Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

PROJECT TRIM *UPDATE*

A friend of mine has been researching other cities when it comes to boulevard tree trimming, and the results are (not) surprising.

In Brookings they trim the city owned boulevard trees due to liability, and property owners are encouraged NOT to do it because of that liability.

Which got me thinking. If the city of Sioux Falls is responsible for the liability of the tree branches damaging vehicles (snowplows), why aren’t they responsible for trimming those trees? It’s like insuring your car, the insurance company insures the individual or individuals who drive and own the car and pay the insurance bill. So if the city is paying the liability insurance on the trees, and they own them, why aren’t they trimming them? Or fixing the sidewalks for that matter?

She also found out that Kansas City also trims boulevard trees and has basically the same policy of Brookings. Kansas city has approximately 500,000 people living in it’s core area, and 2.5 million in the metro area. If a city that is almost ten times the size of Sioux Falls has figured out how to budget for tree trimming, you would think we could. Oh that’s right, we need the money to build $170,000 crappers in McKennan Park instead.

The ‘truth’ about SF Family Park revealed

Some ‘details’ about the proposed Family Park are being uncovered in this Gargoyle Leader story. Stuff that we suspected all along. What is strange about the story, is how it starts, assuming the city council has already approved the gift from the Soukup family. This is not the case (even though it does have the support of at least 7 councilors);

A new park being developed in western Sioux Falls will be unique to the region by offering trout fishing, city and state officials say.

Eventually, that area could be the site of a residential development, complete with a lake and 100 to 150 houses. That’s at least five years into the future, Soukup said.

Chip Kolb of Tall Prairie Properties owns the land to the immediate east of what will be Family Park.

 

“I was thinking apartments along the lake,” Kolb said of his development, which he categorized as in its early stages.

So Sioux Falls taxpayers will have to pay for the maintenance of a park so homeowners and apartment dwellers have lakeside property? How much access will the rest of us have to the park if it is surrounded by apartments and houses? I’m not against accepting the gift, but I think the developers and the city should be in a 50/50 partnership for the maintenance of the park. Once again, this suspiciously looks like developers are getting a gigantic handout from taxpayers. Not only are they taking the massive chunk of land off the taxrolls, the developers will be building homes on prime property that will be maintained by the rest of us working stiffs instead of a housing association.

There is something very fishy smelling about this whole deal.

Not everything that happens at Carnegie Hall sucks

Yesterday the Soukup family proposed a donated park that will have fishing ponds

Untitled-1

See the full presentation here

with Video

It still has to be approved by council and we must also realize it won’t be cheap to maintain, but will be something nice within our city limits. I’m kinda on the fence about it, but the Soukup family is very generous, so I see this as a good thing (even though there is a million places to fish in the region).

Project TRIM should be called Project CRAP

Next Thursday the city is holding a public meeting at the community center by Harvey Dunn elementary (still need to get deets on time and locale) about project TRIM, so the public can ‘Ask Questions’. Word on the street is that not too many questions will be asked, in fact it will be a gigantic bitch session. People in my district who were targeted by the ‘blanket’ code enforcement are not happy. Several called SF Parks and Rec and asked what trees were in violation, and the response was, “We don’t have the manpower to determine that.” I guess $31 million a year funding their department isn’t enough money to staff enough people to provide proper customer service.

This is total crap! It is an attempt to go after creating problems and fines where they don’t exist, I also heard this blanket enforcement was lobbied by tree trimming companies in town. Apparently they were driving around town and telling the city about ‘problem neighborhoods’. I can’t prove this, but that is the rumor and would not surprise me. The economy is down and contractors are looking for work. In fact the Parks director said at the info meeting the other day that he did not want to delay bids at McKennan Park for the new John because contractors are ‘hungry’ for work.

I hope to make it to next week’s meeting – should be fun.

Sioux Falls Project TRIM should be called Project Inconvenience

Hey Teacher, Leave those kids alone!

Okay, I was wrong about the city harassing me in reference to my tree trimming, they were actually harrassing an entire district.

I was discussing the issue with someone who lives in my district yesterday, and she received a letter also. The problem I have with the letters is that this is ‘blanket’ code enforcement. In other words, everyone in the district is assumed guilty until proven innocent.

The letters are not specific about what trees you should trim. Obviously, for me, it is easy, I only have one tree on my boulevard. But what about people with multiple trees? Or what about people who don’t need their trees trimmed? Did they get letters to?

Code enforcement should be on complaint basis ONLY. Blanket code enforcement is silly, it is assuming that EVERYONE in the district is a irresponsible home owner that doesn’t have enough sense to know when to trim our trees. Trust me, the last place I would go to get advice about responsibility and common sense is from a city employee. That’s why complaint basis works best.

I’m getting sick and tired of the city treating it’s property tax payers and citizens like little kids. No wonder it costs so much to run Parks and Rec, they are busy bugging law abiding citizens instead trying to find ways to save us money.

Which brings me to another topic;

Rumor has it the Parks director said my ‘numbers were off’ in my letter to the editor about the bloated Parks budget. I used a $33 million dollar figure instead of $31 million dollar figure which I guess is the actual operating budget (which would bring the per acre maintenance cost down to aproximately $10,800 per acre instead of $11,500), which IMO is still too damn much. But I guess his biggest concern was that I didn’t breakdown how the money was spent. Who cares. An operating budget is an operating budget, I simplified it by using the amount of acres and simple division. It doesn’t matter how you ‘break it down’ at the end of the day $31 million is still being spent by Parks and Rec taking care of our parks. With that large of a budget that is obviously complex, don’t you think we can trim some fat? I think so, and that doesn’t change a damn thing.