No more free beach parking in South Tahoe
By Kathryn Reed
While paid parking has been a reality in some areas of the South Shore for decades, it will be coming to new locations in mid-June.
It was a fairly hostile crowd that gathered Monday night at the South Lake Tahoe Senior Center to hear the city’s plans. The few who are fine with paid parking could barely be heard because others were disrespectful by talking over them.
The nearly 80 people in attendance were mostly well older than 50, completely resistant to change, and believe because the majority in the room were against paid parking that the other 20,000 people who live in South Lake Tahoe must be on their side and therefore the city should do as they say. Many believe the amount of revenue is not worth the angst.
South Lake Tahoe City Manager Nancy Kerry addresses a question from resident John Cefalu at the May 6 parking meeting at the senior center. Photo/Kathryn Reed
City Manager Nancy Kerry made it clear no one is a cheerleader for paid parking, but the reality is this could be a revenue stream for the city. Projections are the sites where paid parking will go in will net $150,000 a year. This is from the fee and tickets given to those who don’t comply with the regulations.
Kiosks – which are how meters are now installed instead of a stand at each parking spot – are slated to go in on Venice Drive and near Lakeside Beach. Based on feedback from the May 6 meeting Kerry is going to propose to the City Council on May 21 that instead of meters at Regan Beach they go in at the Lakeview Commons area. Venice will be free in the winter.
While all the money had been designated to go in the general fund, meaning the cash could be spent on anything the city desires, that would not be true of money collected at Lakeview Commons. State Boating and Waterways mandates that parking money be reinvested in that area. That could mean improvements to the boat ramp, putting in a viable pier and other upgrades.
It will cost $2 an hour, with a maximum of $10 a day. The fee will be seven days a week from 8am to 10pm. It is possible holidays will be more expensive. Altering the rates or waiving the fee during special events like Live at Lakeview concerts on Thursdays is being talked about.
Some people think parking is a new topic around city hall. They are wrong. Parking has been on a City Council agenda four times since Nov. 20, 2012.
This is from an Oct. 22, 2010, Lake Tahoe News story:
“Metered street parking, parking garages, reconfiguring streets, changing public perception about paid parking, paying attention to public transit-walkers-cyclists, and approving future projects with adequate parking were all broached in the daytime meeting.
“Most in the audience agreed more parking and paid parking are likely to be more prevalent in South Tahoe in the near future. And they agreed it would be the locals, who are used to free parking, who will probably be the hardest to convince this is what’s needed.
“The consultants started work in July by speaking with nearly 300 people to gather their thoughts on parking in the city. They also have read the 10 or so parking studies the city has commissioned over the years.
“In the in-person survey, which mostly tourists answered, about 70 percent said they would be willing to pay for parking.”
This is from a March 2, 2011, Lake Tahoe News story:
“The other new source of revenue is via metered parking, especially near beaches. [City Attorney Tony] O’Rourke said most waterfront communities charge to park close to that body of water. The anticipation is this could bring in $450,000 a year.”
The projected revenue has been scaled back immensely because no longer is the city going to charge people for their permits – permanent ones or for guests. And the number of locations is not as great as once anticipated.
Residents on streets in about a two block area of where the kiosks will be located will be given free permits for their vehicles to let parking enforcement officers know they are allowed to park there.
Much of Monday’s meeting centered on people saying how they have all these friends who stop by, come to visit for days on end – and they need a place to park. Residents fear they won’t be able to get enough guest permits.
People believe the city will be limiting their guests’ activities. The city’s intent is to guarantee locals a place to park on their streets with the permits. If it were permit-only parking, then those who are looking to avoid using the kiosks would have to go several streets from the beaches to do so.
Other places that charge, usually on a seasonal basis, are the U.S. Forest Service beaches, California State Parks, Beacon Restaurant, Tahoe Keys Marina and Ski Run Marina.
But at Ski Run Marina the first hour of parking is free
Tahoe Keys Marina charging to park? Since when? And you meant Lakeshore Blvd by Lakeside Beach, not Venice, right?
This will surley help the tourist trade we always manage to cut our own throat.
People should think about how real estate appraisals are conducted a bit here. Take two like properties, and then compare the features of the homes and add or subtract from each home price until a comparable value is calculated. If one home has required permit parking and the other doesn’t: guess what just happened to home values for the ones that do? It is meaningless that the permit is free, its the fact of having to deal with it and the knowledge that at some point you will get a ticket. That $150k just came right off the top of those people home values.
Welcome to the 21st century. While you’re at it SLT – add some advertising at your bus stops like they do in San Fran to raise additional cash too.
When city representative Bob Albertazzi floated the idea of paid parking on Venice at a Tahoe Keys HOA meeting many months ago, the reaction of the TKPOA Board and property owners in attendance was strongly 100% against the idea, citing concerns about negative impacts on adjoining residential neighborhoods and beach use access. My recollection is similar negative reaction at other community meeting venues. It is regretful that the city council has once again failed to represent the interests of the very people who elected them to office. Why else hold these community input meetings? Citizens should start demanding such issues be decided at the ballot box.
Contrary to the to the assertion that this is just a few grumpy old people that oppose change the truth of the matter is the city has been trying to get this through for years and has always meet with stiff opposition. The city knows it does not have the support of the majority of the 20,000 residents. They see this as a cash cow and have moved forward with their we need more money agenda. With brings me to my next point. I predict with in a few years the city will change the now free parking permit to residents to a paid program. That’s were the real money is. Making our town into places that are less desirable to live brings a new definition to cityiots.
Permit parking will have no value adjustment in an appraisal.
I am still against paid parking at Lakeview Commons. It was nice to drop in and check out the activities last summer without any kiosk hassles, did we really only get one summer of bliss?
The city council needs to heed the electorate. Council, why is this being rammed down our throats?
Do you want to see the results of paid parking?
Go visit downtown Truckee, where the merchants practically beg people to park. Ever since Truckee instituted paid parking, it’s been a financial black hole for their town AND it drove business away.
Additional revenue stream for the City of South Lake Tahoe? Think again. There will be maintenance costs, personnel costs, and collection costs. There will be new city employees to manage the paid parking.
Good luck!
As Davis once said and Conner more recently, the people put me here because they agree with my ideas and vision.
I understand paying for parking in a lot or garage that is built specifically for that use; but to make the citiens of the town pay for parking on streets they already pay for is double charging, isn’t it?
And it won’t matter anyway. The city will STILL not ever have enough money. Governments NEVER have enough of the people’s money. They will always come up with reasons to take more.
Giving government more money is like feeding rats in your basement.
well I am glad all those above beat me to it – AB in particular looks to Truckee for the public response to implementing paid parking in an area that is not percieved as providing additional amenities (like a covered parking garage) but just generate revenue – the city gets some parking fees, the merchants eat it. Just like they are eating it at Ski Run, where in fact the first hour is free, but most still avoid it. (and who the heck wants to be asked what are you here for by a 19 year old everytime you approach the parking kiosk??)
And $2/hr?? – why is parking in the Santa Cruz parking garages 50c/hr???? (the absurd rate by the way is why most avoid the parking garage at Stateline).
A few other comments: if 80 people show up at a public meeting and most oppose something, you better beleive a lot more oppose as well. Had the 80 supported it, the city (and obvioulsy LTN) would be reporting unanimous public approval!
The article has this para in it:
“The nearly 80 people in attendance were mostly well older than 50, completely resistant to change, and believe because the majority in the room were against paid parking that the other 20,000 people who live in South Lake Tahoe must be on their side and therefore the city should do as they say. Many believe the amount of evenue is not worth the angst.”
Who wrote this paragraph? The city official that proposed the meters? Sorry. LTN, if you want to pass as a news source, you need to start reading like one – these folks may or may not be resistent to change, but that certainly is not the issue here – this “change” isnt good for our town (or in any town that should be hoping for a return to the days of all the parking filled again!).
Last, the idea that you charge a fee that you can issue citations for and you use all the moneys you will get in citations as an arguement to have the charge to begin with is absurd. Why dont we start ticketing a different color car each day of the week. That will certainly fill the city coffers and be about just as rational a charge/
Riva Grill, in the Ski Run Marina, never charges for parking in the winter and provides complimentary valet parking for guests in the summer.
“but to make the citiens of the town pay for parking on streets they already pay for is double charging, isn’t it?”
Double paying on what? Permits?
I was there last night. The crowd was disrespectful to the point I was afraid to say I support the parking plan. I was glad to hear a few say they do, but people did just talk over them. And I will be affected by the plan based on where I like to recreate. I would rather pay for something I am using; like the beach or river (Venice) than have to pay some fee that does not make sense. And it’s common for people who live in popular areas to pay for that privilege one way or another. So if paid residential fee comes into being, that is for the right be so close to a beach. Change isn’t easy.
Oh dear. This is a bad idea for SO many reasons.
On a journalistic note, this article should have been framed as commentary, not news, as it obviously reveals the writer’s bias.
Thing fish, why don’t you start attacking the issues instead of always attacking the posters? Or do you just want to hear yourself talk?
I am totally against this in our city! My prediction is that this ends up costing more than anything it may make.
Yes, I agree Truckee is a prime example of how paid parking in the downtown area has gone bad. Of course, on the busy weekends the tourists do fill the parking spaces up, but it’s in the shoulder season when the shops need local to patronize them that we see the biggest impact. Locals don’t want to have to pay for the parking to dine at one of those restaurants. Or we end up parking in the free dirt area at the very west end of downtown, which fills up fast.
I find SLT’s paid parking fee structure to be absurd. $2.00/hr. to park, are they crazy??? And having it until 10pm? The majority of major cities that have metered paid parking go until 6pm, which helps bring people to the area for evening activities. Since the majority of the City’s new metered parking areas are beaches, why don’t they stick to an average beach goer time-frame? Give locals a little breezing room to enjoy Tahoe’s beaches after working hours.
Another thing, how do you think the Tallac area beaches are going to be impacted by the City’s new metered parking? I bet even more folks are going to go there to try to get free parking (where still available) and choke those beaches. Eventually the USFS will have to charge for all of their parking lots.
Tony O’Rourk(sneer)…Tom Davis(sigh/sneer)….Tahoe South…is so full of itself.
I was there last night
old Nancy looks weathered, the crowd was raging on her perty good last night
$100,000.00 in parking tickets @ $55.00 each
wOw that is 1818 tickets
THE NEW SLOGAN FOR OUR TOWN WILL BE
“PORKED”
the City could use the money to pay for Snow Globe
other wise the meeting was prety good entertainment
Hmm and how well did that paid parking work at the parking garage at Stateline???
Somebody needs to talk to the City of Reno and see how well those kiosks worked here. The City is out hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the kiosks. Can Tahoe afford that? And can Tahoe afford to lose business because people just won’t pay for parking? And what about the surrounding neighborhoods where people will be parking and walking, because it’s free. I’m so glad I don’t live in the Keys area anymore – it was bad enough during the summer with all the boat trailers parking in front of our houses for “free” !
Let’s be honest here. Opposition (and yes, anger) to paid parking has been strong throughout the City, except by public employee unions, the Chief of Police, the City Manager and a clique of elected council members. The presentation at the senior center was only the latest maneuver in the City’s PR offensive for this unpopular and mostly unwanted fee.
In other communities paid parking is used to raise revenue for tackling EXISTING parking problems; and it is usually budget neutral for this reason. But in SLT paid parking is intended to be a cash cow, NOT to solve existing parking problems. In fact, the City’s strategy is to cause parking problems and profit from parking tickets! Their revenue strategy actually counts on you and me violating the law and paying penalties. Machiavelli would be proud.
I also think this is a really bad idea. When are they going to realize they are doing more harm than good.
I guess ride a bike, walk, or be dropped off. The people who will suffer are those who can’t walk or ride great distances: the elderly and handicapped :(
First, just look at the Parking Garage to see how well see the City can run paid parking!
But secondly, this constant revenue grab is just so incredibly shameless!! The way the City has raised taxes & fees over the years always leaves me asking, “How much is enough?” I guess the answer is simple, “More!”
Yet I’m sure the Council wouldn’t be asking for more money from the public unless there’s been a pay/benefit freeze for the City staff? Has there been?? How much you want to bet staff is getting more money this year than last? Even if it’s by doing the old game of giving people new titles, so it can be proclaimed no pay has been increased under the old titles?!
BAD idea! SLT locals can’t afford paid parking because wages are so low! Do something constructive – like resolving the TaHole & making it a tax generating situation. I agree that paid parking will cost more than it will generate – and put locals all in a bad mood when they try to engage in lake activities. Maybe you should rename the City to South Lake Cha-Ching $
PS – Even paid parking in the SF Marina District, stops at 6pm!
Dee is the only comment so far that has touched on what I see being the issue that seems to have been mostly publicly avoided by the City so far: the true upfront costs of this program. How much will the computerized parking kiosks cost the City out of pocket? How much will all the new permit parking signage cost to make and then install on all of the neighborhood streets at a close enough spacing so that they are enforceable by SLTPD? (which completely ignores the visual blight!) And yet they City reps tout a net revenue potential of $150,000. Really?
So I guess there is going to be paid parking In SLT Near the Lake this summer?
Were the dollar figures posted on the cost of the infrastructure? Where is the break even point.
Get ready for the ticket revenue. what will the fine be?
I wonder what the ratio will be on citations. Resident versus Visitors.
I was also at the meeting. I hope that when the city brings this to a council meeting that all those people last night and more show up. I only counted two people that were for paid/permit parking last night. We do not have a parking problem! That was stated many times last night. This is not good marketing for our little city. I was also disapointed that Angela was the only council member there. 365 days a year 8:00am to 10:00pm clearly targets locals not the tourist that we were told they were targeting. Stop shoving this down our throats!!
Buck, did you really expect Davis, Cole, Conner and Laine to show up? They knew what the backlash would be. They count on ya’ll forgetting when they decide to re-up their city council terms. Everyone forgot that Cole was mostly responsible for “the hole”. In fact, they forgot twice.
I am adamantly opposed to locals paying a parking fee for on street parking; I have no problem paying for the garage at Stateline as it is covered and therefore, especially in the winter, superior to on street or uncovered free parking lot parking. That said, I must admit I avoid shopping there because I don’t way to pay for parking — just go the movies because they validate. We pay our taxes to provide street maintenance, so as Dogula says, it is akin to the city double dipping — or us double paying.
I live in the Keys, not too far from the section of Venice where the kiosks will be installed. People will just park in front of my house and walk — which means my family and friends won’t have anywhere to park!
Was there news in this article? I would have liked to make a well informed opinion on an important issue but instead all that is written is some rant from Kathryn Reed. Why is this newspaper even employing her? What a terrible editorial disguised as an article.
Jeez Dogula, just needed clarification.
Do you want to get into an urban planning and transportation use discussion?
The fact that paid parking is going in at a “private beach” which the owners have supported the city’s tourist needs by allowing public access is a slap in the face to all the property owners in Lakeside Park.
I wouldn’t blame them one bit if they locked the gate again and only allowed owners and their guests. Then how much do you think the city would make from their kiosks.
I also was at the meeting last night and I agree the crowd was hostile. It has been throughout the entire process where this unwanted “Parking Management Program” is being forced down the thoats of the residents who will be affected by it. When the City Council had a public hearing and 16 people presented their opinion, 12 were against. The other 4 in favor all introduced themselves as representatives of different city employee unions. This is not what the public wants. There is no parking problem being solved only one being created as well as anomosity towards the Council, City Manager and the Police Chief.
When the Chief was asked last night why he doesn’t give tickets for people talking on cell phones instead of parking tickets to raise revenue, he said because the city doesn’t get as much money from them.
Mansoor Alyeshmerni:
That’s nice that you volunteered that the first hour of parking at the Ski Run Marina is free. Perhaps you’d like to share how much you’ve been paying annually over the past years to the City of SLT for the lease of the Blue Lake Motel parking lot and how much you charge per vehicle for parking at that location, including what your holiday rates are. I’m sure the citizens of SLT would like to know how much the City is making on the lease of that City owned property/parking lot, especially since parking is at such a premium in our town.
THe city is creating at least 3 new FT positions and more seasonal PT positions for these areas. So the majority of the money will be going to cover these salaries. Where’s the windfall?
And just because other cities have paid parking doesn’t mean ours has to go along with it.
Along with the residents, what about the people who work in these areas? Are they going to have to pay to park when most of these jobs are PT, minimum wage or hike in for their work?
Instead of trimming the workforce that was done, they city is creating new positions and a non-proven method of raising cash. I believe there’ll be very little left for projects/improvements. And the fact that the city manager and council continue to ignore the residents is shameful (again).
Seems like this is something the public should vote on?! Anybody know what it would take to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn this dumb proposal?
Good point Noodle.
Maybe the city got finagled by a heavy sales pitch from a parking meter company.
By the time we pay off the meters, pay the staff to monitor and maintain them, all that will be leftover is disgruntled tourists that will think twice about driving all the way up to the lake, to take a break from city life, and enjoy a nice laid back experience.
Don’t forget that now the 20,000 SLT residents this article infers might be in favor of paying to park at the beaches, will now have pay to do so.
I feel the article was biased in favor of paid parking.
The description of the majority of the people attending the meeting being old “over 50” and resistant to change was a derogatory comment. Perhaps the age of the audience demonstrated why they should be listened to. They can afford to live near the beach. They have successfully acquired the knowledge to lead lives and careers which allow them to know what is best for the community at large not just their own interests. They demonstrated they would not be held hostage to self serving groups of people who forced the City Council to make a bad decision. They were not only pointing out the affect to their properties (through which they pay high taxes) but also the affect to the public, locals and tourists.
People at Tuesday’s council meeting mentioned how the parking meeting was hostile. That was the word more than one person used to describe it. (I wasn’t at the parking meeting.) If they were older, then they should know how to behave at a public meeting. So I think it’s good the reporter calls people out who are disrespectful. None of you have an issue with age being an issue when SnowGlobe is the topic. Being rude is NOT the way to effect change. Today’s letter by the local resident is a much better way to rally the troops. Voting works too. So would boycotting the meters.
city council: either drop this or let us vote on it.
City council drop this, let us vote on it or how many signatures for a recall vote?
Give these people an inch and we will end paying to park on our own property.
They can’t even protect the lights in the linear park. What do you think our little wanabe gang bangers are going to do to these kiosks at night?
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.
I love South Shore with fond memories for my time living there, and visit as often as I can, but the Forest Service beaches have always been better, and now they’re better deals. I can’t tell you the number of sports and recreation venues around the West I’ve stopped visiting when it became apparent that I was no longer a paying guest but a pocket to be picked. Welcome to the crowd, SLT.
I’m with you, Copper. I used to go up to Angora all the time, and I’d AT LEAST buy a lemonade, or more if I brought friends. But once they started charging for parking, I stopped going. It was kind of insulting, you know? The same with the ‘city’ beaches now. I won’t go. Who needs the hassle or the feeling of not being welcome? Which is exactly what those parking meters express.
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
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.
Can we fire, recall or just toss out the idiots who are behind this?