Future Smithfield neighbors sue city of Sioux Falls officials, allege rights violated
Property owners living near a planned pork plant ask court to halt relocation
SIOUX FALLS — A dozen neighbors of the future Smithfield plant in northwestern Sioux Falls have filed suit against the city and its council, alleging ignorance of concern and violation of ordinance.
In a 30-page lawsuit filed Thursday, April 16, a group of 21 neighbors representing 12 properties expressed their discontent with Sioux Falls’ decisions to issue a conditional use permit and establish a tax increment financing (TIF) district to support the move of the Smithfield pork plant.
In mid-February, the processor announced it will vacate its 117-year-old site northeast of Falls Park to relocate to Foundation Park, the city’s up-and-coming industrial district situated northwest of the Interstate 90-29 interchange.
The move was spurred in part by a $50 million donation from billionaire T. Denny Sanford, whose funds were aimed toward the purchase of the 80-acre plot downtown by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation.
Just one month after the announcement, the Sioux Falls City Council passed both a conditional use permit and a $90 million TIF on March 17.
The lawsuit’s petitioners argued that the city ignored objections related to the plant’s impacts on property values and moved too quickly on the permits, all while ignoring comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.
According to the suit, the news of Smithfield’s relocation struck neighbors “like a violent storm,” and all 20 petitioners are unwilling to live in the immediate vicinity of the new slaughterhouse. However, petitioners say they were informed by realtors that nobody would be interested in buying their properties due to its location.
Despite the conditional use permit featuring larger berms between the plant and the residential homes, the homeowners say the plan destroyed fair market value and desirability of their properties, and called the move “quasi-judicial.”
Foundation Park did purchase a stretch of homes that were directly adjacent to the industrial park, but park president Bob Mundt said other nearby homes were not serviceable and that there are currently no plans to purchase them.
As part of the lawsuit, the 12 groups of property owners said the purchase of their home at 2.33 times the market value — which they say is the same offer for other homes the park already purchased — would likely resolve the lawsuit.
Further, the petitioners contend that without a court stepping in, the project will swiftly move forward.
“The plan employed here seems to have been simply that of ramming the [conditional use [permit] down the throats of the county commission and city council so quickly that little thought can be given to the pertinent details on the front end,” the suit reads. “Once approved, there will then be pressure to simply finish what has been started by whatever means necessary.”
Petitioners add they believe the city and council’s work to move Smithfield completely disregarded the city’s comprehensive plan, which is in place to lay out future growth. They say a violation of the comprehensive is also a violation of duty and due process.
There’s also an allegation regarding the potential violation of zoning ordinances.
“It is unclear as to whether there is a documented trail of compliance with the city’s own ordinances [regarding placement of a slaughterhouse],” the lawsuit says.
It calls back to 2022, when the future of the Wholestone pork slaughterhouse saw a public vote, and questions the difference in process between that plant and the Smithfield plant, while also questioning whether the city’s zoning ordinances were properly considered.
Despite their homes being in the county, Foundation Park lies within city limits. The petitioners contend that because they lie across a jurisdictional boundary, the conditional use permit sought to lessen certain burdens on Smithfield.
Though they admit that all of their homes sit 1,000 feet or more from the site, petitioners say the distance is not enough, and should have been increased.
In all, the petitioners asked the court for a series of actions for relief.
First, the suit requests a restraining order to stop the city or its designees from taking further action on the issuance or advancement of the conditional use permit, while also asking for discovery of evidence to determine what reviews took place on the site.
It also asks the court to reverse the city council’s decision on the conditional use permit and ask for discovery related to whether any city and county officials have any personal or private interests in the project.
Finally, the suit asks the court to determine whether the purported “partnership” between Smithfield and the city violated the due process of any city or county residents.
According to court records, the Sioux Falls city attorney’s office has acknowledged receipt of the lawsuit, but has not yet filed any response.
A hearing date has not yet been set.
Content courtesy of SiouxFallsLive.com.
 | A guest post by
|
My buddy's father is one of the listed petitioners and I can see from thier point of view. However When the land was rezoned to industrial they could've known that anything of large industry could've moved in. I mean about a half mile down the road and there's the Amazon warehouse and all these other little warehouse and terminals for all these other companies. They should've seen this coming.
There is quite the difference from a large warehouse and a slaughter house. I wonder if the county commission feels a responsibility to help these residents or should they just hold joint meetings with the city and foundation and make happy?