What is really going on with the effort to get an advisory vote on the Sioux Falls city administration building?
Ostensibly, it's to give the people of Sioux Falls a chance to express their opinion about the proposed $20-something million facility. New city councilor Theresa Stehly and Stop the Funding's Bruce Danielson say that's what Mayor Mike Huether did with the events center.
But there's a problem with that: The bonds for the event center weren't issued yet. This proposed advisory election on the proposed city building would not happen until June 2017, long after the bonds would have been issued. Probably even dirt would be moved by then.
So, the opponents to the building want to have an election that doesn't count nearly nine months after the bonds were sold on the off chance that Mayor Huether might change his mind and delay the issuance of the bonds?
Has Huether changed his mind or compromised or backed down on any major issue during his six years as mayor?
No, he hasn't. Can't see him starting now when he's:
A. Broken a council tie to pass the bulding.
B. Cast a veto to prevent the current council from overturning the approval for the building by the prior council.
But the petitions!
It's not the mayor's fault the Stop the Building organizers used the wrong forms to solicit signatures. And who does the city clerk who invalidated the peitions because of the wrong form work for? The mayor? No, the council.
The only slim chances the anti-building folks have is to file an action in state court requesting an injuction against the sale of the bonds or ask for an injunction to reinstate the petitions becaus of a technical flaw in the forms.
The first option has zero chance of winning. The mayor did nothing wrong under the city charter with his vote and veto. You might not like the process, but it is the process.
The second option has some chance of winning as South Dakota courts typically don't like to see voters disenfranchised because someone didn't do their homework.
But even the injunction/court process--which is expensive--lawyers don't typically work for free--doesn't do anything more than possibly get the advisory election back on the ballot in June. And that process moves very slowly.
Looking a little deeper, Huether has done a lot for the city--and made some deep enemies along the way because of his direct--some might say "my way or the highway" style. Mayor Mike would like to be governor of South Dakota some day. He is a tireless campaigner and with his connections to banking and business, he'll be able to raise considerable campaign cash, whether he runs as a Democrat, independent, Libertarian, or whatever. Or maybe he sits out governor and runs for the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate. He's an ambitious man but a young man in great physical shape.
A well funded opponnt in a gubernatorial race in particular is not something or someone South Dakota Republicans have faced for nearly half a century. Anyone remember Dick Kneip? That's how long it's been.
So, if opponents want to color Mike as a Bill Janlow-esque tyrant, what better way than to say he jammed through a multi-million government building without a public vote?
Why else go through the rigamarole of votes that don't matter over flawed petitions for a building that's passed council consideration twice?
It's just one of those things that just makes you want to do "hmmm."