Entries Tagged 'Village on the River' ↓

Sioux Falls Bunker Ramp, the gift that keeps giving

I think I have already written that headline . . . a couple of times. Yes folks, the lawsuits keep adding up. Now a neighbor is pissed about this unsightly project;

The owners of a neighboring building just east of the Sioux Falls parking ramp, which was supposed to become a mixed-use facility, are serving notice to the City that they may sue because the project fell through.

River Centre at 200 E. 10th Street has several owners. Earthbend Properties, LLC and Riverview Holdings, LLC, which both have interest in the building, claim the City’s failure to complete the mixed-use portion of the project has caused them a loss in business and the value of their property to go down.

This is the building to the east. I think they are suing because the bunker ramp is uglier then their building, that’s my guess anyway.

I can’t even write angry rants about this anymore because it is turning into the worst decision city elected officials (and unelected officials) ever made, and when they had an opportunity to fix it, they made more bad decisions. And get this, no one has apologized yet. Not only is Trump running our healthcare institutions in Sioux Falls, apparently he is running city government to. I’m just waiting for one of the RS5 councilors to come out and say, “My vote on the Bunker Ramp was PERFECT!”.

More twists and turns with the Bunker Ramp

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, the Bunker Ramp is the evil step child that keeps giving;

The letter also says that the completion guarantee allows them to complete the project “and the Parties hereby give notice of their intent to do so.”

They say the City’s termination of the agreement was based on “. . . acts and/or omissions by the City in reckless and negligent disregard of the rights of the Parties after termination of the Development Agreement, give rise to claims, hereby noticed, for wrongful, willful, malicious, fraudulent and/or oppressive breach of contract, civil conspiracy in doing so,”

Under state law, plaintiffs have to give notice to a government like the City of Sioux Falls before they can file a lawsuit.

In other words, the project’s guarantors want to finish the project, and they are going to sue the city to do so.

As we know (or maybe we don’t) the city dumped them because they wanted to reduce the size of the project. I still think it was a bad idea to go into business with peeps who are going to probably receive a $500K fine for the Copper Lounge building collapse (excluding Lamont, who is represented by a separate attorney in this dispute).

Either way, I suspect the city wanted an out for two reasons, and NOT because of the reduction in size;

• I believe they didn’t want to go into business with the Four Horseman who are embroiled in Federal charges.

• I also believe they have someone waiting in the wings to snatch this project up, I have my guesses, but I will keep them to myself for now. I can hear the grand arguments already “Developer ‘X’ has came in to save this project and make it even better! Not only will we roll out the red carpet for being our savior, but we will throw a TIF in to boot.”

This is all speculation of course . . .

Isn’t it crazy how our city government doesn’t even bother to hide from being corrupt anymore? The last mayor made it look so easy.

This project will go down in history as one of the WORST decisions our elected officials have ever made, and that is a hard competition to win when you are competing with Phillips to the Falls, The Denty, City Admin building, RR Redevelopment project and the Midco.

Was the Downtown Parking Ramp just a ‘SHAM’ from the beginning?

I never did have a good feeling about the project and told several city councilors that the hotel will never be completed, then I hear this;

“The NMTC is a highly competitive economic development program, which incents private investments in the poorest rural and urban communities in America,” Rapoza said in a statement. “To receive NMTC allocation from the Department of Treasury and participate in the program, community development organizations demonstrate a record of financing dynamic projects that improve services such as health care, or create jobs and opportunity in communities where capital is difficult to obtain from conventional lenders.”

Low paying hospitality jobs is hardly a good reason to give such a project tax incentives. This deal was doomed from the beginning and any city official/employee who supported this, worked on this or voted for this should be ashamed and should resign.

Is Jodi Schwan working for the City again?

So I’m reading the latest update about the private/public partnership, Village on the River;

Journey’s work has been a “key, pivotal piece” of making the project happen, said Erica Beck, chief of staff for Mayor Paul TenHaken.

“They have excellent professionalism. They’ve done a great job of creating a safe site within an urban area, which is incredibly important,” she said. “We’ve received a lot of positive comments about that – it’s a safe site and a screened site, and it’s been well-received by the public.”

So why was I not reading this on the city’s website or watching it at an informational meeting presentation? Instead I got this information on Jodi’s website in which the contractor had to pay to present it.

Am I the only one that thinks it is a little odd that after the city gave over $20 million towards this project we are not being given timely updates at public meetings? Oh, that’s right, somebody may ask the ‘Legacy’ question again, and we just can’t have that in a public setting, someone may have to either answer the question or lie. Better just to pay Jodi to get it out there.

Councilor Neitzert says people had ‘Moronic’ arguments against parking ramp

The the Sioux Falls City council got a presentation (FF: 33:0o) update on the Village on the River project at the informational meeting.

When talking about the costs associated with the parking ramp portion of the project, the city engineers(?) admitted that they had to put in a special foundation to support the ramp and hotel.

As we have argued from the beginning the ramp is costing more, not because of the number of spaces or size of spaces but because we would be footing the bill for the special foundation for the hotel.

Councilor Neitzert claimed that some people (I assume other councilors, blogs and the media) had ‘moronic’ & ‘dishonest’ arguments about cost per space and that it is costing more because of the special foundation.

Costs DOC: Site-costs

If there was anything ‘moronic’ about our arguments, it would be that Greg and the other councilors who voted for this boondoggle fiasco of a public private partnership didn’t listen to us when we told them the foundation was going to cost more due to the height and size of the hotel, not the parking ramp.

So who are the morons? Certainly not the councilors who voted against this project. They knew all along why it was going to cost so much, because the developer took us to the cleaners.

Also, councilor Brekke asks why the developer for hotel portion doesn’t have a performance bond. Funny, the administration didn’t have an answer.