Snowgates

Direct implementation of Snow gates by the SF City Council wasn’t even possible

l3wis March 29, 2014 2Comments

The chamber makes it sound like the petitioners stopped the mayor and council from implementing snow gates, more like the other way around.

Snow Gates (Initiated Measure 1)

Sioux Falls voters will also determine if snowgates will be implemented within the City’s snow removal plan. Residents opposed to the direct implementation of snowgates (designed to reduce the amount of snow in driveways and intersections) collected enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot.

‘Residents opposed to the direct implementation’

WTF?!

Was Jesus gonna walk across Covell Lake and implement them with a wave of his olive branch?

The VOTES were NOT on the council to get snowgates implemented. I think only 3 councilors supported them. Staggers, Anderson and Jamison (and Jamison was even wavering a bit).

SO why is the Chamber flat out lying about DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION?

Talk about getting your talking points from Jesus H. Huether.

SF Chamber’s Silly Business

l3wis March 6, 2014 26Comments

You mean the use of snowgates actually helps local business?

Not sure what to think of the Chamber’s endorsements for the election. While the Walmart and Shape Places thumbs up doesn’t surprise me, their stances on the other two citizen ballot initiatives seems a bit silly;

The chamber also is pushing for a “no” vote on building an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park. If they get their way, the city will move forward with plans for an indoor aquatics facility there.

Their board took no position on the fourth ballot measure, whether the city should invest in snowgates to keep snow from piling up at the bottom of people’s driveways.

So they are supporting an indoor public pool that will be subsidized by taxpayers and will compete with private indoor swimming providers. Doesn’t this go against the free enterprise nature of the Chamber? Do some of the Chamber members provide indoor swimming? Very odd.

And saying nothing about the snowgates is probably a relief to either side of the issue, but you would think the Chamber would endorse a public service that benefits many businesses throughout our community, not just in cleaning out the inlet’s to their parking lots but in worker productivity and lost time (if an employee is late because they were blocked by a snow berm and had to scoop it away before driving to work.)

Once again, the Chamber proves who they stand up for, and it really isn’t their members or local small businesses. No surprises here, just lots of the same old silliness.