State Legislature

What’s next for the Riverline District?

I can’t imagine the meetings at City Hall today after the SD Legislative Taxation Committee killed the 3rd penny tax in a squeaker, 7-6. It is no secret their ignorant plan was to convince some rubes from rural districts to support this so they can build a street. But most people knew the jig was up. This was about building a Convention Center that nobody wants or cares about. The Ice Ribbon is a great example of a project NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE asked for. But now $16 million later here we are.

So some are asking, without this special 3rd penny tax authority can we move forward with the Riverline District? Yes and NO.

While I think the mayor is about as bright as a bar of soap in a truck stop restroom, I think he knew this may not pass, so they may have a backup plan.

I hate to break it to you Poops, but the legislature is dug in on this one, it ain’t going anywhere. Even if passed out of committee it would have been DEAD in the full legislature.

So how can they still salvage the Convention Center deal? It will be financial gymnastics, but they can still do it within their means, but on a smaller scale. My guess is they will push all bond expectations toward the project and see how much they can borrow. They have also been banking reserve funds which I think they want to use for a down payment (It is between $70-80 million) Why does the city have a savings account from our taxes that is 3x what ordinance asks for? With this surplus and borrowing authority the city could build this without a special tax, but the private donations would have to be significant.

My suggestion all along is to implement an INCOME tax on corporations in SF that have more then 500 employees, Hotels and Hospitality to pay for this. They are the benefactors of conventions, visitors and tourism, the average citizen buying a Twin Bing at the GC won’t benefit BUT these industries would. MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT!

To tell you the truth, the more I think about it, I am not opposed to the city buying the land, it has potential, but with this crappy tax revenue source killed, the city will have to get creative. My suggestion? Demo and plant grass, form a committee that will tell us the best use for the land for the least expensive capital improvement. One idea I had years ago is turning Fawick park into a sculpture garden and put all the SculptureWalk sculptures in the park as a destination, essentially an outdoor museum. We could do this here for minimal costs.

It is no secret that Poops would benefit financially thru this deal (still digging on this one, and will crack that case).

Make no mistake, TenHaken’s lack of leadership, transparency and vision put the last nail in this coffin, and I got to admit after I watched the vote live, I howled in enthusiasm. I think I even did a jig. I am a good jigger.

But don’t get lazy, they will try to cut a deal and we must ride their asses until they are dragging on a gravel road. This ain’t over.

The irony of all this is Poop’s record on getting things done. It is awful. And if I was him I would be embarrassed and resign. Bunker Ramp, 6th street bridge, Delbridge dead monkeys, and the constant lying and belittling of public inputers. YOU ARE NOT A LEADER. YOU ARE NOT A VISIONARY.

The 1st Amendment and the Sioux Falls City Council

It seems I am spending a lot of time these days talking about the role of the council and the 1st Amendment. The thing that always puzzles me is that the 1st Amendment is NOT complicated, but folks struggle with it.

So today HB Bill 1050 got killed, by a ONE VOTE in taxation committee. Several folks were instrumental in killing this bill. It would have pretty much put a $450M tax debt on the citizens of Sioux Falls if passed. I posted Greg Neitzert’s written testimony after the hearing. I truly believe that testimony changed minds, and Cathy B’s telephone testimony cinched the deal. I also emailed the committee suggesting amendments and solutions (I think it would be good for small towns, but NOT SF.)

After this I assumed city hall was reeling, trying to figure out their next steps (I will post later about the future of the Riverline District).

But things got really interesting.

I’m going to leave the constituent’s name out of this for privacy reasons, and the city councilor, because I think it applies to the ENTIRE council.

Their is a constituent that emails the mayor and the council quite a bit, he is very involved in local politics, and I don’t always agree, but he always CC’s me in the emails so I am a media witness (I think I told him to do this). I have several concerned citizens that CC me when sending emails to the city council and I encourage you to CC me, witnesses are important.

fb.art@sio.midco.net

I sometimes do a reply all to their emails if I feel something needs to be clarified or piled onto.

After I posted Former Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg Neitzert’s* submitted written testimony to the taxation committee on the blog this constituent emailed the council with Greg’s testimony and a brief statement about his work. This person called the council ‘CORRUPT’ three times, but in fair context and NOT harassment. Then he said that Greg has ‘LARGE BALLS’. Trust me, I spit out my coffee when I read that, but it’s NOT a threat or harassment. In fact, Neitzert saw the email and thot it was funny. So a newly elected city councilor wasn’t having it and reported the email to Human Resources as harassment. HOGWASH! Not only is this constituent completely harmless they wouldn’t hurt a soul, but that doesn’t matter. This NEW councilor seems to think that he is a city employee and has the same protections, he does not, YOU ARE ELECTED and must follow the constraints of the 1st Amendment and the US Constitution. Now if such an email was sent to an unelected city employee, that would be an issue. So the city’s HR department warned this constituent if they send anymore ‘Harassing Emails’ they will be blocked. First off, they don’t have that authority because this person is NOT a city employee, secondly, sending an email about concerns is NOT threatening. It often puzzles me that they put their hand on a bible and swear an oath to the Constitution but have no idea what is in the document. If you can’t handle the heat in the Carnegie Kitchen may I suggest resignation. Nobody will miss yah. The irony of all this is this councilor was in a similar situation at a former employer. Kettle meet Black.

*Full disclosure, I worked on Greg’s first term campaign coordinating his messaging, graphic design, marketing and direct mail, it was one of the most successful campaigns I was involved with, we kicked ass and took names!

10 Commandments in Schools to be printed on edible paper

IMAGE: Amazon.com

I guess the legislature figured they could kill two birds with one stone. Not only will kids be able to read about the moral high ground on their classroom walls if their parents don’t pay their school lunch bill they can just eat the 10 Commandments poster. I kid of course, but this article about failing to fund school lunches puts it in perspective. Since schools will be mandated to display the posters and ‘teach’ about the 10 commandments there will be incurred costs, and I can guarantee they will be well North of the $616K wanted and needed to help fund school lunches. I actually think you will never see one single poster in the classrooms because there will be a lawsuit and the law will be thrown out.

UPDATE II: SD House Bill 1055 needs to be killed

UPDATE II: I emailed the committee members and told them this was a bad idea. The sponsor was the only one to respond after I told them I think this bill was written for Sioux Falls;

Not written for Sioux Falls. 

So I asked WHO it was written for;

Written for all cities.

Well, Mike, that means it was written for Sioux Falls. I find it ironic that city hall recruited a legislator from Ft. Pierre who has a close relationship with our city attorney. I am just speculating here but it just seems odd that they purposely recruited a small town legislator to pass this instead getting some Sioux Falls legislator sponsoring this, it would have had a bad look. And here’s a kicker, two Democratic legislators from SF also say they support this. Baffling that our legislature wants to have a $400 million dollar tax increase on the residents of Sioux Falls. Each penny in Sioux Falls nets $91.5M a year (end 2023 is their latest for this data). So it appears SF really could build it in 5 years if the tax was implemented which would net $457M which is very close to the estimated costs to build a CC. And this bill wasn’t written for SF. They are full of it.

————————–

Or amended to only include smaller towns who may need to build a fire station;

authorize municipalities to impose a new tax to fund capital improvement projects.

This is a 3rd penny tax move so we can borrow $400 Million for a Convention Center. The committee hearing is Thursday morning, I encourage anyone who may be there to speak against this bill, it could cost taxpayers in Sioux Falls $400M.

Advocates,

    Please help oppose HB1050. It would allow cities an extra whole percent sales tax for special projects.

    The problem:  It takes food off tables. That should be enough said.

  • Food insecurity is on the rise in South Dakota. It is already a herculean effort for non-profits to meet the need. Feeding SD saw increases last year in families coming for food, student backpacks with weekend food, school pantries,  and senior boxes.

• Sales tax is harder on lower-income households than on those with upper-incomes. South Dakota has the 6th most regressive tax structure in the nation.

• Sales tax is very regressive, especially where it’s on groceries. Lower-income households pay a bigger portion of income on food. We have the nation’s 4th highest grocery tax.

•  Already, the total(state+city) food tax you pay over a year could buy all your food for over 3 weeks.

• This one percent would be a 50% increase in city sales tax. 

• South Dakota is a low-tax state, but not for the lowest-income group. [https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/ ]

 Other background info: 

  Legislators console themselves by noting that the bill requires a public vote, has a 5-year limit on the special tax, and a 2-year gap before the next one. But is a short-term hunger increase ok?

  Cities are already allowed 2% sales tax. Cities are not allowed to have a different rate on food. States may, but not cities. So there’s no use suggesting that amendment. [Streamline sales tax rules]

   No matter how much we might appreciate the legislators who are on this bill, HB1050 is one of this year’s bills toughest on our low-income neighbors. A legislator’s name on a bill doesn’t mean he/she will continue to support it. Feel free to ask them to vote No on it.

   What I don’t know is whether this would be useful for small towns. But for sure, Sioux Falls city leaders always have expensive projects they would love to fund, even projects that aren’t necessarily accessible to low-income residents.

Please make contacts today(Tue) or tomorrow, because House Taxation meet at 7:45am(6:45am Mt) on Thursday. Please ask these Rep’s to Oppose HB1050: Aaron.Aylward@sdlegislature.govJeff.Bathke@sdlegislature.govJohn.Hughes@sdlegislature.govCurt.Massie@sdlegislature.govWill.Mortenson@sdlegislature.govPeri.Pourier@sdlegislature.govTony.Randolph@sdlegislature.govChristopher.Reder@sdlegislature.govKent.Roe@sdlegislature.govTim.Walburg@sdlegislature.govKeri.Weems@sdlegislature.govMike.Weisgram@sdlegislature.gov,

Thank you for speaking up. Low-income people don’t have lobbyists.

Cathy Brechtelsbauer for the Advocacy Project

“No other tax so directly takes food off tables.”

On sales tax by long-time director of Feeding South Dakota, Matt Gassen

More evidence the SD State Legislature is out of touch with constituents

The sad part is that they don’t care and are on a mission from God;

  • By a 36%-58% margin, voters oppose “a school voucher program, also known as education savings accounts, where the state gives parents tax dollars that pay for their student to attend a private school or be homeschooled rather than a public school.”
  • This opposition includes parents of public school students (21% of the electorate), who oppose the proposal by a 33%-58% margin.

When I talk to parents that home school or send to private school (Chritian) they are opposed to them also. They understand that it is a CHOICE to send their kids to whatever school they want to and enjoy that freedom. They feel that public funding should only be for public schools and this is a slippery slope. I would agree. Of course the legislature claims public schools are ‘indoctrinating’ students. Which I found laughable since public school kids are not forced into Mass during the school day. Let’s talk indoctrination. This will likely pass with the 10 Commandments, and once again the SD State Legislature which is 90% right wing nutzos, didn’t listen to the voters just the Bible stuck up their arsses.