Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

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.

Yah Think?

l3wis June 20, 2010 5Comments

You think rock & wood thingy is FREE? Pay up bitches!

During the city election campaign I told a candidate for the city council what makes are city great; PARKS & LOW CRIME. In fact it doesn’t take a freaking rocket scientist to figure it out, just a parenting magazine;

SIOUX FALLS, SD – Many families are spending Father’s Day honoring the men in their lives and for some that means spending time together doing activities. The Family Fishing Park near Sioux Falls was a hot spot today. It’s one of dozens of parks in the area and according to Parenting Magazine, it’s also one of the top cities for families.

Sioux Falls ranks at number 11. The results are tallied by considering the city’s crime rate, unemployment rate and numerous recreational areas. Those enjoying what Sioux Falls has to offer agree the city deserves its rating.

What makes are parks great? Most of them are FREE (sure, we pay taxes to have them maintained). But a part of me worries a bit. The Parks department has been continuing to raise rates for certain amenities. Are they going to start nickel and diming us for stuff we already pay for thru taxes? How pathetic would it be to have to pay a toll to ride on our bike trails? I have often thought out trails are ‘extravagant’ (ie, we could have functional trails for a lot less) and that some day we would pay the piper. We have expanded them during good economic times, now we want to maintain them and the money has ran out. Go figure. Deal. Cut back. Make sacrifices, like the rest of us have. Like I said before, this isn’t rocket science, just third grade math.

Keep our parks, Keep our cops (even Gaye Mustache) just do it on the cheap.

Michelle Erpenbach; Poor choice for Sioux Falls city council

l3wis March 12, 2010 5Comments

Nice sign, if you are running a bed and breakfast (this was an actual comment made to someone who had the sign in their yard)

But besides the signage, Michelle seems to be acting like Stehly even though she is nothing like her;

Then, look at the overall city debt. It’s $227 million! That’s a lot of money and I don’t mean to belittle the honest fears people have about debt. But, let’s take a quick line-by-line review. All of this is public information that I downloaded off the city’s website at www.siouxfalls.org.

Some of our debt is what we have left to pay on the new police station. Final payment will be made this year.

More than $31 million of it funded the flood control project completed in 2009 in the Garfield and Edison areas.

We’ve invested $5 million in keeping the landfill functioning at the level required by federal guidelines. Landfill users are paying this back with their fees and residents see it on their monthly garbage bills.

Another $112 million is improving the city water system. Water users will gradually pay this off as we pay our city utility bills.

And, $70 million is working in our water reclamation system. Again, a fee-based project that doesn’t affect tax dollars.

Yes, some of the funds are in the Quality of Life bonds that built the new Harmodon ballpark and the Drake Springs pool. Those funds will also bring a new library to the city’s westside and revitalize the River Greenway downtown. Those payments are also budgeted: from our sales tax funds.

I would not vote to put the city into further debt that doesn’t make sense.

Really? All of sudden you are a fiscal conservative? Guess you better send back that check you got from Tom Daschle. You wouldn’t vote to put our city further in debt, yet you just rationalized that the above debt is okay? Huh? I am still baffled why we paid Lewis and Clark up front for something we won’t have for another 2-4 years (maybe) We are paying higher water fees for something we don’t have, some of that interest, mind you.

That being said, I have to look at this in terms of the commuter corridors in the city.  Look at Minnesota Avenue.  Look at Cliff Avenue.  And 10th  and 26th streets.  All of these are key streets in the Central District and in the city of Sioux Falls.  We must come together as leaders of this city to balance the use of that second penny sales tax so those critical commuter corridors don’t fail us anymore than they already have.  Let’s make the second penny sales tax effective for road construction and re-construction while continuing to support those projects our growing community so vitally needs.

You are concerned about the city not spending money on the streets? Really? Then why haven’t I heard you say anything publicly about it? I have never seen you at the council meetings talking about it and you never brought it up when you were trying to get appointed to the council. You are using this as a campaign issue because all of a sudden residents have figured out our streets are in piss poor shape. You are not fooling anyone.

My work with community garden families led to my appointment to the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation Board. I’ve served nearly five years in this volunteer position, helping guide the future of the parks system, reviewing and revising the annual budget, and gaining a deep understanding of the city’s capital improvement process.

Another reason 1) not to vote for you and 2) that you are not this ‘fiscal conservative’ you claim to be. SF Parks and Rec has one of the most bloated budgets of any department in the city, and tons of waste (people reading novels while watering trees, mowing a 1/4 inch of grass, etc, etc.) I have often said we could spend half of what we do now and still have the same great parks. Heck, we even had Gene Rowenhorst saying that was the first place they would cut back on this summer is mowing the grass less and after that he said, “And most people wouldn’t even notice the change in service.” Then why haven’t we been doing this all along Michelle? Was this ever discussed in all the years you sat on the board? Or are you only concerned about ‘wasteful spending’ now that you are running for office. Deeds speak louder then words sister.

Michelle, give it a rest. Your strategy of trying to look like your opponent will not work. We need LEADERS on the city council, not FOLLOWERS.

Your website looks nice at least.