Uh Oh. Detroit’s ballot measure possibly “illegal”

PP you should be on be on Detroit’s side. Isn’t lowering taxes a conservative thing to do?

We should all be against wasteful gov spending. Detroit was trying to get it stopped in Sioux Falls. But “fiscal conservative” Dave Munson is leading the tax and spend republicans on the council to borrow $38 million with the hope that the Feds will repay the city after the project is completed.

Want to bet your lunch money that will ever happen?

Did I say I was taking anyone’s side on this? Don’t assume.

detroit was right on this one. good for him.

Sorry to jump the gun PP.

Once again, Sioux Falls city government is proof that S.D. Republicans are just bad with money. Too bad Windsor* Lewis and his group got stopped before they got started. Perhaps PP will provide some guidance to Windsor and his fellow neophyte tax cutters?

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

*For those of you who don’t get the joke, Windsor is across the river from Detroit.

I guess it goes all the way back to 2004. The city has already borrowed $165 million in bonds against the 1.92% rate and added another $38 million last night.

Munson has been very bad for the city’s bottom line, we will be paying for his spending spree for a very long time.

I will be working very hard over the next year to recruit progressive, young and fiscally responsible candidates to run for city council and mayor in 2010. Sioux Falls needs to get rid of the big government mold that has been collecting at Carnegie hall for too long.

But I wonder why Sioux Falls has done such a good job in growing and progressing…recognized nationally as well.

I think Detroit was more anxious to get publicity, than to save anyone money on this deal.

If you assume one of the residents of Sioux Falls that was unemployed, or for whatever reason had very little money, spent $15000 a year at retail, which is quite a lot considering there’s no sales tax on rent, etc…. his plan would have saved them one-tenth of a percent on sales tax, or $15 a year. That’s it, a whole buck and a quarter a month… real life-changing deal.

I’m guessing the Argus pays Detroit more than that just to stir things up for them.

10:05, i can’t begin to tell you how much i hate that argument in favor of tax increases — that it’s just a little bit a year.

those little tax increases build up, after awhile. time and time again, we’re told that it will only cost the taxpayer a few extra bucks. it’s a death by a thousand cuts.

detroit is absolutely in the right on this. munson has spent and spent and spent … and spent some more. at some point it has got to stop.

As long as the spending is used to create taxable revenue streams (i.e. a decent events center) I’m all for it. I hate taxes as much as the next person, but this city is falling way behind in things that improve the quality of life for its citizens like an events center, indoor pool, soccer facilities, hockey facilities, etc. Think of how many high quality concerts, regional soccer, swim and hockey events we’ve missed out on because of the penny pinching, anti “elitist” idiots that are out there.

I’m confused, I thought DL was a liberal demo. Now he’s against taxes. He’s apparently one of these nondescript populists I think.

DUH- I know, next thing you know cats and dogs will be sleeping together.

To make it simple here I go. Conservatives hate all taxes that don’t benefit them. Liberals hate taxes that benefit the rich, conservatives and tax poor people.

Anon 10:05

I think Windsor is sincere in his desire to hold the line on taxes. I think we should all welcome his activism and desire to enter the fray. More citizens should take a page from his actions and get involved.

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

I think people need to bring all those little pennies together and then look at the FULL picture. Look at the peoples out of pocket cost. The taking of pennies comes from the local level and the state level and never forget about the BIG FEDERAL LEVEL!

“Just a little for this and just a little for that” all adds up for the tax payers!

“I think Detroit was more anxious to get publicity, than to save anyone money on this deal.”

Publicity for what? To get a better job? To run for office? I have no intentions of doing either anytime soon.

I decided to help with this because spending in SF is outta control and we need to send a message to this mayor that were sick of it. Some people ‘do things’ for personal gains, when it comes to political matters I do it for my own wellbeing and comfort, I actually enjoy helping citizens, is that so hard to believe?

As for being a Dem, I have been a registered Indy since 2001 and would never return to either party. I believe in progress, but I also believe in fiscal responsibility, they can co-exist.

This city could have the best damn roads and public facilities in the nation without borrowing a dime or raising taxes if we cut all the frills. It’s government’s job to provide essential services to citizens not to entertain us, if we can afford those extras, great, but we should take care of ALL the citizens first not just a select special interest group, and we shouldn’t borrow money to build these things.

duh, outside of perhaps the events center — and that’s still debatable — those are all things that should be privately done, and already are.

“indoor swimming pool?” why should our tax dollars build something that competes with all the private indoor swimming pools in town?

“hockey facilities?” if our taxes should be used for hockey facilities and soccer fields, why not any other hobby? where does it stop?

your smash against “anti-elitists” is as bad as their smashes against “elitists.”

i’m not either, nor am i one of those “nondescript populists.” i’m a principled constitutionalist who believes that the government’s role is not neccesarily to build soccer fields and paint pictures.

“all the private indoor swimming pools in town”?
The Y? Avera McKennan? Sanford Health?
Do you also get angry at the city golf courses competing with the two “Private” courses in town?
Because if you look at the price structures of those “private indoor pools” you will find something approaching country club rates.
Where were you when the softball estates were being built? When those soccer fields were being expanded?
For that matter, my kids have graduated. Why do I have to help pay to improve or replace Howard Wood. The Birdcage?

And all of you d*** kids…get offa my lawn!!!!

Lexrex:

As your comments were addressed above, I will add on:

First, these don’t need to be sport specific, i.e. a soccer field that can be covered for ice (like was proposed and that penny pinching idiot mom got shot down).

Indoor swimming pools. Can’t be privately funded, cost too much and it would be prohibitive for those kids with no $$ to use them in the winter. Availability? Try swimming at that cluster the Y. Stats say that open swim is for about an hour a day. What about the little kid now that wants to go swimming but can’t because mom and dad can’t pay the Y’s bend over fees or even remotely afford Sanford. “Let’s go swimming in the Big Sioux Johnny…” Revenue, an 8 lane 50 meter pool would attract regional swim meets. 1-2 parents, a couple of other kids in tow, hotel, restaurants, shopping, sales tax, do the math. = $$$.

Hockey - it’s a joke. 8 year old Jimmy now has to practice from 9:30-11 p.m. on a school night. Or he could go in at 5 a.m. The facilities are a joke. Again, hockey tournaments = $$$.

Soccer: Indoor facilities here are non existent. The only decent one is the Avera Dome which is controlled by Dakota Gold. No other facilities exist. AGAIN, soccer tournaments = $$$.

If you can find a private factor that can handle these, fine. However, the city could make this a profit center generating millions in sales tax while providing a way for Johnny to exercise, socialize and hopefully prevent him from becoming a fat ass like 55% of the SF population.

THC, your last comment underlines why things can’t get done here. Citizens with no fortitude after getting rid of their own kids. That is selfish, pure and simple. It’s off to the nursing home with you…

REF Detroit-
I think this site gives this gentlemen way to much credit. On another post he said “I learned a long time ago, the less you work, the less you make, the less you make, the less you worry and the more you enjoy life”. If you have tallents, this to me is passing the buck to others to make up for your lack of drive in the form of taxes. There would be no Bill Gates or Mother Terresa with that approach to life. Then he proceded to call my kids “turds” in his ever expanding vocabulary because of his inability to debate but just name call. Im for the least amount of taxes possible, but we need to continue to attract jobs to keep our kids here. Alot of the above is what does that. His approach to taxation is its a great tax as long as he doest have to pay for it. Correct me detroit but you advocate a income tax, right?

if what you’re saying is true, DUH, then you are proposing the city get into something that can’t provide the revenue streams you want. are you saying the city is better at finding profitable enterprises than the private sector? i doubt that.

if the free market can’t support an indoor swimming pool, then why try to force the majority of taxpayers to foot the bill for a minority of swimmers?

besides, if the free market can’t support it, then it sounds like a bad investment for the taxpayers.

if soccer fields and swimming pools = $$$, then it sounds like you and a group of investors should get some $$$ together and build them. go ahead, get rich. i hope you do.

i have young children. i love sports. i like concerts. most of the stuff you’re proposing. but i don’t like forcing others to pay for mine and my children’s hobbies.

there has to be some principle that guides you in this, because if it’s merely about creating revenue streams for the city, then why not fund a movie theater? or an ethanol plant? a hospital? or how about the city go out and purchase a sporting goods store? put it in right next to scheels. all those things could bring $$$ to the city. good, right?

You could say that every project only benefits a minority. For instance, I’ve never used the multicultural learning center, many of the public buildings and many of the librarys and 85% of the roads in this city.

The point is to provide facilities that citizens or youth, you couldn’t afford these things on a private basis, hence quality of life. Really no different from the bike trails and such, except, revenue could be generated from them, wheras the bike trails cannot.

the majority v. minority thing wasn’t really the thrust of my argument, DUH. but i agree with you on that point.

but where does it stop? if you’re not guided by free-market principles, then what? who determines “quality of life?” it sounds like you think the government should.

Maybe all roads should be privately owned toll roads, lexrex.
You and your free market pals could clean up.

Multicultural centers and homeless shelters are good to have whether you use them personally or not, because they are important to diversity education and the public safety of our community, you can’t put a price on that. Last I checked the bike trails and parks were FREE to use. Most of the entertainment facilities that we subsidize in this city still require us to buy a ticket to enter them. I don’t expect they make a profit, but should at least be able to break even, especially with what they charge for tickets, but that’s what happens when you have beaucrats run something that private industry would be much better at.

As for an indoor pool, I researched how many we have in Sioux Falls that the public can use for a fee (just like a municipal pool) There is 8 at various wellness and fitness centers and over 25 at various hotels and motels throughout the city. I opposed an indoor municipal pool because I don’t think we should take a loss on competing with private industry.

1:52 - I still think your kids are turds, I meant it in an endearing way, but I figured you wouldn’t get it.

Plus, we should probably get rid of Mt. Rushmore, lr.

Just think of all the time and money people are spending up there
when they could be paying some private entrepreneur to see something else.

Oh DUH…at 1:33…

And that is why South Dakotaq is essentially so boring.

It’s citizens, by and large…are irony-challenged.
Because that last comment in my post to the chronically-dyspeptic but oh-so-”principled constitutionalist” was exactly that.

We are supposed to be all in this together.

BWEEEEEP! BWEEEEP! BWEEEEP!
IRONY ALERT IRONY ALERT IRONY ALERT
But not if I don’t like YOUR project. Then I have to stand on principle.
That is how too many “principled constitutionalists” in this state can bitch about public pools but be fully supportive of farm welfare (oops..subisides) and government handouts to the ethanol industry-which will NEVER be anything more than a regional act of patriotism.

The free market is so bracing! We can sell the softball fields, the golf courses, the soccer fields, the bike trail, The Bird Cage, Falls Park, and all those other parks.
And then we can make sure those damned kids stay off our lawn.
BWEEEEEPBWEEEPBWEEEP!IRONY ALERT OVER!!! Tongue is now firmly out of cheek!!!!

THC:

And you stay off my lawn! (TDE pulls up his pants to his nipples and proceeds to complain about the government to his three dogs.)

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

bf, there you are. as for roads, they’re constitionally arguable. as for mt. rushmore, not really sure what the federal constitution argument is for or against. good question.

i’m pretty certain, though, about the government’s role when it comes to swimming holes and skating rinks.

detroit, you lost me when you argued that “diversity education” is part of the government’s responsibility. not sure what your basis is for that conclusion. i admire you for trying, but you’re all over the map, homeskillet.

THC, you’re absolutely right. once one argues that specific welfare for one industry is acceptable, it must be for all.

Educating immigrants about our culture. They get into less trouble with the law in turn saving taxpayer’s money the same could be said about the homeless.

DL 2:48 said: “As for an indoor pool, I researched how many we have in Sioux Falls that the public can use for a fee (just like a municipal pool) There is 8 at various wellness and fitness centers and over 25 at various hotels and motels throughout the city. I opposed an indoor municipal pool because I don’t think we should take a loss on competing with private industry.”

You’ve ignored the fact that you either have to pay $100/month + for the privilege of using the pools at the wellness centers or you don’t get to swim. Most don’t let you just pop in for a dip. Also, these facilities can’t be used by swim teams, ya know, the rich people sport. You normally can’t go to the hotels to use them unless you’re staying there. The indoor pool, if constructed properly would generate money in the form of rentals, sales taxes for the attendees and the families in the city and would generate more exposure and $$ for the city in the form of swim meets, regional meets etc. The municipal indoor pool wouldn’t be competing with private industry because they don’t have the facilities to which I describe. None of the wellness centers have the facilities to host a tournament. If we have a swim meet in SF, you have to go to the Elmen Center which is adequate at best, if they’re available. The Y is a joke atune to a mouse running through a maze. Go to RC, Aberdeen, Mitchell, Brookings, Pierre, they all have 5 to 8 lane pools which attract tournaments and I bet they float the boat financially. It comes down to be progressive rather than scroogish and short sighted. Get the tally on the revenue generated from summer soccer’s regional tournaments. I’ll be the revenue impact to the city is over a couple hundred thou.

Hockey, NOTHING HERE. All teams have to go to Fargo, Minneapolis, etc. There our citizens get to give those cities our sales tax.

Indoor Soccer, nothing.

Then it comes to the bottom line of what opportunities are out there for our kids. Act like a kid on a weekend night in Sioux Falls and see how much there is to do in this town. Gigglebees? Nope that trap was buldoezed. Let see, ya got movies, cruising the loop (illegal now thank God) and sitting at home getting fat and playing the Call of Duty 4, 5, 6 and 7.

so anything that saves the city some money becomes the city’s responsibility? tracking your argument against the city indoor pool, there are plenty of good private orgs that do great work with immigrants and the homeless. why should the city do it?

calling ballot measures ‘illegal’ is what the government officials in power do when citizens appear poised to ‘mess with’ their revenue streams.

that doesn’t mean it’s true. it’s a scare tactic. and in this case, it’s definitely not true. the constitution doesn’t require cities to raise taxes except to the level of the actual debt service, which is a fraction of what the city’s revenues go toward paying. read it yourself: Article XIII, Section 5. cities can’t stop paying their bond obligations, and they must levy taxes to pay those bond obligations. it doesn’t say cities can’t cut taxes.

and, seriously, it wouldn’t make any sense if that were true. a city can raise its sales tax indefinitely, but can’t cut it until the very last bond payment is paid?

To keep the indoor pool debate going, when Mitchell has a better facility than Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls has a problem.

And eight-lane, 100-meter pool can be divided into two 50×25 yard pools with a moveable bulkhead.
So it can be open for public swimming AND swim club practice simulaneously-both revenue generators.
It can be used for adult lane swimming on one side and kid splashing on the other.
The public has year-round indoor swimming at an affordable price-not the luxury price of the health clubs (yes, the Y is exorbitant. Evidently the downtown gentlemen didn’t like the hoi polloi around so the prices were jacked to filter out the undesirables.)
The swim clubs (there are two of them) would pay facilities fees.
And the pool itself could host not just state and regional tournaments, but NATIONAL events as well.
Now…the pool would be closed during these events but, serious revenue is generated. Not just for the pool but for Sioux Falls businesses.
I know of several regional and national tournaments that bring in as many as 1000 swimmers.
The average swim tournament starts Friday afternoon and ends Sunday.
When you have 1000 swimmers coming to town with their coaches, that can be several HUNDRED hotel rooms being rented.
Each of those swimmers has family. Several HUNDRED more hotel room, rented for an average of three nights (If folks come from a distance, it could be up to 5 nights)
They eat at restaurants, they shop at stores. They drop a LOT of money wherever they are (they ARE, after all, those RICH types we admire and abhor simultaneously.)
If you host four of these events every year (not to mention several winter meets sposnored by Snowfox and the STATE tourney with an average of 275 swimmers for at least two nights), you are generating some serious money in the local economy.
You are providing a recreational facility for all ages at an affordable price, you are renting the facility to two swim clubs for practice, you are renting the facillity to those same clubs to host swim meets and you are renting it to various components of USA Swimming for regional and national meets. Believe me…the SNOWFOX and SEALS parents would bust their backs to bring those kinds of tournaments to Sioux Falls.

It would be a revenue generator for the Sioux Falls Metro.

Or we can just tell people to stay the hell off our lawn.

THC, so if a nearby city has a better “x”, we should use our tax dollars to one-up them? is that our standard for spending tax dollars?

if you can generate that kind of money, you should be able to convince some local investors to sink their money into it. but just because you can’t or won’t, doesn’t mean you should foist it upon the taxpayers.

You know what…I don’t really have a dog in this hunt.
My kids are grown and making lives in states that have a sense of public service and are not governed by the “virtue of selfishness”>
They’re smart kids too. South Dakota could have used them.

You don’t get the point in your haste to condemn any kind of public works project (sell the roads too-make e’m toll roads)
The facility can and WOULD make money for Sioux Falls.
Sell the Convention Center while you are at it. And the Arena.

And keep those kids off your lawn.

it’s funny that this whos issue has become “detroits”, when it was a nice little music teacher and some bread for the world nuns who impacted mr. ershisman enough to actually do something.
maybe you don’t like his mode of operation, but watch out, i’m sure there’s a real s h i t storm brewing, because this is not the end.

“Promote the general welfare.” That’s the constitutional basis, lexrex. It’s not very specific, is it. Man, if only they’d just have put “swimming pools” in there.

10:11 - You are exactly right. I didn’t have a vote in the matter and was asked to join the campaign ‘AFTER’ they decided on the decrease. My suggestion was to lower the tax to 1.75% So it would have a REAL impact on people’s wallets. I still think the 1.9% is good for several reasons, sending a message to our elected officials that we want them to make cuts instead of continuing to raise our taxes. The Sioux Falls tax revenue has doubled since 1997. Even if you factor in inflation and population growth, it is pretty obvious the revenue has been squandered. I have asked the council and mayor about this several times and all I get is blank stares. Go figure.

I was asked to help with the measure because of my knowledge of SF city government and council meetings. I haven’t missed a meeting for over a year and a half.

As for the indoor pool, I will say it again, it is not government’s responsibility to ENTERTAIN us.

So Detroit, we should do away with the National Art Gallery, Mt. Rushmore, Custer State Park, and the Drama departments at state schools? Come on.

so now you want to get ugly about it and twist my words, THC? you don’t know me well enough to say that i’m motivated by selfishness. i’ve explained my position and reasoning. if you want to cast aspersions, type away. but it’s not helping.

bf, i think you need to look at what “general welfare” clause meant at the time it was written. if it meant to include anything under the sun that may have in some way contributed something to society, then there would have been no need to list those other specific items in article 1, sec 8.

it’s like asking if you would get me some groceries. if i had just left it at that, you could’ve gone and bought anything that qualified as a grocery.

but instead i said, “get me some groceries,” and “here’s a list of what i want.” i want a stick of butter, a loaf of bread, and a carton of milk. but because you’re too fixated on the first part of my request — “get me some groceries” — you think it’s okay to also get me some twinkies and a 6-pack of miller lite.

further, the word “general” should be viewed in the sense that “welfare” should not be provided to specific people or groups, but rather generally — i.e., in a way that treats people equally.

Come on, don’t blow smoke at me, lr. Tell me what “general welfare” means, not what it doesn’t. And also tell me whether or not we live in the same culture today as we did in the 18th and 19 centuries. Thanks, mon.

Is this the proper definition, lr?

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Bill - I’m okay with taxdollars going to indoor pools, etc if there is a NEED. There is no reason why a municipal pool couldn’t be self-sufficient. The problem in SF is there is already other private indoor pools, that offer more then just swimming. I don’t think it is wise to compete with private industry using my taxdollars. I would have supported the indoor pool 110% if there wasn’t any other indoor pools in the city, there is over 30. It’s a losing deal. You have to remember, the city golf courses make the city money. I’m not asking municipal recreational and entertainment facilities make a profit, but at least find a way to be self-sufficient if you are charging a fee to use them. If a need ‘really’ exists it shouldn’t be a problem. The need is not there.

Ok, Detroit, you’re off the hook, except to say that public bath houses, wells and fountains have, for millennia, been considered a good physical (and spiritual) health idea. Even the Essenes at Qumran (the Sons of Light) had ‘em. Maybe swimmin’ holes and hydrotherapy should be a public health priority and let the capitalists pick up the slack with high end water slides and other niche market aquatic diversions. (How about a squirt gun fight park?) Just one more way we’ve got things wired backwards these days, huh?

bill, i explained to you what “general welfare” means. and it’s not just as simple as pulling up dictionary.com and looking it up.

it meant that any laws passed by the federal government ought to affect people generally, or equally, not specifically. if it meant anything at all, then they would not have listed those various things in article 1 sec 8. your interpretation makes that list redundant.

the general welfare clause is defined by the powers listed immediately after it. and one thing the framers of the constitution made sure was that the powers of the federal government should not be left to vagaries. the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn’t positively authorized to do. read the federalist papers about federal powers.

and it’s important to look at what was intended then, not now. words and their meanings change over the years.

if the constitution is meant to evolve and change with cultures, then there would be no need to create a constitution in the first place. if you want to expand the general welfare clause’s meaning, we have an amendment procedure in place to do that.

THC 5:26. Right on! Put yourself in for a raise. Those are some of the points that I was trying to make, albeit, apparently I didn’t do a good job. Here we are using government money to make money and provide services to our citizens and promote our city. This is not a venture that any private firms would be interested as they have responsibilities to their investors and would jack up the prices. That doesn’t mean the city would be getting a goose egg, just something that isn’t attractive to the private sector.

DL 10:42 - Let’s put it this way, there are NO pools that would provide services to our populous without whacking them with the Y-like outragious prices. You go to a pool in the summmer, what’s the cost? $2? Good to the Y or any of the other places, and you probably won’t be granted admission. Also, none of these locals provide a venue for swim meets and regional/national tournaments which bring in serious ching. I don’t know how else to state this so you can understand. There’s even fighting within the industry. Example: Sanford gets real estate tax breaks on their wellness centers because they attach some BS medical/hospital/nonprofit connection with it. Sioux Empire fitness and others like them (which there are really none) get no benefit and thus the playing field is unfair. Plus, when T. Denny gets a whim to drop a few pounds, he can whip out his check book and drop a few hundred grand in the facilities, which are as much a profit center as McDonalds but they get serious real estate tax deductions because of their nonprofit status.

If all these ‘quality of life’ projects this current administration built were supposed to bring extra revenue into the city why have we had to borrow over $200 million dollars since Munson has been mayor? You would think the coffers would be overflowing with money if we believe your argument.

furthermore detroit, who decides something qualifies as a “quality of life” project? mayor munson? kermit staggers? i like them both, but i don’t trust them to make such decisions.

bf, read federalist paper #41. madison explains the general welfare clause far better than i.

and get me those twinkies and beer.

Comin’ right up, lr. Gotta pay the teacher.

DL:

So your’e saying the $200 mil was because of the quality of life projects?? Wrong. First, there are few projects that actually have the capacity to bring in money year in and year out, hence my statement on the pools, rinks, fields etc.

What quality of life projects are you referring to? Falls park, no admission, no revenue. Pavillion, mgmt issues and the simple fact that not everything makes money and the goal is to cover expenses. In addition, you cannot look at a project on it’s books in isolation and determine whether it’s making money or not without looking at the tax impact of its existence. For instance, some artist comes and play at the pavillion, the pavillion may have only generated, lets say $5,000.00 net. Then you also need to factor in what these attendees did, if they were out of town attendees, then you have hotels, restaurants, shopping, gas, food, etc. Then it shows that the pavillion is making more than is simply shown on their books. Conversely, the ideas that I’ve proposed would make money, not just float.

thanks, bf. you’re a good friend. internet friend, anyway.

Duh-

You obviously haven’t looked very closely at Munson’s CIP budgets, he is good at doing the bait and switch, he did it again the other night with the 41st street bridge. Munson only borrows money for NEEDS so no one sees all the money he is SPENDING on WANTS in the CIP budget.

The 41st street bridge, which will cost us $12 million to built was originally in the CIP, but Munson pulled it out and threw it into the levee loan. Why? He wanted to spend that $12 million on some more legacy projects.

He has cleverly done this several times. He has found after the indoor pool vote failed that citizens don’t want to borrow money for WANTS, so instead of paying for projects like Lewis and Clark from the general budget, he borrows the money instead, cuz golly, we NEED water.

I advise you to look at the city budget sometime, you’ll crap your pants on all the pork in that thing.

Yeah, it would be nice to actually meet you someday, Rob.

We’ve had what… about a thousand conversations?

Happy New Year, broheem.

if you’re ever in sioux falls, bf, give me a heads-up on the blogs.

Detroitless-
Very well thought out and digestable and most important, dam good insight. I never considerwed it that way. I had a conversation with a councilperson a while back and they said something simmilar but in a different way regarding this recent bond vote. He makes it so you “have to vote for it”.
Nice work, I still disagree with you on quality of life issues & revenue not accurately accounted for at the till (say the Pavilion, all downtown businesse are busy the nights of events) because companies looking to come to Sioux Falls to employee us and our children do look at say the downtown and our park system but it shouldnt be done in the manner you say either.

As my Grandparents use to say “It’s not what you say, but how you say it”, labels and name calling really have no place in debate.