Letter: Paid parking is a dead-end pursuit
To the community,
Many years ago when Kerry Miller was the city manager and before I was on the City Council, I attended a council meeting. That night the city parking garage was on the agenda. A citizen asked Miller why the private sector wouldn’t build the garage. Miller’s answer was short and sweet. He said because they know it will not work. Miller was right. It has been a loser since the ribbon was cut.
Bill Crawford
I realize that is the past and that nothing is gained by beating that nag that can’t get to the finish line without a city subsidy. But we can use the past to guide us in the present and the future. We must keep a public memory. To build the garage at public expense was a crapshoot. And the present attempt at paid parking in the city is also a roll of the dice.
The main problem with city councils and city mangers is: They get a bright idea and though it looks shaky, might come up snake eyes, they force it upon the public to the bitter end and the public pays the bill for failure. Too often council members have a dream and say that it will be a sure fire success. They don’t think in terms of probabilities. The present council and city manger argue that paid parking will create new big revenue for the city.
But there are sound arguments voiced by a loud opposition. Thinking back to what Kerry Miller said about the private sector not willing to build the parking garage, it appears that a majority of the council and city manger have no memory of past experience, past failures. That’s disturbing when the game is a game of chance. Put your best down.
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
I wish that just once Mr. Crawford would put his imagination to work identifying something, anything, which would help move this City forward economically and esthetically. On his last stint on the City Council he never came up with a single idea in either of those areas; instead he sat back and criticized almost everything that came before him and his only suggestion was to build a City Hall, however he never mentioned from where the funds would come to undertake that costly endeavor. Looking at the past should help one learn, but a never ending focus on the past with continual criticism keeps one stuck in the past.
Please Mr. Crawford, use your imagination and intellect to come up with some valid suggestions on what could be done to improve the future of this community.
While I did not agree with many of Mr. Crawford’s positions while he was on the City Council, I appreciate reading his and any other former Council member’s comments now. They are coming from a view of experience which we as non-council members don’t have. I want to read information from all sources so I can form my own opinions. Your’s included 4-mer-usmc.
I read Mr. Crawford’s letter to say – don’t make the same mistake twice.
I agree with Tahoe Advocate – he is sharing experience.
At $1.25 every 20 minutes, it was bound to fail.
I don’t see the cost benefit of parking meters. I would rather see a small toll coming into town as it will impact everyone fairly (People whose primary residence is Tahoe would get a annual pass for free or a small fee to cover the pass costs – using a drivers license that stated South Lake Tahoe as the address).
Parking meters are ugly, they will promote parking in areas that are not designated for parking, it will create more work for the City and my bet is they will need to hire more staff to handle the burden. The upkeep of the meters from wear and tear and perhaps even potential vandalizing are all costs that cannot be projected accurately. Lastly, the meters will go in areas that will punish the surrounding residents and the business owners who are in the areas that are selected by someone who more than likely is not objective.
Just My thoughts.
Oh, one last comment, I really wish Mr. Crawford would post his opinions more positively – perhaps offer ideas to resolve the current complaint he is posting.
JM
I think that offering positive solutions to City problems would do irreparable damage to Mr. Crawford’s well-earned “town curmudgeon” persona he so enjoys.
He is, of course, spot on his “public memory” points and the possible pittance paid parking will bring in is not worth the big negatives.
Yet another new paid parking plan to be voted on at Tuesdays City Council meeting. Let’s see where the mud sticks.
I smell an attempt to put up parking meters all around with the intention of forcing more use of the embarrassing parking garage. Result? More will flee to the free casino lots. Will the casinos start charging for their lots? Big difference is that the casinos are run by folks with a modicum of financial sense. Lines of non-stop UGLY meters and penny-ante income generation will just be the worst blight yet on SLT, and yet more incentive for visitors to stay away. How many other destinations in the basin are doing this? Two wrongs don’t make a right. And what? A toll booth at the Y? Oh please.
The (positive) answer is the opposite. Give visitors more reason to visit. Not less. Ideas for increasing the types of attractions offered have been suggested many times. Just stay on that path. Restoring prior tourist populations, and just stopping dumb financial decisions will solve financial woes, and give all a more attractive place to visit, and live.
How about paid parking at the city offices at the airport? That way the Council and City employees can experience what it feels like.
LOL! Good one, Advocate!
Years back they tried parking meters at the airport and it didn’t work then! That war=s about 20 plus yeaRS AGO.
And why should they install paid parking at both private property and public beaches now. Bill Crawford will tell you don’t make the same mistake twice.
Lets see, the city pays about $400,000.00 annually to subsidise the airport for wealthy airplane owners that want to fly into Tahoe. Lets put parking meters on the tarmac at the airport and see if that helps with that fiscal boondoggle. Stop subsidising the airport and then put that money back into the coffers and there will be no need to put up parking meters
Defaulting on the City Parking Garage bonds and relinquishing that white elephant with its significant annual operating losses would free up the annual $200,000 taxpayer subsidy currently required to keep it open, which since that outweighs the city’s own projected $150,000 annual revenue from the parking program, would cancel outright the need for the parking program. The city creates its own problems and actually makes them worse with its inefficient fantasy solutions. Creating unnecessary, cumbersome parking permit zones in adjoining residential neighborhoods will cause the property values in those permit areas to decline. This is unacceptable.
Steve, that’s all great if that was how it worked, its not though. The city would default, all future bond costs would skyrocket, the bond holders would place a lien on future tax receipts and we still pay for the garage. Congrats, you accomplished nothing but increasing the cost of capital by 4-500%
“nature bats last” apparently does not know that parking airplanes at our airport does cost the pilot money.
On the other hand, paid parking for cars did not work out either, at the airport parking lot.
I expect that the paid parking idea is just what Bill Crawford said, a crap-shoot.
Care to solve South Lake Tahoe’s fiscal woes?
Here’s some solutions:
Cut the police department. There are three, yes 3, law enforcement agencies patrolling South Lake Tahoe. Is the population & traffic so great that we need all 3?
Consolidate the fire department. There are 2 fire departments in South Lake Tahoe. Lake Valley & the city fire department.
Privatize the airport. The city council was looking at doing this, then shelved it. Let private enterprise run the place. It’s done in Minden, supposedly successfully.
Finally, lower the regulatory burdens placed upon everyone, everywhere, in South Lake Tahoe. It’s absurd, and it drives dollars over the stateline to Nevada.
A.B.
With all due respect, the city police dept. is already stretched too thin. I am not informed enough to comment regarding the fire dept. or the airport, but I do agree with you on the regulatory burdens – Federal, State,& local politicians, the “save the world be like me” crowd, and all the other players specific to Lake Tahoe issues,they have gone too far…….
I’d vote for privatizing the fire department.
I had private fire protection at a house in another State. They serviced the area which included a city larger than SLT. When that city decided they had to have their own employee fire department the private company was driven out of business because there weren’t enough customers left.
I paid $350 per year to the non-government company. When I had to switch to paying for the government fire protection (no added service) my bill went to $900. Now that’s government efficiency over private industry.