South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

Walfart

Sioux Falls Walfart

The city doesn’t even give the Walmart at 85th a good compatibility rating

l3wis 29Comments
Check out page 61 (which breaks down the scoring) and page 62 which is the city’s compatibility matrix.  These documents are found in the city’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan (CLICK:  SHAPE-TRAN)  
As you can see, putting C-4 commercial adjacent to low density single-family residential will score a 1 and is labeled highly incompatible.  This was even noted on the planning department’s staff report during an earlier council meeting on this subject.  Why is this important?  Well, the green dot allowing C-4 in this area was designated in December of 2009.  This was long after most of the people in Twin Eagle had already built their homes.  Many in the city, the media, and this blog have asked “What were these people thinking?” when they built their homes along 85th Street?
The answer, many of these people consulted city planning maps that showed this area wouldn’t be developed for another 10 years or more when they built.  Not one single resident expects this intersection to be anything but commercial, however there was no green dot there when they consulted those maps.  To expect a restaurant, office park, gas station etc…is one thing, but a big box store like WM, Menards, Home Depot, Lowes, etc…No one expected them either after the green dot came in because of these two documents. Not to mention, this will be the largest retailer in the city, if not the state (185,000 square feet) and will be open 24/7.
To the comments about the likes on FB, it shouldn’t matter if there are 2,000 people who “like” SON’s site or just 1, the fact that the city can ignore the property rights of one person, who was there first, who relied on these documents and the city’s adherence to them is enough.  If the city can simply pick and choose how it will apply these rules then everyone in Sioux Falls should be concerned. And we should be.
I remember a few years back I used to take a walk on my break at work, all year long. There was a certain retailer that never scooped their sidewalks, ever! They would just let people smash the snow down, which by the end of the season was about a 6″ sheet of ice. The irony, #1 was that they sold snowblowers, #2 they sold ice melt and #3 the city never forced them to clean the walk, or came out and cleaned and charged them. I will clarify this, the store was owned by a local family and was on a BUSY corner lot with tons of foot traffic, they are still there. Yet the city goes around charging residential citizens for cleaning sidewalks. My point? It is who you know in this town. Nevermind our little report above, WM and Lloyd have gobbs of money, we will just change the rules for them.
SF City Council Sioux Falls Walfart

SON Lawsuit Hearing will be today at 3 PM

l3wis 56Comments

Today’s hearing (Room 4B – Minnehaha CC) before Judge Tiede will largely hinge on this statute;

SDCL 9-4-5.   Annexation of unplatted territory subject to approval by county commissioners. No such resolution describing unplatted territory therein may be adopted until it has been approved by the board of county commissioners of the county wherein such unplatted territory is situate. For the purposes of this section, unplatted territory is any land which has not been platted by a duly recorded plat or any agricultural land as defined in § 10-6-31.
Source: SDC 1939, § 45.2906 as added by SL 1955, ch 215, § 1; SL 1982, ch 71, § 1.
While I’m no attorney, this statute seems pretty black and white that the land at 85th & Minnesota, which is clearly in Lincoln County, was not platted and was not approved by the Lincoln County commissioners before it was annexed by the city of Sioux Falls. This also goes back to my numerous blog posts about how the city attorney’s office thinks that State Law does not apply to the Island we live on in their minds. The city has lost several circuit and State SC cases because of this attitude, and frankly, bad lawyering. City Charter does not trump state law.
Mayor Huether has asked the citizens of Sioux Falls to “trust in the process.”  Well, it doesn’t appear that the process has been followed by his employees and you know who they get their marching orders from. This occurred during the Munson administration also (though he was more likely to break city charter then state law).*
Back to the lawsuit, Jay Woudstra, the Superintendent of Sioux Falls Christian got up and spoke out against WM at 69th and Cliff –  so why isn’t anyone from the Harrisburg School District not doing the same thing considering they have Journey Elementary, Endeavor Elementary and North Middle School (the last two being brand new and right off Western) all within a mile as the crow flies of this site.  Still a head scratcher to many I talk to. Obviously SFC is a private institution, and Harrisburg’s are public. I have noticed most public officials don’t want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. Only 2 city councilors have talked about it publicly, but the Mayor of SF & Harrisburg have zipped lips (for now anyway).
*I almost crapped a brick the other night when I saw Munson standing on Phillips to the Falls, defending Lloyd’s TIF’s for the area on TV. Talk about arrogance. Munson almost drops out of the Mayor’s race after being threatened with charges of breaking city ordinance over that street, then has the nerve to hold a TIF rally on the (illegal) street. WOW.
SF City Council Sioux Falls Walfart

The Argue Endorser’s ED board Endorses the People of Walmart

l3wis 9Comments

85th & Audie, Here I come!

Well Walmart has just received the Kiss of Death, the AL’s endorsement. Of course, the AL knew this wasn’t going to be easy endorsing one of the most corrupt and largest retailers in the nation over the rights and wishes of (model) citizens in our community (who were there long before the rezone or WM).

The endorsement is a little surprising considering that,

1)    There is a pending lawsuit &

2)    since when does the AL weigh in on zoning & planning issues?

Well, I’m sure the Ed Board knew this would be a little sticky, so they do what the MSM is good at these days when they NEED to sell an idea, mislead;

Neighbors are concerned about the traffic a supercenter will create. But we’re not convinced neighbors would feel the same if Target, Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s were opening there instead. Yet other stores would create similar traffic.

WOW, how much misinformation can the Argus Misleader pack into one paragraph? On last week’s 100 Eyes show with SON representative, Dana Palmer and managing editor Patrick Lalley, Dana clearly said she didn’t care who built there, including WM, and admitted to shopping at WM. The SON group has 2 concessions that WM won’t budge on, size of store and hours of operation. If WM would consider these concessions, not only would SON accept them to the neighborhood, it would also reduce traffic.

Then there was this (mis)statement that the AL has been inking in their paper ever since Shape SF got revoked;

. . . and if zoning changes are turned down, we’ll revert to 30-year-old zoning rules.

Dana Palmer also clarified this on the 100 Eyes show (apparently the ED Board doesn’t even watch their own programming, probably a good thing, unless of course they are trying to fall asleep).

While the current zoning law was FIRST put into place in 1983, it has been changed and tweaked several times since then. Just a few years ago the council changed the zoning notification process. So saying this is a 30-year-old zoning ordinance isn’t just misleading, it’s kind of a lie, but I wouldn’t expect anything less out of the Beck and the gang.

Developers Development SF City Council Sioux Falls Walfart

How will the SON lawsuit affect Tuesday’s August 6, City Council agenda?

l3wis 4Comments

The SF city council was scheduled to listen to the 1st reading of the Walmart Southside approval on Tuesday, August 6, still not sure if they are going to, because

1) The agenda for Tueday’s meeting is not posted yet. And

2) they may have to defer the approval due to the pending lawsuit. I guess we will find out August 6, what the city attorney’s advice will be on this.

Yesterday, Judge Hoffman recused himself from the case. I have been told it was because he knew someone personally named in the lawsuit, and it is common practice for a judge to recuse themselves due to these circumstances.

I am also awaiting details on another puzzle piece of the SON lawsuit. A couple of months ago a SON member applied for a rezone at the 85th & Audie intersection, when applying for the rezone she had to pay a fee to the city ($?). She still has not received a refund since her application was denied even though the city attorney promised to expedite it. Maybe Huether instructed the city finance department to sit on the money as long as possible so he could add it to the city’s (FAUX) reserve numbers 🙂

Sioux Falls Walfart

Besides low wage jobs, what will SF get from two new stores?

l3wis 23Comments

I bet the SF Chamber is following this closely.

The D.C. city council recently approved a law that calls for Walmart to pay what they call a living wage or $12.50 an hour, $4.50 more than the city’s $8.25 required minimum wage.

City councilman Vincent Orange says Walmart’s balance sheet can surely absorb the difference.

“Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. I know he’s not going to come to work for $8.25 per hour.”

Thirty years ago when Citibank wanted to move to SF, they intended to pay wages similar to what they paid on the East Coast.  The SF Chamber nixed the idea. All these years later, we continue to see the results of that decision.

Furthermore, how will two new stores benefit the citizens of SF? WE, have to pay for the infrastructure for the new development (water, sewer, roads) Of course, we would have to do that no matter what was built there. Yes, WM will collect sales tax revenue for the city and state, but won’t they just be stealing business away from other retailers? So it is just a tax collection shift. Then there is the low wages. Who needs an employer like this? I know the SON group says they are not opposed to WM, just the size of the store and the 24/7 retail hours, but I can honestly say, this SF resident is opposed to WM.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

1st Amendment Elections SF City Council Sioux Falls Trump

UPDATE: Let Sioux Falls Vote! Sign Data Center petition!

1st Amendment Elections Marty Jackley Mike Huether Rich Merkouris SF City Council Sioux Falls Uncategorized

Trust

1st Amendment Open Government Open Meetings SF City Council Sioux Falls

I have been telling council this stuff for over a decade

1st Amendment Music

First Ave Doc, many memories