Opinion: Why Measure R deserves to be defeated
Publisher’s note: The following is the rebuttal argument for Measure R that was submitted for the voter guide.
I feel the best way to decide your vote on Measure R is to simply tour the two facilities in question. At the ball fields you will find new paint, poles, bleachers and grass. All of these improvements were accomplished through the hard work of several individuals and organizations without any financial support from Measure S. Voters should reject Measure R since it will not add any new fields, it will simply destroy and rearrange a fully functioning complex.
Along the bike trail you will find large dangerous cracks that as residents we told the JPA to fix years ago with Measure S. It’s obvious the wording of Measure S needs to be changed to allow bike trails the use of its own funding, but why steal half of its money for unnecessary field renovations. Cities like Sacramento, Boise, and Bend have world renown bike trails and, in our struggle to rebrand our city, a freshly paved bike trail system would be a great start.
As residents, we deserve all of our trails to be in the same renovated condition as the Al Tahoe section recently completed.
Locals should vote no on Measure R because our trails need 100 percent of the money voters restricted for its use not just half. With 100 percent of trail funding available, improvements like public restrooms and bike parks can be envisioned and implemented. Safe bike trails benefit all and the unwarranted money grab for the ball fields in Measure R should receive your no vote.
Stephen Reinhard, former South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation commissioner
You have my vote – NO on R. We need better bike trails.
This is an easy one, NO on R. This is not what the voters requested on S. Stop the nonsense and fix the paths already!
Get used to the status quo, it appears neither side as the needed votes.
It needs to be defeated until a full accounting of where the $800,000.00
or so for
bike trail maintenance has or hasn’t been spent. Come on Mr. Upton and release the numbers or is there a reason the JPA doesn’t want the public to know the numbers?
No on R.
This may be a dumb question, but does the whole basin get to vote on this, since the whole basin pays it, or is it just part of the city’s ballot?
Does the whole basin pay for it?
No just those living within the boundary of the school district
vote.
Sorry, I didn’t mean the WHOLE basin. I meant the whole South Shore part of El Dorado County. I guess that means the school district, even though it’s not a school issue. I misspoke!
The Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that was formed under Measure S covers the same area, approximately, as the school district. Those residents within those boundaries pay the additional tax. Measure R adds no new taxes. The questions that I think voters should consider are: how many people make use of the ball fields and how many people make use of the bike trails? Which funding alternative will do the most to benefit our community? It seems to me that both of the groups who are competing for these dollars are special interest groups. The question is which special interest group has enough votes to actually pass this Measure? Has there been an actual proposed Measure published yet? If not, how can anyone be either for or against the Measure?
OMG!!! Good old boy John Upton makes news again !!
No doubt ! John boy will run again now that Jack and Ray made it.Even with the Briggs to nowhere, for one.
Spanky made it OMG
As someone who didn’t attend even one of 6 meetings on Measure R, Mr. Reinhard is poorly positioned to argue against it. His arguments show a stunning lack of understanding of what Measure S (S) originally intended and how Measure R (R) will address today’s radically changed realities. He’s plastered his diatribe against R in every local media and in the voter guide for November’s election. Like the Wizard of Oz, he’s trying to bamboozle voters with smoke and mirrors and you should pay no attention to that man hiding behind the curtain of uninformed rhetoric and lack of involvement.
For the record, I agree that our bike trail ‘system’ is woefully inadequate and in dire need of maintenance, renovation and expansion. I’ve been a public advocate for better bicycling infrastructure for 20+ years. I bicycle commute almost daily when roads are free of ice and snow so I know first hand how dysfunctional and dangerous it currently is. I supported S as it was necessary to secure funding available 10+ years ago to build the 28 miles of planned multi-use paths. S provides the funding mechanism necessary to MAINTAIN the planned paths. Without maintenance funding, no construction grants could be secured. S NEVER provided funding to build new paths or maintain those that existed prior to Sept. 2000. I also acknowledge that there have been serious issues raised with the administration of Measure S funds in the past. With everything now under the bright light of public and media scrutiny, I feel assured that the process will be transparent and inclusive from here on.
Fast forward to 2011— The economy is in shambles, construction grants have all but evaporated and local streets and paths are a disaster of crumbling asphalt. Our community and our entire nation desperately needs to work together COOPERATIVELY to pull ourselves out of this mess. Political polarization has resulted in paralysis on all levels. We’ve all seen the damage that has done to our economy, our national reputation and our spirits. We simply can’t afford to allow this to continue. Except for the ultra wealthy, we’ll all go under unless we work together to fix the leaks in our sinking ship. That’s why I and other involved citizens (who actually attended the meetings and participated in the democratic process Mr. Reinhard!) will support Measure R which has been painstakingly crafted by a coalition of stakeholders including cycling advocates and supporters of various ball sports. Both are recreational activities that attract clean tourism, both are in need of infrastructure improvement and both will benefit the economy, residents and visitors alike. “Bike” paths have the added benefit of facilitating alternative, clean transportation and thus have a more comprehensive benefit so that funding gets priority. However, both will bring economic benefit and will act as an example of how different interest groups looking to access limited funds can work together for their and for the entire communities mutual benefit. What a concept!!! In order to get the necessary 2/3 majority vote to pass R, it will take both groups working together. People have to cooperate to get anything done. Perhaps we could show our dysfunctional state and federal politicians how and why this is so important!
Some specifics: Accumulating S funds cannot be re-directed to pre-S paths without voter approval. R would change that to allow funds to be used to repair / reconstruct older paths AND increase the annual and per-mile allocation for path maintenance. There are currently several miles of new paths working their way through the planning / funding process and R has been written to assure that maintenance funds for these and all future new sections along with the 8 newer miles already on the ground will be “sacred”. This is only one key provision that cycling advocates involved in the process insisted upon for our support of R.
So why would cycling advocates support using some of the money to upgrade ball fields? First, a little history: Two years ago, Little League supporters attempted to pass Measure B (B) which would’ve taken some unused funds to upgrade only those fields. The process didn’t include cyclists and supports of other ball sports like girls softball and that lack of inclusion is what ultimately and rightfully doomed B. I was a very public critic of B and now, like others who opposed it, have helped craft R and will support it. Again it’ll take a 2/3 majority to pass R and neither cycling nor ball sports interests alone have that majority. Additionally, ball tournaments do attract many visitors. I talk with them on a regular basis. Who wouldn’t want to get out of the hot, polluted air in the valleys and play in Tahoe’s fresh, cooler air? One soccer tournament is even called the Come Up For Air Tournament. Last weekend there were 3 separate girls softball tournaments here. The recent world soccer tournament put woman’s soccer on the front pages and that will translate to more interest in that sport. All of this would mean more visitors supporting our economy IF we have the infrastructure to hold multiple tournaments. I don’t play ball sports personally, but I see how they could contribute to our economy and greatly improve conditions for our local leagues.
Lastly: The JPA has the power to decrease the $18.00 annually added to our residential property taxes within Community Services District if the money isn’t being spent. They cannot raise it without voter approval but can decrease it and have said they’re considering that. We’d lose funding for maintaining bike paths and ball sports facilities. Who would benefit from that? No one! It’s widely understood that in order to stimulate the economy you have to invest in it. Think about that before you decide on how to vote.
Measure R is merely a grab by certain special interests for the unspent pot of taxpayer money that poorly-planned and poorly-administered Measure S tricked voters into approving, and failed to deliver on as “promised”.
Who would benefit from the JPA’s lowering of the annual Measure S supplemental tax collections? Every property owner who pays property taxes. The unspent tax funds resulting from Measure S’s poor planning and unfulfilled promises should be refunded to every property tax payer who has been scammed.
Don’t allow another money grab orchestrated by the same creators and administrators of Measure S. Stimulating the economy should not start with bureaucrats concocting taxes, then failing to deliver. No on Measure R.
Measure S failed to deliver on it’s promises….true.
But not soley due to bureaucratic incompetence. Macro economics played a major role in the unfulfilled promises.
Logically, now that everyone is paying attention, the bureaucratic leaks should stop.
Saying that we should not seek solutions to right what has gone wrong for various reasons makes as much sense as letting a ship sink, even with materials on board to fix the leaks, simply because the ship went off course due to poor navigation and bad weather and the pissed-off passengers won’t leave their flooded staterooms to help.
Even if no Measure S money had been spent to date and every residential tax payer in the CSD got a full refund for 10 years of taxes paid, that would amount to $180.00 per residence. BFD…that’s chicken scratch.
If that kind of petty thinking is shared by 1/3 of the voters, then we’ll continue to get a community fraught with derision and the status quo will prevail. No thanks. . . I’ll vote for a chance to make changes and get past the past.
Tom makes a great point which I agree with. Fix the problem. A lot of times a ready, fire, aim approach is needed.
Thank you, Tom, for your knowledgeable
and thoughtful letter. I was wondering who this Steve Reinhard is, as I did not notice him at any of the meetings for community participation/input on Measure R. It seems that he is all fired up without knowing for sure what it says and what it’s intent is.
Please, folks, do listen to Tom Wendell. He has been generous with his participation in making this a more desirable place to live. Measure R is a good measure that will improve our community.
Whatever you are angry about, Mr. Reinhard, please don’t be projecting it onto stopping Measure R,something really positive that is happening here. By voting this down you will be throwing away the cost of putting it on the ballot. By voting YES, we will have improved bike trails and ball fields, definitely a win/win situation.
A great deal of community participation went into to collaboration for this Measure. This does come from the community, not just a few special interest people.
Vote YES on R!
Because one does not go to meetings does not mean one is not informed. It’s almost like people are suggesting only those who went to a meeting can vote on this issue. Hogwash.
Read the proposal. It’s been posted on this site before. Money is guaranteed first for ballfields and then for bike paths IF the money is there.
To get bike paths built, O+M money is often needed. This threatens that guarantee. And who is to say the paths won’t be built.
I’d rather have what I know, then trust the people behind these changes.
Andy,
I don’t know which version of the proposed Measure R you read, but it has gone through several iterations as cycling advocates scurtinized every word and punctuation mark throughout the 6 meetings. The guarantee for bike path maintenance /repair is paramount and I and other cycling advocates would not support the measure if it were not. If there are ANY changes to those guarantees when Measure R language is printed in the voter information guide, I’ll be the first to suggest we pull the plug on it.
Thanks Carl and Grannylou for your supportive comments.
Also, I agree with Sue Rae Irelan’s opionion on the prospect of loud powerboat races. Bad idea and not the kind of tourism we should be courting.