Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

UPDATED: Steps into the river

l3wis August 30, 2011 21Comments

UPDATE: At the beginning of this video three different people defend the environmental costs of this project, they talk about two things 1) Fixing river erosion with walls and 2) removing contaminated (coal tar) soil from downtown. While I do agree with this environmental work, this is something that has been going on for years downtown. Remember when Fawick Park was tore up? That was an EPA directive, if my memory serves me correctly. Kinda sounds like they took the Morrell’s money, then had to come up with reasons why they can spend it on an entertainment facility. Funny.

I took this picture at 8 AM this morning, I saw a total of two men on the job site, standing and pointing (They must be foreman). I didn’t get close enough, but I noticed that the steps (in the water to your left) are a little uneven (like the forms were warped). Maybe it was an optical illusion at the distance I was at. I will try to get a closer inspection. BTW, I would like to thank John Morrell’s for graciously finishing this project for us.

River Greenway Project right on schedule?

l3wis August 3, 2011 10Comments

We will all get an update on Monday.

The SF River Greenway project is getting environmental funds?

l3wis July 16, 2011 12Comments

Look at all the waste we are cleaning up with these cool steps

I guess building bike trails and amphitheaters qualifies as ‘environmental’ projects;

7/15/11 • The City of Sioux Falls announces that the Downtown River Greenway Project will receive funding made available through the Big Sioux River Environmental Trust Fund.

The order authorizing the full expenditure of the fund was signed by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol after receiving the necessary approvals from the counties of Minnehaha and Lincoln in South Dakota and Lyon County in Iowa. The fund, established in 1996, was created in a settlement with John Morrell & Co. for environmental infractions and is estimated at approximately $1.9 million.

The funding will help pay for improvements downtown along the Greenway between Sixth Street and Tenth Street. The improvements are designed to provide greater public use and access to the river while also providing water quality improvements and reducing pollution in the Big Sioux River.

From a reader;

Phase I is much more than just blocks and concrete for yet another amphitheater. 5.1 million was allocated for Phase I of the project (between 6th and 8th street) 3.3 million of that was supposed to go towards items that are ENVIRONMENTALLY related. I fail to see how tons and tons of concrete between 6th and 8th street is environmentally related.

And I find the settlement money even more troubling. The city says the 1.9 million in this trust fund is going to be used for improvements from 6th to 10th street. Huh? As I recall, the taxpayer funded 5.1 million was supposed to be for improvements from 6th to 8th street. Another 3 million, of which this 1.9 million is part of, was originally intended for Phase II from 8th street to 10th street.

About that 1.9 million dollars. That is money from a settlement with John Morrell for polluting the Sioux River back in the ’90’s. It is called “The Big Sioux River ENVIRONMENTAL Trust Fund.” It was established in 1996 by court order. The money was to be used primarily for these 3 reasons.

1. Reduce pollution along the Big Sioux River.

2. Identify continuing sources of pollution along the Big Sioux River.

3. Develop and implement strategies to reduce and/or eliminate pollution along the Big Sioux River.

How does a heavy concentration of concrete along a small stretch of DT meet these ends?

The intent of the use of that 1.9 mill was clearly laid out in the 1996 settlement. It is called The Big Sioux River Environmental Trust Fund for a reason. I stated the top three reasons above. Using that money to build concrete and block barriers for stages every 200 feet, or two pedestrian walkways within 100 feet of the 8th street crossing does not meet the environmental smell test IMHO.

IMHO bringing the 1.9 mill into play now BEFORE the 6th to 8th street phase is even close to completion says one thing. A while back finding bedrock for phase I added a mere 1.4 mill to the cost. Just another cost overrun. Something this city knows real well. Is this “environmental” trust money being used to finish phase I, or will it be used to turn 8th to 10th street into a concrete jungle? GREENWAY project? Yeah….right.

No surprise the city is running out of money on this project and there is cost overuns, it is typical of how the city operates. That is why a $120 million dollar cost estimate on the EC is a complete joke.

Argue Endorser ED Board uses extreme misinformation to endorse public indoor pool

l3wis July 5, 2011 20Comments

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_I8RCUpe-c[/youtube]

No matter your thoughts on whether you support a public indoor pool or not, let’s at least be honest with voters. Those silly ‘facts’ seem to get in the way of the AL Ed board, and they do a little twisting and shouting of their own;

It’s unfortunate that the idea of an indoor pool has been tangled in such controversy in recent years.

What controversy? This statement puzzles me. So now it is controversial for a group of citizens to petition their government? The only controversy in this discussion is a newspaper that kowtows the city’s agenda to cram shit down our throats that we don’t want.

Two years later, the idea of an indoor pool replacing the old Drake Springs pool also was defeated in large part because of opposition from that central Sioux Falls neighborhood.

Bullshit! Last I checked the ENTIRE CITY got to vote on that issue, not just my neighborhood. There was also opposition from people who didn’t want an indoor pool in that neighborhood, there was even members of swim teams that were opposed to it because they couldn’t hold competitions there.

It seems so basic that a community such as Sioux Falls, in a climate like South Dakota’s where there is way more winter than summer in most years, should provide recreational opportunities year-round. To do that, you build an indoor swimming pool. Other cities have done so. It is not a radical concept.

Yes, other cities have done it, but those cities also lack private facilities. There is over 8 private indoor pools that you can PAY to swim at (just like a public facility) and unlike a public indoor pool, you can also partake in other physical activities at these places. There is also many indoor water parks at different hotels in Sioux Falls. The ED board makes it sound like there is absolutely NO PLACE to swim at in town over the winter.

A recent survey by the Parks Department reveals community interest in an indoor pool. Sixty percent of the respondents said the city needs indoor swimming opportunities.

Another partial fact the ED Board throws out there. If you look at the ratios of that survey, 1 in 7 of that 60% support an indoor pool subsidized by taxpayers, the other 6 want it paid for by user fees. We know how the city operates these facilities, they will NEVER be self-sustaning.

Community support and open lines of communication are essential.

Then why did you write such a misleading editorial? If this is such a crackerjack idea, it would of passed years ago.