Is It Really Just a Wall at $70,000 in an empty lot next to Bishop Dudley House

Public Affairs Director Jon Michaels (since 1977) talks with Clint Brown, Director of B.A.M. and Institute jof Civic Biodesign, and Jordan Deffenbaughj, a Whittier resident and former city council candidate.

From Clint's facebook page

The Fence Isn’t the Problem—It’s the SymptomSomething unusual happened in Sioux Falls recently. A city council proposal that seemed, at first, like a routine bureaucratic decision—a $70,000 fence around a parking lot next to the Bishop Dudley Hospitality House—has become a flashpoint for public frustration.What started as a debate about crime and public safety has turned into a much larger conversation about how the city approaches homelessness, public space, and civic engagement.The tension in the public meeting at the library wasn’t just about a fence. It was about power, priorities, and a city leadership structure that didn’t anticipate—much less prepare for—this level of public pushback.And that tells us something important: this moment isn’t about a fence at all. It’s about something much bigger.When Latent Frustration Becomes Public OutcrySioux Falls isn’t a city that typically sees large-scale public protests. That’s why the strong opposition to the fence caught leadership off guard.But frustration doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It builds over time. It stays quiet until something—a proposal, a policy, a moment—triggers a response.In this case, that trigger was a fence.The real frustration comes from a deeper, long-simmering belief that the city is managing homelessness, not solving it. That leaders are focused on optics rather than systemic change. That decisions are being made in boardrooms, not neighborhoods.For many residents, this fence is just the latest in a long pattern of temporary, reactive solutions that don’t address the root issues of poverty, housing insecurity, and addiction.And when those frustrations finally came out—when the dam broke—city leaders weren’t ready for the flood.A Lesson in Power: Who Benefits from the Fence?The clearest way to understand a civic controversy is to follow the power dynamics.So, let’s ask a simple question: who benefits from the fence?1. The Catholic Diocese Wins BigThe Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, which owns the lot, doesn’t have to pay for the fence—even though it’s their private property. Instead, the city foots the bill, using taxpayer dollars.The diocese also avoids the hassle of managing crime, loitering, and emergency calls on their land. Now, that responsibility falls entirely to the city.And if the diocese ever chooses to sell the lot, they now have a guaranteed interested buyer: the city of Sioux Falls. With land values rising due to nearby developments like the Riverline District, that’s a huge financial advantage for them.2. The City Gains Control—But At What Cost?From the city’s perspective, leasing the lot gives them enforcement power. That means police can remove individuals from the area, preventing congregation near the shelter.This may reduce some emergency calls in the short term, but the fundamental problem remains: people experiencing homelessness don’t disappear when you put up a fence. They just move somewhere else.Which leads us to the real losers in this deal.3. The Unhoused Are Displaced, Not HelpedThe people who use that lot—the ones struggling with housing insecurity, mental illness, and addiction—are being pushed further into invisibility.If the fence is built, where will they go?Not into housing, because affordable housing options in Sioux Falls are still severely limited.Not into shelters, because many are already full—or have strict entry conditions that some unhoused individuals cannot meet.Not into treatment, because substance abuse and mental health services are still underfunded and inaccessible