S. Tahoe council candidates try to differentiate themselves
By Kathryn Reed
The five candidates for the two South Lake Tahoe City Council seats agree a broader approach to best management practices, instead of parcel-by-parcel, is a good idea and local jurisdictions having more say are potential positives of a yet-to-be-approved update of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan.
While they liked the idea of changes that may come to the basin if the Regional Plan is updated, none believed this would be a cure-all, assuming it cures anything.
The five – incumbents Hal Cole and Bruce Grego, and newcomers Austin Sass, JoAnn Conner and Clinton Schue – answered a series of questions Oct. 1 in the first forum of the season.
(Lake Tahoe News, South Tahoe Association of Realtors and South Lake Tahoe Lodging Association put on this event at Inn by the Lake.)
Each started the event with an intro before the questions were asked and then were given a chance to make a closing statement.
Sass talked about the need for real leadership on the council and the understanding of multi-million dollar budgets. He added that without a vision, no one would invest in the community.
Cole spoke of his fiscal experience, that the city is in recovery mode and that recreation is key.
Grego touted his backing of Nevada Senate Bill 271 that called for corrective measures to TRPA, that land use control is the No. 1 issue, and how he has always opposed marijuana dispensaries.
Conner spoke of the need to start doing things instead of studying them, the need to promote recreation, and the need to tap the knowledge and insight of local businesspeople.
Schue doesn’t understand why Tahoe recreation has not been better marketed and he wants to bring jobs to town.
When it came to discussing the proposed loop road that would re-route Highway 50 traffic in the state line area, consensus was almost found among the five.
Schue would like to investigate pedestrian overpasses and is against the taking of private property.
Grego opposes what the Tahoe Transportation District has brought forward and wonders why a loop road is needed.
While Cole supported a loop road when the Heavenly Village project was going in, he does not want the TTD alternative.
Sass can’t figure out why so much time has gone into a project that has no money, let alone no real plan.
Conner likes the loop road that exists and believes until a return on investment can be proved to change what is in place, then it would be harmful to businesses and residents to go forward.
Blame went to previous councilmembers for the hole in the ground at the state line. The one-time convention center-hotel complex is now just bankrupt concrete and rebar that spans 19 parcels because the council never insisted on a consolidated parcel map. (Owens Financial, the largest property owner, has a proposal to build commercial along the highway and leave the rest.) All of that land is private – not city owned.
Sass said without the city having a vision for where it is going it is hard to decide what is best for that plot of land.
Cole believes the land will have more value if the state line area is revitalized and a loop road goes in.
Grego said the hole occurred because previous councils caved to special interest groups. He is not sure what was planned for the site would be appropriate today.
Conner questions the integrity of the rebar and concrete that have endured the elements for several years. She calls it a “dangerous eyesore” that needs to change – even if that is little shops.
Schue says the last thing the town needs is more retail. But he does believe a convention center is a good idea.
When it comes to appeasing those who live in the unincorporated area of El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Basin, it was pointed out how it is not legally possible for those residents to vote in city elections and that if the land were to be annexed, the county residents would have to initiate it.
it seems to me that old Hal brokered the deal for the Hole in the Ground
Repeated throughout the questions and answers that Recreation is a key to a healthy SLT environment. Why did the current council and past city manager dismantle the Recreation side of Parks & Recreation Dept, waste time money and effort on creating Community Services and eliminate positions that programmed events for youth and adults, local and visitors?
(‘Conner spoke of the need to start doing things instead of studying them, the need to promote recreation, and the need to tap the knowledge and insight of local businesspeople”
Schue doesn’t understand why Tahoe recreation has not been better marketed and he wants to bring jobs to town).
Good question Noodle. Perhaps the lack of passion and participation by council members in those activities led to them being pushed to the bottom of the pile.
I think its time we have someone on council who actually recreates.
A tourist destination should market recreation? Shocking!
What type of recreation? What seasons? What parking? Does anyone think that mountain biking trails can handle more users? Does anyone suspect Heavenly isnt doing a pretty good job of filling up their resort? How are we going to replace the jobs lost from the casinos if the parking lots at the popular trailheads are already full? What is the unexploited resource here!?!
And Austin, the TTD needs to come up with a plan and then get funding. Its the way the world works. You cant get money without a plan. Thats true for corporations and their IPO’s or bond offerings and its true for government.
Good grief, we are screwed….
I believe the most important issue facing our community is money and that it is imperative for methods to be identified to cultivate an environment for increasing revenues to local businesses, individuals, and the City so everyone can prosper, services can be an acceptable level, and much needed improvements can be accomplished. The decisions of a City Council will never make everyone happy so the only thing they can do, and their responsibility to our community, must be to make decisions that provide the greatest benefit to the entire community and not just the few. The unfortunate inevitability in that circumstance is that some will lose but the majority of the community derives a much greater benefit in the long run.
When evaluating the best individual(s) to serve on the City Council I think the consideration should be of who has the needed vision to identify methods of expanding our revenue base so this community is not wholly dependent on tourism alone, and succeeds when the national/state economy flourishes but desperately fails when the national/state economy tanks; they need the courage to make the difficult decisions for the greater good of the community rather than for a select, often times very vocal few; they need the ability to take resolute action on decisions and not procrastinate causing projects to languish, wasting limited City staff time and financial resources, or dumping decisions onto a future City Council; and they need a thorough understanding of reading and interpreting financial statements so they can understand what those financial documents are saying and be able to make important, informed decisions in the best interest of our community.
This community can no longer remain as it is and be able to survive economically. No one can make everyone happy so the only thing that can be done is to be as fair as possible in the best interest of the greater community.
Very well said 4-mer-usmc!
John, we have to get away from the idea that we need a parking space for everyone who wants to use a trail-head or beach. This is why a highly efficient, user-friendly public transit system and a walkable / bikeable community is absolutely crucial to becoming a 21st century destination resort. Even with a sluggish national and global economy, people NEED to recreate just to balance out the stress in our lives. Providing opportunities to do so will help sustain our local economy.
Tom, okay, lets pretend Americans will come to Tahoe and use public transportation. And in fact lets presume the perfect system. Exactly where do you want to send the people and what would you have them do? I guarantee our mountain biking and hiking trails have very little unused capacity. Even Mt. Tallac trail is full on nice weekends. Beachs? Well there is probably some unused capacity there, but marketing a beach where the water is too cold to swim is pretty tough. So Tom, this always comes back to having a modern entertainment district in a walkable town center. We cant shove more people into the woods and hope that replaces the thousands of jobs lost when the casino industry became distributed.
I think that the casinos are Not going to go out of business if they don’t get exactly what they want from from the City of So. Lake Tahoe. They want total capitulation to their plans because that would maximize profits for Them and Their shareholders. That’s what corporations do. They don’t give a fig about our town or it’s residents. Of course they are a vital component of our economy and they will continue to be so with or without their grandiose/costly plans.
Sometimes I tire of the Douglas County/casino bashing that is so popular among many South Lake Tahoe, CA residents. Has anyone ever considered what would happen to South Lake Tahoe, CA if the casinos just vanished? Somehow I don’t think hiking, biking, skiing, boating and golf would provide a large enough tourist draw to support the economic needs of the community of South Lake Tahoe, CA.
If the casinos were gone the domino effect would be no Heavenly Village as there would be no need for that; we wouldn’t need two Raley’s and a Safeway; wouldn’t need two Meek’s and a DIY; no need for two CVS’s; wouldn’t need the majority of those restaurants and bars in town; could get rid of most of the small hardware stores, motels, realtors, gift shops, manicurists, hair salons, plumbers, carpenters, dentists, tire companies, fast food establishments, gas stations, Ross, Rite-Aid, etc., etc., and Barton Hospital would be much reduced, the College would likely not exist at all, the California Tahoe Conservancy and Forest Service would probably not be here, and the City government would likely not exist and El Dorado County and State Government offices would not bother operating in South Lake Tahoe, CA since the population base would be so small that it wouldn’t support having those offices open, so then whoever remained in South Lake Tahoe, CA would just have to go to Placerville. All the utility companies would be greatly reduced to accommodate less population since there would be so few jobs in South Lake Tahoe that there would be no way for people to earn any kind of living so people just wouldn’t live here. Casino employees would not be the only people out of work; this would eliminate the need for so many other businesses in South Lake Tahoe that the number of lost jobs would be too great to calculate. All those people and their family’s would no longer be able to reside in South Lake Tahoe, would need to move off the hill, and now you’re talking really “shrinking the town”.
There are many components to the economy of the South Shore community and anyone who thinks that the City of South Lake Tahoe, CA and the Stateline area of Douglas County, NV/casinos are not interconnected and dependent on one another for our existence is delusional. United we stand, divided we fall, and if you want the Sierra Club and the League to Save Lake Tahoe to realize their vision of South Lake Tahoe just take away the casinos and all those now unnecessary correlated South Lake Tahoe, CA businesses.