I will not be attending, because I will be working on my own economic recovery plan, working at my part-time job.

SF Citizens can no longer ask for advisory opinions

But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.

I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.

I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?

An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.

Project TRIM public meeting update

Have a tree trimming party and invite these guys

The longer I follow Sioux Falls city politics and government, the more I am convinced this city is run by ideologues. I got further proof of this last night when I attended an informational and Q & A meeting with the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation forestry manager (Duane) about project TRIM.

City department heads have their own ideas on the city’s appearance and growth, and most citizens have different ideas, and they are not sitting at the table and ironing out those differences. That was quite apparent last night during the meeting.

The SF Parks and Rec wants us to trim our trees to their standards. I’ll give them credit, they do make some good arguments. They have some liability issues with delivery vehicles, fire and rescue and snowplows getting damaged by low hanging branches. They also have stated cases of people getting knocked in the head by a low hanging branch while walking at night (I could go into a tirade about that, but I will keep it to myself). Yes, these things should concern us, but that is what the city has insurance for.

I also agree that trees need to be trimmed and maintained on a regular basis. I trim my boulevard tree all summer long, because water sprouts grow out of it like a weed. But after receiving the project TRIM letter from the city, I will be forced to cut off two gigantic branches from the tree. Fine,  I’m okay with that. But I disagree with how the city is going about project TRIM. I believe there should be a concerted effort between the city and the property owners to get the trees trimmed. But the city sees it differently. Here’s some highlights from last night’s meeting which was attended by about 10-12 citizens, including a very animated school teacher (funny stuff).

 

          Project TRIM was initiated by the forestry manager on his own, Duane. He admitted to it last night. Duane said there was no formal vote by the council to approve the project because the ordinance already existed, which troubles me. I’m certain when the original council approved the ordinance they felt it would be enforced on a complaint basis only. Duane claims that a complaint basis wasn’t working because people felt like they were being picked on. So the solution is to pick on the entire district instead? This should have been thought out better and approved by the council and mayor by an ordinance vote so the citizens could have had some input. Letting one sole individual in a city department who isn’t even elected make this decision is bad public policy but normal operating procedure for Parks and Rec. Remember, their board members are volunteer political appointments by the mayor and not elected, they also have no accountability to the public.

          If the city charges you to trim your trees, it will cost $150 an hour. They justify this cost because you are paying for the P & R person to drive to your house and get his equipment ready. This ignited the school teacher. He basically said that he doesn’t get paid for ‘preparing lessons’ and ‘driving to school’ he gets paid to teach. He makes a good point. We already pay P & R wages, they should be charging us for the trimming only. They (The P & R director, Don, was there to) admitted they charge that much because they don’t want to be forced to do it, and they hope it will persuade people to do it themselves and comply. Makes sense, but it is still highway robbery just the same.

          One citizen complained that the code enforcement/project TRIM letter that is sent out is threatening. P & R admits this was done purposely to intimidate property owners into complying, or as they said “getting to the point.” Many complained this was poor customer service, to say the least. I complained that I don’t approve of ‘blanket code enforcement’ since they cannot be specific about what tree(s) need to be trimmed. In fact that was the biggest complaint from most everyone there. Citizens don’t have a way of measuring and understanding the compliance. I also felt this was forcing some citizens into hiring private contractors to do the work, and I think the city should not be in the business of promoting private contractors with my tax dollars.

          Unlike project NICE they will not come by and pickup your branches after you trim them. I said I don’t have a problem with trimming the branches myself but thought it would be a nice gesture (since I am a taxpayer) to have the city come by and pickup the branches like they do with project NICE. The response was “That’s a different project” Well duh! But why not do the same thing. The reply? “We tried it and it doesn’t work.” So I guess we just give up? I think it didn’t work because it was not done in connection with the letter. I think if they send out the letter with specifics on what tree(s) to trim and give a date they will be in your neighborhood to pick up the branches it would work. I also think they could ‘assist’ with any branches you had trouble trimming on your own. This would also give them an opportunity to inspect. Lots of birds killed with one stone (I know, tough to swallow because beaucracies do not work that way).

          Some asked why the city can’t just trim the trees while they are out inspecting. There excuse was there is not enough ‘Manpower’. I pointed out that they had plenty of ‘Manpower’ to inspect the neighborhoods, write down the addresses, get out and measure, compile the letters and money to mail them out, but not enough to actually trim the trees? No response. I failed to mention they also have the manpower and funds to cut down all the nice birches in Yankton trail park and replant and water all summer, but no time or money for the citizens.

          Some solutions that were offered was reorganizing P & R budget money to project TRIM and trying to get prison trustees to help out the fixed income and elderly. P & R’s solution? We’ll give you an extention.  Woo Hoo! It’s like the IRS giving an extention, at the end of the day, you still have to pay your taxes.

          One guy showed up defending the project. No surprise, I won’t mention his name, but he works for a certain downtown non-profit and often shows up to defend the city at various meetings. He suggested a neighborhood tree trimming party. Yeah, because nothing goes together like BBQ, beer and chainsaws. Hey, you go for it, don’t forget to wear your Jackyl t-shirt. Nobody responded to his idea, and he walked out. That’s usually the reaction when this guy opens his mouth at municipal meetings. He probably had to rush off and make it to another brown nosing session somewhere else.

Towards the end of the meeting though it seemed that the Don and Duane were willing to help out a little and agree to come out and mark trees that needed it if we call, so I haven’t lost hope yet.

What do you think? Should the city work together with the citizens on project TRIM since they are the ones complaining about liability? I think so. Pretty soon they will have us maintaining our own road in front of our house if this keeps up.

Sioux Falls is recession proof? My Ass!

When are our local and state lawmakers gonna wakeup? Even our half-ass media is reporting this stuff;

The majority of people who walk into the office of the Minnehaha County Health and Human Services need help paying rent because many have recently lost their jobs.

And good thing for our public school system or some kids would not have a warm place to go during the day;

Addressing chronic homelessness should be a priority when tackling the overall homeless problem, Sioux Falls City Council member Vernon Brown said. Establishing services to help the chronically homeless would free up other agencies to help those families with children who need temporary assistance, he said.

I’ll commend you Vernon for your work on this, but don’t you think it is time to build a fire under the Mayor’s and other councilor’s asses to get this moving a little faster? What’s the holdup? The homeless are not just going to disappear if you keep farting around. You should bring this up every single council and info meeting, you should also tell anyone in the media who will listen. I have found the only way to get things done is to keep the pressure on this isn’t about snowgates or indoor pools, this is serious shit.

Funny thing, city hall is mysteriously quiet about this report. No worries, the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce chimed in, and if anyone would know about giving good advice about business and the economy, it would be them (as long as you are buying a membership and support higher taxes on food).

Dave Fleck, Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce board chairman and president of Sioux Falls Construction, noted that Sioux Falls’ unemployment is still well below the national average.

But just keep going out to eat, and everything will be just fine in Sioux Falls.

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m gonna anyway

The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;

Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.

But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.

Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.

I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!

But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.

 

“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.

So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead on center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.