As I said last week, I had no doubt this would pass, but I am baffled that a public official would brag about spending our taxdollars this way, especially after the county and school district just had opt-outs and we have a 38% reserve in the city, and we are planning to bond $30 million for a fire/police training center (that we selfishly won’t allow other communities and law enforcement entities help us with because we want ‘control’). Something is out of whack folks.
Last April (2018) the city council decided to deny a beer and wine license to West Mall 7. All eight councilors voted against it, which I felt was one of the most ignorant moments in council history, and proved to me that the council (and planning commission) only approves things for the rich, powerful and well-connected in Sioux Falls.
Fast forward to the State Theatre wanting a license and some on the council still defend their vote saying there wasn’t a sufficient security plan. WTF?
Frager had planned to sell alcoholic beverages at a different space than the regular concession area and require folks to present identification to prove they’re of age. They’d also have to wear a wristband so staff could tell if someone holding a beer or wine had their IDs checked.
You know, the same security plan ALL city owned entertainment venues have right now. As I said at the time of the vote, what is stopping me from handing a drink to a minor at the EC, the Pavilion or the Levitt after I legally buy it? At least councilor Starr has realized it was a stupid vote (that and the fact that I chide him about it weekly.) I also find it ironic that the same members of the RS5 (Neitzert and Erickson) defend their ignorant votes on the WM7 issue that same as they defend the votes on the DT Parking Ramp. True Trumpists, when caught in a F’up, double-down on the F’up.
Now that the city council has kept minors safe from the dangers of Coors Light, let’s go throw some axes while throwing back some beers! No safety issues there!
As I have talked about, I find it a little irritating that we are gifting the State Theatre $1.5 million based on the request of Denny Sanford.
Here are FOUR reasons we should say NO to this request;
SANFORD MADE MOST OF HIS FORTUNE BY PREYING ON PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT
And the Feds responded with major changes to the credit card laws;
The Credit CARD Act of 2009 prohibits upfront fees from totaling more than 25 percent of the card’s total available credit in the first year, and the rules that take effect in October provide greater detail on what that means. Specifically, the new rules expand the definition of “upfront fees†to include fees charged before the account is opened (for example, an application fee), not just those charged after it is opened.
Not only was Sanford involved, but our last mayor was the VP of Marketing for this subprime scheme.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SAID ‘NO’ TO A LARGE SANFORD DONATION
While Sanford has maintained it was the University’s fault this didn’t go through, the University says otherwise;
Then, in 2002, he reached out to his alma mater, the University of Minnesota. He offered $35 million for the construction of a new football stadium. Your idea of what happened next depends a lot on your loyalties. The University claimed Sanford wanted “too much control†over the project, and the two parties failed to reach an agreement. Sanford alleges the University got greedy, more than doubling the projected cost of the stadium, trying to coax a few extra millions out of Sanford’s pockets. He pulled out, feathers ruffled.
The other story was that Sanford wanted his name on the building to.
MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERALÂ PREVENTS SANFORD MERGER
Minnesota State Lawmakers got a little nervous about the merger;
Why did Sanford pull out of the talks? The prospect of the two $3 billion hospital systems merging alarmed some Minnesota leaders. The Minnesota Attorney General, Lori Swanson, called a press conference in late March to express concerns about Fairview assets remaining in Minnesota after a merger, and speculated about the future of the University of Minnesota’s teaching hospital, operated by Fairview, after a merger with an out-of-state entity. She convened a public hearing on short notice, on a Sunday in early April, and promised additional inquiry into the proposed merger. Two Minnesota state legislators introduced a bill to slow or stop the merger. Facing public suspicion and politicians intent on slowing, if not stopping, the merger, Sanford Health decided to cease merger discussions.
I met and spoke with AG Swanson shortly after this happened at a political event in Minneapolis. She basically told me that once their office started digging around on Sanford, the more concerned they got.
SANFORD HOSPITAL IS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR MEDICARE FRAUD
This of course is still going through the courts and investigation mode, but if found guilty there could be HUGE repercussions for the entire community;
Two doctors employed by Sanford Health are suing the company and one of its neurosurgeons, accusing them of defrauding the federal government and harming patients by performing unnecessary surgeries. Dustin Bechtold and Bryan Wellman filed the lawsuit in 2016, and a federal judge unsealed it Thursday. The complaint says Sanford Health has been buying medical devices from a company owned by Dr. Wilson Asfora, and that the surgeon uses those devices in unnecessary spine surgeries. The suit says this violates anti-kickback laws. The suit also says Sanford and Asfora billed Medicare and other programs for care that was never provided.
While Sanford has been very generous with his giving, there is certainly NO reason the Mayor or the City Council need to give money because he says so. We can say ‘NO’ to the whims of billionaires, other’s have. We just lack the courage.
I decided to watch from home tonight, I have no doubt the funding will pass even though only 6 members will be voting on it next week. I guess there is even a part of me that is still kind of neutral on the topic, since I do support it’s opening soon and have helped in the past with private fundraisers. I do understand the economic impact of the State Theatre would eventually pay itself back in the form of entertainment taxes (one of the few smart things I have ever heard Kiley say).
The money isn’t the big issue. As councilor Starr pointed out, we could easily take it out of the enormous reserve fund and it wouldn’t even make a blip.
My issues are;
• We shouldn’t take it out of Entertainment tax fund, it does set a precedent.
• 1st Reading was done without a completed contract (the finance director said it won’t be completed until Thursday and the council won’t be able to make any changes – or only minor ones). This is also a precedent because we had a 1st reading before we had a completed contract (still completely baffled by this).
• We are doing this on the whim of a Billionaire, and that is what torques me off the most. We should be making these gifting decisions based on what citizens want, and to be honest with you, besides the administration, the city council, the board members of the State Theatre and a handful of DT business owners I haven’t heard one single citizen tell me they are ok with giving this money, in fact most don’t even know or care.
But what was most fun (disgusting) to watch was the performance of three of the members of the RS5, and their ‘I was against this before I was for it.’ Yeah right.
Theresa tried to get it deferred for two weeks because she was going to be gone next week and she wanted time to look over the contract. Soehl, in his true clown car sort of way, informed Theresa that he would be gone next week to, and it didn’t matter, because the city’s business needs to keep moving (like this is some kind of emergency – the project has been farting around for almost 25 years, an extra week isn’t going to kill it). But what was even more funny is Soehl said he supported the gift even though he has never been in the building.
Besides Kiley making a good point about the economic impact he told one of his sappy stories that no one gives Two Sh*ts about.
Like I said, the train is already down the tracks and if I was the State Theatre board, I would have cracked the champagne bottle tonight, because there is nothing the RS5 won’t refuse, especially if it keeps their heads well mounted up Denny’s butt.
Hopefully they will play my favorite comedy of all time, “Coming to America.”
Rev. Brow: “If loving the Lord is wrong, then I don’t wanna be right!”
UPDATE II: This is actually councilor Pat Starr’s amendment below. As I understand it to, the State Theatre folks have to prove they have raised $2.5 million before Denny or the City will give the money. Like I said, we need more questions answered;
As if we already forgot about the tactics of the last administration of Secret, Secret, Secret, RAMROD! The TenHaken team of perpetual intellectuals have decided they would pull a Bucktooth & Bowlcut move with the funding of the State Theatre.
If you look at the 1st Reading of the ordinance to fund the State, you will see there is ONLY a short ordinance (Item #16). There is NO contract attachment.
I asked a couple of city folks yesterday where the contract was that the council was supposedly helping to ‘tweak’. The administration’s answer? (or at least I think it is coming from one of them) is that they would work on that between the 1st and 2nd reading.
WTF?!
Aren’t these ‘minor’ details supposed to be worked out before you put something on the official agenda? And how is it that the administration is putting a budgetary expense on the agenda and NOT the council? There are many questions that need to be answered by the State Theatre folks before this money is handed over. It would be nice if everyone just cooled their jets before we get all the facts of the deal and an actual agreed upon contract. Trust me, we haven’t forgotten about the tactics of the last dude, so don’t even go there.