South Tahoe unloading parking kiosks
South Lake Tahoe is trying to get rid of the 33 kiosks it purchased for the parking program that no longer exists.
Three of the apparatuses will go to the local K-9 association. The organization plans to put them by the dog agility course in Bijou Community Park as a way to solicit donations. They will not be parking meters per se.
Tahoe Transportation District has expressed interest in possibly obtaining 20 of the kiosks. Those negotiations are on-going.
“A number of ideas have been looked at in addressing parking at Sand Harbor because the entrance booth at the entrance where the entrance fee is paid now can stack up traffic onto the highway. Parking kiosks can be used as an alternative to the booth, and is one idea for alleviating the traffic stacking,” Carl Hasty, executive director of TTD, told Lake Tahoe News.
The kiosks are no longer needed by the city because voters in June decided the program should go away.
South Lake Tahoe may keep a few as backups for the ones on Bellamy Court and Transit Way that were not affected by the ballot measure.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
old Hal could put one in his drive way.
maybe they could give one to the Lake Tahoe Historical Society.
Put one curbside in front of the house of each council member who supported and voted for this fiasco and make sure it is activated and operational.
What a total waste of everyone’s time and money
The kiosks? Someone here mentioned put them at our few dog parks to be used to collect money on a VOLUNTARY basis to help maintain the park. I must emphasize the word, VOLUNTARY!!! A good idea!
I also like the idea for using them as a dog agility course for the k-9 unit. That is,if nobody wants to BUY them from the city of SLT.
Our best option, in my opinion, is to sell them so we don’t lose money on something that most voters(at least the scant few that live here actually vote). Those that did vote made their voices heard! They did not want paid parking!
What scares me abit? That the TTD(Tahoe Transportation District), wants a bunch,(20) of these paid paking devices.
What TTD will do with these kiosks??? Well, it’s anybodys guess. Keeping my fingers crossed it all works out for the best for all the parties involved.
So watch where those kiosks wind up!!
If it wasn’t for the REAL journalissm here on LTN? Well, we wouldn’nt know about anything of what’s REALLY goin’ on in So. Shore and the whole Lake Tahoe area!
Keep up the good work Kae and Krew and keep us, the readers, residents and non residents alike, informed. Thank you and good night. Old Long Skiis
OLS the article explains what the TTD wants them for, they want to replace the entrance booth with these in to stop the long line going into Sand Harbor, its a saftety concern to stop traffic from backing up the highway.
My 9 year old son has a better grasp on how to spend his money. Then again, it wasn’t their money, it was ours. Ridiculous.
Reinstall them at Lakekside Commons so that place, with its heavy use, is maintained with a dedicated revenue source.
Atomic:
I couldn’t agree with you more. A recent visit to Lakeview Commons showed it to be dirty and unkempt and it’s now beginning to look rundown. A dedicated revenue source IS needed for year-round cleaning and maintenance of that publicly owned asset so it can be kept in quality condition but unfortunately there are some people in this town lacking any understanding of maintenance or quality. They see rundown and shabby conditions as “good enough” and they want everything for free. Makes me wonder what the upgrades to Harrison Avenue will look like in another few years.
Had I known that residents could buy annual parking passes for $40. a year, my vote would have gone the other way. I would have bought one the first year. I had no idea about this deal until after the vote. I was at City Hall, the airport when I saw the flier. I think the city should have done a better job at promoting the annual pass.
There was this story in Lake Tahoe News about the passes: https://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/03/s-tahoe-annual-parking-permits-sale/
Do like I do and get the daily email from LTN with all the headlines. It’s free.
I appreciate what you’ve said Informed, but that is not enough to let the general public know about the annual parking passes. One article in an online news source is not enough. More promotion from the city and I think more people would be willing to pay for parking to help maintain Lakeview commons. Where is the funding for the maintenance of this nice facility going to come from now?
Individuals wondering from where the money will now come to maintain this heavily used facility that is beginning to decline should check with newly elected City Council Member Tom Davis, Tahoe 4 Tahoe, etc. But I guess what’s important to all of them is that people in the future will be able to park for free when they go to use that free City park asset. Funny thing is that nothing is really free in this world and while those users of paid parking won’t have to pay anything toward this parks maintenance the rest of us taxpayers will or else this once nice park will become just another “it’s good enough” facility. Too bad “it’s good enough” is the apparent mantra for some SLT rubes.
Nearly $2 million in lost revenue over the next five years, in order to spare a few bucks for the privilege of parking right next to Lake Tahoe (which could be avoided by walking a couple of blocks, biking, taking the bus, etc). Penny wise, pound foolish.
Shame the ballot initiative happened in isolation, without having to consider budget trade-offs. For those that supported, where do your propose the city raise an additional $2 million, or cut services that amount?
If the original goal was to just fund maintenance of Lakeview Commons than parking kiosks in just the parking area by Lakeview Commons would have done the job. The kiosks were voted down because of all the other locations and the permit requirements in residential neighborhoods. As you might remember, maintenance for Lakeview Commons was not the original reason paid parking was enacted. City council over reached.
Some City residents want everything given to them and they want it all for free. This was a matter of some people not wanting to pay to park, a handful of people knowing how to artfully manipulate the system and get what they wanted, and a lot of people not caring enough to be informed or to even vote. While the users of those parking spaces can now park for free the rest of us taxpayers can either make up that lost revenue, or Lakeview Commons can be left to deteriorate. There’s only so much money to go around.
I guess the City needed the paid parking revenue cause they going to use it to purchase another brand new, broken down fire engine?
Parker:
The City had determined that the paid parking revenues would be designated for the maintenance and repairs that Lakeview Commons needs now and in the future to prevent it from turning into a rundown pile of s**t.
The manufacturer who actually drove and delivered the fire truck from the mid-west to SLT while I believe in 6-wheel drive has the responsibility of repairing the damage that they caused to the fire truck.
Can someone please explain why no fire engine has been at station 2 for over a month? What level of fire protection is the city providing with no ladder truck and no engine at station 2? Have the residents of Al Tahoe been notified to this change?
Then why were they charging for parking on Venice Ave. and the Lakeside Beach areas? And if they were so concerned about the Commons maintenance why didn’t they include that in the concessionaire’s lease in an open, not closed like they had, bidding process?
But at least they could spend a $mil. on a brand new, not working, fire engine!
Tahoe78:
I suggest contacting recently elected Council Member Tom Davis who should have all the answers. His City telephone number is 530.545.1168 and his email address is tdavis@cityofslt.us
Parker:
1) Paid parking was eliminated from Venice before Measure P was even a ballot item.
2) Lakeside paid parking was to pay for water quality and other infrastructure improvements that need to be made to that roadway and area which now the taxpayers will have to pay for.
3) Paid parking near Lakeview Commons was to pay for the Lakeview Commons’ maintenance and repairs.
4) The bidding process for the concessionaire food service at Lakeview Commons WAS an open bidding process and WAS presented at a City Council meeting. It was for a two-year agreement to operate a food concession.
5) Why would the cost of Lakeview Commons’ maintenance and repairs be included in a food concession bid?
Once again, the City didn’t break the new fire truck. That happened when the builder/manufacturer was delivering the truck and they have to make and pay for the repairs to make that right. And for the record, the majority of the cost of that fire truck was paid for with Federal and State government awarded grant funds which had been made available to any jurisdiction wanting to apply for that money for the purpose of purchasing that type of equipment.
Hating and blaming government is alive and well in SLT.
So in other words paid parking wasn’t originally to pay for the Commons maintenance! After the huge outcry, the City altered the plan and tried to sell the public on a ‘now you can trust us.’ campaign.
The concession agreements were not done in the open. They informed the public after it was decided.
And why wouldn’t the City announce to the public, “Hey, we got some opportunities for businesses to make some money at The Commons. But who gets those bids will be partially based on who best covers The Commons’ year round expenses.”
The public shouldn’t have to bail out the City’s failure to do that.
And if the City has a $mil. to drop like that, it’s not in need of money. It just always wants more.
Finally 4-mer, criticizing doesn’t equate with hating. Aren’t we in a democracy?
Parker:
1. As far as “in other words”, those are your words.
2. I watched the City Council meeting online when the public discussion and selection of the concession agreements took place, at which time Ken Curtzwiler tried to convince the City Council that they should award a concession contract to a friend of his who’d submitted a bid since his friend was a long-time SLT resident. So the concessionaire award was done in the open and all the associated back-up documentation was contained in the agenda packet.
3. I don’t think you have an understanding of how bid processes are structured or conducted.
4. The City didn’t drop $1 million dollars to pay for the fire truck–that was paid for with grant funds that were awarded for the express purpose of buying that fire-fighting apparatus. Do you know what a grant is?
I believe that hating and blaming government IS alive and well in SLT and that fallacies stated as fact don’t make them accurate.
While it is true that I attended and spoke in favor of awarding the concession to Danny Chavez there were several others who spoke as well and several others who wrote letters. The decision was based on who provided the best paperwork and the person who got the bid provided the best paperwork. I don’t know nor care who you are former but your constant fascination with me is flattering to say the least. Your tirades are getting to be old news and quite boring. Try to be a little less condescending as most are not quite as literate nor refined as you seem to think you are. I have no problem with who I am. I do attend the council meetings and do not Monday morning quarterback as others do. Most of your writings are are well thought out and it’s obvious you are well informed and educated but you come across as better than us and we both know that is not the case. Take Care.
LTN stated the truck ‘cost the City’ over a million dollars. If no tax dollars: City, State or Federal, of which I pay all, were spent on the truck, then I stand corrected. It came out of thin air.
And I saw a City Council Meeting where the public was informed, it wasn’t discussed or open for debate, of the committee’s (A two-person committee? One of the two of whom was later fired.) decision.
Plain & simple they failed to negotiate properly and cover Lakeview Commons’ maintenance.
And 4-mer, if the City simply announced they were going to charge for Parking in the Commons area, to help maintain the Commons, well actually I’d have had a problem with it, for previous reasons stated. But Paid Parking there would still be in place.
You pointed out all these other things Paid Parking was targeted to deal with initially. So it wasn’t about the Commons. And hence, this story about the kiosks now being, thankfully, a part of our past.
Kenny, congratulations on stepping up to the plate and running an honest citizens campaign!
And 4-mer, you don’t know everything and you’ve falsely judged me previously. I don’t hate the City I live in. I want our City Govt. to run in an efficient and sustainable way.
But 4-mer, with the Holiday upon us, I am done commenting on here for a bit. So you’ll get the last word. But I wish you, others I’ve gotten into it with on this site, and everyone else, a Happy Thanksgiving!!
Council, put it to a vote. I think the voting public would get behind a focused effort to maintain an asset like Lakeview Commons via paid parking ; especially with a pass. All that effort and no maintenance budget? The city needs to get down there and hit those paving stones with a high pressure hot water blaster. They are looking pretty beat already, as 4-mer has previously stated.
Mr. Curtzwiler:
My reason on this article for referencing your attendance at a City Council meeting and your recommendation for your friend was simply to make a point that the topic of a concession award had been openly addressed and that the public was not informed “after it was decided” as the person that I was responding to had stated.
Contrary to what you may think I am not fascinated by you and the majority of my historical comments regarding you were related to statements made during your political campaigning when you ran for EDC Supervisor. I do regularly watch the City Council meetings and when comments are made by anyone in that public forum they are recorded for the record and it only requires a brief review to determine what was said. I did some fact checking and believed that some of your campaign statements were inaccurate. If you believe I am condescending that is your prerogative, however when I went to grammar, middle, and high school we were taught that we should always strive to improve all our skills. I’ve worked very hard to learn to communicate via the written word, and being told now that I should dumb myself down is not something any one of my teachers or mentors ever advised me to do.
You take care also.
Parker:
Fortunately we do live in a democracy and we don’t all have to agree. But I do agree with your holiday acknowledgement and your message and I wish you, others I’ve gotten into it with, those I haven’t gotten into it with, and everyone else a Happy Thanksgiving. And even though it’s still early I wish everyone a happy religious holiday that pertains to their individual choice of worship.
Ok: the city bought the kiosks before they told the public, then they said it was to pay for two police officers. The audit they just did has only one expense, the kiosks. Now are we to believe that’s the only expense to run the paid parking program? The voters of SLT spoke at the polls June 3rd and Nov 4th. No paid parking, and by the way it looks now we will lose two council members that supported paid parking, eminent domain and loop road. Hope the new and old council will get their ears on. Happy Turkey Day!!!!