Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Riverdale Park chain of death

From my email box:
I was out riding my bike this morning and I noticed this hazardous chain down at Riverdale Park.  It has recently been placed across a section of the road that approaches the pedestrian bridge access to the bike trail.  It was nearly invisible to me, on a bike, and I took a few pics of it.  As you might be able to see, there are 3 reflectors in the chain, but they hang horizontally due to the chain twisting over, so they do not show up.  Please note that this chain is also in the way of the access trail that many people use to get onto the bridge, since it is nearer to the road.
I had intended to call this in as a problem this morning to see what the Parks Department thought of it, and to ask that something more visible could be added or used instead.

It seems I was too late, and I was informed that the chain is now down, and that someone had already run into it.  You can imagine the hazard this will pose to anyone who attempts to ride through the park at night.
Please make a note of this hazard to your readers.  The Parks Department boss informed me that the chain would stay in place to block parking for peewee football games, and that they would add some more reflectors to it.
I often laugh when this city gets ‘awards’ for being a bike friendly town when the Parks Department does stupid crap like this, and drivers scream at you and swerve at you when riding your bike in the street. We are anything but friendly, we are ignorant when it comes to bicycling.

Who is really ‘Benefitting’ from the River Greenway Project?

The City of SF Audit Committee will be releasing their audit of the river greenway project, which has cost taxpayers almost $10 million so far (the project was originally going to cost around $2-4 million, if my memory serves me well). The original plan was to upgrade the bike trail and landscaping by the river, which would have been just fine. But someone got a hold of someone’s ear at the Parks department and now we have the current ‘San Antonio’ version of the greenway project. This all started with mayor Munson and has seemed to snowball since then, we have bought a bridge (maybe two), bulk heads, a spray park and the infamous (and dangerous) steps into the river. We have also torn down a parking ramp.

Document: confluence

Design of the project was almost 10% of the total cost of the entire project. In the research I have done, projects of this size and nature usually run about 6% of the total project cost. I knew this was going to be a money sucker from the beginning, we have even bonded (borrowed) almost 50% of the total cost of the project. I have often thought if taxpayers would have voted on this project, it would have been scaled back. It seems contractors, developers, engineers and architects are deciding what is good for the citizens of this town, this practice needs to end.

 

Should smoking be banned at JazzFest?

The Argue Endorser’s ED board thinks that the No Smoking policy in city parks should also apply to JF.

JazzFest or No JazzFest, it is important to remember the No Smoking policy in parks was decided by a volunteer board and the city’s health department, NOT by the city council (who are supposed create and regulate policy in this city) secondly, there is NO fines or violations issued if you are caught smoking in a city park, an officer simply asks you to put it out. What’s the point?

Here’s how I look at it. Tobacco is a legal product to adults, city parks are PUBLIC property, and lastly IT’S OUTDOORS! While I think it is perfectly acceptable for a bar or restaurant owner to prohibit smoking on their patios (private property) and they should, I think it is a bit of a stretch to tell taxpayers who own our city parks, to put out their cigarettes, like I said, legal product.

There is an easy solution – courtesy. Ask those around you if they mind if you light up, whether you are in a city park or an outdoor restaurant patio. If they say ‘YES’ they do mind. Then don’t light up or walk to a place where you are not in proximity of others.

I think banning a legal product OUTDOORS on PUBLIC PROPERTY is a slippery slope. We already have the city telling us how to trim THERE trees, mow our lawns and scooping snow, they should concentrate on something else, like a little transparency from the mayor’s office.

Quote of the day (H/T – Helga)

Don Kearney, Parks and Rec manager said this on Tuesday;

 “I think it’s important for everybody to realize how those facilities will be located within the park, whether it will be an indoor or outdoor facility,” Kearney said. “If you’re like me, pictures are worth a thousand words, and it really allows you to visualize what those facilities would consist of.”

(Helga) “A picture is worth a thousand words, actually his pictures are worth $47,000, because that is what they are going to pay for those pictures. $47,000 of taxpayer money.  Money that could be better spent elsewhere.”

I went to the working session today, this came up again. What a Mexican Hat Dance Kearney, the City Attorney and Councilor Entenman and Rolfing did today. Councilors Kermit, Karsky, Aguliar, and Jamison all said the same thing, ‘What’s the rush to get out the plans?’ Michelle just grinned and winked. Weird.

Perception. They want to defeat the outdoor pool at Spellerberg by dangling the Indoor pool carrot.

I am going to go the simple route on this. If people really want a public indoor pool, funded by taxpayers, and the need is there, why all the enticement? Wouldn’t this be a slam dunk? Why do we have to dangle pretty pictures in front of voters?

Knock off the indoor pool talk until after the election. And if the voters say they don’t want an outdoor pool at Spellerberg, full steam ahead on an indoor pool. But seriously, why don’t we wait until after the vote? What’s that saying about winners and cheaters?