Riverline Baseball Stadium? Maybe? Still?

Lalley and I stumbled on to this story the same day. He told me there were some angles he wanted to take it so I agreed to hold off posting about it, and I am glad I did. Besides Lalley being an actual professional journalist (and myself a schlump) he was able to fish a story out of the owner of the Canaries who recently bought land by the Riverline District;

Through one of his many companies – True North SE Real Estate – Slipka purchased a plot of land adjacent to the Riverline District on East 10th Street. The Riverline District is the dreamscape that covers eight acres that the Sioux Falls Development Foundation optioned earlier this year with plans for an as-yet undetermined multi-use space.

In his telling of the story, his staff identified the two pieces of property that are now the Riverline site as a potential space for a “live, work, play” development that could be the new home for the team and a center of year-round recreation and commerce.

“The side of the story that has never been told, which is frustrating to me, is that we’ve only tried to do the right thing every step of the way,” he told me recently. “We stood down. The city said those two parcels, we’d like to pursue, and I said OK.”

Slipka did secure the rights to a third parcel, an irregular plot that currently is the home to Record Keepers, Inc., on South Franklin Avenue and tucked under the 11th Street viaduct.

“The way we see it is, it’s a prudent long-term play as an investor and as a business person. I had the option before the task force was even formed,” he said. “Was there an additional motive around potential future sites (for a stadium)? Absolutely, that was how we initially started the conversation a year or two prior to that.”

The land deals that have been going on are very interesting. I was glad to see Lalley was able to interview him, don’t think he had much luck some of the other players.

Minnehaha County Auditor will get her first test next April

There has been a lot of rumbling about how our new Minnehaha county auditor, Leah Anderson, will handle elections bringing in fellow MAGA’s to assist her recently.

Her first test will be the Sioux Falls City Council Election.* While the city manages and organizes their own elections, they will use the county’s ballot counters. Besides Leah’s inexperience, the new head city clerk, Mr. Washington, has very little election experience. While assistant city clerks Denise and Tamara have decades of election experience, and I totally trust them, they can’t pull all the levers at once or watch the process entirely. My biggest concern is the resolution board, especially if any candidates that are running have associations with Anderson. I also think we need poll watchers. As for the conflict Anderson ‘may’ have with any future potential candidates (someone who may have volunteered for her campaign or donated money) it would be wise for her to recuse herself from the proceedings if any of those associations exist.

For arguments sake, let’s say no conflicts exist, just how will Anderson handle her first election with it’s whopping 5% turnout? This is going to be fun to watch.

*I am hearing from one potential candidate in the NW district that she will be announcing in the coming weeks. I am also hearing rumors that Julian Beaudion may throw his hat in that race also (he ran against Greg last time). I also heard of a potential candidate that currently serves on the Planning Board but not sure which race they would get into. They have ran for At-Large in the past and lost. I have heard nothing either way if Jensen is going to seek a 2nd term on the council, or go run off to Pierre, though challenging Sue Peterson will be no easy task since District 13 has turned into a right wingers paradise.

City of Sioux Falls claims they have a legal obligation to raise our property taxes

Sometimes what you say is as important as what you do. In the administration’s yearly stab at raising our property taxes (even with property values and housing costs thru the roof) they are now using language that says we basically have a legal obligation to raise your taxes (Item #61):

Background & Objective: This ordinance shows the budgets of the Governmental Funds for the year ending December 31, 2024, and the required revenues and sources.

Notice the word ‘required’ added to the description. There is NO requirement that the city raises our property taxes. Budgets are fluid when you are proposing them, and the city council can amend that budget so an increase would NOT be required.

Within the actual ordinance itself, the language is even more suggestive;

That the sums of money that are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance are appropriated to meet the lawful expenses and liabilities of the City in fiscal year 2024.

So does the city council have a legal requirement to pass this? NO. The only requirement they have is to either pass it or not and adjust the budget accordingly. They do have a choice in the matter and to suggest they MUST legally pass this to uphold the PROPOSED 2024 budget is a load of hogwash.

This will likely pass with maybe 1 or 2 dissenters, but I hope a couple of the dissenters get together and have an amendment discussion about removing the language that suggests they must LEGALLY vote for the increase.

Over the years when I have seen past administrations pull this stunt where they tell councilors they have a legal obligation to vote YES I ask the question? Then why are they even bothering to vote if they have NO choice?

Cut the crap! There is NO legal requirement to raise our taxes, but there is a legal requirement that our city council acts within the best interest of the public’s coffers, and with one of the worst economic downturns since 2008 and housing costs skyrocketing, that best interest would be to vote NO on an increase and let the administration make the cuts to the budget THEY proposed. Then let them have a poutfest presser calling out the council for doing their due diligence.

MORE FUN WITH THE COUNCIL TUESDAY NIGHT

The council will also get an update on the disposal of the zoo mounts at the informational meeting, then they will be sucked into a series of executive sessions in which I’m sure they will be told they only have ONE option on the matter (because it is easier to bully councilors behind closed doors). It will also be interesting to see if the presentation includes any recommendations from experts.

During the regular meeting they will also be discussing creating an arts commission (Item #63). This is another initiative by the mayor’s office that has been shrouded in secrecy. While I support the concept of more public arts coordination with the city NOT under the current management.

After Sioux Falls Mayor TenHaken chides media about coverage on Zoo Mounts, silence

Maybe if the zoo mounts were part of a food truck they would continue to cover it?

After this last week’s presser on the zoo mounts in which Paul chided the media about all the coverage, the media has been strangely quiet since.

I know, I know, there wasn’t a donation from Sanford or rejected mural designs this week, so it has been slow, but why not some followup stories;

• Speak with National and International Natural History Experts

• Talk with legislators about changing state law

• Interview ALL city councilors about their feelings on it

• When is it appropriate to have Executive Sessions? And what can be discussed?

• Elected leaders control of the media (this would be the best story).

• If not being disposed of in the landfill, where? (I think they will be cremated, which is really no different then throwing them in the dump).

It amazes me, that ONE elected official (out of 9) can just smack the media around for a couple of seconds at a press conference and the story runs cold. You could do HUNDREDS of stories about taxidermy, natural history, city history, open government, and the list goes on.

CITY OF SIOUX FALLS & DOWNTOWN SIOUX FALLS MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY WITH BUNKER RAMP MURAL

Every time I hear anything about the Bunker Ramp and Mural, I just shake my head because of a missed opportunity. I have been stating for a couple of years that you could put a BUILDING WRAP on the ramp that would advertise all the DTSF businesses. The best part is you could pay for the wrap with ad revenue and when the building is leased or sold, you simply roll it up and dispose of it.

NO RUINED ART! NO DRAMA!

While I haven’t priced one of these in a long time, my guess is it would be cheaper then the $30K it is taking to put up a mural (original art that will be destroyed). You could also incorporate images of DTSF intertwined into the piece.

With all the people working at city hall from media and marketing you would think at least one of them would have raised their hands and said, “Why not a building wrap?”

Oh that’s right, the ONE in ONE Sioux Falls stands for the only person making decisions in this city. No wonder he is stressed!