Editorial: Vote ‘no’ on Measure P
Publisher’s note: Lake Tahoe News convened an editorial panel of six South Shore residents to decide on this endorsement for the June primary.
Paid parking at beaches on the South Shore has been the norm for decades. It’s about time South Lake Tahoe caught up.
We believe the city needs to find ways to increase revenues. Continuing with the paid parking program is a logical way to fill coffers because it is a user fee. Only people who are using that area to park have to pay. In other words, it’s a choice to park where it costs money.
Tourists have discretionary money for incidentals like parking. And locals know where to find free parking if they don’t want to pay for the premium spots that are closer to the venue.
Keep paid parking; vote “no” on Measure P on June 3. Photo/LTN
Voters in South Lake Tahoe on June 3 will be asked if they want to keep the kiosks at Lakeview Commons and Lakeside Beach. A “no” vote keeps the meters in place indefinitely. And that is exactly how Lake Tahoe News is recommending voters vote.
Since the parking program at these locations started last summer (June at Lakeside, July for Lakeview Commons), $190,000 has been collected in parking revenue through April.
The city is projecting all kiosks – this includes Bellamy Court and Transit Way – would bring in $300,000 per year.
Fines are in addition to those figures. There has been a 98.5 percent compliance rate at the kiosks, so relatively few tickets are handed out. And as people become more familiar with the program the city anticipates the number of citations to go down 10 percent each year.
The annual expenses are practically nil. The kiosks are $48,000 for the next four years – whether they are used or not. They are solar-powered. The only expense that could go away if the program vanishes is the costs associated with one-quarter of an employee. Even then, that person could be assigned to other work.
We like that the money generated is going back into the area where it’s collected. Maintenance and operation costs are seldom considered when projects are built. This is why so many entities end up with deferred maintenance expenses that are rolled over from one budget year to the next, and why facilities become dilapidated. If we can help prevent this, especially at someplace as new as the $65 million Lakeview Commons, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can. Supporting paid parking is one of the things we can and should do.
Once we lose a revenue source, it is near impossible to get it back again.
It is time to move beyond how poorly the whole program was sold to the public and then rolled out.
We like that the city is willing to make changes. It is good that there is a $40 locals’ pass, that hours have been changed and citations have been reduced to $35.
However, if people continue to get cited because signage is lacking and kiosks aren’t obvious, then shame on the entire city – electeds and staff. Aggressive behavior is not warranted, either. Citing someone when a kiosk ticket is placed upside down on a dashboard is inane. How hard is it to tell someone walking away from their vehicle that they need to pay instead of waiting until they are gone to write them a ticket?
We realize the city has a temporary permit from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that allows for parking at Lakeside on the dirt. The caveat was that money raised from that area would fund the asphalt, other infrastructure improvements and realignment of the street. But the city has tabled the paving project until at least after the election.
This is wrong. The city and TRPA should be models for environmentally sound practices. It’s hard to believe fine sediment reaching Lake Tahoe is the primary source of the decline of lake clarity when parking on dirt – and paying to do so – is allowed. The duplicity of this policy is mindboggling.
For that reason, Lake Tahoe News puts an asterisk next to the “vote no on Measure P” endorsement. We also say “no to any parking on dirt.” Lakeside should be roped off until it is paved and not contributing to the degradation of Lake Tahoe.
Just as the city deserves to generate money from parking, the lake deserves to not be ruined because of it.
Oh my god this article is pure spin with few facts.
1) The citations people are concerned about are in the adjacent communities, not at the meters.
2) None of the operating costs were considered in this story. Not a dime. The program is a complete looser if you consider direct operating costs.
3) This is a user fee, true, but the users we are concerned about are the locals.
4) The city does not need revenue, they are predicting surpluses now.
5) The parking program has a significant negative impact on home prices in the regulated areas.
6) The aggressive enforcement program is denying people the quite enjoyment of the property. Watch out, the meter maid is coming!
Kae and the South Shore Six nail it!
Finally … a straight-forward article on the parking situation that makes some sense. Thank you.
It makes sense to leave the meter enforcement costs out so that it deceitfully looks like the program makes money?
One important question for the editorial panel. Have you validated the city’s financial claims on revenue and expenses or are you taking their word for it? In other words, did members of the panel personally go through the math and agree with the city’s projections and expenses? I would appreciate a simple yes or no and a public reply here on LTN.
Moral, Your reading comprehension is a hazard. This is what the article says, “The annual expenses are practically nil. The kiosks are $48,000 for the next four years – whether they are used or not. They are solar-powered. The only expense that could go away if the program vanishes is the costs associated with one-quarter of an employee. Even then, that person could be assigned to other work.”
Nobody seems to have a clear, accurate, honest, definitive number to indicate whether this program generates an actual net profit or actual net loss in a 12 month period. Revenues, expenses, and actual net income or net loss all seem to be a moving target based on one’s like or dislike of paid parking.
And exactly where and how does this “profit” supposedly generated from Venice Drive go back to the area from where it is collected, the city neither owns nor maintains any facilities there or nearby except for the public street. There is a huge difference in facilities provided at forest service beaches that charge for parking (restrooms, drinking fountains, BBQ rings, picnic tables, trash receptacles, beach cleanup) compared to no similar amenities at Venice Drive.
The adverse effect on surrounding neighborhoods is not worth the hassle of this program and its insignificant small profit or loss. Please eliminate it by voting “YES” on Measure P.
Vote YES and get rid of them!
is this the same panel that endorsed Old Angela?
sounds biased, and who picked these folks?
I am amazed how many folks here in town are {bought and sold} to the will of the Good ol Boys
Kae back in 02 when I ran for City Council you were the Editor of the Trib.
seems to me that you were bought and sold back then
While I could be my long-winded self and go on & on about where I disagree with the opinion piece, but just a couple: As pointed out before, the City doesn’t need the money, they want it. And it’s the wrong perspective to say the tourists are basically the ones who pay for the parking. The more they pay in fees, and especially in tickets, the less they spend on other items in our town. Plus, hassles and tickets creates a negative Tahoe experience.
But it’s all really moot. At least it’s been conceded that this program has left a bad taste in people’s mouths. You can blame it on the rollout. But bad programs that are badly managed are going to be poorly rolled out.
And that bad taste of the bad program translated into 1422 signatures! That translates to Yes on P easily passing. Etch that in stone!
Steve:
The City already decided to eliminate the paid parking from Venice Drive and did so.
I agree 100% with Biggerpicture and NV Local.
Vote NO on Measure P!
Ms. Reed:
I think Chief Slowroller owes you an apology for his public accusation that you “were bought and sold back then.” (Did that guy actually run for City Council?)
What about the cost of the employees and new trucks I see driving around?
As far as not parking on dirt tell that to the &;^%$$@#$ TRPA employee who made me tear out the driveway I boot leged in back in the late eighties.
Now they want we to pave it again to get my BMP approval.
“Maintenance and operation costs are seldom considered when projects are built”
– well that begs a number of questions does it not?
” It’s hard to believe fine sediment reaching Lake Tahoe is the primary source of the decline of lake clarity when parking on dirt – and paying to do so – is allowed. The duplicity of this policy is mindboggling.”
also, parking on dirt (especially in a flat area) does not cause erosion and deterioration of water quality, it’s the runoff from unstable soils. A large unprotected area of bare soil (that is not paved, grassed, graveled or otherwise protected against bare dirt being carried away) – will eventually have sediment migrate off it whether parked on or not. As a temporary activity on an already bare area – the amt of erosion will be the same whether it’s parked on or not. (BTW, this is different than parking on and killing vegetation that is stabilizing soil)
And although the last sentence quoted above about “duplicity” may have some justification if you feel temporary exemptions are not warranted, I am having a hard time understanding how that is related to whether one believe sediment has a negative affect on lake clarity? Sound like some debating point meant to have some sort of emotional impact, but it’s rather poor logic.
I seriously don’t believe these numbers are accurate. We have many folks in town living at or below the poverty line that would love to visit the beach without having to pay a fee. Paid parking puts on undue burden on the poor.
Vote yes on Measure P and get rid of these offensive parking regulations.
Peggy Bourland, aka Hogan,
The police chief has handed out the city’s FAQ sheet on Measure P (http://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/3901).
Simple math is if there is not money from parking to maintain the areas where the kiosks are located, then that money has to come from some place else in the budget. Therefore, something else gets cut or prices for other programs get raised, or Lakeview Commons could not be maintained.
The city’s budget is a public document. This includes revenues and expenses.
LTN staff
“Once we lose a revenue source, it is near impossible to get it back again.”
Translation – once we establish a government program, it is near impossible to eliminate it.
There are no expenses to maintain Lakeside Beach as it is privately owned but allows public access. The city does not pay anything to maintain this public lake access.
Lakeside Park Association pays to have this beach cleaned, pays for all the costs of the bathrooms, pays for all the costs of providing lifeguards during the summer, pays property taxes and other fees and has never asked the city for anything except to leave our private property accessible to property owners and others.
Until the parking kiosks were installed, the Lakeside Park Association hired security for traffic control on July 4th and Labor Day because the SLT Police Department couldn’t afford to provide their own staff. They didn’t last year because the city wanted easy access for you to park and get ticketed.
To those of you who have used the beach all year long before the kiosks, wouldn’t you like to do that again? There has never been a charge from September to May but now you have to pay the city to park at a private beach which allows you free access.
Vote Yes on Measure P.
Why aren’t the 6 names in the article? Why aren’t the 3 full-time employees plus part-time salaries/benefits, vehicle maintenance/fuel included in the expenses. Why have the tickets and fees go to So. Calif.? And why is the smell and chemicals of paving (annually) better than the sand that’s been there longer than any of us?
Lakeside is not maintained by the city.
This is NOT a revenue maker. It is a ‘piss off the visitor to the lake’ and is an eyesore. It drives people away from the beaches and make them less accessible. Time to get rid of this council and excessively paid (here’s your revenue maker) upper management for the city.
Use your votes this June and November.
Vote Yes on Measure P.
City manager told us revenues would be used to maintain the areas where meters were installed. Now she is telling us we will lose police and firemen. So where is the money being spent? The black hole of the general fund? What program run by the city cost nil to run? The whole parking management program is not being included in the parking meter program, new trucks, employees, vehicle insurance, fuel, health insurance, retirement, Newport Beach I guess that’s NIL. This group of six has been drinking the kool-aid, I strongly disagree again with them. YES on P!!! No on Angela!!!
Vote yes on “P”!!! There are other ways to generate revenue for the city other than paid parking and parking tickets. FULL collection of TOT, public events put on by LOCAL promoters so we can keep the money here in So. Shore. A small fee paid to the city for cutting down trees on your own property once their marked by the Fire Dept. , this would reduce fire danger and provide heat for the winter and revenue for the city. How about a city tax on contractors hired from out of town to do work on city projects? This could also apply to the CTC purchases and removal of buildings within the city limits, if they don’t hire from within the basin. I would also add get rid of the gawd damn consultants!
Hire locally and buy locally!!! There’s lots of people in town in need of work, so rather than hire from Sacramento or Reno lets hire locally and shop right here!!! Just a few ideas.
Okay, let the criticisim begin… I’m used to it now! Don’t like it, but I know it’s coming. OLS
ok, just a couple of comments, 1. it is way cheaper for the city to hire a company to process tickets in the millions than to hire someone here to handle only $100k in fines, please people use common sense. 2. the problem the TRPA have with paeking on bare dirt is that some cars leakfluids. 3. so Andy i take it that Lakeside Park Assoc. will be paving over those parking spaces soon as the city was going to do this year with that parking revenue, but took it off the schedule do to this debate. 4. OLS it is illegal by state law for goverment entities to hire locally as a requirement. That being said the city could easily make up the money by operating the campground as the business it is. bring the nightly rent up to market, allow online reservations, invest in full hookups, ect. 5. there will be no budget surplus as we had a very bad winter and TOTs will be down 30% for the first 4 months(maybe only the first 3). 6. Stop saying the tourist care about the use fee they dont, its the locals that care. If the tourist cared the following locations would be out of business, Zephyr Cove, Round Hill Pines, Nevada Beach, Pope Beach, Balwin Beach, & Camp Richardson. Every single one of them charge and are jammed packed all summer.
reloman, Some good points. But, I might add, Campground by The Lake added several year round hook ups for those in RV’S here during winter or whenever. I’m not sure of the rate to camp there is what it should be, so I don’t know if there up to speed. On that same line of thought that you mentionend, the city or county sponserd projects could be charged a “fee” for not hiring locally, (it’s all in the semantics, don’t you know). No barring them from doing work here, just cuttin’ a little fat off the gooses back, as it were.
As far as the TOT collection goes, yes, the numbers are down substantially. I would bet that alot of resorts and vacation rentals aren’t payin’ up to the city what is owed. Could be wrong on that but it would be worth looking into.
One of the things I don’t like about parking meters in So. Shore is this: If the city wins out on the June 3rd election, those kiosks will be brought out of storage, put in place and more orderd. If that happens, there will be no more, ” park were they don’t charge” type remedies because they will spread like fleas on a dog and we’ll have paid parking thru out the city.Yes, including residential neighborhoods. Remember, this whole mess started with the idea to charge people to park in their own driveway!
Now the people in favor of keeping parking meters and “possibly” expanding their limited boundaries are saying if we don’t go along with this, Police and Fire crews could possibly be cut. Sounds like extortion to me! OLS
I totally agree with Old Long Skis:)
Long Skiis says:
“Remember, this whole mess started with the idea to charge people to park in their own driveway!”
What are you talking about? There was never any intent to try to charge people to park in their own driveway. Where do you get your information from?
Government always warns of cuts to education, law enforcement & fire departments, wanting to make those cuts hurt the taxpayers so that they beg for more taxation. It’s the oldest trick in the government playbook.
Let them cut. The reality is, if paid parking goes away, not a single job will be cut from the municipal staff.
Anybody remember the federal government shutdown last year and the “sequester”? It was found that amidst all the screaming and hand wringing, only ONE job was lost as a result. That’s correct, only one federal employee was furloughed as a result.
The sky isn’t falling, the world isn’t coming to an end, and we can certainly get by with one less government employee.
4-mer-usmc, From What I recall I read about paying to park in your driveway was here at LTN. I could be wrong, as I often am, but I seem to remember someone proposing a $100 fee per year to park in your driveway or in front of your house. That was quickly shot down, then that was countered with a $50 fee per year, again, shot down and then if by “magic” the idea of paid parking was proposed and passed 4-1 with Tom Davis being the only one to vote no.
I don’t know 4-mer, maybe that was all a bad dream…too many tacos for dinner or something. I remember reading this if not here then in one of our other local publications. Can anyone else remember this? Anyone?
It could all be in my head, afterall I was breathing in the fresh air behind the Fresh Ketch looking for… well, I’ll let you finish that sentence. Take Care, OLS
Relo the beaches that you mention are operated by private company’s and leased from the Forest Service.
that’s how its been for the 40 years that I have lived here.
El Dorado, Regan and Cow Pie beach have always been the Free Beaches.
I was told by the Fat Guy behind the Curtain that the plan is to meter the entire Town.
if you think of it like that then you can understand why the City is so Headstrong on the idea of Parking Meters.
and drunk with delusions of the money to be made
AB, sorry but your statement of only 1 federal employee being furloughed just isn’t true. Millions of federal employees had mutiple furlough days during that fiasco that was extended due to the GOP’s stall tactics, otherwise known as the do nothing party.
It strikes me that when a political entity that considers itself a tourist destination has to support itself by billing the tourists directly rather than receiving a percentage of the business revenue that the tourism supposedly produces, total failure is a very short trip up the road.
@biggerpicture –
Read the news outside of LTN ever?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/
That’s right, ONLY ONE government bureaucrat lost a job a result of sequestration & budget cuts.
A.B.,
Quoting a publication owned by the Unification Church, better known as the Moonies, gives you zero credibility. Try again.
Long Skiis:
You see, that’s the problem. People make blatant statements as fact when what they’re actually attempting is to achieve their own desired end results by any means possible. I personally know more than a few people who had Tahoe4Tahoe petition signature gatherers use untrue scare tactics to try to coerce them to sign their petitions and a lot of that same methodology takes place on these blogs.
Like my spouse said to you before, where this community falls down is in the attitudes of some locals who want everything for free and are unwilling to pay anything toward improving the built environment or even maintaining those already constructed improvements. There are some people in this town that are unrealistic, have no desire for anything of quality, and are too cheap to spend any money to make their town a better place. They will do everything in their power to keep the City just as it is so they won’t have to spend any of their money and because they think “it’s good enough.”
I don’t think this City is “good enough”, I don’t think it has even come close to realizing its full potential, and I’m willing to pay my fair share to help make that happen for this community’s current and future residents. Being the armpit of the South Shore is no longer acceptable.
This upcoming June 3rd election will send a loud and clear message of what the majority of people in this community want for their town in both the near and more distant future. I hope it’s a City of quality, and that my spouse’s prediction of the Measure P outcome will be wrong.
Um, reloman, tourists do care! You simply do not know what you are talking about. If you recall, LTN had well-written letter from one. And I’ve talked to multiple tourists who care a lot. They do not like it! That’s why so many businesses, businesses who deal with tourists, are opposed to the Paid Parking!
Are there some who do not care, sure. But Camp Rich., perfect example. Some pull in and pay, and on occasion the lot fills up. But look at all the cars that park on 89, when there’s still available parking spots, and are willing to tredge down to the beach, so as to avoid the fee.
You always back up the City stance, reloman. But you would have more credibility if you didn’t make such a completely false statement! And again, I know it’s false by talking to tourists!
I’m all for paid parking. The people in Tahoe want massive levels of government and municipal services, but when it comes time to pay for it, they cry foul.
You’re either for big government, or you’re not. And since this community just embraces governmental control, it’s time to pay up!
Parker, did ALL of those tourists you talked to say that they would never come back to the South Shore, or did they just say they didn’t like it? No one really likes paid parking but most live with it. Rarely would it be the deal breaker for someone deciding where to travel on vacation.
Biggerpicture,
I stated that some don’t mind paying. And we can debate how much it negatively impacts the tourist experience. I’ve stated in previous stories about Paid Parking that it’s absolutely not a case of every tourist refusing to come to our community now/if there’s Paid Parking!
But it is a case where tourists spend less than they otherwise would because of the Paid Parking. And I bet some that get/got tickets won’t come back. And they certainly won’t talk up the great time they had in South Tahoe as much to their friends due to the parking hassles.
I’m certain of that. Biggerpicture, you or anyone else disagree with that, or at least disagree that it has any significant impact, fair enough.
But there is no doubt that a great number of tourists care about having to pay for parking, contrary to what a previous poster stated!
Paid parking may be a good idea. I really don’t know. But any paid parking scheme that depends on expensive tickets to make money is a bad idea. The city will aggressively enforce the parking violations and will be tempted to make the system confusing in order to increase income.
Over time the locals will learn to avoid tickets and the paid parking. That burden will fall on tourists and that is not good for their attitude toward the Tahoe experience.
4-mer-usmc&spouse, Okay, look you two, I’m not here to start any kind of an arguement with either of you. I’m merely stating my point of view, but it seems you guys, as soon as you see “OLS”, you immedatetly find fault no matter what my position on any given topic.
Sure, I write in alot, so I suppose there’s lots of folks who don’t agree with what I say and thats okay! I know I didn’t agree with much of anything G.W Bush or Dick Cheney said. (I still find it difficult to watch a video clip of either of those two war criminals!)
Yes, I don’t want paid parking, yes, I find the sewage leak behind The Fresh Ketch totally unacceptable.Yes, I do think we can turn this town around and are SLOWLY doing so.Yes, I do think we could do without so many “appointed” regulating agencies that were appointed by other appointed people, yes, I do think there is runaway developement happening around the lake, yes, I do think So. Shore needs to be “fixed up”, (my words),yes,I think we need local jobs that pay a living wage.
There’s a whole lot more of what I think and I don’t mind your criticism… I’m just speakin’ my mind as are you, so when all is said and done I guess we’re all equal, just with different points of view.
I’ll accept your view and think about it as long as you accept mine and think about it, maybye there’s common ground!
For a long time I worked for a person that was hyper critical of me, even called me at home when I was off work to cuss me out, so maybe I’m a little overly sensitive to being criticized,…sorry.
It’s late for me, and I want to get to the farmers market early, so “sleep tight and don’t let the bed bugs bite”, good lord , haven’t thought of that since I was knee high to a grasshopper! OLS
Copper, not really sure what you meant by a political entity that charges directly to tourist. This is what all cities and counties do. The TOT is not a tax on the lodging properties but rather one charged to the guest directly and collected by the property for the political entity.
Umm Parker I do know whatI am talking about, i work with vacationers every day,I have spoken with numerous business owners at a lot of different meetings and they all agreed that it is a very small concern for them. Yes if asked do you like paying for parking they would say no they don’t like paying, but they used to paying for it almost everywhere. Also someone mentioned they think parkimg is fine but they don’t like the ticketing as a means of making money. Think about we have speeding laws if people did not get tickets then people would speed way more than it is safe. Also Parker no one has to pay for parking, they just have to walk a little further. The Mayor of Park City was in town over the weekend for a fourum and he said they had free parking and paid parking, the paid parking was near where the tourist wanted to go, but if they didnt want to pay they could walk a little bit. Just as many do when they visit Zephyr, baldwin, Pope, n Camp Rich, Parker you risk lowering your credibility when you state these lots are empty, either that or you have not been down there on the weekends or many days in the summer. To imply that i am a city stooge is far from the truth, i dont agree on many things the city does. Not really sure i agree with paid parking, but i dont like it when people make statements that imply that tourist will stop coming due to paying $6 for parking, so far from the truth
Relo,
Please advise when you’ve ever disagreed on this blog with our City?!
And I never said there were lots of empty spots. I said even when there’s availability, many choose to park for free, at some walking distance.
Relo, you first said they don’t care about paying. No you’re saying they only care a little bit?
You lose credibility Relo when you change your story and don’t quote accurately!
1422 signatures from So. Lake Tahoe citizens, of whom many obviously deal with tourists directly, say tourists care about Paid Parking!
I was one of those signatures. I have no idea about Park City! I’ve never been. I do know about our City, and its tourist clientele. I deal directly with many of them. A great many have a problem with Paid Parking! To say otherwise is just flat out inaccurate.
Fine, don’t believe me. Believe the 1421 other people who live in our town that will end the Paid Parking when they turn out and Vote Yes on P!
reloman- 50% of the tourists with free passes to Lakeside Beach choose not to use that beach last summer. The only difference was paid parking.
Follow the model of other successful tourist destination cities like Scottsdale and Sedona Arizona. No paid parking even in city owned garages.
Also, charge TOT on all nights stayed by timeshare guests who don’t own their share in the Tahoe property. If they transfer the credit for the nightly charge from the property they own elsewhere, they should still pay the TOT.
Long Skiis:
Saying that as soon as my spouse and I see “OLS” and immediately finding fault with your given position is a slight exaggeration. There have been more than a few times we’ve agreed with your remarks and have even written short blurbs indicating so. But to be honest it is such exaggerations, suggestions without consideration of implementation pertaining to financing, laws and unions, and remarks rooted in emotion rather than fact that we find troubling. You do post a lot and I think that the daft and uninformed do pay attention to your comments. You’re capable of getting people worked up on a topic, such as “the spill”, which contributes to all sorts of irresponsible suggestions being posted including boycotting local businesses which can have a huge financial impact on those businesses. Those suggestions were made prior to the facts even being determined and that was in essence the same as condemning someone without even conducting a trial, and that’s not fair treatment.
If you’re going to post statements as fact without any source references to back up your speculations then you will likely be challenged. If you’re posting statements as your opinion then you’re entitled to say anything you want and when people tell you you’re wrong you can say it’s your opinion to which you’re entitled, just as they’re entitled to theirs. In my experiences it’s helped to say it’s my opinion in the post as it can cut down on some of the criticisms, but certainly not all.
For a long time both my spouse and I were surrounded by people who were hyper emotional so maybe we are a little overly sensitive to people functioning on an emotional plane rather than logic and fact.
AB IS CJ, Same c r a p, different story. His message never changes. I personally know at least 20 people who were fuloughed during the last budget debacle, of course the info. From abcj is biased b s from a very sketchy source. Logical and rational people dont bother with his dribble….
Parker this obviously something you care about deeply, and when i said they dont care i sould have said they dont care enough to change their plans. As far as accuracy is concerned, on this issue u seem to be swaying the numbers on your side. When you say that some tourist dont care about paid parking that is implying that most do care enough to change their habits over a $6 charge.
Also was it not i that brought up the high number of city employees that make over 90k a year just last week, there are other times but i am unwilling to spend the time searching for them,
Andy I agree with you on the timeshare issue, but i am not really convinced that the 50% drop in beach attendance was due solely to paid parking, i may have been the quadripling of fees charge to lodging properties that then deciede not to pay them. Are not the timeshares in your area currently paying these fees to your association, it may not be a good idea to your business to make your customers mad. That said collecting those extra fees would be nice. though the Marriott does pay huge amounts of TOTs and actually have to pay a extra 2%
So Relo,
We just disagree, hopefully respectfully, on the impact of Paid Parking on the tourist experience. So there you go.
Yet if you did previously point out the excessive pay of City Employees: I’ll stand corrected, but that my proves my other point! The City doesn’t ‘need’ a new revenue source. They ‘want’ one!
reloman- I am comparing properties with free passes over 4 years. Their tourist guests were given passes every year but in 2013 there was a significant drop (50%). It had nothing to do with how much the pass cost the hotel or who may not have purchased them.
I am only looking at hotel’s passses which did buy them every year and, since their occupancy didn’t drop last year, the only difference at the beach was paid parking at the beach and restricted parking in the neighborhood.
A hotel like the Old Embassy which chose not to provide beach access for their guests was not included in the numbers.
By the way, the fee only covers a portion of the cost of operating the beach which allows free access the rest of the year for everyone. It is really very small per room per day during the summer and covers a pass for 6 people per room every day. Remember Lakeside Beach is a private beach which allows public access. All costs of maintaining the property are paid for by the property owners in Lakeside Park. It’s a significant amount in taxes, utilities, restroom expenses, lifeguards, cleaning crews, other staff, etc. each year at NO COST TO THE CITY.
Hotels, timeshares and all property owners in Lakeside Park pay for their passes through their water bills but shouldn’t have to pay to have their non-Lakeside Park competitor hotels advertise and give their guests beach passes without paying an equivalent fee. What the Lakeside Park properties were paying did not cover the cost of maintaining the beach for all the non-LPA hotels so non- LPA properties are just being asked to pay their share.
Andy; I hope Lakeside Park makes their beach private if we can not get rid of the meters. I bet revenue on meters will be ZERO.
Andy, my appology, my understanding from a letter you sent to the city earlier this regarding this matter, was a little hazy for me about where the 50% number was dirived from.
Parker yes ocourse they want one, at the meeting the city had at the end of last year many people spoke up about where to spend it, the police union wanted the money
But they don’t ‘need’ any additional sources of revenue! They have plenty, or actually more, than is necessary.
No apology needed.
It’s a confusing topic and no matter how many times I’ve tried to explain it, I don’t seem to be able to get the city to understand that we are creating a negative environment for tourists while charging others to park at their own property.
paid parking-wise, i wholeheartedly agree with the premise of this editorial; further, i refer readers to pete fink’s piece in the mountain news, where, among others, he makes the point that by not charging for parking, we are giving automobile transportation a free ride at the expense of bike trails, sidewalks, and other forms of sustainable recreation/transportation. NO ON “P” is a no-brainer. If we are sincere about transforming the infrastructure of south shore, we must implement, as have most successful tourism-based communities, strategies in which visitors share with locals the costs of that transformation. The ‘just good enough’ mindset has nearly canceled out south shore as a candidate for a modern and vibrant economy, one generated by the recreation-based tourism model successfully embraced by our neighbors to the north. The ‘good old days’ were not only not that good, but in their wake left us with the short-sighted gaming and party culture that is obviously ‘just not good enough’. Vote NO ON “P” and in so doing cast a vote for the continued reshaping of south shore into a viable and sustainable community.
Parker. Have you driven a bike on the bike path in town behind say Motel 6 area? Have you seen the state of the Rec Center Pool? The state of City Hall located at the airport built in the 60’s? I say keep the paid parking and put some new asphalt on the bike trails in town to start.
As far a paid parking in general. Paid parking has been around since the Depression. Try to park a rental car on Maui; they make you pay a daily fee.
In Hermosa Beach California, the rate is $1.25 per hour, $31 per day and $72 per month. Try other major tourist attraction areas in California for references.
It is way past time for SLT to grow up and join the 21st Century.
How about in SF where you have to pay a hotel property to park if you have a car IN ADDITION to your room rate (which has been going on for 20+ years?)? And that doesn’t even count the public parking fees in other tourist areas of the city.
And as of yet SF is still a vibrant tourist destination.
Maybe we need to look at it this way: It’s time to create a town with an appealing appearance and businesses that provide excellent coustomer service, thereby possibly not leaving a sour experience for having to pay to park while accessing delapidated facilities and weak local attitudes towards tourists!
Parker says:
“But they don’t ‘need’ any additional sources of revenue! They have plenty, or actually more, than is necessary.”
Parker: The following is an example of a financial life.
You have a job and make just enough revenue to pay your rent and utilities, car payment and insurance, buy food and clothes, and have nothing left over after that. You pay off your car so now you can say you have more money than is necessary for you to live. The problem is you have an old car that needs lots of work done to it and little if any money saved for that or for a down payment on a new/replacement car or to lease a car. While you can go out and get a second job to save money for those costly repairs on your worn-out vehicle or to buy/lease a replacement vehicle, the City can’t take on a second job. To maintain Lakeview Commons and the other improvements already made in town, and to fix the City’s crumbling neighborhood streets requires identifying additional sources of revenue. Parking meters are like the City getting a second job and having the users and visitors to this town who choose to park in those valet parking spaces pay the wages. But if you’re satisfied with this community looking like a decaying old settlement that’s certainly your choice.
Personally, I want better for my community and for the people who reside here, and I’m willing to pay my fair share for that to happen.
So Rock, if the City ‘needs’ money they shouldn’t be paying: all those exorbitant salaries (per Reloman’s mention of all those making over 90k-very good for our community), 100% and more pensions to retirees, and for all those consultants.
And the City should give concessions to the highest bidders, unlike what they did with Lakeview Commons. If the City needs money they shouldn’t be so carefree with it, instead of trying to suck more out of the public with stupid schemes such as with the Paid Parking!
I think I hear a sad sad song being played on the worlds smallest violin-the poor millionaires in Lakeside Park whining about finally having to pay for parking for their guests and beach businesses-and pretending they operate Lakeside Beach out of the kindness of their hearts-boo hoo hoo-they will never go back to being private because they have too much invested in their private water company-which is a terrible idea-water should be part of the commons
Parker. If you or RELO think you can do a better job cheaper, fill out a resume/Application or run for office. Just make sure you tell everyone in/at the city you want them to work for minimum wage and no pensions.
Paid parking is not a “scheme.” It is a way to generate revenue and has been for 80 years.
I would say South Lake Tahoe is looking pretty darn good. Our Town has crawled out of the dumps; Gondola, Chateau (not Hole anymore), Crecent V, El Dorado Beach, Hwy 50, Lamps, LTCC, Parks, Schools, Trash sorting, sewage treatment etc.
The “slums” are now in Meyers and the Nevada side; Tweten town, Little Norway, junk yards, old, newest Casino re-built after the bomb in 1980.
South Lake Tahoe is moving forward despite the heckler’s from the cheap seats.
I ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE CITY AND I AM VOTING TO KEEP PAID PARKING.
Many good points above. The best part is the community gets to decide whether they want the paid parking or not by vote. In the mean time, due to pressure from the community, the city has already made a couple of needed concessions in the progam. One is to offer a seasonal pass (unfortunately it is void on weekends)at a reasonable price. The other was to eliminate the paid parking on Venice. I feel that an arguement for paid parking can be made when services (garbage pickup, bathrooms, etc) are being provided to the public. Good examples are forest service beaches such as Baldwin and Pope as well as day use fees ( =parking fee) collected by the state at Eagle point and Vikingsholm. But to try to collect parking fees at Venice and Lakeside, where the city provides no services is wrong. I heard one of the council members mention that the city provides the paved road. With that arguement, then all city streets should have meters to support the paving program citywide. Again, at least we have the opportunity to vote on this progam, unlike many other city programs ,so get out and vote.
Steve you may have heard wrong or the council member meant to say with these funds they were going to pave the dirt parking spots at lakeside this year, but that was canceled due to the uncertainty of funding for it
Yes on P! In my lifetime as a Native Lake Tahoe Resident, the economy and infrastructure was at its best when we were a relevant destination resort town. Sales tax, TOT, employed residents and a viable middle class. These are the primary factors to our existence. I’m not sure that paying to park is going to kill the economy? With that said an inviting community with a strong desire to attract events will certainly improve the economy, which in turn will help rebuild infrastructure. Let’s not waste our time or money writing tickets and collecting fines. Let’s build back our reputation as an inviting destination resort town and balance that with an emphasis on the natural environment. Peanuts for parking is irrelevant. Once again, yes on P! Focus on important issues.
And 4-mer,
I appreciate your dedication to our town, and respect the fact that we disagree on how best to go about making it the best it can be.
However, don’t put words in my mouth! Who said I’m satisfied? I just don’t believe the ever constant, every couple years attempts at various forms of ‘revenue enhancement’ is the answer!
It’s never enough! The only answer to how much revenue is needed is more. And more! Cut some taxes & fees once in awhile. Make life easier on businesses, listen to what businesses have to say (they’re absolutely not for the Paid Parking) and I strongly feel we’ll see the town become what we both want it to be!
And Rock, did I say minimum
wage and no pension? No! 90-100k for so many, and 100% pension, is what I question!
In fact, this town keeps its hiring practices quite secret. When was the last time you saw an ad, in the Trib., or who here on LTN, about job openings with the City? And the City does hire new people quite regularly, in spite of all their cutback claims.
A few years back there was some controversy about the SLTPD’s hiring practices. When the Mtn. News inquired about the decision making process on who got hired, an emphatic, None of Your Business was replied.
And dare I mention the mysterious consultant that said top mgt. was due 30% raises. When I asked to see the taxpayer funded report I was also given an emphatic None of Your Business.
So I’m not looking for a City job. But I bet if the public was aloud to scrutinize and give input on the process, I have no doubt there would be much more cost-effective hiring by our City!
Parker. This is the link to the city’s jobs site…
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/slaketahoe/default.cfm
Yes, some jobs use Calpers instead of Social Security, but it is not 100%.
Joby. Have you compared the town today versus what it was 20 years ago? I would say that we are WAY better off today without the slums and crumbling of downtown, El Dorado Beach etc. Keeping the town looking good is not going to be free. I would rather the Tourist that are cheap, rude and litterbugs pay a small parking fee then see fees go up at the Ice Skating Rink or Pool for locals. MAKE THE TOURIST PAY UP… NO ON P!
Yo Rock I was here 20 years ago and in business.
the Town was a lot more thriving.
a lot more Heads in Beads I was doing a lot more Motel parking lots.
20 years of floundering Redevelopment has caused the monetary short fall.
now to say that parking meters and excessive parking tickets are going to save the Town, well that would be Drunk on Delusion, served up by the City Council
and the folks that tell them what to do.
Chief. I warned people that fighting the Indian Casinos was a loosing proposition 20 years ago and we needed to concentrate on what the Foothills will never have… Lake Tahoe. They went ahead with the fight and lost; complete waste of time.
The town has been saved from the decay and neglect.
I don’t know what town you were looking at 20 years ago; Downtown was a complete total dump, El Dorado beach was literally falling into the lake, Ski Run Marina was a dump, highway 50 looked like Sierra Blvd and 50 the whole way. Sorry, I have been in town about 40 years and now it looks better then the Nevada side. Seen the carpet at MontGleu lately… held together with duct tape and the fountains out front? Sorry looking.
There is NOWAY I would trade the town of 20 years ago to today.
We live in a town that lacked any sort of planning in the 50’s and 60’s. Therefore it’s makeup and design was never done properly. The economy on the other hand was vibrant through the 70’s and 80’s. Evolution and redevelopment have helped but in no way have made the difference. The beginning of the end was the early 90’s. Single biggest problem was Harrah’s purchase of Harvey’s. No more competing marketing dollars. Then the Caesars acquisition, fewer marketing dollars. Lakeview commons is a very nice upgrade. CTC funded erosion control projects although helpful and nice fell short…no sidewalks, street lighting planned for the 10-20 year storm not the 100 year storm. Our economy will only improve with an inviting destination resort. More sales tax revenue, more TOT and more jobs to try and bring back the middle class. Better enforcement of TOT revenue, regular audits of all properties not just select properties. Verifying vacation rentals and getting those that aren’t permitted in the pool. Paid parking is a farce, as stated above, peanuts. Tourists fund all infrastructure improvements through the above mentioned revenue sources. Event based planning would fill a much needed void in visitor nights. Yes on P! Quit wasting time on small things and strive for the big things.
Joby, I agree 100% with your last comment in regards to the condition of So. Shore economically as well as the way things were built here in the 50’s and 60′ and the overall appearence of our town now. ALOT needs to be done!
I’m not being facetious here, but have you thought of running for the city council? Follow in your Dad’s footsteps as it were. 3 seats up for grabs and you may just be the person to fill one.It would be good to have a born and raised Tahoe local on the council. You would lose some time on the boat but maybe you, along with others, could turn this town around. Think about it, won’t you? Take care, OLS. yes on “P”!!!
“Tourists fund all infrastructure improvements through the above mentioned revenue sources. Event based planning would fill a much needed void in visitor nights. Yes on P! Quit wasting time on small things and strive for the big things.”
Would those “big things” be more minimum wage jobs to service the tourists?
4-mer USMC, I would hope not. Living on minimum wage in Tahoe means you have to have 3 jobs. Of course some of them would. We lost our distributor ships, IE beer, wine, meat, commercial laundry, soda, car dealerships,etc…to the valley and Sacramento. Those business’s had upper management all the way down, likely not going to get those back. The jobs that would or could be created are event based business, Eco Adventure Co’s, construction jobs as we rebuild infrastructure, seek out tech companies and give incentives to come here as other places have done. Currently we have public sector jobs, and????
Joby:
Thank you for recognizing that more minimum wage jobs are not what this community needs. There are only so many government, utility company, school/college district, and Barton Hospital jobs available in our town and we desperately need more living wage jobs. For years I’ve been saying that this town needs to diversify its business base so that jobs other than minimum wage can be created, so that the business tax/sales tax/property tax bases can be increased, and so when tourism is down we’re not hit so hard economically. I absolutely agree that we need to seek out tech and other similar type companies and give incentives for them to come here as other places have done. Now what we need to do is really get after bringing the type of fiber optic broadband infrastructure into the basin that will make it possible for those types of businesses to operate here. I would very much like to see this community thrive.
Joby. Keep thinking small. Everyone in town is sick and tired of cow towing down to the Great and Powerful Tourist. They come up here, open their car doors, let their dogs take huge dumps, empty their ash trays of cigarette butts, use and abuse as much as they can, threaten people that don’t bow down with nasty YELP comments, then leave.
If parking is so “small” and “such a waste of time,” why are you so afraid to charge tourists for parking? I’m not.
Actually, if I could I would charge them a use fee at the Meyers Bug Station then use the proceeds to improve our Town.
Our town will only succeed when we reduce our dependency on tourists. Use the Middle School, High School, College for making local Movies. Use the power of our Athletes to build a winter sports athletic center here.
OLS, thanks for the kind words. Maybe one day, but for now I have to focus on my family, my job and coaching. It would sure be nice if council meetings could be done at 5:00 P.M. so that those that work full time could consider running. With all due respect to our current council, the job is really a donation of your time. I would never suggest the pay be increased as we are a small town and don’t need full time politicians, but it’s tough to put in the time in the middle of the work day. Later meetings would sure open up a pool of residents that just can’t afford to be at three meetings a week (including committee meetings and board appointments) in the middle of the day. I’m confident we will get some qualified candidates this term.
Rock,
There are good people and bad. I have witnessed locals do stupid things in terms of dumping trash. I have also witnessed those terrible tourists picking up trash. As long as we are fortunate enough to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world, there will always be tourists. Charging them to park is a nuisance, as is the time and energy that has been spent arguing about it. Voters will decide, I stand by Yes on P! If you hate tourists so much then move to a place that has none. “Afraid of charging them to park”, ridiculous statement. I see no need to charge them or locals to park. My opinion as well, my vote. Yes it is a small issue with a small return, when there are much bigger issues to attend to.
Paid parking does matter. I have lived at the “Y” for over thirty years and rarely went to the beaches on hwy 89. Whether it was conscious or subconscious I always thought I had to get my seven dollars worth. If I wasn’t going to be there for the entire day I went to Hope Valley or somewhere else.
Last year my S O gave me a beach pass for my Bday. I must have gone to Pope and Baldwin 70+ times. Some days I would just go and enjoy a morning cup of coffee or a couple of beers after work. One of the best summers of my life.
Joby, your argument is a circular reference; not mine. Paying a fee to us the Rec Center Pool is a nuisance too, but people pay it. Why don’t you move to a town that has no parks or public areas to pay for?
Rock,
Blah blah blah blah…..your the one that hates tourists would like to see them all taxed out of town. Insane mindset for a person that claims to be a Tahoe Resident. I have no argument, simply an opinion, and a vote. My opinion as well my vote is yes on P! Only time will tell, June 7th in fact. If I were a betting man I would say your opinion is the minority and paid parking will no longer be in play. “Everyone in town is tired of cow towing to the great and powerful tourist”, another ridiculous statement take Econ 101. The great and powerful tourist is the life blood of our community. If you are “everyone in town”, we are in big trouble. You are the only one arguing, and it’s ridiculous! Dayton NV would be a great place for you, not much tourism there. Lots of hot air blows around in the summer though, sounds like a perfect fit.
Rock,
There are people who have retired from their jobs with the City, high paid mgrs. in many instances, that are getting 100%, and more!, of their last year’s pay!! That is a fact!
One of them even said to me, “If I was a taxpayer, I’d be pissed! But I’m not complaining.”
Joby, blah blah yourself. The tourist life blood is the problem; low paying minimum wage tourist/service jobs. Econ 101 says you need to build a better product or service at a higher price or wage. Cleaning toilets and turning beds is not going to cut it. How is FREE PARKING going to change the mindset of the tourist that parks their RV/car or truck along the highway and dump their garbage. And yes I have cleaned up their garbage for years and I am sick of it, but I continue to pickup the garbage because I love Lake Tahoe.
Parker. If I hire you today to clean my garage for $100 plus a promise to pay another $100 when you retire; who’s fault is that? Mine for making the offer or yours for accepting the offer? I completely scratched my head when the City hired the last manager, O’Rourke, for what I thought was a huge amount too. And, I have not seen eye to eye with previous City Managers on a number of issues, but a deal is a deal.
Ok, so at least you now admit there are a 100% & more pensions! And I know they also occurred under Jinkens. And I also know we’re not talking a $100, but rather 90k, 100k, 150k & up!
A deal is a deal, but the City shouldn’t cry poor if they’re going to obscenely throw money around like that! Paid Parking is a scam! Yes on P!
:Rock 4tahoe, getting jobs that are not min wage would be nice, but highly unlikely. the main problem with tech jobs is 1. we dont have the trained work force for that, these people would have to come out of area. The min wage earner now would still be the min wage earner then. 2. these type of companies would need to work out of a campus which means at least 5 acres or more with 80% coverage. I know of no where in town where we can accomadate that in one spot. Many companies have tried telecommuting and are starting to move away from them because they are not as effective for most employers.
A sports center would mean more not less tourist. We will always the tourist min wage jobs, but many of them are not min wage they get tips of between 3 to 10 an hour. My nephew is making $12.50 an hour at starbucks and that will be going up to $14.25 or more by 2016.
Parker. I don’t admit anything because I do not know first hand anyone making 100% of their wage from a City Pension plan. Perhaps, Jenkins or O’Rourke would come forward and tell us.
Anyway. If FREE PARKING is the mana from heaven then why aren’t the Casinos banking cash daily? They have plenty of free empty asphalt out there… plenty on a daily basis. Why is a Room at Harrahs going for $75 per night and Lake Tahoe Resort (formerly Embassy Suites) going for $140? And I don’t think Lake Tahoe Resort has “free” parking.
Relo. I disagree that a World Class Professional Snow Sport center would draw more tourists. I think it would draw more Professional Athletes.
Well Rock,
There are people making that in their retirement, so you don’t have complete knowledge of the situation if you still deny it. Though anyone else who read that previous post, I’m sure would view it as conceding the point.
And, you’re putting words in people’s mouths. Who says free parking is mana from heaven? Who? So you can understand, those opposed to Paid Parking feel that instituting that it has negatively impacted the tourist to a noticeable degree. But no one says that Free Parking in and of itself is a guarantor of anything.
Rock,
Take Econ 101 again! It’s called trickle down, also used in regonomics. Every job in town wether it be insurance, healthcare or law is fed from the mighty tourist dollar. Yes on P! Yes on P! As stated above bad people do bad things good people do good. It has nothing to do with locals vs tourists. When you live in a pretty place tourism will always be part of the economy. I hate the back and forth in this blog, but can’t stand to hear ridiculous statements made by people claiming to be a local. I’m done with you and your nonsense but just one last time, YES ON P!
I always say that giving the government any more money is like feeding rats in your basement.
The reality is that if you want certain levels of services, you have to pay for them. It’s basic economics. If people want more government, well, just feed the rats in your basement and you’ll see the results firsthand.
Joby… “Trickle down economics?” LOL! South Lake Tahoe was not designed for tourists it was designed for gambling. Gambling is now everywhere and on the internet hence Stateline gambling is half what is was 10 years ago. Hence families have left, population has dropped, enrollment in schools has dropped.
So now the City of South Lake Tahoe has smelled the coffee and is looking at “quality” recreation to attract tourists. The question becomes how to keep the quality of the facilities (investments made). Boils down to charge the locals or charge the tourists. I say charge the tourists for parking; NO ON P.
Parker. Several people are saying that paid parking will turn away tourists, as if free parking is attracting them now. I am simply pointing out an example of free parking doing NOTHING to attract more tourists at the Stateline Casinos. I would point out that the crumbling state of the Casinos is more of a deterrent then the free parking is an attraction. And yes, this is an opinion.
Hence, if we just build Commons, sidewalks, gutters, pools, gondola’s, street lamps, etc and have no mechanism to maintain the upgrades, they will fall into dis-repair in 20-30 years and will look like the MontBleu fountains.
So, it seems reasonable to me to charge a small parking fee to maintain the infrastructures built. Your argument seems to imply a re-negotiation of the pay and pensions for all City Workers past, present and future. Then try to apply those proceeds to the maintenance. I am not sure how realistic that argument is.
Finally, I was simply trying to make a point of “breaking” a deal using the $100 now and later for illustration. Change the terms to whatever you want; $100 now and $20 later or $100 now and $200 later.
I will also disclose that I have NO conflicts of interest in any of the areas where paid parking is deployed ie. I do not own a time share, motel, hotel or business nearby.
Bitter. The same “rats in the basement” argument could be said of Charter, Dish, Comcast, AT&T, GM, GE, Toyota etc. Except, we will not be able to vote out electrical engineers or CEO’s at GM or Toyota for producing cheap ignitions switches and throttle cables.
Vote “YES on P” or your business or neighborhood will be next to get one of those failed meters in storage at the airport. Also rates, tickets, passes and permits will go up-up-up skies the limit! The future is a ticket writer on every corner. “YES on P” to get rid of this mess!!!
rock4tahoe:
I absolutely agree with your comments and rationale, however attempting to convince a group of mostly ignorant cheapskates who want everything given to them for free is futile.
If Measure P passes and parking management ends I can’t wait to hear the complaints from all those people living on Lakeview and in that surrounding area who will no longer have permit parking in front of their residences and won’t even be able to park close to their houses. Those streets will be lined with visitors’ cars and vehicles with boat trailers and it will be a parking free for all. And if people think they can put up a “no parking sign” they better think again. The area in front of those houses is an easement owned by the City and those residents don’t have the legal right to post a no parking sign, place boulders, or do anything else in an attempt to control that easement. Can’t help but wonder how Harrison Avenue will be impacted.
It will be an interesting election. We’ll get to see what the majority of people want for their community: nothing but freebies or a town with some quality and class.
But that’s just my opinion.
You know I was going to let Rock get the last word and be done blogging on this article. But then to be called an ignorant cheapskate?!
Rock, as I stated previously it’s not that commitments should be broken. It’s that the City shouldn’t make commitments like that, and shouldn’t give leases out to people who aren’t the highest bidders, like they did at Lakeview, and then claim they have no money to do things? The City does not need money with the way they are so careless with it!
Yes on P will pass. And it’s not because people are ignorant. I don’t pay for parking, as the places I need to go haven’t had meters put up. So it doesn’t effect me personally or directly. But I do give the City plenty of money in the form of business license fees, sales taxes, and I see the City get plenty in TOT. Tourists don’t need their wallet picked at, which of course gives them less money for other things, because our City govt. wastes money! That’s not ignorant. That’s a fact!
Rock,
Blah, blah, blah. Once again you enjoy hearing your own words. You mentioned I’m afraid of paid parking. Not afraid of paid parking. What I fear is people with your, I’m right and your not mentality. I never mentioned gambling as it is just an activity that some of the tourists indulge while they are here enjoying the magnificent scenery and outdoor recreation we have to offer. So based on your logic a family visiting to ski is just skiers not tourists. They don’t eat in the restaurants, shop in the stores, or god forbid take a fishing charter or rent a boat. Yes, it’s called trickle down. I own a vacation rental that TOURISTS enjoy. My TOT check would not be drawn if not for the mighty tourist dollar. I’m telling you Dayton NV, no tourists, lots of hot air in the summer blowing around! Your kind of place. Yes on P!
By the way, one last comment put your money and time where your mouth is! Our non-profit is bringing over 200 basketball teams for two events in May and June. Not to mention the many smaller events. CUFA brings the same number of people. “Ask not what your town can do for you, ask what you can do for your town”. I’m conservative but will happily give credit to great people liberal or conservative. Quit bitching and do something, anything besides sit behind your computer and complain! Yes on P.
Joby, you speak out both sides yo mouth, just like your daddy. You own a vacation home rental, you charge the people who play in your tournament, you and your daddy collect lots of money from your tenants and tourists who fill up on gas and wash their cars in the car wash, and all the money made selling the gas station, but heaven forbid it’s an outright crime if anyone else charges a tourist, even if it is just to park, all so you can charge them for everything else.
It’s ok if the tourist rents your home and ok if you charge them to play in the tournament, buy tickets, buy the uniforms, and it’s ok if they pay for gas, buy sandwich , eat in the restaurants, that’s ok but not ok if the city asks them if they want to pay to park. None of the other charges are a problem, only the pay to park. But you’re not bitching or anything like that, just talking both sides of your mouth
Joby. Your personal attacks on me do not help your argument nor sway me. Look at South Lake Tahoe from Google Maps. Notice anything “large” and dark on the Nevada side taking up lots of space… FREE PARKING LOTS around four aging and largely empty Casinos. Gambling came to Tahoe first then skiers.
We live under your vision of trickle down reagonimics now and yet you are the one complaining about paid parking being a nuisance to the tourists because they deserve to skate? I clearly do not follow the logic of your opinion.
However, clearly Airports, Sports Arenas, Disneyland, Attractions, etc that CHARGE a fee to park do not think it is a nuisance.
I do not want to give Tourists a free ride on my back.
As mentioned before, I have and for some reason continue to pick up the tourist trash and litter every time I am at a local beach, trail, waterfall and creek. I also give to local charities. So, does that count for putting something were there is someplace?
Oh, and blah, blah, blah back at you, since you are into that sort of thing.
Parker. As stated previously, I do not control what other people post on this blog. Clearly I did not post ignorant cheapskates. Perhaps penny wise and dollar poor would apply 4-Mer USMC?
Every endeavor and enterprise on the face of the Earth “wastes money” (sometimes lives). Two examples: BP and Oil Spills. Toyota and faulty throttle cables.
We agree that the City commitments should not be broken. Good. Is the City perfect? Hardly. Did the City do a good job during a rough economic period? Yes. Is it a good idea for the City to try to protect a $65 Million investment? I think so.
So, your Government Waste argument does not really work for me when there is so much waste on personal, local, State, National and Global levels. In my opinion the asset protection argument is simply stronger.
The economic, “nuisance,” and “fear the tourist backlash” arguments do not work either, since some places that thrive have paid parking. Example. Disneyland. Others do not thrive and offer free parking. Example. Stateline Casinos.
So, that leaves us with the “same ol same ol” argument of well, we have always had free parking and we don’t need to change; get rid of them. I simply disagree with the “no change” is needed mentality because that is what got us to this point to begin with.
Rock.
I wouldn’t expect to sway you. To make it clear, I’m not arguing. The attacks were started by you. I don’t like the negative dialogue of theses blogs and too often fall into the negative so with that said, I apologize. We have differing views of how to improve the quality of life in Tahoe. The city should spend their time and our money in different ways to come up with revenue, and in my opinion paid parking is just not the right method. Once again dumped trash is as likely to come from locals as tourists. As I respect your decision to vote no, you should respect my vote of yes on P.
To Steve-My Daddy has been a successful business person in this community for many years. In all of that time has given back as much as he has received in time and money. I too, have been here a long time and been able to make a living through both good and bad times. Not sure how offering goods and services to the tourism industry and both paying taxes and bringing tax revenue could be considered speaking out of both sides of my mouth but your opinion is just that. My initial post stated that I believe there are many other ways to increase revenue to help rebuild infrastructure than paid parking. The proceeds from the basketball tournaments all go back into the community. TOT, sales tax, facility rentals and youth sports. I will refrain from any further posts unless I can make a positive statement or offer a solution to a problem because all else is truly a waste of time. Yes on P! Then let’s hold our public officials accountable for real long term solutions, not band aids.
rock4tahoe:
I applaud your efforts to inform and reason and as I stated before I absolutely agree with your comments and rationale. But from my own experience I have come to understand that attempting to convince a group of mostly ignorant cheapskates who want everything given to them for free is an exercise in futility. However, one group I did neglect to include in my original assessment was the truly greedy, so it looks like we’ve got a real trifecta going on here.
And for you individuals who think these descriptions are directed at you, you may want to give some thought that it is you who is choosing to place yourself in one or more of those respective categories.
Yes Rock,
A lot of entities, including evil corporations, waste money. But a private business can’t go, “We’re short of cash. I order you to give us more money.”
A governmental entity is supposed to be acting on behalf of the public. And not for profit. Though it’s clear many are profiting quite nicely from ‘public service’.
And Yes, there are vacation places that have paid parking. So what? This is South Lake Tahoe. What applies to other places does not necessarily apply here. Do we raise our kids simply by copying what other parents are doing with their kids?
You mention the Casinos. Harrah’s/Harveys has tried to mimic things it has going on in Vegas here in SLT. It’s bombed.
And finally, I’ve never said instituting Paid Parking will end tourism in town. My opinion, and the opinion of most in tourist-related businesses, (you know, that deal directly with tourists) believe it harms, does not kill, but harms, our tourist-based economy.
And 4-mer, it’s just unfortunate that you have to name call someone, who in our democracy, has a different opinion than you do!
Parker:
What person did I “name call”? I referred to three categories of behaviors to which people can elect to adhere or may decline from adhering. Just like a person can disagree with what I state, I can disagree with what another person states. If you don’t like that it’s certainly your choice.
Like I said in my last post, it’s up to each individual who thinks that one or more of my referred to categories of behavior was directed at them to perform their own self-evaluation of its applicability.
If you can’t see that commenting ‘that attempting to convince a group of mostly ignorant cheapskates’, is personally attacking the 1422 So. Lake Tahoe citizens who signed the parking petition, and who will vote it out, then you’re on your own reality plain.
You don’t know how to respectfully disagree! Yes on P will pass! Paid Parking will be done! Hopefully you’ll be able to see after the vote that the majority of SLT citizens are not ignorant cheapskates?
I guess time will tell if those 1500 people will vote yes. If the blogs on this topic are an indication, most of the whiners and others opposed to paid parking dont get to vote on this issue because they dont live in the city proper. They seem to have the loudest whines about this. I personally dont go to the places where the paid parking will be in place and I dont have a problem with paid parking fees going to help keep these places in good maintenance. I will vote no on this issue. There are no free lunches. People using the facilities should contribute to the upkeep of them. Thats my opinion.
go figure- your logic might apply to Tahoe Commons but not to Lakeside. Lakeside is privately supported and uses NO CITY MONEY. They charge people (mostly tourists who use the beach in the summer) to pay a small all day fee to help cover expenses but it is kept open to everyone the rest of the year at no cost to the public. The use of the beach went down last summer by 50% and there is hardly anyone there during the rest of the year They stopped coming when the kiosks were installed since locals won’t pay to park and they don’t have permits to park without getting a ticket in the neighborhood.
Even Tahoe Commons is questionable when you go back and read what the city said before they implemented this ticket writing program. Where does the money go? Track it down and you’ll vote YES ON MEASURE P.
Parker:
“If you can’t see that commenting ‘that attempting to convince a group of mostly ignorant cheapskates’, is personally attacking the 1422 So. Lake Tahoe citizens who signed the parking petition, and who will vote it out, then you’re on your own reality plain.”
Thank you for your excellent example of making an attack completely personal and of demonstrating the inability of respectfully disagreeing.
If it turns out that the majority of SLT citizens vote Yes on P I will view that as an unfortunate confirmation that those people are ignorant cheapskates. That’s my right. However, those people and the 1,422 people who signed the petition will have had their way in our democratic process which is how it is supposed to work.
So Parker, if the vote goes the other way and No on P prevails, are you saying that you’ll be satisfied with those voters’ actions and won’t have any inclination to criticize?
VOTE NO ON P.
Joby. YOU started with the blah, blah, blah, insane, peanuts, “move to Dayton,” attacks. You can try to dodge now, but that won’t work. I am still here. Apology accepted… for now.
If we really wanted to “improve” the tourist experience in town we would open up more Lake access. People see the Lake from Echo Summit and get to town wondering what happened to it and are greeted with No Trespassing signs for good measure… but that is another topic.
I still feel protecting a $65 million dollar investment is a BIG THING. NO ON P.
Geez, we all feel like we are overhearing a childish conversation on an elementary school playground. Give it a rest guys. Go have a much needed timeout.
LTN staff
Parker. You wrote, “But a private business can’t go, We’re short of cash. I order you to give us more money.” Ummm, what happened in the year 2008 again? Oh yeah, all the big banks freaked out when Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros went down the tubes and what did they (and other businesses) say to Bush and Paulson? “We’re short of cash. I order you to give us more money.” They got almost a Trillion dollars.
Yes, elected officials are to act on behalf of the public. I think overall, the City has done that. I look around town and see major change for the better.
Again, I just don’t accept the “if you charge tourists to park, they will leave and never come back” argument. Try going to a Baseball or Football game… paid parking.
NO ON P.
Admin.,
This will be my last comment on this! All the times people vote differently than I do, Yes I criticize! But I respect! I don’t call them ignorant, I just say we have a disagreement. There is a difference. Name calling is disrespectful, and doesn’t enhance the debate in a democracy.
But Yes on P will pass! Bank on it!
The comment section on LTN is often riddled with insults and misguided accusations. I’ll tell you this, my family was in local business here on So. Shore for a very long time. If someone insults MY 90 year old Dad for our years of work in this town??? The gloves are off!!! You’re invited to have a little one on one over in my lot.You don’t insult my family or our reputation in this town without payin’ the consequences. Stop the name calling!!!
I’m gettin’ up there in the years but I’ll give it my all. Pay per view will be available for those interested.
All this back and forth over parking meters? Personal attacks on family members or those that state their point of view. Please vote yes on P!!! Good luck, OLS
USFS charges for parking, CalParks charges for parking, Marriott charges for parking, Embassy charges for parking, Ski Run charges for parking, Diamond resorts charges for parking, parking garage charges for parking, Lakeside charges people to walk on the beach, Marinas charge for launch and parking, campgrounds charge for parking, north lake public utility charges for parking to take transit, go figure on that one. The list goes on and on.
If parking fees are such an issue, where is the outcry at USFS, cal parks and all the others?
OLS. You don’t have a dog in this fight, I thought you were in Meyers?
Scott. Clearly there is NO outrage over paid parking since it is so prevelant. I suspect some other motive.
Disneyland charges for Parking too.
Money from the parking meters has been earmarked (according to City Manager at a recent Soroptimist meeting) to cover maintenance costs of both the Lake View Commons and the beach area near Stateline. LVC was noted as having maintenance costs of $100,000 per year. It’s a solid plan for keeping areas in our community updated, safe, and looking great. Vote NO tomorrow on Measure P to KEEP the parking meters in place. We need to begin to cover the cost of doing good business.
The Stateline beach is privately owned and fully maintained by Lakeside Park. NO city maintenance costs. The city is just charging and writing tickets to owners at their own property while impacting the number of tourists and locals who formerly used this beach. It’s a bad thing.