Letter: Paid parking is not the answer
To the community,
The city’s determination to “sell” paid parking and residential permit parking to the residents of South Lake Tahoe is being met with strong opposition. The almost 100 people that attended Monday night’s Residential Parking Permit and Kiosks meeting (just the title is confusing) was a demonstration of how passionate this community is about free access to the lake and the continued confusion over residential permit parking.
People should be able to park in their own neighborhoods without exposure to a $50 parking ticket. Listening to the community dialogue, I’d say this is becoming a public relations concern.
It was just three weeks ago at the April 16 City Council meeting that anyone outside city government learned of the “new” expanded parking plan. Something Police Chief [Brian] Uhler describes as, “A huge program involving lots of parts — it is complex”.
By expanding the seasonal parking plan to 12 months/seven days a week/8am to 10pm with rates starting at $2 per hour, they have effectively eliminated any opportunity for free use of the beaches by the locals who often yield them to tourists until after Labor Day.
I am perplexed by our City Council’s stubborn support of a parking plan that by staff’s own projections will earn just $150,000 per year, with the promise that another $100,000 can be gained by issuing approximately 4.000 parking citations. The kiosks alone cost $250,000.
Considering the city’s overall budget of $95 million, this $150,000 is viewed by some as the equivalent of having a bake sale to save the city budget. As a community, we should be able to come up with revenue strategies that don’t piss off half the town.
Our city’s beach parking lots and some of our streets with parking demand have been described by consultants as assets that need to be profited from. That being said, the city’s largest parking lot asset is at the airport. To best utilize this asset, I’d like to propose that parking kiosks be installed at the airport so council members and city staff can have the opportunity to contribute to this parking campaign to improve the city’s lagging revenues. The city tests the public’s trust when they have different rules than the citizens.
For me, free lake access is fundamental and should be at the center of any tourism and community vision plan that we have for ourselves.
Peggy Bourland-Madison, 40-year resident of Al Tahoe
Peggy,
Well said.
No to parking meters. Why do we insist on “Paving over our Paradise”.
Parking meters are just another annoyance to life, like the new sales tax on internet purchases.
Lets remember the rule of KISS (Keep it simple stupid)and apply it to how we live at Lake Tahoe. NO TO PARKING METERS!!
An invitation to the locals:
If you want to be at the beach with your friends, come to Ski Run Marina. You will have one hour free parking anytime.
Welcome!
The revenue generated by this parking plan is a drop in the bucket.
The nuisance is very serious
And why start out Such a plan at $2 an hour?
If You insist on having paid parking, make it a dollar an hour
To the local community:
If you would like to bring a friend to the beach, come to the Ski Run Marina. There’s always an hour of free parking.
The revenue generated by this parking plan is miniscule, Yet its nuisance factor is very large.
I don’t understand why the city would start such a program at the high rate of two dollars an hour.
Welcome
Weighing the income potential (debatable) against the public relations nightmare doesn’t pencil out.
The city needs to drop this idea. Quickly.
Life isn’t free anymore Peggy. People like you complain when the city is broke and complain when it tries to make money. You live a dysfunctional life and destroy more than you create. We need meters, bus advertising, all the things that will generate money for SLT. Life isn’t free anymore! And we can’t afford to have people like you spongin’ off tax payers. Go bury your head in the sand down in Galveston.
Thanks for making me laugh, Peggy. I also completely agree with you. Just like the parking garage fiasco that no one uses, the $2 per hour charge is too high. Why would we design a neighborhood area for live music and then immediately make it cost prohibitutive for many of the residents? This town’s actions are the definition of insane: Doing the same thing over & over again and expecting a different result.
Wow Bob, you’re a real piece of work. I couldn’t disagree more with every single point you tried to make in your poorly written comment. People come to Tahoe to get out of the City. There is nothing positive that will come from parking meters. It will create more problems than it solves.
I hardly think that Peggy Bourland-Madison, who has lived here for 40 years, is “spongin’ of tax payers”. I thought your comments were very disrespectful. Her article was very well written. I agree with her position, and I believe the majority of South Tahoe residents do as well. NO TO PARKING METERS!
Thank you Mike – I totally agree with your assessment of Bob’s disrespectful remarks. I fully agree with Peggy’s WELL-WRITTEN comments and think the parking-fee plan is dysfunctional! All beaches should have free public access. We already pay for their upkeep, etc. through our taxes.
Bob, you need an attitude check… or maybe you should move to LA or Las Vegas for a fix of visual pollution.
Mansoor Aleyeshmerni:
You never answered my question on the May 7th “No More Free Beach Parking in South Tahoe” article. While you’ve twice now volunteered that the first hour of parking at the Ski Run Marina is free I’m still waiting to hear how much you’ve been paying annually over these many past years to the City of SLT for the lease of the Blue Lake Motel parking lot, how many parking spaces that lot contains, and how much you charge per vehicle for parking at that location, including what your holiday rates are. Do you charge locals for parking at that facility or do they get to park for free? I think the citizens of SLT have a right to know how much the City is making on the lease to you of that City owned asset, especially since parking is at such a premium in our town. Or is this another one of those long-term sweetheart deals that were struck between former elected and their crony business associates that made those people lots of money at the expense of SLT’s taxpayers? Stating that it’s OK for you to make money off a City asset but that the City shouldn’t have that same ability is talking out of both sides of your mouth, and I’m personally pleased that the City is now performing a review of all those old, existing contracts.
One of the creeping (and creepy) changes that has occurred here is the ‘privatization’ of the beach areas (the late Timber Cove Lodge being the latest) yet no one seems to be “up-in-arms” about that . . . even @ Ski Run, the old Seagraves beach and its’ old-weathered bridge over the channel welcomed thousands of bright, young beach-goers back when Harrah recruited summer employees from 10 western states: full everyday. . .
In recent times, everyone who invests along the shore seems to want to make their shoreline an “exclusive” retreat-type of experience, when most people come here to be social, not hermits.
It is, in the parlance, part of “the buzz” to be with others, so this ignored-part dampens the Tahoe experience, as in ‘boring’: 10 people on a secluded beach is not very exciting. . .
As to the parking revenues, the mix of local permits & paid is O.K., given that our average visitor is used to that (try parking in San Francisco, which generates 60 million $$/annum in parking tickets !. . .North Beach alone has had local, color-coded permits for decades) – but make sure (think our new Lakeview Commons) that the bike valet thing goes on, as most events in the inaugural summer had several hundred bikes in that space – think what the situation would be if they had all brought cars instead . . . then we would have had much more anguish than we have now: cars and trash scattered throughout 30 square blocks . . . popularity comes with a price, and low-cost ‘local’ permitting is appropriate control.
$ 2.00/hr., however, is a bit much [8 a.m. to 10 p.m. = 28.00] the P.R. problem might actually be in reconciling the ‘annual’ permit price with the above figure, as to what locals (and their guests) are not paying, versus those necessary from a ‘kiosk’. . .
Peggy Bourland-Madison:
Your obvious concern is admirable that the City of SLT’s taxpayers be protected from unfair actions by City decision makers. I would certainly appreciate exertion of that same passion toward investigating those long-term sweetheart deals that were struck years ago between former elected representatives and their crony business associates that made those people lots of money at the expense of SLT’s taxpayers. Perhaps if those City decision makers had ensured that SLT received fair share payment on the use of those City owned assets, SLT would have had more revenue and that money could have been used for road repaving, streetlights, sidewalks, and the list goes on. Unfortunately that potential City revenue has already been lost from those long-term sweetheart deals to those long-time business owners.
Well stated Peggy.
I think the City should work with the residents of SLT to reach a compromise for paid parking/residential permits that everyone can live with. Such as reducing the hourly rate ($2 bucks is absurd) and reducing the daily time for metered parking, say 6pm to 10am parking is free. That would give residents a chance to visit local beaches before and after work. Permit residential parking should only be active during the summer months, and a agreeable amount of parking passes should be given to each residential unit and the permits should mirror the beach parking time frame (for example, not active/required after 6pm).
4-mer-usmc & peggy:
His thoughts can be summed up as, it appears that the ‘powers-that-be’, and also a lot of residents, let it happen, & don’t think things through at the time they’re being done, reserving most of the comments until ‘after-the-fact’ – that is what gives “what goes on” its’ power. . . but also makes the comments into a ‘blood sport’ instead of being constructive. . .
I’ve been here in very good times, and now, very bad times, so I agree with some of what he says, but quite often it becomes merely vitriol after that fact. . .
The key is to have the City Council members include some part of their deliberations on what they offer the people who live here, not in just being reactive to not only what they do, but reactive also to comments made after they do what they do. . . again & again. . .
Too much of their time currently is spent “paving over” mistakes made earlier, not leaving enough mental energy to get proactive in a rapidly changing world. . .this is what will keep Tahoe “looking in the rear-view mirror”, or, as was mentioned to me yesterday, we can ‘no longer even see others’ taillights’. . . we are that far behind. . .
The overall impression is still one of “shooting themselves in the foot” all too often. . . even the New City Attorney already talks about re-building trust, and he comes from the Central Valley – what does that tell you (?). . .
I’ve been here the better part of 50+ years, by the way. . .
I spoke with a city council member yesterday ( who shall remain anonymous so as not to besmirch that persons reputation), ALMOST had me convinced to go along with the city’s parking meter / paid parking plan. After thinking about it I’m back to my original stance. NO TO PAID PARKING!!!
A senseless boondoggle that will hurt business and inconveniece guests and locals alike. Old Long Skiis
Garry – the max per day is $10.
What I heard at the meeting is the net revenue is projected to be $150K. I am trying to get information (not yet provided) on what the gross revenue is – and what the expenses are to run this program! If the costs are low – then $150K is nice revenue for the city (tho I still oppose the program). But I suspect the costs are quite high to net that little.
As a local who uses Regan Beach and Venice Drive parking to walk out to the lake, this proposed plan makes those 2 areas just the latest additions to my growing list of places no longer friendly to visit. And I certainly don’t understand the year-round proposal at Regan Beach! (tho discussions are now going on about removing the paid parking there altogether – YAY). I previously met once weekly at Regan Beach in nice weather times (excluding the busy 4th week) and found abundant parking….this beach/parking lot is not full of tourists!
When I lived in Santa Cruz, we residents mostly just didn’t visit the restaurants and businesses in paid parking areas – so they became primarily tourist locations. I find per time parking very unfriendly and uninviting. Yes, when I go to a big city, I expect to pay parking.
In San Mateo, after my 2nd parking ticket, I changed where I got my hair cut. My hairdresser eventually got so many customer complaints she moved her business to a friendlier location….with 2 hours free parking.
I want to support a revenue opportunity – but not one that I feel will harm the locals AND make our little city less attractive to the tourists we rely on.
Hoping this plays out in a way that is beneficial to all.
Well said Peggy!! Great article! I spoke with a city council member yesterday (who shall remain anonymous so as not to besmirch that persons reputation), ALMOST had me convinced to go along with the city’s parking meter / paid parking plan. After thinking about it I’m back to my original stance. NO TO PAID PARKING!!!
A senseless boondoggle that will hurt business and inconvenience guests and locals alike. There are plenty of other ways to raise revenue for the City of SLT. Lots of good ideas from good people around here at LTN. Just ask us, city council and ye shall recieve more ideas than you can shake a stick at, and PLEASE don’t call a consultant! Old Long Skiis
They have already paid consultants for years of study on paid parking!
Related to paid parking on streets in a residential neighborhood. I am getting a visual of cars staked up on the front lawn and in the side yard.
Whats it going to be like when you want to have 8 or 10 friends over to watch Sunday Football or have a party / picnic.
That has been known to happen right?
Also as some have said, all this complaining is kinda mute.
this was decided over a year ago? I remember references to the paid parking in other articles related to future plans, etc. It was put into motion long ago, now its happening.
This is why you have elections. Who is going to remember when the next election for City Council members comes around?
Re Garry’s comment on privatization of our beaches, apparently there is Federal Law about public access to shorelines. I would be curious to know how they can keep folks fenced out of the “private” beach between Stateline & Park Ave (where you have to have a resident’s pass). Usually States require County Planning Agencies to have ordinances which require access.
Also, parking meters (& residential stickers) have been in place in SF’s North Beach and busy Marina districts; however, the parking at SF’s Ocean Beach is plentiful and FREE!. This allows the financially disadvantaged to enjoy the sea, sand & sky (gifts of nature). There are many families in SLT who will not be able to afford to pay to take their kids to the beach.
I agree that residential permits should be provided to residents in busy areas e.g., LakeView Commons – and they should be free, so that residents are able to park in their own neighborhood during events, etc. I really wish more effort would be put into making revenue via “business development” (bring the $$ into town, and forge sustainability of revenue via planning). Check out all the cities (like Boulder, CO) who have reinvented themselves…
” apparently there is Federal Law about public access to shorelines.”
Quite the opposite. This is purely a state issue and Nevada does not provide for public access between the high and low water lines. Tahoe is not the ocean.
So much for recreation destination. This parking program only needed one part-time employee now we have a parking division, new cars for ticket writers, division chief, two superintendents and then part-time staff. Now it’s a huge complex program with too many parts. Plus all the new signs going into neighborhoods, don’t park here. I though we were trying to clean the town up visually. Has anyone seen the numbers for the “whole” program? It’s another hole in the ground. As usual we put the cart before the horse.
Plain & simple solution- as I said earlier, let’s vote on it! Hold this all off until the next available election (surely this can wait a bit) and let’s let the people decide!
OR, if it can’t wait, let’s have a special election! Costly, I’m sure the Council would retort. (Though I bet no more expensive than the consultant they hired for this.) But if the cost of a special election is too much, then fine. Don’t ram this proposal down the community’s throat!
Good comments everyone (for the most part). It is always nice to hear a full compliment of views on any issue. I am against it. It does not fly for me in any which way. As it appears to be a done deal, I wish it success. However, I think in time it will show itself to be more time, trouble and expense than it is worth. :)
Irish Wahini– to answer your question about public access it applies to the shoreline. Access to beachfront property in California is allowed to everyone approaching from the water. In CA they can swim up or land a boat in Lake Tahoe as long as they are at the 6229 foot level (high water at the dam). Above 6229 feet is private property and you are trespassing if you enter it without permission. If you were in Nevada, the level changes and the property owner’s right extend to the natural rim, 6223 feet.
If you beach your boat at Edgewood, you are trespassing.
As far as entering the fenced off property between Stateline and Park- property owners are issued passes because they pay fees 12 months a year to their Association which pays all the costs of owning and operating the property. Anyone outside the area can purchase a pass (day or season). The cost of the pass to the public has been based on how many people purchase one and how much it costs to maintain and operate the beach. If fewer people from the public use the beach and purchase a pass, the cost of the pass will have to go up.
Also, public access is allowed 365 days a year plus in the evenings during the summer. The only time a pass fee is charged to the public is during the high tourist season and only during the day.
Share in helping to cover their costs and the property owners in the area welcome you to enjoy their property.
If you aren’t willing to do so, then enjoy the city beach where you are paying taxes to cover the costs. No one in the city pays any part of the costs of the beach between Stateline and Park.
Like the underperforming and costly city parking garage, with an annual $200,000 taxpayer subsidy still projected through the year 2027, and the Hole in the Ground and numerous other failures, the city council’s hare-brained parking scheme is another city blunder destined for frustration and failure.
Let the citizens and voters decide if paid parking is wanted and necessary. End of debate. Stop making fools of yourselves, city council.
I want to know where the 20000 residents who weren’t in attendance at the Monday night meeting are. Both this letter and the article from yesterday contained overwhelmingly anti paid parking comments. If this isn’t public opinion then what is it?
I think we should defer to tahoeadvocate’s point of view because as was stated in previous posts about the council meeting the decisions about our community beach property rights should fall to the citizens that had the miraculous foresight and wisdom to inherit or marry into and therefore claim entitlement to every grain of sand to the water’s edge to beachfront homes and land, and that the little people should be thankful for their largesse. NOT…..Pick any middle finger.
I think paid parking is wrong for now but let’s discuss how much the “lucky sperm club” should compromise too.
Recall the City Council!!
Advocate, a lot of us don’t live within the city limits, and feel totally powerless in all this. We can’t vote on any of these issues, or on who is elected to the council, we just get stuck with a lot of the bills.
Taxation without representation. . . your city council doesn’t care what the residents want, why would they care what county dwellers think?
Dogula- you have pointed out a major fact which exists in our city. The majority of city property owners can;t vote here because their main residence (voter registration location for President of the USA) is not at their Tahoe property. They have no vote in who represents them locally. They have no vote in who taxes them locally. They have no vote what the city does to their property. So, why should the city council or city employees listen to them. On my street of 27 houses there are only property owners who are registered to vote here.
The only overly used street parking at Lakeside Beach is during the outdoor concerts and the celebrity golf. Put a surcharge onto the ticket price of these concerts and the golf to cover the City’s expense. Get Stateline to assist with their events.
During the 4th of July fireworks the beach is restricted to pass holders and LPHOA brings in their staff and volunteers to check passes, and allow folk access to the restaurant and marina.
The boaters already pay a price to launch or rent their slip. Now you want to charge them to park their trailers.
Collect the TOT and penalize the rundown motel/hotel/business that line Hwy 50.
And again, quit naming other cities and their metered parking programs – which is not an inviting experience to our guests or locals.
Quit paying consultants. And the ‘windfall’ will cover the new 3 Full Time and more Part Time salaries. The jobs have been listed online and in the paper.
It is shameful, the total disregard of the council and city manager, how they continue to ignore the residents. Agree with Parker, take this issue to the people for a vote.
And no new projects, tearing down of homes or metered parking until the Hole is either filled in and made a park or a viable buyer creates and completes a new enterprise there.
Thanks Tahoe Advocate for the input re the private beach. Where can I buy a pass?
Also – John, Nevada Assembly Bill 396 will likely change the Nevada shoreline access issue. And I will look deeper into the Federal Shoreline Access Laws, but Hawaii court decisions were often based on the Federal entitlement. I am happy to see folks who step up and demand access to our natural assets… I grew up poor… we went to the beach with our bag of liverwurst sandwiches (for free) because we could not afford to go anywhere else. Blend these costs into our property tax…. we will all win!
Right on, Peggy. You know I’m not a resident, rather one of those “city” folks that loves the lake for its access. It is a national treasure and so is (was?) SLT–relaxed, easy going, friendly. This latest push detracts from the positives of visiting there and spending my money in the area. Hmmm…. wonder how many folks will just drive on by now? The city might want to also consider lost revenue in its equation. (by the way, that other Bob sounds a bit grumpy!)
Irish, I would suggest that the only thing that separates this country from corrupt countries around the world is the legal protection of property rights. How can passing a law that takes private property and converts it to any other ownership without compensation be anything but theft?
The dog and pony show between the city and the unions is over! We got to see it again at the meeting. The city of Stockton Ca shows us this. Most private companys can’t afford health insurance for employees much less for life and for the whole family. As for retirement we are paying 5,000 to 10,000 a month to some retired employees. Can you say unsustainable? The parking division is not going to make money, ask Truckee and Reno. Lets see the numbers. Recall vote or follow Stockton.
4-Mer-
When has there ever been paid parking or a fee of any kind at the Blue Lakes Lot? Heavenly Employees park there in the winter and Ski Run employees from many businesses park there in the summer. Do you know something we don’t?
SC:
I got my information from reading the April 16, 2013 City Council meeting minutes, page 29, final paragraph on that page where City Council Member Brooke Laine said the following:
“She discussed the lengthily time period that the former and current Ski Run Marina owner’s had used the Blue Lake Motel parking facility and said they had always paid a very small fee to the City of South Lake Tahoe for that opportunity. Laine remarked that during her previous involvement on the City Council that amount was $1 per year and said that on July 4th their parking fees at that parking facility had been $15 per vehicle.”
At this time I have not received a reply to my questions regarding the Blue Lake Motel parking lot from Mansoor Aleyeshmerni.
4-Mer, that’s not really a fair question. Mansoor owns a private business. He is under no obligation to release any financial information to the public, and its sort of rude to ask.
Obviously publicly traded companies have a responsibility to the public to disclose income from various sources. And then quite clearly the City is under a legal obligation to tell you what they lease the property for. The lease should reflect the fair market value.
If the City is really renting that space for $1 per year then they have some splainin’ to do.
John:
I posed my questions to Mr. Alyeshmerni after he’d publicly posted responses in two separate articles in this publication that he provides one-hour of free parking at Ski Run Marina that were both in response to the City implementing paid parking. While it is certainly your prerogative to believe that my queries to “Mansoor” were unfair and rude, I disagree since he initiated the topic of his parking business. And you are quite correct that he is under no obligation to release any financial information to the public, and truthfully I never expected that he would.
After seeing and then reading Ms. Laine’s comment at the City Council meeting I am angered that a former City Council or Council Members gave away the use of this City owned asset for next to nothing so a local business person would have the opportunity to use it and make obscene revenue off it in comparison to the annual lease amount they pay to the City. This reeks of cronyism and once again it is the City’s taxpayers that are getting the shaft while someone’s buddy makes off with the money. I assume that Mr. Alyeshmerni is an astute businessman thus I would think that he certainly would recognize that paying the City $1 annually for the lease of that parking lot was not a reflection of fair market value.
While the City should have some ‘splainin’ to do I seriously doubt that whoever agreed to and signed that sweetheart deal, and likely many others to the benefit of their friends and at the expense of the taxpayers, will ever be identified. I believe ranks will close and protections ensue.
4-Mer-
In the eight years of parking in the Blue Lakes lot 5 to 6 days a week(including July 4th) I have never paid and am not aware that anyone else has either. I cannot see where “serious revenue” is coming from.
SC
SC:
As I said in my earlier post when I replied to your first question to me, I got my information from listening to the April 16, 2013 City Council meeting and then reading the April 16, 2013 City Council meeting minutes, all of which are available to the public. The information begins on page 29, final paragraph where Council Member Brooke Laine said “…that the former and current Ski Run Marina owner’s had used the Blue Lake Motel parking facility and said they had always paid a very small fee to the City of South Lake Tahoe for that opportunity. Laine remarked that during her previous involvement on the City Council that amount was $1 per year and said that on July 4th their parking fees at that parking facility had been $15 per vehicle. She suggested that should a month to month contract extension for use of the Blue Lake Motel parking lot be contemplated that should be a consideration…”
If as you say, that you and anyone else have always been able to park there for no fees then I presume you must believe that Laine’s comments were incorrect. And as I stated in an earlier post, I am pleased that this City Council has directed a review of all old, existing City contracts.
Out of curiosity, could you share whether you are acquainted with or have any affiliation with Mr. Alyeshmerni. Thank you.
Here’s a suggestion: if the city is all fired up for meters (and hear they may be ordered), why not try them out only at CITY facilities: Bijou Park, Bijou Golf Course, Airport, Ice Arena, Recreation Complex, Senior Center, and at Regan Beach & El Dorado Boat Ramp’s parking lots. Watch the revenue/use decrease and the complaints increase.
Excellent idea for a pilot program, Noodle!
You know, the city would not need this “revenue” if it managed itself correctly. Look at all the failures and they want more money? This is like giving crack to a junkie. Stop the madness.
This calls for another “protest” with the CRIME SCENE banner in front of the City council… Truckee and Reno have had problems with paid parking. This is just another train wreck coming to SLT and the revolt should start now.
They have already been using paid parking on Transit and Belamy way. I personally am for it and I do use the beach. It’s really not that big of a deal that it seems everyone is making it out to be. Everywhere I vacation I expect to pay for parking and I don’t choose my destinations based on the TOT or parking rates. When the city raised TOT, everyone was shouting that it would be the end of tourism in SLT. It hasn’t ended it and our numbers are actually up this year. I am for increasing TOT again. The Council is just following what our last city survey said to do and that was to balance the budget on tourism. This is how you do it guys. The net back to the city is enough to justify starting the program. That is after they pay for the jobs that it creates. And o-yea, we do need those up here too. Year around jobs.
I don’t believe anyone said tourism would end if you raised the TOT? Nor will tourism end if you charge for parking! And room nights may be up as the economy is (slowly) recovering. Plus we had better snow conditions this year than last.
But I can tell you first hand that tourists are still tight with their wallets! So the more we nickel & dime them with all these little taxes, fees and other costs, the less they’ll spend in Tahoe on other things. And the less enjoyable their experiences & memories of Tahoe will be!
Everyone likes to complain and I’m no different. I don’t want paid parking, don’t want the 80 million dollar loop road or the proposed string of retail stores acting as a facade in front of the hole.
Getting rid of the city council? Do I agree with everything they do? No. If you think they’re doing a bad job why don’t YOU run for the council. Personally I wouldn’t touch that job wih a 10 foot pole. $400 a month? I was makin’ that much as a dishwasher at Harveys Top of the Wheel in the summer of 1968!
What this town needs is ideas to bring in more people and get the local economy on the upswing. How about raisng the TOT and enforcing the collection on all the vacation rentals that pay none. That money going into more upgrades of public properties like Regan Beach, the Linear Park and Bijou Park. Sounds good to me! More concerts witin the city limits,( like Rob is doing at Lakeview Commons ) with the city collecting part of the proceeds to get started repairing our roads. Don’t hire an out of town promoter that will run away with all the profits while we all stand around going ” Duh, what just happened ? “.
Lets build on our strengths! A beautiful lake, Recreation, Live music, hiking and biking and all the rest.
So please fellow LTN readers and commenters, lets hear some ideas. How do we bring in more business with some of the proceeds going into fixing up So. Shore? At the same time creating more jobs with locals buying localy. If your’e not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Old long… oh hell, you know who I am.
Skiis:
Well said!! Also, someone at the City must have been thinking along the same lines as the suggestion you made and it was reported at the May 7th Council meeting that the City hired a Vacation Home Rental/TOT Auditor to collect those unpaid fees and in their first month of employment they brought in $20,000.
There is an issue that concerns me that has to do with vagrants and panhandlers that come to SLT for the summer season and I don’t know if the City has any laws on aggressive panhandling, vagrancy and where transient individuals camp out or park their largely dilapidated vehicles. In my experience these individuals gravitate to high use areas like Lakeview Commons to panhandle and the beach to camp and if the City ends up allowing free parking at those areas I hope they won’t allow any overnight parking as I’m concerned that those parking spaces will become the permanent parking spots for those beat-up vehicles for the summer panhandling season. While I’ve only lived in SLT for 13 years after having moved from the Bay Area, I, and my wife especially are still hyper-sensitive to this from our own personal experiences and encounters by extremely aggressive and threatening panhandlers when in the Bay Area. If the residents in those SLT areas have concerns about park and beach goers parking in their neighborhoods that will be nothing compared to the effects of transients parking there and using that free parking for the entire summer.
I have been following this debate for a while now and have been doing some research. First off, I have read that paid parking will result in fewer handicapped being able to enjoy our beautiful area. Reality is…. If you have a handicapped tag, you do not have to pay for parking, ever. Nor do the time limits for parking apply to you. Ever wonder why so many expensive luxury cars are parked with handicapped tags? Me too. I still wonder, but now after researching handicap fraud, the numbers point to almost 60 percent of licensed drivers in California have handicap tags. Not all are fraudulent, yet over 40 percent of those do not hesitate to use them even when they are not providing transportation for a handicapped family member. Sacramento and Oakland statistics show that 44% of their metered parking areas are occupied by handicap tagged cars. Draw your own conclusions.
As side note, if the city really feels it need to “ticket” cars to raise revenues, why not enforce laws already in place. Namely the “NO PARKING DURING SNOW REMOVAL PERIODS” Call the city or county. Technically it is ALL winter long. I lived in Placer County (north shore) for 26 years. If you parked on the street at any time, regardless if it has been snowing or not. You got a ticket. People know that and understand that. Here where we have “rental” homes of various sorts (no different than north shore or southern California where I have been ticketed for the same reason) codes specify no more occupancy than parking. Yet people are allowed to park until the snowplow stops and honks for them to move. Oh well, once again, draw your own conclusions.
Yet I agree with most, when I go anywhere, many times the whole issue as to whether I must pay for parking or not determines whether I will stop to patronize a business or to just “enjoy the view” I usually move on.
4-mer-usmc,
The transient/ homeless do gravitate to So. Shore every summer. It’s been that way for many years. Occasionaly their camps in the meadows or forest are busted by the cops who order them to move out and the area is cleaned up.
It’s hard for our understaffed police dept. to track down all the panhandlers, vagrants, drug addicts, drunks and drifters that show up this time of the year when there are so many other things that SLTPD has to deal with.
I would suggest this. If you’re walking in one of our many meadows around town and see someone camped in a non-designated camping area and things don’t seem “quite right” call SLTPD @ 542-6100. Remember, the Angora fire was started by some kids or young adults who were having a campfire where they shouldn’t have and look at the destruction that brought!
It looks to be a high fire danger this summer so we should all keep our eyes open and report anything suspicious and keep our property clean of flammable materials(i.e.pine needles, dead branches, firewood stacked up against the house).
If some panhandle asks you for some money, no matter how good his/her story is, just say no. If you’re a compassionate person buy him or her a sandwich or some fruit.
All this coming from a guy that for awhile lived out of a ’64 Chevy panel truck out in the meadows or at Kiva! OLS
Another thought on proposed meters: where’s the benefit to the residents if they pay for parking?
Along hwy 89 the USFS beaches provide bathrooms, trash removal and upkeep on the tables & bbqs.
At Lakeside Park & Beach, the staff there clean and stock the bathrooms, keep the playgound equipment working, pick up trash on the beach (and pay for garbage service) and outside along the fence, have lifeguards on duty, provide tourist information, etc.
So why wouldn’t Lakeside get the money as they provide all of the services there?
Sounds like more same ol same ol from the city. Quit trying to access more fees when you can’t successfully run a garage, got a hole in the ground. Govern within your means, not on the backs of the residents and visitors.
Noodle– you are absolutly correct about Lakeside. This is private land which the owners have opened for public access. When the council debated paid parking, Hal Cole said it was because they needed the money to support the beaches. The city does no spend any money at Lakeside but they are going to drive both tourists and locals away while creating a parking problem for the residents which didn’t exist before.
Tahoeadvocate and Noodle: You are correct. Lakeside Beach is private property, and as such, that business charges customers to access the beach. They keep the money from that enterprise.
The business has not provided parking for their customers, however. The customers have been parking on City land, which is dirt. Most people know you can’t park on dirt in Tahoe. TRPA.
Now the City has to pave that strip of land for this business to use for their customers to park.
We don’t provide parking lots for private businesses, nor do we maintain them.
We asked Lakeside who should pay to pave that land. Answer: “The City, it’s City property.”
If the taxpayers have to pay to pave that parking area for Lakeside Beach, and the taxpayers have to pay to maintain it, why shouldn’t we have paid parking there to make some of that money back?
Point of fact: the City also GAVE the restaurant on that strip some land years ago to allow them to have ADA access and some parking. They still have not paved that lot either.
Thanks for that information about Lakeside Beach Councilmember Conner. The numerous and sanctimonious posts from some that inherited this prime lakefront property would make readers believe that these people were graciously allowing the public use of the beach because of their civic mindedness-that will be the day.
Lakeside Park does not own the beach that is without easments. The public has the right to use the beach below the elevation of 6228.87 feet above sea level, but they need access to get to that area. The city should provide that access.
JoAnn Conner:
Thank you for clarifying that the private Lakeside Beach that charges the public for access to use their beach does not provide parking for those customers and that their paying customers have been parking on dirt land owned by the City/taxpayers at no charge to Lakeside Beach and at no cost or responsibility for maintenance, insurance, etc. of that land. I find it interesting that individuals seem to understand that it’s OK for a business to charge for whatever service or product they provide but don’t think that the City should not have that same ability when they’re in the business of providing public services. Also, Lakeside’s belief that the City/taxpayers should pay for and pave that City/taxpayer owned dirt land so their paying patrons can park there for free seems somewhat hypocritical. Once again we have another local business that’s been benefitting and profiting off of a City/taxpayer owned asset at the City/taxpayers expense.
People frequently talk about the problem of not enough parking in SLT and that situation makes parking a commodity, and commodities have value. Businesses charge customers and patrons for what they sell or provide that has value which the public readily accepts. Those days of SLT being awash in casino visitor’s money and of comps and freebies are over, and when people want valet parking they need to pay for that. There’s still free parking on the South Shore, you just have to walk. But I would be willing to bet that the time is coming when the casinos will start charging for their covered garage parking to individuals not staying at those establishments as they too are looking for ways to augment their bottom line.
Lou- The city is not required to provide access across private property. Access from the lake to any land below 6228.87 feet above sea level (high water level)is what is guaranteed and that is a State Lands issue.
JoAnn Conner says: “…We (the City) don’t provide parking lots for private businesses, nor do we maintain them.”
Then exactly what is the City Parking Garage? And why are city taxpayers subsidizing it so heavily, to the detriment of other more important and more essential city services?
Steve: Are you asking the City to perpetuate that model?
In my experience when I’ve purchased or built an asset that I could not outright buy (a home) I’ve had to utilize financing and then make payments for the use of those funds until that loan was paid off, after which I obtained outright ownership of that asset. When the debt on the City’s parking garage structure is paid off won’t that asset be owned by the City thereby eliminating any future loan payments and provide revenue to the City?
4-mer, The O an M will exceed the revenue when the debt is paid off. Advocate, I didn’t say required I said they should and could by various means. Steve, The city bought the old Blue Lakes Motel lot and paved it for parking for the ski run marina.
JoAnn, TeaTotal & lou, I would like to clarify some wrong information which has been stated here.
First, the land which now has Lakeshore Blvd on it was Lakeside Park land. Through the years it was paved (before there was a city) and now the city maintains it. I don’t really know who owns the area where people park up against the fence facing the lake. Might be an interesting title research project for someone as on the original map from 1909 the streets were part of the subdivision land.
Second, Locals and tourists have been parking there for over a hundred years. Before the city investigated installing paid parking, there was never any contact or comment to Lakeside Park Association (LPA) about paving all this land which I am aware of.
Third, the city has not given Lakeside Park Association any land. The area in front of the restaurant/beach was an ADA issue (because LPA was allowing public access) and my recollection is that LPA was allowed to install hard surface just as if it were the driveway to your house. LPA was not given the land. I am not aware of any requirement from the city to LPA to have paved anything else.
Fourth, with regards to parking on dirt, there are cars parked on dirt all over the city. Almost every street in the city, where parking is allowed, has sand or dirt shoulders for parking. The city is not paving those areas only the one where they want to install paid parking. If JoAnn wants to use that argument then she needs to pave the entire city.
Fifth, JoAnn’s comment that LPA charges customers to access its beach and keeps the money is misleading.
LPA only allowed access to property owners and their guests until a few years ago. No one else. The gate was locked 24 hours a day around October 1st each year and reopened on Memorial Day the following year. Property owners were issued an electronic gate control so they could access their property without having to pay staff to monitor ingress and egress. When LPA decided to allow public access, since there were so many people asking for it through the high summer season, the cost of maintaining this property went up. State fees went up, insurance went up, cost of operating a bathroom went up, etc. Today the beach is open to the public 365 days a year. Security opens it in the early morning and locks the gate at dark. Everyone is welcome to use this property 8 months of the year at no cost to you or the city. During the high season months, June thru Sept. LPA charges a fee during the day to non members. It is still open for public access at no cost every evening. The accusation that we keep the money if false. We spend the money on the items I addressed above, plus the lifeguard and other staff which we expanded for the increased number of people using our property. LPA does not make any profit from this in fact we continue to lose money which is then passed on the property owner members in their Association bills.
Sixth, the comment regarding who should pave the land, I’m not sure who in LPA JoAnn is referring to but when we were asked that question at last Monday’s paid parking meeting, LPA’s answer was that we had never been asked and might consider it. If LPA is formally presented with this proposal, this entire paid parking issue at Lakeside might go away.
Seventh, TeaTotal- your accusation that LPA is opening this for profit is an insult. LPA is a non-profit company and the board discusses the decision to allow public access quite often. The beach had been closed to everyone other than members for many years after the fence was installed. The decision to allow public access was driven by doing the right thing after watching all the people looking through the fence who couldn’t come onto what was a fairly underutilized beach. It was not driven by any profit motive on the beach. LPA has not made any profit and doesn’t intend to from the public. Our lessee running the restaurant might make a profit but we don’t. We only want to cover the increased cost of providing this access to the public. Issue in point as a specific, if the public access were not allowed, LPA would not have to provide ADA bathrooms. Instead LPA has kept an ADA bathroom on the beach 12 months a year ever since access was allowed. This year we plan to install 2 permanent ADA bathrooms at significant cost. All this now required because we allow public access. Would you have us lock the gate again? It’s being suggested by property owners so our costs will go down, we don’t have to spend money on the bathrooms and the parking issue becomes mute. These are the property owners who you refer to as some who have inherited this prime lakefront property. That also is an insult to the many families who pioneered Lakeside Park a hundred years ago and whose cabin homes are still here and in the family. It is also an insult to the many new property owners in Lakeside Park who have spent Millions of dollars buying and improving their properties. It just sounds to me like you are jealous.
Eight, Lou- Access to any land below 6228.87 feet above sea level is guaranteed but not across your or our private land. This access is only from the water and Lakeside beach provides this access. The city is not involved unless they own the land along the water line. Should the city be required to provide the public access across your property to a forest behind your house? Should the city be required to provide the public access to the lake in front of your house by going across your land? Not that I’m aware of.
LPA apologizes for being so wordy but there is so much false information being used. LPA is a partner with the local community and hosts you, our neighbors, on our privately owned beach 12 months a year. Many of you take advantage of this as even during the Winter, there are dozens of people all day long having a picnic, having their kids play on the play equipment or just reading a book while sitting on the benches. They can also go to the bathroom 12 months a year. We want this to continue but now, you our neighbors as well as we ourselves, will have to pay to park at our beach even when there is no fee collected by LPA.
lou pierini:
Since I’ve never seen any type of recent analysis on the operating and maintenance to revenue of the parking garage I don’t know that those expenses will exceed the revenues. Also, the City leases the Blue Lake Motel parking lot to Ski Run Marina and the last I heard they were paying a paltry $1 per year for that lease. If Mansoor Alyeshmerni charges and collects anything more than $1 annually for parking at that facility then the City/taxpayers are making it possible for yet another local business to be making money off a City/taxpayer owned asset. Another one of those long-term sweetheart deals that were struck between former elected and their crony business associates that made those people lots of money at the expense of SLT’s taxpayers.
Lakeside Beach is still a private business.
You could close it down, just as we could post No Parking on that dirt strip that is owned by the City, on which your customers park.
Don’t know that either of those options would be best.
Those dirt shoulders on City streets are slowly being replaced with curbs and gutters, and for the most part, are used sporadically by residents, not a business.
Lakeside Park Association, The city could buy an easement for a walking path from you, or they could pay fair market value for the easement via various means. In other words a public easement to beach(i.e.at 6228.87 ASL) would provide public access.
4-mer, I agree.
I think the City should fully investigate the Lakeside Beach access options that we as a community legally have. Who really cares what some advocate for the LPA with a convientally faulty memory says. There must be some extenuating circumstances surrounding this public use or these people never would have spent this large amount of money installing bathrooms, providing clean-up and lifeguards etc. Saying that they opened it up because of all the forlorn little people looking through the fence is a pantload if I’ve ever heard one. And if some residents are insulted by what some of us have to say about this I would like to personally apologize to each and every 100+ year old “Tahoe pioneer” residing there.
Dear former USMC member and others,
I have not responded to you because there was no way for me to know there were any comments waiting for me. Facebook lets you know when there are comments on your comment.
We do not charge for the Blue lake Lot. It is used by the employees of Ski Run Marina during the summer and the employees of Heavenly during the winter.
The need for use of the Blue Lake Lot came about when the city allowed the Marina to be built with inadequate parking because a portion of the designated parking area was given to Al Moss to build the Chevron. Then the authorities asked Ski Run Marina to contribute $85,000 towards providing bus service so that parking would not be necessary. The money was paid but that plan never came to be.
During the summers nearly 300 people work at the Ski Run Marina. If they were to park at the Marina, no visitor would be able to park.
The city came up with a plan before my time to provide the Blue Lake Lot to the Marina to make up for the parking removed in the development when Chevron was added to the formula. Yes it started out at $1 a year, but I know that in the past ten years it has been $2,000 a year. It is a convenience. We do not receive any compensation in return. It is a service to the local residents who work at the Marina and need a place to park.
There are no sweetheart deals, no cronyism. It is a city providing for the needs of its citizens.
Because we want everyone to feel welcome at the Ski Run Marina, we do provide and always have provided an hour of free parking. Half of the people who visit us stay only an hour.
The Blue Lake lot is devoid of any building allocation as they were transferred. You could not even build a cabin on it.
In the past ten years we have not charged a dime for parking and taken care of the lot as needed.
I appreciate your sense of fairness and your contribution to our country. Call me if you have any questions or comments. I will not be checking this site. My cell is 310 922-7852
JoAnn Conner stop the sales pitch until you can show us the NUMBERS! In the Tahoe Tribune job opening for two fulltime and one part time employee for this new parking division. Kiosks and pads, paving, signage, striping, numbering, permit program, lease agreements monthly for support, enforcement, billing and collections. Do I need to go on? When and where do we get the NUMBERS?
buck you may want to look at the presentation given to the council at one of the meetings. It will be on line on the city website
Mr. Alyeshmerni:
While I acknowledge that you’ve indicated you will not be checking this site I would like to address you on this site since this is from where I posted my comments. Thank you for your response and clarification on the Blue Lake Motel parking circumstance. From what you’ve indicated the information that was reported by Councilmember Brooke Laine at the April 16, 2013, City Council meeting was incorrect.
Best wishes for continued success at the Ski Run Marina.