Letter: Don’t P on Tahoe


To the community,

The other day I saw a bumper sticker against paid parking in South Lake Tahoe on a nice car with a Nevada license plate. While the driver of that vehicle understandably would like to revert to the days of getting his front row beach access for free, eliminating the kiosks at Lakeview Commons and other locations simply means that South Lake Tahoe taxpayers will pick up the tab instead.

According to the city’s website, revenues gathered from the parking kiosks (approximately $250,000 per year) is dedicated to maintaining and improving the facilities where the kiosks are located, such as the boat ramps and restrooms at Lakeview Commons/El Dorado Beach. Without these dedicated funds, the city will either have to neglect maintenance — which would be unacceptable in this popular, highly trafficked destination — or use general fund revenue, aka local taxes, to pay for it.

Unlike the Lake Tahoe Airport, where city taxpayers subsidize high-rolling Nevada-bound golfers and gamblers, the paid parking program brings revenue to the city from those using city services, who paid on average $3.20 per visit last year. This is hardly an unreasonable price.

As a resident of El Dorado County, it’s in my selfish interest to get “free” parking, thank you very much city taxpayers. But as a resident of the South Shore community, I’m more than happy to make a small contribution for the privilege of parking right next to a great new gathering area on the lake that took tens of millions in public investment to create. If this were a private vendor trying to get a decent return on investment, rest assured the rates would be much higher.

Think of the community and the lake first when voting on the parking measure. Let’s not “P” on Tahoe – vote no on P.

John Friedrich, Meyers


About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (64)
  1. rock4tahoe says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    A bumper sticker against paid parking on a car with Nevada Plates? That’s a good one John. I agree for a number of reasons – NO ON P.

  2. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    Mr. Friedrich:

    I 100% agree. NO ON P.

  3. Deborah A. Palmer says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    I take no position on the ballot measure, as a Nevada resident, who also owns a home in South Lake Tahoe. My only concern is the clear prejudice against Nevada residents expressed in this opinion piece. We are all south shore residents. We need to work together to solve our mutual problems and disputes. Trashing Nevada residents to make a political point is not helpful.

  4. steve says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    If the city had decided to institute paid parking at just Lakeview Commons (where they do provide services), I’m sure they wouldn’t have had as large as negative reaction. Instead they decided to throw up parking kiosks at places like Venice Ave. and Lakeside where they provide absolutely no services. Furthermore, the public should consider that the parking lots at Lakeview Commons were actually paid for by grants from boating and waterways and the park facelift was paid for by a grant from the Tahoe Conservancy. Thus all California taxpayers have contributed to this park. I would also like to note, that until El Dorado Beach was transformed into Lakeview Commons, it was the city stance, that they could not charge for parking due to stipulations in the boating and waterways grants. Finally, it’s interesting to note that the city claims it needs the parking revenue to maintain Lakeview Commons while it’s willing to subsidize an airport used by far less people. Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to paid parking where the city provides services. However, the program was severely flawed from the beginning as the city did not bother to listen to the concerns of citizens.

  5. Chief Slowroller says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    I am amazed that some of you folks believe the Lies and deception that are put forth by the City.

    maybe some of you are being paid to promote their agenda’

    Sarge and Rock and John you do not live in the City
    and you’ve stated that you don’t go to El Dorado Beach.

    parking meters and parking tickets are a bad program.

    it does not promote good will or a friendly experience in Tahoe.

    the Handicap fine is $565.00

    vote Yes to end the parking meters and the overzealous ticketing program

  6. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    I am amazed that some of you folks believe the lies and deception that are put forth by Tahoe4Tahoe. Maybe some of you are being paid to promote their agenda.

    And for the record Slowroll, I own property within the city limits of the City of South Lake Tahoe on which I pay taxes so I am entitled to an opinion on this matter. You people who go to El Dorado Beach just want everything for free.

    Vote NO on P.

  7. Parker says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    A guy in Meyers, not in the City limits, has a problem with someone else outside our City limits expressing his/her opinion? Kinda hypocritical!

    The fat salaries & pensions of current & former City employees shows the City doesn’t the need the money! As does the fact that the City didn’t lease out the Lakeview Commons concessions to the highest bidders, in case the maintenance of the Commons is the used rationale for Paid Parking.

    And the business owners who deal with the tourists will tell you that Paid Parking hinders the tourist experience. Yes on P! End Paid Parking!

  8. gottaluvthelocals says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    Mr. Slowroller before you accuse the city of putting forth lies and deceit, might want to check to see how much the handicap fine is. What does that have to do with measure P anyway?

  9. Yes on P says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    YES on P

    Parking fees and tickets (because some signs are hidden – Lakeside) do promote a negative feel for tourists – in which we all need for our economy.

    Retention people!

  10. Hmmm... says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    I wonder what kind of revenue would be generated if the city were to fine the idiots who drop their cigarette butts out of their vehicles.

  11. Mary Ellen says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    Almost everyone I’ve spoken to – tourist or local, says parking fees are the norm in most tourist destinations nowadays, and most people don’t bat an eye. I’ll wager that beautiful, well-maintained facilities are a bigger draw to our town than free parking. How many tourist magazines do you see that say – “come to beautiful Lake Tahoe – the parking is free!!!”? I don’t see anyone launching a campaign against $7 parking at the forest service beaches, and why would they? They understand that if those fees go away, the great, clean, trash-free access to those beaches will go away.

    The City cannot lie about its budget – which is audited, but the meter-bashers can say whatever they want. The City has even posted their budget on their website. Check the facts yourself. NO on P.

  12. Scott says - Posted: June 1, 2014

    City residents are short sighted, if this passes. They would rather make parking free on the front end for themselves and everyone else, while picking up the financial responsibility on the other end as pointed out by John’s letter. Before the meters were there, only city taxpayers pay for all the expenses at the public beaches that so many others use. Maybe they should charge a beach fee like Lakeside does , since Lakeside thinks that’s a good idea. If this passes then I too will park for free while City residents pay for it. Sounds good to me.

  13. Buck says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    4-mer: like I have said before I do not want a sign or meters in front of my house or business. How can there be a profit if half the meters are in storage and no one was at the beach for 6 months? Expenses are far greater then NET profits thus nothing left for upkeep. Cooked books. As I understand the CA chamber is for YES on P and NV chamber wants us to pay for parking in our city yet free on their side. YES ON P!!!

  14. No On P says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    The Lake, beaches and recreation areas need to remain free to keep our tourists coming, not the parking. Parking is a convenience that people are willing to pay for. Giving it away at our marquis locations cheapens our community–especially when the result of unlimited free parking is an inability to provide maintenance.
    Our City needs more funding sources, not fewer.
    No on P shows that we are proud of our community.

  15. rock4tahoe says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    “Cooking the books?” Thats the reason for tourists to get free parking? Weak deflection. No on P.

  16. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    From my personal experience working in the capacities beginning as an accounting clerk many years ago through to being a Treasurer, I don’t believe that the City’s “books have been cooked”. While some people may think it’s simple to get away with making huge, fraudulent adjustments in accounts to manipulate Financial Statements, that’s not easy to accomplish. A lot of people would need to collude and participate in that type of endeavor including the independent auditing firm and the City doesn’t have the kind of financial wherewithal to make a payoff to an auditing firm for them to lie and then potentially destroy their own business reputation and entire business future. The City also doesn’t give out bonuses like billion dollar corporations do for their CEOs and CFOs based on profits so there’s no incentive to cook the books.

    I accept your opposition to paid parking but I still remain in support of paid parking. I think that the users of services should be the ones to pay for them and I don’t think that the privilege of parking for free at our city amenities should be borne solely by this City’s property tax payers.

    NO ON P!

  17. Moral Hazard says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    4-mer, the City is not committing fraud, but they are lying about costs associated with paid parking. So its not a crime, but it is immoral. Here is what they are doing:

    The parking program has two distinct but related components, the actual paid parking spots, and then the parking control areas in adjacent neighborhoods. The City has decided that in all of their information they will not provide or discuss the parking enforcement in the neighborhoods. The costs of the two new parking enforcement officers are of course in the neighborhood and only 25% of their time is in the actual parking spots.

    So if you have absolutely no moral compass, then it is possible to group the new officers into general parking enforcement and hide the expense.

    Nancy and the Council have no moral compass, and that is exactly what they are doing.

  18. Buck says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Moral Hazard: Could not have said it better. Thank You. Yes ON P!!

  19. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Moral Hazard:

    I don’t understand your logic. If the parking program’s two distinct components are all the City’s actual paid parking spots then the rest of the parking control areas would include the remainder of the entire City. I think that a pro rata 25% of a parking enforcement officer’s time being dedicated to all the City’s paid parking areas and 75% dedicated to the remainder of the City sounds reasonable.

    Assigning a pro rata portion of expenses and/or revenues is routine in business and in accounting and has nothing to do with morals.

  20. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Moral Hazard:

    I apologize; I misread your speculative supposition that the new enforcement officers’ salaries were being grouped into general parking enforcement costs. So is my understanding correct that what you’re saying is that the City’s accounting staff that does the data input has been directed by the City Council, City Manager, and the Accounting Managers to record those expense entries in an account other than where they should appropriately be expensed?

  21. Moral Hazard says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    The City has infinite ability to group expenses just as any other entity does. Expenses should be grouped into logical categories of course. So its not the specific account in question, it is the accounts, plural, that are combined into a single number. So the recording is exactly as it should be, but good luck finding the individual expense without actually getting a general ledger from them.

    All of the expenses and revenue from parking enforcement in the newly designated permit parking areas are being left out of the Cities information about paid parking. Parking enforcement in those communities drastically changed with paid parking. And I mean drastically. Those expenses are being hidden by the City. The revenue is to, but they don’t want to show how many tickets they are writing in the permit areas.

    That is a lie. That is immoral, but it is not illegal, not even close to illegal.

  22. Pedaling Pete says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    As I understand it the two enforcement officers were not hired because of paid parking, they were hired to replace the enforcement contract the city had with High Sierra Security that ended. The drastic change to parking enforcement is due to the enforcement officers doing their jobs vs the previous High Sierra Security apparently taking a much more casual approach to enforcement. There seems to be a belief that if paid parking goes away so will enforcement, that is not true. Paid parking and parking enforcement (parking tickets) are not the same thing.
    You don’t seem to understand that the expenses for paid parking that the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group keeps quoting include the maintenance costs for the lot not the cost of the paid parking alone. These cost will not go away nor will the parking enforcement go away.

    I my experiences the people who think that everybody is lying to them are the people who lie the most.

    Like John says either the city residents pay for all of the maintenance or we share it.

  23. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Moral Hazard:

    I fully understand Financial Accounting and the assignment of an account number to an individual transaction, and the grouping of accounts that get transferred to an Income Statement/P&L and to a Balance Sheet. My question to you is whether you believe that four City Council Members (since Tom Davis is against paid parking) and the City Manager colluded together and directed the Accounting Manager to either direct the individual who prepares the payroll journal entry which records the payroll expenses into the general ledger to falsify those numbers, or directed the Accounting Manager to make a journal entry to falsify those numbers, so when the Financial Statements were run those expenses would not be accurately reflected?

  24. go figure says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    NO ON P

  25. Rachel says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Go Pedaling Pete!

  26. baphomet says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    i also agree 100% with mr. friedrich. NO ON “P”!!!!!

  27. TeaTotal says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Tell all your friends to Vote No on paid parking!-Most people don’t read the ballot measures and have no clue what they’re voting for or against-moral hazard thinks having a degree in economics and being a trickle down reaganite is reasonable thinking-that’s a joke

  28. Parker says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    So since I’m now hearing Paid Parking is about fairness and having pride in our community, that means if Paid Parking is upheld my sales tax is getting reduced? And/or my business license fee?

    Because if they’re not getting reduced, you know those things I’ve been paying all these years for road maintenance, and that have been increased on me, and that are greater than what my friends pay in other communities, that means Paid Parking is just a shameless revenue grab under a different name?!

    Yes on P! (Unless you’re telling me those other fees are going to be reduced?)

  29. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    I have never had children but I’ve always paid school taxes so other people’s children could receive an education. By your line of reasoning I suppose I should demand a refund on those school taxes I’ve paid since I didn’t receive any personal benefit. Sometimes we just do the right thing for the improvement of our community and for the advancement of our society as a whole, even if it costs us a small amount of money.

    In this case it will only be a small fee for those individuals electing to park in those valet equivalent located parking spaces. People not wanting to pay don’t have to park there.

    I’m requesting that people please vote No on P and show their willingness to help maintain and improve the community where they and their family live.

  30. Parker says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    You don’t get the point 4-mer,

    The City already gets plenty of revenue, from a variety of sources. They just want more. They keep trying to give different rationales, and those for Paid Parking have tried to impugn the motives of those opposed. But plain & simple, it’s the ever more & more revenue grab!

    Vote Yes on P! The City needs to learn how to efficiently allocate the money, some of which came from past tax increases, that it already has coming in!

  31. Joby says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    “Lies and deception put forth by Tahoe 4 Tahoe”. Why, because you have a differing opinion. So far in the couple of comments close to me, you have called my son out for his efforts in Africa, and my father out for his effort with Tahoe 4 Tahoe. As a former USMC you fought for our country to uphold the constitution, so people could have differing views.

    Lies and deception prove it! The city on the up and up? Prove it! I was on the planning commission when Lakeview Commons was approved. I know how it was funded and the plans on how to maintain it. Do you? Get involved in your community on a grander scope, than bashing people on a blog. You are passionate and care about Tahoe, as seen in your posts. I love passion and concern even when I’m not in total agreement. Get involved, be a part of the solution instead of bashing any that disagree.

    Yes on P! Quit bashing good people because you disagree or dislike. You can call my father many things, dishonest is not one of them. You can bash my kid, but while you are here pasted to your computer. He is in Africa teaching kids how to make soap and run a business. Once again yes on P! Try not to be so negative it makes for a much happier disposition. I respect your service to our country and your differing views. Try to do the same to others. The Golden Rule.

  32. Chief Slowroller says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    did any of you jokers get a Robo call from old Hal?

    we need the money-we need the money=we need the money.

    the truth is that they are going to put us further into debt.

    with those projected incomes they can leverage us into the poor house.

    Lies and Deception that’s how old Hal and the team operates.

    think about measure S we’ve been Porked 4 times
    since that vote in 2000.

    Stop the Parking Meters vote YES.

  33. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    While you think that I don’t get the point, I think that you enjoy bad mouthing what you consider “the man” and making unfounded accusations.

    On this issue we will need to agree to disagree and tomorrow the voting public will make a decision on this one way or the other.

    NO ON P!

  34. rebel with a cause says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    I continue to read so many differing opinions on this blog. Thank you all for sharing your views. Personally, and it was not an easy decision, I have decided to vote NO. My family has never cancelled a vacation, nor changed plans because of paid parking.

    Almost every tourist area where we vacation has some sort of paid parking. The tourists are not going to stay away from one of the most beautiful places in the world because of paid parking in a very few select locations.

    I encourage a NO vote on measure P!

  35. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Joby Cefalu:

    In case you didn’t notice, my posted comment that “I am amazed that some of you folks believe the lies and deception that are put forth by Tahoe4Tahoe…maybe some of you are being paid to promote their agenda”, it is the exact same remark that Chief Slowroller wrote directly above my comment, except I swapped out his reference to the City and put in Tahoe4Tahoe. It was a mockery on what he’d written and I figured since Slowroller was entitled to accuse the City of lies and deception in his post I had the identical right to say the same of Tahoe4Tahoe.

    So your declaration that the City, which is actually the City Council Members, the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and the City staff, are lying and deceiving and is not on the “up and up” is OK for you and people like Slowroller to publicly write but it’s not OK for me to write my differing opinion? And it’s OK for you and people like Parker to bash me because I don’t agree with all you Yes on P advocates but I don’t have the right to state my differing opinion? Interesting set of standards some of you long-time locals live by and think are acceptable.

    If you want to be angry at me because I’m not a fan of your Father that’s fine. In the event you never bothered reading the entire thread about your sons work in Africa which I continued to participate in, it actually ended quite amicably and I informed him that I was impressed with him.

    Perhaps you need to become better informed and you need to stop bashing people. Your possession of the Cefalu name doesn’t mean you get to make up the rules.

  36. Parker says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    I guess you were also a psychologist or psychiatrist, because you always take (as other bloggers also pointed out) a condescending attitude and try to always psychoanalyze or ‘shrink’ someone who disagrees with you.

    I’m not out to get ‘the man’, nor am I paid to oppose Paid Parking, as you implied many who oppose it are.

    You’re for Paid Parking, as are some other good dedicated citizens of our community. But many, and I firmly believe the majority as the votes will show tomorrow, good dedicated citizens are opposed to Paid Parking.

    I’ll say it one more time, amongst the many reasons to be opposed to Paid Parking is that it’s the umpteenth revenue grab I have seen this City attempt. If it’s anything other than that, the proposal would be a revenue neutral one!

    I’m not out to get anyone. Just my view as long-term dedicated resident of The City of South Lake Tahoe! Yes on P! End The Paid Parking Fiasco!

  37. Joby says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Excellent work! You proved my point to a tee. You sit and wait for anyone to disagree and pounce. I made no declaration that the city was deceitful in any way I challenged you to prove they are not. I actually have great respect for most of the City Staff, Council, City Clerk and City Manager. Don’t always agree, but respect.

    My possession of the Cefalu name means I respect the rules and will stand up against any fool that tries to bash our name or family out of either jealousy or lack of knowledge. I did not once criticize you, in fact offered respect/advice. Quit being such a d***. Try to get your point across in a positive manner. Most important….step away from your computer and smell the roses. All that bull**** you spew must really bring you down.

    As for informed, please read that over and over before you write another word. If the shoe fits buddy!

  38. Joby says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Yes on P!

  39. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    Why do you condemn me for copying the exact same thing that Chief Slowroller wrote but he’d referred to the City and I inserted Tahoe4Tahoe? (I am amazed that some of you folks believe the Lies and deception that are put forth by the City. maybe some of you are being paid to promote their agenda’.- posted by Chief Slowroller on June 1, 2014.) So Parker, as I said in my post to Joby Cefalu, I was mocking Slowroller. But do you think Slowroller has the right to make his comments about the City but I don’t have the right to make the exact same comments about Tahoe4Tahoe?

    Parker, are you telling me what I’m doing? Are you sharing the thoughts of all other bloggers? Are you putting words in my mouth and then shrinking my actions because I don’t agree with you?

  40. Joby says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    A much greater money grab for the city would be to annex Meyers. All of the Vacation Rentals TOT, increase revenue from cities share of property tax, garbage fees, sales tax. Ten times the revenue of paid parking. Why should all the Meyers residents get a free ride on the back of the city? They love to comment on how us city folk should vote. Jump in Meyers, join the party.

  41. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Joby Cefalu:

    First off, you posted your nasty gram to me which started this whole dialogue. I didn’t even mention your name, your Father’s name, your son’s name, or your family’s name in anything I posted on this article. So if that shoe fits, you wear it buddy.

    “The city on the up and up? Prove it!”
    I did not pose the above question of the City being on the up and up—you did. That sounds like some kind of declaration of deceit to me. Since I did not make any derogatory accusations about the City I don’t have to prove anything. In a democracy you’re innocent until proven guilty.

    I also have great respect for the majority of the City staff, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, which is why I become offended when people take cheap shots at them. When people accuse “the City” of lies and deception (like Chief Slowroller did) they are accusing the people who work there, some of whom are my friends and neighbors, and not some esoteric entity that floating out in space.

    Perhaps my direct writing style appears too blunt for some, but many years ago I needed to learn how to write with clear meaning. If that is too hard on some people’s sensitivities that’s not my problem because I don’t intend to dumb things down.

  42. Joby says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    “Nasty Gram”. Read it again please. Every column, every post, your opinion is damming someone who disagrees, to eternal stupidity and although you lack true intelligence your attempt is to prove that you are superior.
    I enjoy Kae’s read. The news/opinion here is really the only information in town worthy of reading. The blogs on the other hand are absolutely ridiculous! That includes some of mine. The difference between you and I, is I am man enough to put my name to it. As you stated weeks ago you fear reprise. As my father taught me long ago, if you can’t stand for what you believe or believe in where you stand you are a coward. That’s the man you stated above you dislike. As for my son, he is a better man than I, as he was willing to sit and talk with you in regards to the legitimacy of his cause. I personally could care less what a person like you believes. I will continue to read LTN but stop at the blog, so I no longer am subject to your uninformed feel good opinions. So long former!

  43. Parker says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    If you can’t see what I, and others, point out, that’s unfortunate. When you can’t argue the facts, you question people’s motives. Put words in your mouth?

    You said I had it out for ‘the man’. That’s putting words and motives in my mouth, when you don’t even know me. I can handle your arrogance. It’s not too hard on my ‘sensibilities’. It’s just unfortunate you don’t want to discuss the facts.

    Paid Parking is a revenue grab. They’re trying to disguise it as something else, but that’s what it is.

    Paid Parking hinders the tourist experience here. Businesses that deal with tourists here in town will tell you that. Bring up other towns all you want. In this town, our customers don’t like it.

    We already have a high TOT, sales tax & business license fee. Just because our City has a bloated pay & pension system, wastes money in other ways: consultants, under bidding concessions, etc., it shouldn’t go after more money from John Q. Public.

    Now I’m done commenting until after the vote tomorrow. A vote you encouraged me, 4-mer, to pursue. While I had nothing to do with Tahoe4Tahoe, they put a lot of effort to get this on the ballot.

    And you’ll see 4-mer, that the effort you encouraged, will lead to the repeal of Paid Parking!

  44. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014

    Joby Cefalu:

    Apparently you were determined to start something with me or you wouldn’t have sent that first post addressed directly to me. I think you are accustomed to always having your own way, you don’t like anyone not acquiescing to you, and since you apparently want to make it a contest, I think I’m smarter than you and I think that I am of superior character.

    For the record, what my father taught me was to protect your family at all cost, which I take very seriously. If you don’t like that I don’t post my name that’s your problem.

    And the only thing that you and I agree on is that we have nothing else to talk about.
    Vote No on P!

  45. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 2, 2014


    You and I will likely never agree on anything.

    On this issue the voting public will make a decision one way or the other.

    NO ON P!

  46. cosa pescado says - Posted: June 3, 2014

    Parker is a troll. The fact that they are saying that you are not basing an argument on fact is hilarious. They fell for the pipe club BS, refused to operate on a true definition of climate, tried to back track by basically admitting to being a troll, denies referencing debunked scientists. They have consistently demonstrated zero academic integrity.
    “I think that I am of superior character.”
    I second that. I don’t agree with you in many situations but you have substance and if you were called out for basing an argument on BS, you would probably address the BS and reformulate your position, or at the very least admit to being a part of some BS. Everyone makes mistake, how individuals respond to mistakes is what counts.
    Jobys earlier statement on the validity of an opinion and integrity is a red herring. Being anonymous is irrelevant, and it is good, as long as your have substance and integrity.

  47. steve says - Posted: June 3, 2014

    If the city had listened to the citizens and enacted paid parking in a logical manner (places where city services like restrooms and trash are provided) then we would not be voting on it today. Instead they threw up kiosks at places like Venice Ave and Lakeside where basically the city provides a street to park along. This sure looks like a revenue grab as Parker pointed out. To add further insult, we just found out the other day from our city manager that the airport is being subsidized to the tune of $350,000 and no paid parking there. Why not paid parking at the Recreation Complex? How about the library or high school. The city will burn through any revenue it generates and still want more. Yes on P

  48. go figure says - Posted: June 3, 2014

    Again, VOTE NO ON P

  49. City Resident says - Posted: June 3, 2014

    Vote NO on P.

    If you live in the city, don’t be persuaded by the Stateline and county residents writing here who would like yet another freebee paid for by the poor suckers who live in the City of South Lake Tahoe. People who don’t live in the city should help pay for the services we provide them. The city has generously offered them the same discounted parking pass that they’ve offered city taxpayers, but that’s apparently not enough.

    Vote NO on P.

  50. BYOTP says - Posted: June 4, 2014

    I think most county and Stateline residents were unaware they too could get that discounted parking pass. Most people I speak with would rather have nicely maintained facilities and are willing to pay for them. It tends to be the tourists who come up here and trash the place–hence beach clean up after 4th of July. Not all of them of course. If you want nicer facilities, you pay for them. That’s just the way it is. (So now, bring your own toilet paper!)

  51. go figure says - Posted: June 4, 2014

    BYOTP, and they should probably bring rubber gloves and cleaning whipes too. I usto clean these types of facilities and unkept public toilets are some of the scariest things ive ever seen. Maybe the Cefalus can “adopt a toilet” at lakeview commons since they live nearby.

  52. Buck says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    BYOTP/go figure: Oh the gloom and doom. The sky is falling! The money lost on this parking management program would have bought ALOT of TP!

  53. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 5, 2014


    I think you should run for City Council this November. I want to see what you will do to solve the economic problems of this City and to make and pay for all the improvements that are needed and to maintain everything.

    There are three seats up for grabs this November and I want you, Parker, and Moral Hazard to run for office and show us what you’ve got. Since the majority of people in this town won’t even make the effort to vote, and with all your historical suggestions and criticisms of the City Council and City government, you three should have no trouble getting yourselves elected and having this town be what you think it should.

    I challenge you three to run for office and show us what you’re made of.

    Spouse – 4-mer-usmc

  54. Scott says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Dogula, Bitter Klinger, and Moral Hazard should run for the 3 City Council spots. They already each spend AT LEAST 40 hours a week telling us all what a bunch of idiots we are for no salary at all! Imagine what one could do with all that free time if it was channeled into productive activities…

  55. Moral Hazard says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    4-Mer, I am qualified to run; but they don’t pay money. That means I am out. Me and a lot of other qualified people.

    And instead of looking at paid parking I would be looking at the present value of post retirement benefit liabilities.

  56. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Moral Hazard:

    Well isn’t this a dilemma since no one wants to do this because it doesn’t pay any money and no one wants to pay any money to have this done. Interesting situation. But I still think you should run for City Council to demonstrate your unquestionable dedication to SLT and to show everyone else how this town should be managed since you’re qualified.

    I want you, Parker, and Buck to run for City Council and make this town into what you think it should be.

    Spouse – 4-mer-usmc

  57. go figure says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Hey, @uck, time will tell, time will tell……

  58. Paul says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Moral Hazard, that’s a somewhat ironic answer, given the countless hours you obviously spend on this website posting to each and every article for no salary. I guess it’s a lot easier to hide behind a keyboard and make snide comments about how stupid everyone else is than to put yourself out there and show everyone your amazing skills.

    I might be paraphrasing a bit, but remember the words of Jesus:

    “If you aren’t going to make a huge personal profit off of something. don’t bother!”

  59. Moral Hazard says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Paul, please post a link to a comment where I said members of the Council should get no money.

    I will repeat what I have always said; We get what we pay for. We do not get professional managers running because they cannot afford to run. I cannot sacrifice my home, my retirement or my families security to run. Nor can anyone else.

    If you want to change, then be prepared to hire the right person to effect the change.

    Jesus aint got nothing to do with it sport.

  60. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Moral Hazard:

    I think you should run for office and get all those people off the City Council and out of government that you think aren’t qualified. If you don’t make SLT into the community that you think it should be what type of future security will you be creating for yourself and for your family in SLT? Just get yourself elected and then change the rules and pay yourself. No one would be upset about that, would they?

    Don’t you think that if someone really loves their community and they are qualified to fix all its problems that they should do it?

    Spouse of 4-mer

  61. Paul says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    Moral Hazard, you missed my point. I’m not claiming you said the Council shouldn’t be paid. I’m saying that your response that you won’t run because you don’t want to spend the time and not get paid for it is hilariously ironic. We already know you have a tremendous amount of free time on your hands during which you don’t get paid, given the countless hours you spend posting to this website (and breathlessly awaiting people’s responses so you can reply). Your time doesn’t seem to be in short supply or particularly valuable… Think about if you spent those hours productively giving back to our community as a member of the Council. We already know you’d be great at it because of how often you remind us how much smarter you are than us Tahoe rubes. We’re begging you to come save us from ourselves! Will you answer our call?

  62. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    And Parker and Buck:

    When are you going to answer the call for service to your community? Don’t you think that if someone really loves their town and they are qualified to fix all its problems that they have to run for office and do that? Not hearing a commitment from you to fix everything is like getting some kind of mixed message and it’s becoming very disconcerting.

    Spouse of 4-mer

  63. dryclean says - Posted: June 5, 2014

    City council possibilities – Jeff Cowan, Austin Sass and Deb Howard.

  64. Anette says - Posted: June 18, 2014

    I am confused as to why it is a big deal, that the vehicle with the bumper sticker, had a Nevada plate. I lived in South Lake & wad a Nevada resident on top of Kingsbury grade. People in Nevada want the previlage to park for free too. Anyhoo, I support the fee. They had done a lot of work in those beach areas, it would be nice if they stay that way. You have to pay to park in Zeypher Cove private beach area. Quit whining!