hardly “puts into execution a plan already adopted” by the City. Therefore, it is subject to referendum. SDCL 9-20-19. [¶ 30.] In construing SDCL 9-20-19, we so held in the factually similar case of Wang, supra. Therein the City adopted a master plan for an airport, which we held did not preclude the referral of the City’s subsequent decision to commence condemnation proceedings to build it. While condemnation was mentioned in the original master plan “if required,” the second decision to invoke it was determined by this Court to be a legislative, rather than an administrative, decision. [¶ 31.] Initiative and referendum “was to act as an ostensible safety valve and remedy for whatever ills might evolve in representative government.” Baker v. Jackson, 372 N.W.2d 142, 144 (S.D.1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, when the good citizens of Hot Springs
holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding abrogated on other grounds by 1986 sl ch 73  1 codified at sdcl 718a151 92018 and 92019