Sioux Falls

Funny how the AG knows who butters his bread but our city attorney does not

I have to admit I was a little surprised when one of my long time friends called me last week and told me she was considering a petition drive of her own (nothing to do with taxes) in Sioux Falls and has been in correspondance with the city about election laws, etc. She said she saw all the troubles my petition was having and she wanted the city to clear some stuff up before she even considered the petition. I’ll be honest with you, I had no idea she was doing any of this until she shared the final information with me. I’m sure the city was suspicious she was involved with us because the city attorney gave his normal response how he doesn’t work for tax payers, etc., etc. But what is telling is the difference between the Attorney General’s response and the City attorney’s response. They are both similiar in that they do not give out opinions, but the AG didn’t seem to have a problem with attaching the laws so my friend could review them on her own or with a private attorney. Must have been too hard for the city attorney to ask his secretary to print out a couple pages of ordinances, yeah right.

Below is a copy of the correspondance and the different responses. (I cropped and transformed the images for space reasons).

scan100011

She basically was trying to get the ‘6 month question’ answered. Does state law apply if the city doesn’t have an ordinance that addresses it? Admundson’s response;

 scan10002

Notice Robert goes on a rant about who he works for. Also notice that taxpayer’s are not included in that list. He calls the city his ‘client’ not his ’employer’. So does Robert collect a FEE for your services and pay rent on his City Hall office? Or does he collect a PAYCHECK? I think we know the answer. While I do admit, he has no obligation to submit an opinion, he does however have an obligation to show my friend all the ordinances that apply to petitions, like the AG does below.

scan10003

Not only did the AG attach a copy of the laws that apply, he did it a day faster then our City Attorney. He also said he could not share his opinion.

So my question is? Why can our State AG provide us with election laws but our City Attorney cannot? I’ll have to agree with the Argus Leader Editorial Board on this one, it’s appalling.

SF Councilor Jamison & MNH County Commissioner Kelly need to take a course in basic economics

econ101_web_panel02

As I watched the joint City Council/Minnehaha County meeting on Monday afternoon, I was still baffled by Jamison’s and Kelly’s opposition to the chronically homeless shelter. Yes, other councilors and commissioners have concerns about the cost. Specifically if a grant will be issued to help build and maintain the facility. There is also still disagreement on how much the county and city is going to pay. Staggers also brought up the topic of SSI and Veterans assistance for some of the shelters occupants. These are all great questions. But what baffles me the most is that Jamison and Kelly are vehemently against helping these people NOT because of the above listed concerns but because they think these people don’t ‘deserve’ the help. Jamison claimed that his constituents are telling him this. Hey, Greg, there is more then one person besides your daddy living in your district you can talk to.

Moby Dick move

Okay, let me be the devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s say I agree with Dick and Greg. Let’s say I don’t care about chronically homeless drunk veterans with mental problems, let’s also pretend I don’t care if they rot in a gutter or freeze to death in a snowstorm. Let’s also pretend that I think it is dispicable that one cent of my money goes towards these bums. But, see, that’s where Dick and Greg just don’t get it. Even if you are against helping these people, it just makes economic sense to help them anyway. By building this shelter we will be saving taxpayer’s aproximately 50-70% in public saftey costs because these people won’t be using our most expensive emergency services as often.

It just makes economic sense to help them, whether you like them or not. I suppose we could get rid of our animal control to save taxpayer’s money also, but we know the public saftey repercussions outweigh the expense and that’s why animal control is important.

I would think two guys in the Real Estate business would understand simple economics, but hey, look how these two vote most of the time.

The Gargoyle wrote about it today in an editorial, where once again they praised Munson’s leadership on passing the bonds. Because there is nothing like flushing $8.5 million in interest payments down a monkey crapper toilet for projects we could have budgeted for instead borrowed for. Yup, that’s leadership alright, right to the poorhouse.

How will the vote go down tonight? 7 YES & 1 NO. Probably

untitled3

Ahhhh, much better. Thanks city council!

The council votes on the monkey crapper quality of life bonds tonight and the mayor’s office cleverly put enough different things in it to appeal to (almost) every councilor. I mean, gee willickers, who would vote against funding a new library?

Spartan hd INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

19.

2nd Reading:  AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA (THE “CITY”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO PAY THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF THE WESTSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY TO BE LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY I-29, IMPROVEMENTS ON AND EQUIPPING OF THE RIVER GREENWAY, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF THE YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WESTPORT AVENUE AND BENSON ROAD, AND IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY’S ZOO, PLEDGING THE SALES AND USE TAX PROCEEDS OF THE CITY TO THE PAYMENT OF SAID SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, FIXING THE TERMS OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS (THE “TRUSTEE”), AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE, EXECUTION, AND DELIVERY OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,500,000 PLUS COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS. (Quality of Life II)

I was thinking about drinking a 1/5th of Wild Turkey and showing up to chew ass, but I predict that almost all the councilors will vote yes on the loan no matter who shows up to dissent it. I have no doubt that Dr. No Staggers will vote against it, and that will be it.

I do expect some lively debate. With Vernon giving his usual ‘Everything is Unicorns and Rainbows’ speech and Quen Be De telling everyone what a wonderful job every city employee does, and Bob Schlitz talking about progress and moving forward even though those two things have nothing to do with football. We will also probably here an impassioned speech from Gerald that really has nothing to do with anything.

Another evening wasted in futility.

Telephone Booth Casino owners in SF are crying, again

new-casino-interior-picture

Hey, Sioux Falls, this is what a REAL casino looks like

Let’s face it, a casino near Larchwood will actually be good for the Sioux Falls economy. It will provide good paying jobs with benefits (yes, Las Vegas style casino’s are excellent places to work) and people who visit the casino from other parts of Iowa probably will come to Sioux Falls to do some shopping. But the naysayers (crap-hole video lottery casino owners who have been robbing us blind for years) are crying in Sioux Falls. Let’s be honest, most citizens don’t care if you lose significant revenue or go out of business for good. That’s why when a VL lottery ban made it to the ballot box twice a majority of Sioux Falls residents said ‘Get rid of it’ we are sick and tired of it and the crime problems it has brought to our city.

“We believe that a new full-service resort casino at Lyon County would attract the majority of its customers from the greater Sioux Falls area,” a study by GVA Marquette Advisors said.

“Let’s be honest,” said Glenn Anderson, Lyon County’s economic development director, “we have the thanks to give to Sioux Falls. That’s the bottom line.”

South Dakota Sen. Scott Heidepriem, who tried to outmaneuver the Iowa plan with legislation earlier this year, called it “bad news for Sioux Falls.”

Bad news for the state VL coffers, that’s about it.

Kehl Management, which is sponsoring the Lyon County plan, wants to build a casino with 800 slot machines, 24 gaming tables, a 100-room hotel and an 18-hole golf course. The resort would be similar to Kehl’s Riverside Casino & Golf Resort in Riverside, Iowa.

Oh you mean there will actually be other things to do there besides smoking cigarettes and drinking cheap American tap beer!? You mean it will actually offer OTHER entertainment?! Where do they get off! Sioux Falls residents like their casinos small, dark, smokey and in a bad neighborhood. Anything else is unacceptable! C’mon Iwegions! Get with the program.

The study also concluded that a Lyon County casino would have a “significant impact” on video lottery revenues in the Sioux Falls area.

Like I said in the beginning, this would only affect a handful of casino owners not Sioux Falls residents as a whole.

“I’m sure there would be a lot of jobs created for Sioux Falls people,” Ketterer said. “I’m sure Larchwood couldn’t fill all of those jobs.”

Exactly!

If it’s built, Heidepriem predicted Sioux Falls and South Dakota would inherit the social and criminal costs that piggyback with gambling while seeing none of the revenue.

Sorry, Scott, but I am going to call big fat bullshit on you! If you and the other legislators are so freaking concerned about our safety and wellbeing you would have gotten rid of video lottery a long, long, time ago. I doubt we have to worry about little old ladies playing golf and slot machines as a ‘social and criminal’ concern. We need to get rid of our shithole VL casinos in Sioux Falls, then we will truly see the savings in social costs.