Sneakers
October 12th, 2007 by 
Alica
Sneakers is on the Brandon Planning & Zoning agenda for Thursday, Oct. 18, with a request for a conditional use permit. This is the second time Sneakers has asked for a permit to locate next to the old T.O. Hass building, which now houses True Value and other businesses.
This new request does not include an outdoor patio connected to the bar. The plan does call for dining seating for 120, in addition to bar seating. Construction already has begun on a commercial building at the site, as property owner Lee Schelling plans to move his Town & Country Realtors business to that location, according to City Hall. The building will have room to hold two occupants.
How do you feel about Sneakers’ new request?
In related news, Sneakers owners Katie Thill and Mark Fonder have bought the FlatIron Pub and Grill at 5024 S. Cliff Ave. in Sioux Falls and plan to reopen it under the name Stubbies. It has been, and will continue to be, a nonsmoking bar.
Posted in Uncategorized | 
October 12th, 2007 at 6:59 am
You can put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig.
So now they claim it’s a restaurant more than a bar, loopholes.
Who ownes Sneakers????? It was for sale was it not?
October 12th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I want to know why the people of Brandon are not welcoming new businesses into this town. That would be great if Sneakers had a full menu, we need more places to eat in this town. Everyone should just stop their complaining and be happy somebody wants to start a business in a town that is known for their complaining about new stuff. Lets face it people, brandon is not your small town living anymore. I dont see what the big deal is, I drove by the new building and there is not any homes right behind the bar, to me it seems there is a buffer of storage units and an open parking lot. One more thing, I love racing, but I bet that bar will not be as loud as Husets on a Sunday night! Why dont anyone complain about that, O thats right, some hot-shot owns that!
October 12th, 2007 at 7:17 am
No one is trying to stop business and growth in Brandon. We just want it to happen in the properly zoned areas.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:27 am
To me it looks like there is businesses all around the proposed area. Could someone please fill me in on why this can not be approved, whybe I am missing something here, thank you
October 12th, 2007 at 7:30 am
New Resident,
You can review this issue under the Archives (July) section of this blog.
And people do complain about the Husets noise and the fact that Huset’s hasn’t been annexed into the city limits so they pay city taxes. (that’s all on the blog somewhere too.)
Alica,
A forum instead of a blog has a search function that would be very helpful. Maybe we could lock up this blog and use the forum message board instead. the Argus site’s is very successful
October 12th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Buy Brandon, Buy Brandon that’s all we here, That’s the city’s slogan. So why is it why a young couple wants to expand their business in Brandon …they can’t. If they would move to the ZONED section on Cedar St they would be closer to the neighborhood than they are right now. Then their business front would most likely be on Cedar St so the traffic would likely to go into the neighborhood. I did not here those neighbors complaining when they had the Kirkwood Apts full of slugs and dope? The business would still have the storage units between them and traffic would exit back onto Splitrock Blvd as it does now.
Mark and Katie keep up the excellent food. I would hate to see you guys move out of town but if the city won’t let you expand and move, I’ll come to Sioux Falls to get those wings. This city is really going to sh@#!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
AMEN!!! COMMUNITY ADVISOR
October 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I recall when Fred Torberson wanted to build a bar on Holly Boulevard, and the neighbors complained so much the City Council denied his request.
I recall when Kathy Stieben of American Family Insurance wanted to locate her business in the house on the east side of Seventh Avenue on the corner of Holly Boulevard, and the neighbors complained so much she withdrew her request.
The city continued to grow and be a good place.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Alica is correct about the bar on Holly. The council USED to follow zoning rules and listen to the residents who pay taxes on their property. Now they just amend the ordinances or give variances with no plan, rhyme or reason. It’s who you know in this town that gets you what you want.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:24 am
To #5 anonymous: I do know there have been some technical problems with brandoninfo forums in the past, but please know that I will pass along your comment about the forums to my bosses.
To those who are interested: To find previous blogging about Sneakers, go to the blog’s July 2007 archives, then to the heading “Should Sneakers move?”
To find previous blogging about Huset’s, go to the June 2007 archives then to the heading “Huset’s.”
October 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
To #6: There was a big fight about those apartments getting moved in there at the time. Residents in a 3 block radius of the location showed up at City Council meetings to try to stop it. The developer who moved them in was the Mayor at the time.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Sneakers does have some of the best food in town (have you tried their pizza??? Yummy!!)This town needs more eating establishments! I hope that they do get their permit.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Seriously….If you people would just drive by and see where the building is located you would all say “What is the big deal?” It boggles my mind that this is such a big issue…The zones were put in place years ago and obviously did not plan for the growth of the city! Do we really have to bring up the Body Shop that is is Zone B3?
October 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I think to be successful in Brandon you have to know the right people. I just moved to this town and I think is funny about the little problems this town fights about. This couple wants to build a business in town that would bring money to this town and out of towners, isnt that what a town is suppose to do, attract people to spend their money in Brandon?
October 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
New Resident seems to know how this SMALL town operates already, for being here a short time. The apts on Kirkwood are also full of black mold, check that out. How do the neighbors like that for your kids to be playing around? Just walk by the open windows that face Cedar St and you can see the walls are covered with it. So why would we want a BRAND NEW eating place near bye, may make it look better? And yes, Katie makes a mean pizza also, I think it’s the best in town!
October 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Welcome “New Resident” to Brandon! You hit it right on the nose…We have a small town mentality but the REALITY is that we are one of the fastest growing communities in the entire state of SD…It appears that we are suffering from “growing pains”! My advice to those who don’t want to allow progress is to move Valley Springs! (Here we go…suppose everyone will get into a tizzy cause I incinuated that Valley Springs isn’t a growing community…It is, I get it…just trying to make a point!)
October 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Correction: Melissa LaBahn in the city’s planning and inspections department at City Hall informs me that the Sneakers plan calls for seating for 120 total, which would include dining and bar seating.
I misunderstood her when I got the information originally, and I apologize for the error.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
As #13 Cindy says, drive by the site. I sat on the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission for six years. I can tell you from experience that the way things look on paper and the way they look in person are two very different things. It’s just like anything. Do your homework before forming an opinion.
To #14 New Resident: Re: Knowing the right people: People say that about state government and national government too. Brandon is a fine city but will have its peaks and valleys, as any community, no matter how large or small, will. We can all do our best to improve the city in everything that we do.
#16 Cindy make a good point about Brandon sometimes having an internal conflict about having a small-town feel and yet being a growing urban city. And we have many city leaders, both in and out of office, who are longtime Brandon residents. Being one of those myself, I can tell folks it’s difficult to wrap your brain around the concept of soon becoming one of the top 10 cities in the state. It takes a whole new way of thinking.
And yet we must do that. With our growing population now nearing 8,000, the majority of people in the city are most likely not Brandon natives, and they don’t remember the days of knowing everyone in town; of gravel streets; of having grown up with city personnel. Running a city our size takes a different way of thinking. It’s not necessarily better or worse; it’s just different. But it’s necessary.
Many thanks for blogging, folks. We are having some good discussions here. Questions and suggestions on Brandon issues are always welcome.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I like to list what I think are the issue that should be addressed at the planning and zoning meeting. I’m sure there are others, but as a starting point:
1. Noise - pretty generic complaint. You have slamming car doors, people yelling to each other, etc. Main issue is it does not stop at 10 pm like the race track, and it could be every day. The traffic noise would be more of an issue for the people that live across Splitrock.
2. Proximity to residential district. If you count the storage building as a house/lot and the house behind that as the first residential house, then it like having the neighbor two houses down having a party with up to 120 guests over every night (or 3 or 4 houses down the street). At least with a neighbor, you can complain. (see issue 7)
3. Allowing zoning variances for bars in a business district. If one is variance is allowed, on what grounds do you deny others? There are lots of little business districts all over town - do we want bars next to daycares and the newer residential areas when the limits on liquor licenses may be removed at the state level?
4. More drivers that have been drinking and traffic at late hours. The new Sneakers must expect to be more popular than the old - why else move?
5. Is a bar good for the community - the things variances are granted for?
6. The complete disregard of the legal process needed to do the move. The Sneakers owners were told all they needed was to move the liquor license (moved to an address that didn’t exist). The zoning variance was an after thought. The original 15 by 65 patio, when the ordinances limit outdoor drinking area to ‘beer gardens’ that can hold a max of 20 people. I don’t think they knew the law. I hope that is the case rather than they consider themselves above the law.
7. There is nothing the residents can do about it after it is built - now is the time to raise concerns.
These are the issues I see as the main ones. The current owners might be the nicest people in the world, but the bar was up for sale when they thought the last attempt was going to fail. How do you know who will own it next year? or next month!
Brandon needs a nice family restaurant - is this going to be the place? Can I bring kids into a bar for dinner at 7 pm? would I want to? All the arguments in this blog need to be directed to councilman Kloster and the planning and zoning board - all the other votes are already decided. I would like him to back the planning and zoning board - either way they go. If the Sneakers folks can convince them it is a good idea, then he should approve the variance.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Response to #19 issue #7. From what I have heard about the new Sneakers plan is to be more of an eatery/ with a sports bar kind of theme similar to that of Tailgators. Has Tailgators had a negative impact on our community? I don’t think so. The way I see it, Tailgators needs some healthy competition! Maybe the service there will improve! Options! This is exactly what this town needs! People from smaller communities in IA and MN will venture to our fair city spending their hard earned money in our town!
October 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Cindy,
The difference between Tailgators and Sneakers is Tailgators has NO residential housing around it.
I agree with the fact that once a variance is given it will open the flood gates and set precedence. How are they going to deny a variance to the next guy????
The council needs to follow the recommendations of the planning and zoning board, that’s what they’re there for. Their recommendation was no.
Brandon is becoming a town that has a reputation of not having rules that are enforced by ordinance. Very dangerous for our growth.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Serious Julie, have you seen how far the FRONT DOOR of the proposed entrance is from any back yard of the residence in question? Give me a break! They live IN TOWN…they have a body shop next door, a casino just down the street, and quick stop around the corner..A Nice bar/restaurant in the neighborhood is not going to depreciate the value of their neighborhood..In fact, it may increase it!
October 12th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Cindy, you got it wrong. You should have written ‘They LIVE in town’. They don’t just visit once or twice a week. They also need to sleep. The other nearby businesses close at 5 PM or are quiet. The others are too far away to be an issue.
October 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
#23 Anonymous.. The people that live right behind Splitrock blvd, new splitrock blvd was there when they purchased the house and new splitrock blvd was the main road through Brandon, they should have thought “Hey maybe Brandon is going to grow and Splitrock Blvd will expand and be busy” How many homes is this really goes to impact 5-10? I work the night shift and come home and try to sleep, but I have a huge daycare in my backyard with kids playing and car doors slamming, do you see me crying around about it NO. And dont anyone say that a daycare is only open till 6:00 pm unlike a bar that is open till 1:00am. The days are my nights.
I hope I didnt make a mistake for moving to Brandonm because there is a handful of cry-babies that dont want a bar 2 Lots behind homes.
October 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
The commercial building is going up whether Sneakers locates in it or not. According to City Hall, the building will have space for two occupants, Town & Country Realtors being one of them.
If Sneakers doesn’t locate in the other part of the building, what kind of business would you prefer locate there?
October 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
#24 - I’ll assume the daycare was built after you moved there. One would expect growth on Splitrock - stores, offices, etc. There are kids in that neighborhood that sleep at night - not all kids have 2 am curfews. What redeeming social values does a bar have?
October 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Alica - a family restaurant would be nice. It would be need about the same space as a bar and might close earlier. The location is probably too far from the interstate for a national chain.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
All B.S. aside, do you honestly think that this bar is really going to be that loud on the outside? Brandon sees like a darn nice community and the police officers seemed to be awesome, I really dont think that it will be that bad.. I did notice though Pizza Ranch has a beer garden on the backside of its building and homes are closer to that then the proposed sneakers. Can anyone explain how that happened?
October 12th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
#28 - I don’t think noise is the main issue since they took the patio out of the design. I think granting a variance for a bar without a good way to reject other requests is the main issue at this point. If you can’t use area residents objections, what do you use? The other concern is I don’t think residents have any recourse if they want to complain about a noisy business - any noisy business.
The beer gardern at the pizza ranch is fairly new. Any place that sells beer can open a beer garden that seats 20 people - no restrictions that I know of once the beer license is granted. I’m going to quit blogging now - I’m sure people are getting tired of me.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
So what the owners of Sneakers should do is rename the place, say it is a resturant with full bar ( Like the Steakhouse in town ) and maybe close at mid-night. I think the people that live behind the proposed sneakers have their mind set on “NO”, no matter what the owners try to do to make it work.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
#30 - I think the owners need to come up with a reason that their request is unique, and will not be like other future requests. Maybe someone on the planning and zoning board can tell us what their major objections were. Those are the votes that count. I know at the first zoning meeting they were asked if the patio was optional, and they said ‘no’. This is my last one (I’m beginning to sound like a republican senator).
October 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
That would be great, instead of fighting back and forth, the home owners, council and sneaker owners should set down and somehow meet in the middle. Because for the rest of Brandon this would be a great addition to this town. This issue really only concerns a hand full of people.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Good idea. If the neighbors in question, and the Sneakers owners, all would attend the Oct. 18 Planning & Zoning meeting, they could work out an arrangement that is suitable to all concerned. It might help for Lee Schelling to attend also, since he owns the land and the commercial building.
If the building will hold two occupants, would Sneakers be in the east or the west part of the building? Or is the building designed for north and south neighbors? The bar’s location inside the building might make a difference to the neighbors also.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I think everyone would welcome a new place, just put in a more suitable, non residential area that is already zoned B2. Problem solved.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:01 am
To #28, the reason Pizza Ranch was allowed to build the beer garden even though it did not meet the beer garden rules — The members of city council rewrote the ordinance after it was noted that there was no fence around the patio area of the golf course.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
#33. Alica, I’ve only been to the 1 P&Z meeting and 2 council meetings on this issue, but I’ve haven’t seen anything to make me think they were a place to reach a compromise. They seemed pretty confrontational to me. Most people need time to reach a compromise and nobody wants to make a concession without thinking about it. I think you need to have all your ducks in a row before you go into the meeting (as much as possible, anyway). That goes against the open meeting concept and gets you back to making decisions in smoke filled rooms. I’m not sure what the correct answer is to that.
To #30, The #34 blog sounds like you might be correct.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:36 am
So can you put a restaurant in B2? with a liquor license?
I guess I have been in Sneakers multiple times and never really heard anyone yelling at each other across the parking lot when leaving (of course it might happen every once in awhile.)
I think we need a photo of the building being built — the area behind it that buffers between this building and the houses.
Also what is the distance from the west fence of the storage unit to the back fence. It is looking like it is about 250 feet at least?
October 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
If you download google earth (free package) you can get a good look at everything - the picture is old, but it is pretty easy to see the lot the new building is being built on. They also have a tool that measures the distance between two points. I think your number is high, but I’m not really sure what two points you are measuring.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Using that tool — from the west fence of the storage area to the east fence is 0.04 miles which comes out to 211 feet — BUT using the same tool from the west fence to the back of the house is 0.06 miles or 316 feet — that is over a football field in length.
So get some people on one end of the football field and have them carrying on a conversation and see if people at the other end can even hear them.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I’ll agree with those measurements (you can actually measure in feet). Those would be from the front of the building. I live further away than that and I certainly can hear the hammers, saws and yelling from the construction during the day when I’m outside. I know that not a fair comparison, but I think the hammers are close to a car door slamming. The workers are also higher, so the sound carries better. Now that the building is up, someone could try testing out how far the sound will carry.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
continuation of #40. You made me research this. I found a site on the internet listing parking lot noises. Laughing and yelling were actually higher than slamming car doors (65 dBA vs 63 dBA at 50 feet). I don’t think any house over 400′ away would hear the noise from inside the house. That distance could be less if the building helped block the sound.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
What a great discussion. Thank you, all, for doing research on this.
I drove into the parking lot of the business complex last night, and then around the block to where the houses are. And by the time I was in front of the third house north of the auto shop, I couldn’t see the new building nor imagine being able to hear things happening at it.
How many properties are we talking about? By looking at the zoning map on the City Web site (www.brandonsd.com), it looks like there are only four residential properties abutting the commercial property in question. Are these four property owners the only ones contesting the conditional use permit, or are there others?
October 14th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Others at the first P&Z. Two people had issues with the outside patio due to potential noise and underage kids sneaking in. The patio was non negotiable in the P&Z meeting (one of the P&Z members asked). There was/is some anger about how the entire process was handled.
There are town wide concerns about granting the conditional use for a bar in a B2 zoned area. There are lots of B2 areas in town.
There are some other issues - noise from car doors and traffic (like the things being discussed here). The Sneakers folks need to be more prepared than they were at the first P&Z meeting, and I’m sure they will be. I think taking out the patio will be a major difference between this meeting and the last. I think they need to ask the P&Z members what their objections were. This is the second attempt. I think they have I right to know why they lost the first time before they go to the next P&Z meeting.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I would oppose this for one reason (I don’t live near there) It seems this has become a pattern for this council. Variance after variance after variance. They set a precedence every time they let one do it. Pretty soon everyone that wants one will have to be granted one. If you were at a recent meeting there has been an issue about a contractor that has messed up 3 times. Now they want to change the ordinance. When a guy from the board in SF was asked how SF would handle the mistake he said they would make him take down the house and do it over right. NO exceptions. Brandon will become the city to build in if you don’t want to follow the rules.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Does anyone know exactly when these zones were set? It just may explain the number of variances being granted….just a thought to ponder!
October 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Cindy, the rules, variances, where set a long time ago. The zoning ordinances follow a standard which to some degree is a national standard. Along time ago our council adopted the standards. As with most city’s not all should apply, depending on the size of the towns, hence is the rub. The problem we have in Brandon is that the council will approve a variance and not change the ordinance. They tend to see who is asking for the variance before they do anything. All anyone has to do is check the minutes of just this last year and you’ll see what I mean.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
In light of the ambulance vote, is this entire discussion a waste of time since Kloster votes (or at least thinks) the same as the GOB. That gives them the fourth vote they need to pass the conditional use. Should the residents be looking for minor things like limited or no parking on the north side of the building, a fence between the parking lot and Cedar to direct the traffic toward Splitrock and away from Kirkwood?, or anything else to make the best of the situation?
October 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
why should the people accept it and make the best of it? Why not fight the GOB and stand up for the rights of the citizens. The citizens vote them in and can also remove them. They will continue to railroad the issues if they’re allowed to.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
You can fight the good fight against the GOB, but you can only win if you can vote them out. The bottom line is they have the votes to do just about anything they want that’s legal (versus right or ethical). The zoning issue will be settled in a couple of weeks, the elections are next May. Maybe you use these decisions to point out their flaws, but I suspect a number of people agree with them. The real question is if more than half of the people that vote agree with them. Not half the people that blog.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Can someone explain to me why all of sudden we areworried about the drunks are going to drive on kirkwood,isn’t the steakhouse or pizza ranch just as close to kirkwood? I seem to remember a few years back there was a pizza /beer served from the eatery in cedar plaza.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:37 am
At the present, the people taking Kirkwood would be going to Valley Springs. The worry is that patrons will take Cedar to Kirkwood and cut over to Rushmore and take the back way home to avoid the police. If you want to argue that most of the patrons will be from out of town, then I would reply by asking why should we ask citizens to suffer for the sake of out of towners. I also expect the bar to be more popular than it is now, why else move it?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I hope whereever they(Sneakers) land it will be busier. This community needs more options than just Tailgators, bowling alley and a steakhouse.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
For what it’s worth, I think they will be successful. The bar layout looked very good to me. It is a bar that serves food, not a food place that serves drinks. Since I’m not going to look at this blog anymore (I’m hooked), and I really don’t like sending comments under ‘Anonymous’, I’ll leave with these statements,
I’ve read the ordinances and I’m not sure if 15-4-10, C 2 and 6 and ordinance 15-3-7, E are issues. All of these should have been raised when building permits were issued, but so should have the conditional use permit.
I find myself swinging to both sides on this debate. I think the Sneaker’s owners are being screwed because they believed the council members who should have known the laws, and I think the residents deserve to have their objections heard and get a fair vote. Nobody wants a bar built in their backyard. I also think a lot of people want the vote to fail just to spite the GOB club - that’s not right either. We wouldn’t be having these discussions if the matter didn’t require 4 votes to pass. It all comes down to Kloster. The only phrase that comes to mind is “you’re d@#$ed if you do and d@#$ed if you don’t”. (Actually “better you than me” came in a close second.) I’ve spent way too much time and effort on this, so I am out of this blog. Thanks.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
#49 It should matter if it is right or ethical. We vote these people in b/c we believe they will do what is best for the citizens, not just the city(and their pockets).
And what is GOB? Good ole’ boys? Not so good if you ask me if they do not listen to the concerns of the people who live near this proposed site. They should be listening to half the people that blog, b/c they are the ones who will vote them out come next election.
Buy Brandon, Buy Brandon. You can bet your a** that if this thing goes in, I will Buy SF.
#6 The neighbors did complain when they had the Kirkwood Apts full of slugs and dope? The cops were over there quite a bit, and there were reports made of window peekers and thefts. And also, I don’t believe all who lived there were slugs and dopes…not a nice assumption to make.
New Resident…Huset’s only happens once or twice a week in the summertime…quite a bit different than an everynight bar. You never did respond if the daycare was built in your backyard after you moved in…if not, your choice to live there.
And really, everyone in support of this thing should learn how to spell and use correct grammar when they are typing these blogs, as it does not make you look very intelligent.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I want to thank Disgusted, you have said everything I have been thinking. I just couldn’t find the right way to put it down with out with out causing an uproar.
Once agian thank you.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Sounds like the Sneekers people should talk to Med-Star and 5 of the city council folks. They could help them get a new ordinance passed and then they could build the bar anywhere…
October 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
#56- you already hit the nail on the head. I’ve got $20 that says the vote again will be 5-1 (again)
Unless someone gets these five off the council (by recall petition) and fast, they will continue to do anything they want.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:45 am
#54.. Its a blog, I didnt know we were being graded on grammer. No I didnt know there was going to be a day care in my back yard when I bought the house. And another thing, Brandon must be a bunch of soaks if you think a bar is loud and packed everynight, I bet Mon-Thursday night there is just a regulars in the bar, come fri night and saturday night is a different story.
I can tell you one thing, my family made a huge mistake in moving to Brandon, Brandon is full of clicky groups that like to b!tch about everything. And I bet most new residents feel the same way.
I hpoe I sepelled everythnig corect for you #54
October 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am
right on new resident
October 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Sorry hit the wrong tab, right on new resident, but don’t move or feel you made the wrong choice to live in Brandon. I have lived here for approx. 30 years best move I ever made. Keep in mind this blog only represents, at best maybe 200 individuals. Not the main stream of Brandon. This is at best a place for people to anonymously mouth off.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
It’s always in good taste to use proper writing skills, in informal situations as well as formal ones.
I have lived in Brandon more than 40 years. I liked it when it was a little burg with gravel roads, and I like it now. I don’t want to live anywhere else. I hope you come to feel that way too, New Resident. We live in an imperfect world. Let’s put our efforts into making it better.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Sounds like we cant make it better when you have a council like this city has!
October 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
In general terms, the worse a situation gets, the more potential there is for making it better.
In this case, the folks who would like different people on the City Council should start now recruiting people to run for the seats that will be up for election next spring. That will be Kevin Kloster’s Ward I seat and Steve Rubin’s Ward III seat.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
New Resident, Brandon is a nice place to live. If the bar is passed, the issues and hard feelings will go away until the next election. The issue isn’t really with the bar owners. It is with the developer and the Council. (Both of whom should have known better).
I think the zoning process needs to be changed to require notication of all residents living within x (300?) number of feet of the property requesting a zoning change, variance or building permit. The cost of this should be minimal - major cost is the stamps. The zoning office should be able to provide a list of names and addresses. It would bring things into the light of day for the people most likely to be impacted. You would have known the day care wanted to go in. The residents involved with this issue would have know about it before the foundations were poured. I know this information is listed in the legals and the zoning agenda, but how many people know where to find this information and how many look every week? A letter would ensure at least everyone living nearby knew what was going on.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:18 am
There is a sign displayed at the property requesting the variance, so the neighbors will know of the change if they can read.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
If the neighbor lives behind you, you may never go down that street.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I agree with #64 about giving a written notice to affected residents. Those little rummage sale size signs are hard to spot.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Stuff like this is why this town is only growing in housing and not businesses. Drive around Sioux Falls and look at all the new businesses, why don’t anyone want to expand to Brandon, It’s a pain in the ass!
October 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Are you serious? We are and always will be a bedroom community (until we meet boundries)
And duh, look around SF, their population is over 100,000 people!
You ask: why don’t (doesn’t) anyone want to expand? If it’s such a PITA then why are we growing by leaps and bounds, and why do you stay?
This town has added a ton of new business. How long have you lived here?
October 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
What new businesses have we added in the past couple years? What new resturants have we added? What new clothing stores have we added? We have 1 grocery store? This town is only growing in housing, that’s it. It is a nice quiet community, but I would like to have a few more options without driving to SF. I think the city make it to difficult for people to expand (Sneakers) or new ones to come in.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I’m not sure the city makes it too difficult. I think we just don’t have the large prime areas to build things like a large business district, an entertainment district, etc. If a large company decided to move to Brandon, where is the 40 to 80 acre site they need? The issue with lots of small places is they can never pay much more than minimum wage. Where do those workers live in Brandon? Do we get a reverse commute from East Sioux Falls? Those are the issues the zoning board and the council need to address to attract business. Those areas need to be decided on before you build the houses, not after. It would be a good thing to reverse the order things seem to get done.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I agree with confused, we don’t have the area’s needed to bring enough business’ to Brandon, I know I wouldn’t be able to afford a $200,000+ home by working at McDonalds.
We are a bedroom community, and soon we will be meeting sioux falls’ boundries. I realize it is a drive to Sioux Falls but really what is it 10 minutes? it is great having the shops and stores we do have, but if you have lived here long enough you would have seen that there are alot of business’ that come and go just as fast.
If I wanted to live in Sioux Falls I would, but I don’t live there because I preferred the smaller town with a great school system.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Not sure where to post this comment. Has any one heard the rumor that the pastor has resigned from the city council???????????
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Not a rumor! Rev Kev resigned!
October 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Why dosen’t the mayor contact serk to fill in the position till the next election, he won’t resign when the heat gets bad. Sorry the last two, I’m not to sure were good for the city. We need people that have been here for a long time and know Brandon. Ford was good for what she did for the ambulance issue, she reworte it I understand, Thank goodness she was around as our city attorney would not of been capable. I missed the boat when I voted for Ford for being a woman.
We need people that know Brandon and will stick around.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hey always listening (or are you really Bob Serk),where do you get your inside information from? Sneakers or the Bowling Alley? Or both? lol.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Well the city council chose Kloster (I refuse to call him Rev Kev, it’s ridiculous) so it’s on them with another great decision.
PS…Ford didn’t rewrite the ordinance, she re-worded it and that’s an entirely different thing. It still has the same “guts” so to speak. Maybe a more appropriate word would be “loopholes”
October 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I’m not Bob, Anonyomus
October 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Sorry Anonymous, I did not finish, I actually heard about the Rev. through a parrishoner of his.
So sneakers and the bowling alley is the place to pick up on things Huh?? Might have to take up bowling!