Paid beach parking in S. Tahoe is a done deal
By Kathryn Reed
No longer can opponents to South Lake Tahoe’s expansion of metered parking point to Truckee as an example of a town that continuously loses money with paid parking.
Truckee is projected to net $140,000 this fiscal year that ends June 30. And the town council this month agreed – unanimously – to keep the program intact.
South Lake Tahoe on a 4-1 vote May 21, with Mayor Tom Davis dissenting, made what is expected to be the last tweak to its parking plan for this summer season.
The vote was to install the parking kiosks at the two lots serving Lakeview Commons and not put them in at Regan Beach.
A pilot parking meter program started in 2011 on Bellamy Court in South Lake Tahoe. Photo/LTN file
At previous meetings it was agreed meters will go in at Venice Drive, with operation being seasonal during the warm months; and year-round near Lakeside Beach in the state line area.
“Everyone knows my position on paid parking. I hate it,” Davis said. He said in the fall he hopes it will have not been a success so he can be the first to make a motion to abandon the whole thing, and perhaps then the city can resell the used kiosks.
Councilmember Hal Cole said, “I’m a big believer in user fees. I think the people using it should fund it.”
Councilwoman Brooke Laine pointed out how the U.S. Forest Service charges at all of its beaches in the basin except for Kiva. She tied this to the city’s having paid parking at its beaches except Regan and Timber Cove.
State Parks is asking for $10 at the lot at Vikingsholm – and that could be for a 10-minute visit.
The city is going to charge $2 per hour, with a maximum of $10 per day.
Paid parking has been talked about for three years. In the past year, those against the concept have come out in large numbers to oppose the plan. However, at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, only four spoke — all against paid parking.
The council intends to assess in the fall how the program worked – or didn’t.
In other action:
• The council agreed to Tom Watson’s three-year contract. The city attorney starts July 8. He will make $154,000 per year, receive the same benefits as other city staff, and be given up to $7,500 in moving expenses. If the council wants to terminate him before the contract expires June 30, 2016, he will be paid six-months severance.
• Deputy City Attorney Nira Feeley will be the interim city attorney from June 1-July 7.
• Tom Greene with the Tahoe Prosperity Center updated the council on that group’s plan to bring broadband to the Lake Tahoe Basin.
• It was agreed in the near future the council would discuss the possibility of going to voters to seek a raise in the snow removal fee that currently stands at $20/year. That money is for equipment. Tying increases to the Consumer Price Index will also be broached.
• There will be a special council meeting May 30 at 4pm regarding the Bijou erosion project.
• Depending on the action taken Thursday by the Planning Commission, the Chateau project may be on the June 11 council agenda.
• A special council meeting may be needed in June regarding the area plan for the tourist core.
The “Snow Removal Fee” Should have been raised 20 years ago to $50.00. the City is way behind. No where in the country WAS there a better snow removal program than South Lake Tahoe.
Too much money for a City Attorney. for a city of maybe 30,000, sad but true.
And Tom Davis finally voted the Right way on parking meters.
No free parking=no paid customers for the local merchants
Once again, the will of the vast majority of citizens was ignored. Paid parking is most certainly guaranteed to leave a bad taste in the mouths of our valued visitors.
I question whether anyone has looked at the costs. We have to buy the meters, have someone collect the money, maintain the meters after they get destroyed over our winter and now patrol the areas in question. Is the City going to make any money or are we just doing this to annoy our business, visitors and those living in these areas?
I wish we could all agree that our number one visitors are middle class people from the central valley who are getting out of the heat and going somewhere that isn’t expensive. Making a visit more difficult for these visitors is not going to help our businesses.
Looking forward to the hand wringing in a couple of years when this proves to be a losing proposition.
The city council listens to the people like congress listens to the people.
I agree with Scott — The cost of meters, patroling, counting, maintenance and upkeep are probably going to be higher than what they generate.
People are going to park right outside the pay zone also so It is going to just move the congestion elsewhere.
At least the City Council is consistent: One debacle after another.
I agree with Scott as well with one exception. Isnt the money collected at Lakeview required to stay at Lakeview for maintenance and upkeep? I think I read recently that the city never had a budget for that area., poor foresight but I do see the need.
So here is the fix:
The hourly cost is too high and to take it to 10pm everyday is comical, no pathetic. Even in the most congested city areas there is a reasonable cut off at 5 or 6. Anybody ever heard of 10 pm?!!
Cut off paid parking at 6 pm and reduce the hourly cost.
.
We need to elect new Council members – it is as simple as that…but the election comes around and the same people are left in place. Vote for change.
Paid parking at Stateline (parking garages) free public transit up and down highway 50. Revenue from TOT as well as federal highway grants. No parking meters please. For once, can the city fathers (and mothers) think of “cause and effect”?
free
Truckee tried this debacle, and they wouldn’t give it up. After losing nearly $750,000, they still kept dumping taxpayer $$$ into it. But don’t believe me:
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/northshore/6546834-113/parking-percent-2011-district
Read that article to see how paid parking in Truckee cost the taxpayers dearly.
There’s a vast difference between “revenue” & “profit”. I don’t believe government entities understand that difference.
Congratulations on adding the parking meters SLT. Now how about adding advertising placards to bus stops along the routes to raise additional funds? I think the city could have gotten an attorney for under $100,000 wanting to move to our area. And it sounds like Davis didn’t want meters near his business in the Keys. He shouldn’t of been able to even vote on this issue. Condolences Nancy.
I hope that LTN will help demand a report from the city this Fall which shows how much the city spent on paid parking (kiosks, salaries, fuel for ticket writers, etc) versus how much they took in through the kiosks and parking citations.
This revenue generation scheme is creating parking problems for locals. This revenue generation scheme will create animosity amoungst those we want to attract to our city, the tourists.
The mayor said in the council meeting yesterday that this reveiw would be done in the Fall and he would recommend their ruling be reversed. Let’s hope it happens.
Tony Columbo– the city Fathers and Mothers have thought of “cause and effect”.
Unfortunately the City Manager and most of the City Council aren’t amougst them. Only the Mayor.
I like buying annual passes.
What if South Lake Tahoe markets a “South Shore Annual Parking Pass”, or a “South Shore Day Pass”–good at all the city beaches as well as the city garage. I like the convenience of an annual pass. When I have to pay per visit somewhere, I go there less often. With a pass, I will visit more often. This psychology would work well to bring repeat visitors to Tahoe, instead of discouraging them. When you buy a pass, you want to get your money’s worth.
If a visitor wants to visit East Cove and Lakeview Commons on the same day, shouldn’t their $10 cover both spots?
I wont pay it. And a lot of other people wont pay it either as long as there are other choices. The bottom line is the economic incentives keep increasing to shop off the hill and to recreate in the county.
If the program manages to make a profit they will just squander the money studying light bulbs or bugs.
The people who come up to visit/vacation in Tahoe are mostly from areas that have a lot of paid parking. So it shouldn’t be to upsetting to them. I don’t see this causing much disruption to the locals, as we all know how to get around the system by parking elsewhere and walking a short distance.
I am very glad to hear Regan Beach isn’t being included for paid parking, as this is more of a locals park than the other areas.
And I LOVE the idea of a “day pass” or “week pass” to sell to the public allowing them access to all city parks for one fee. This has been done in a lot of other areas (thinking of the city pass in San Fransisco) and usually includes public transportation and parking at parks/beaches.
Lakeview Commons will become a ghost town compared to today. Thursday nights the same and the poor business around there. Come on man!!
I dont know ,I may be wrong ,but went to the cave Rock where they lodge there boats ,and had to pay two dollars for 10 minutes, WOW, there was no one there and asked the lady why are we paying now ? she said it was to help the forest, I will not being going there any more, Ten dollars after that for a hour ,I think I will start finding the hidden places from now on, This takes bread off the table Sad this is happening,not much fun in Lake Tahoe any more ,just my 2 percent thinking,NO FUN ,
Councilmember Hal Cole said, “I’m a big believer in user fees. I think the people using it should fund it.”
Great idea! So maybe its time the city council pays the city for taking up space in the council chambers and wasting people’s time providing public comment to deaf ears?
(The only time politicians should be ignoring public comment is when the public demands something that is unconstitutional – certainly the lack of paid parking is not violating anyones rights…folks, we all hold the power of the ballot and the recall – I suggest everyone use it!)
Well, Kathy, you just answered my question about why there are always boat trailers and tow vehicles littered all over the side of the highway on the west side of cave rock. I assumed the parking lot must be full, but no. It’s just that nobody wants to pay to use the lot.
Let’s have a direct referendum/vote on this! The Council wants to jam something down our throats?! They’ll keep doing it if we let them!
Any lawyers out there know if the city charter could somehow be amended to prevent paid parking? Similar to a constitutional amendment?
Except for some of the city employees is anyone in favor of paid parking?
Took my family to Truckee last fall. No idea the were charging to park. Paid for parking ate lunch walked around,and will never go back. Art
Only $20 PER MONTH to park at the airport. Seems like a bargain in comparison.
I will avoid any areas where meters are in place.
Looking on the bright side for our terminally penurious Teabagger friends, there is the consolation that paid parking gives you the easy justification to screw your server on the tip.
Although Lakeside Park Association could hardly afford it, I would love to see them close the beach to the public. Eliminate the majority of the parking revenue so that SLT loses money. All LPA members can walk or be dropped off at the beach. It is the locals and visitors that use this great beach that are being hit by this cash grab. The City is stealing from the LPA to line its own coffers.
Parasitic actions by ignorant council members shows just how desperate they are to keep their salaries as public servants on the backs of the people they were elected to serve and represent. Actually, it all sounds about normal sadly.
Perhaps all of the residential LPA members could just request 10 guest parking permits and hand them out to the visitors to the beach. Ask them in for a drink before they visit the beach.
Teatotal, that was a completely ridiculous thing to say. No relevance to the issue at hand, and based on nothing.
As to your thinking that conservatives (stop using that disgusting insult-it is a foul, bigotted term on par with calling a Black person the N word) are cheap and enjoy stiffing the help, in my experience, the opposite is true. I’ve been in service positions my whole life and it’s the conservative folks who have always been generous, while many liberals would never dream of giving a little extra for extra service. They tend to think we all owe them. Unless they’re spending someone ELSE’S money. Then they’ll give it away.
The LPA should take the beach back until parking is free. If not, LPA members should get enough guest passes to fill the permit parking areas for the day, every day in July and August. Kae you did not say how many years it took Truckee to show a PROJECTED profit. Also how fuzzy was the math?
Parking fees are something that will be a contentious issue here for some time to come I’m sure but at least you understand who I was referring to wrongula. They say that being an advocate for admitting you’re a TeaPatsy is the 1st step to recovery. And I apologize if you were offensive.
Time for a new city manager, attorney, HR manager, council members, any department head or supervisor – the few permanent residents are fed up with your continual BS shoved at us.
Regan is heavily used – that’s where the meters should go on city property – along with the Connolly and Lakeview Commons beaches, the airport, recreation complex, bijou park and golf course and senior center – not the Keys or Lakeside.
If you think this paid parking program is being crammed down your throat, I would recommend pulling your head out of where ever it may be located. There have been test meters on Bellamy Court and Transit Way for over 2 years, there has been ridiculous amounts of money spent on somewhat pointless parking studies over the past decade, in fact the meters were supposed to be up and running last summer. Enough nonsense about recalling the council, come up with some suggestions and solutions. The council and city staff have made continuous efforts to improve transparency and communication with the community. They are merely trying to prevent the economic failure of this town. I digress. For us to remain competitive we need to ensure we can offer and maintain our amenities for example look at Baldwin Beach compared to Reagan Beach (which I think is inappropriately name s/b Reagan Lawn) can you guess which one charges for parking? If your only suggestion is to go out on the street and hand out guest parking passes to tourist then clearly you don’t have our town’s best interest at heart, and way too much time on your hands. Tahoe has a little catchin up to do, hopefully we didn’t miss the boat completely.
Me thinks Good Old Mayor Tom is up for reelection hence the dissent!
Mayor Tom has been against paid parking since before he was Mayor. Angela Swanson is also up for reelection and I hope the voters speak to her refusal to listen to what the majority said about paid parking. NO!
Ya know. I’ve lived here quite some time and I never knew of Bellamy Court or Transit Way until say five years ago. How many meters are there and how come SLT has never used the transit center building for public transit?
gottaluvthelocals:
OMG!! Someone who actually knows what the City Council and staff has been doing for the past few years. You must watch the City Council meetings since you know about the test meters on Bellamy and Transit, know that the City Council and staff have made continuous efforts to improve transparency and communication with the community (at least for those individuals who actually care to be informed on what’s happening at Council meetings), that the Council and staff are trying to prevent the complete economic failure of this town, and seem to understand that it will actually cost money, and lots of it, to make the kinds of improvements this City’s amenities and roads need along with ADA and stormwater runoff compliance infrastructure. The main economic driver of this town is tourism and why would anyone want to take their hard earned money and go somewhere that looks rundown and unappealing when there are so many other uplifting places to go. While SLT has a magnificent natural environment the built environment is not impressive and if improvements don’t start being made in this town really soon it will be too late, because the reputation of the South Shore being dilapidated and unattractive will be hard to overcome. Revenues need to start being generated somewhere.
Paid parking at City-owned areas is one thing, but what many do not understand is that at Lakeside Park, the beach and the marina are privately owned. The cost of maintenance and liability and other costs is bourn by the members. The LPA allows the public to use this beach as a means to help fund the costs as well as operate and maintain the water system. Installing paid-parking at this beach hurts the revenue of the LPA.
All the improvements at the beach, fencing, landscaping, lighting, lifeguards,restrooms, etc. have been paid for entirely by the LPA, not the City of SLT. So they come in and take advantage of the labor and efforts of the LPA and then turn around and steal away the very income that is needed to maintain such improvements. Local government at its best!
When is it time to vote again?
Gottaluv, the simple fact is that tourist areas that nickel and dime folks get a bad reputation and people will quit coming. The studies proved meters are feasible to install in a snowy climate and that they can produce revenue given a reasonable amortization of capital costs.
The studies and tests did not prove meters are a good idea. In fact, meters create an incentive for people to go elsewhere. Its basic economics.
If they need more money, and I personally don’t think they can handle more, but if they need more; raise taxes. Do not make the tourist attractions unappealing.
This is high school economics.
John:
I disagree. I think if you have a place where people want to go visit they will pay the associated costs. The key is to have a place where people want to go visit. I’d pay to park at Yosemite, Yellowstone, San Francisco to watch the Americas Cup, the Grand Canyon, etc., but I wouldn’t pay to park in an area akin to a latrine.
I also disagree that the City has enough money to fix the City’s streets and perform all the necessary ADA compliance and Lahontan’s TMDL requirements. All those will cost a mountain of money, and after reviewing the City’s financial statements they just don’t have it. And since raising taxes requires voter approval that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Ours is a real conundrum: people want things like free parking anywhere they wish and having nicely paved neighborhood streets, but they don’t want to pay for anything.
If the city needs money to fix the infrastructure they should attempt to get it from tourists like other tourism based areas do. Add taxes on things like hotels, motels, sightseeing tours, ski rentals, rental homes, etc. The fees from these items would be almost 100% exclusive to tourists.
Parking kiosks and permitted parking ding locals unless they choose to avoid these areas. If locals have to avoid these areas then the elected officials no longer are serving the best interests of the electorate. Thus they should not be elected again. Its very simple. Vote them out and let your neighbors know why they should not be elected. If you have a problem with the city manager, elect people who will not renew her contract.
Now I am sure the lodging folks, casinos, tour companies and others will cry foul because tourists will have to pay more. However, the TOT and tourist taxes are rather weak versus what other areas add on. They know it but they won’t admit it. If as some say tourists are OK with parking fees than certainly they would be OK with an additional dollar or two to rent skis or rent a boat or stay in a room.
I can’t believe all the people who buy into the baloney line that the paid parking program is necessary! Or that our poor City has no money! Our City has some retirees sucking down pensions that our 101% (that’s not a typo) of their last year’s salary!!
The City is just desperate (and incredibly short-sighted) to keep feeding the bureaucratic trough!
Parker:
The City doesn’t have any choice when it comes to feeding the retiree pensions. Those were contracts that were negotiated years ago with the Employee Associations, aka Unions, and the City now has to live up to those agreements. What they’ve done now is create “tiers” and beginning in 2001 and especially in 2008 they changed the pension structure for new hires so way off down the road the retiree pensions should be less. But that won’t happen until everyone getting the deals agreed to before 2008 dies. If you want to be ******-off at someone, be ******-off at those City Council’s from 15-20 years ago that gave away the farm.
It’s not an issue of being ******off at anyone, and it wasn’t in anyone’s contract to reitire at those exorbitant pensions!!
When the City wanted to give the appearance of getting some people off their books, they were so afraid to just let them go, they felt the need to give them extra incentives to retire! And this all happened in the last few years.
It’s not an issue of being peeved. It’s an issue of not coming to John Q. Public to pay for the screw ups!! And an issue of trying to disguise all these tax, fee & revenue scemes under false pretenses!
Parker:
The contracts I identified were those with the Employee Associations/Unions regarding retiree pensions. Contracts with individuals only apply to the City Manager and the City Attorney since they report directly to the City Council and have their performance evaluations performed by the City Council. The department heads report to the City Manager and have their performance appraisals performed by the City Manager and thus they don’t have the same individual employment contracts. They all do receive pensions paid to them from CalPERS just as with regular staff.
I don’t think the City was so afraid to let people go; they cut their staff by 30 percent about two years ago by pretty much eliminating positions. Department heads and probably others were likely given a separation package with a payment based on the number of years of service which is different than receiving a salary increase. Pension payments to retirees is based on their ending salaries at the time they retire, and the pension payment formulas that are paying so much is for those individuals hired pre 2001 and 2008 and those contracts were negotiated between the Associations/Unions and the then City Manager with the then City Council’s ultimate approval. Those Association/Union negotiated contracts are what dictate the percentage of salary paid to retirees utilizing a years of service component. For some retirees the amount they receive is considered exorbitant since they may have worked 25-30 years for the City, and for others retirees who worked much fewer years the amount would not be considered exorbitant. So it was in fact in their Association/Union negotiated contracts to retire at those pensions.
Also, the operation of the City is not micro-managed by John Q. Public. The public elects to the City Council who they want representing them and if the person they elect doesn’t do what the public wants then the public needs to make sure not to re-elect them.
I am amazed at a couple things-that certain people are reelected! But that you can actually justify City pensions at 101% of their last year’s of employment salary?! The people I know that are getting those pensions can’t justify them!
It’s all that kind of circular talk that tries to hide the existence of such exorbitant pensions with all kinds of babble. And that’s what helps get the same Council people elected over & over again.
And it’s also how the Council slipped thru a 30% pay increase for top mgrs. a few years back. 30% pay increases!! And 101% pensions!! Now the City is trying to find ways to pay for those things, and amazing that some people can justify them!
Parker:
I don’t justify pensions at 101%. The unfortunate circumstance is that those were the contract agreements to which long ago former City Managers and City Councilmembers agreed with the Employee Associations/Unions. Those contracts need to be honored and yes the City is trying to find ways to pay for that. Perhaps those individuals that you referenced who are getting those pensions that they themselves can’t even justify should make monetary donations back to the City’s General Fund to ease their tender sensibilities.
As far as the Council slipping thru a 30% pay increase for top managers, that was not slipped through and it was publicly discussed. When the City eliminated several top manager department positions they eliminated 100% of those individuals’ salaries. The remaining department top managers took on the management of a second department and for that added responsibility they received a salary increase. I don’t recall the exact percentage, but if it was 30% then the City actually saved 70% from those managers’ salaries that were eliminated.
It’s not circular talk or babble; it’s the existing retiree contract agreements prior to 2001 and 2008 along with the City Council’s publicly made discussions and decisions. A lot can be learned by watching the City Council meetings and reviewing the staff reports in the agendas.
4-Mer, have a good Memorial Day.
Here is my point in a nut shell. The City is installing paid parking to capitalize on services provided by OTHERS. They have no costs, involved in the areas where meters are going in.
Take Venice, first they closed the parking to trailers and forced us locals to use Cave Rock. And now they have removed access to a California Tahoe Conservancy beach from locals. And you can justify this? The city doesn’t provide any services there. There is no user related cost to recoup.
John – Thanks, you have a good Memorial Day too.
Regarding Venice, if you’re referring to the boulders placed in that location preventing the parking of trailers, you have Bill Crawford to thank for that. Several years ago and prior to his last term on the City Council he went before that body and complained about the vehicle and boat trailer parking on Venice which he believed was a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists. It was Mr. Crawford’s actions and requests that prompted the placement of boulders preventing that parking.
I’m unfamiliar with the access removal to a CTC beach so am unable to respond to that in an informed manner. The areas where the City is placing metered parking is all City owned property or City right of ways and not on privately owned property. What has been reported at Council meetings was the City needs to begin complying with the TRPA’s prohibition of allowing vehicle parking on bare dirt surfaces and that to allow parking on those City owned lots means they need to perform the BMPs and pave, stripe, and make those parking lots ADA compliant. Those are the costs which the City is attempting to recoup. I suppose an alternative would be to just implement no parking on those dirt lots and cordon them off, but I don’t think that would make people happy either.
John, no one has “removed access” to any beach.
I assume you are speaking of Lakeview Commons. That “access” cost the City over six million dollars to build, and the cost of upkeep, just for litter mitigation, toilet paper in the restrooms, and repair and maintenence is thousands of dollars per year, paid by the City.By the way, did you notice the new bathroom being completed on that site? There was a cost to the City on that, a big one.
You can park a little further away and walk, or ride a bike, or take the trolley or bus to “access.”
As far as Lakeside Park, “in a nutshell,” which I hope people read and absorb once and for all:
It is a private beach/business.
This business FAILED to provide parking specific for this business.
The patrons have been parking on CITY land.
The City, per TRPA mandate, now has to spend approximately $50k to pave that strip of “parking” for that private business OR post NO PARKING ANYTIME signs and issue citations when people park on that dirt.Either way, it is a cost to the City.
You can still walk, bike, or take the trolley or bus to that beach, where you will only have to pay a private business to go on the beach.
Street repair DOES cost money, as do curbs, erosion control, snow removal, and other related services like police and fire.
Please stop and think, taking into consideration all the mandates from all the agencies the City has to comply with, and give us some positive solutions that we can actually implement. We cannot always “undo” what has been done. We are doing the best we can.
The budget is available online, as are all the Council meetings and all the mandates under which we must operate.
And for all those who want to vote us out or recall us, please take a look at our “job” description and put your name on the ballot next time. Maybe fresh eyes could work miracles. Maybe you would find out there are no magic wands and very few easy answers, and for everyone who tells you to vote one way, there are often just as many on the other side telling you different.
Ask yourself if you can make a difference and then do something – volunteers are needed all over our town.
I do watch and have attended Council Meetings! The 101% was NOT part of any original contract and the 30% was discussed at a meeting WITHOUT advanced notice!!! And it was based on a consultant’s report no one could see!
And are you telling me total salaries, benefits, is down from 2008?!
Honoring commitments is one thing! Sticking the taxpayer and public with the bill is another. But at least it’s not denied that this parking scam is an attempt to pay for bad, past decisions. And that’s all it is!!
They could go Bankrupt.
Parker:
I don’t know where you got that I said total salaries and benefits were down from 2008. I said that the pension retirement structure was changed in 2001 and a lot more in 2008 and that individuals hired prior to 2001 were the recipients of a greater retiree pension structure and more money.
Also, the Brown Act prevents the City Council from conducting discussions, making decisions, or taking actions on matters that have not been placed on an agenda and publicly noticed. Closed Session item topics are listed on the agenda and publicly noticed, but all the discussion is conducted behind closed doors with those conversations being confidential and not subject to public disclosure. Your assertion that the “30% was discussed at a meeting without advance notice and it was based on a consultant’s report no one could see” is not plausible because: 1) the requirements of the Brown Act as I stated above; and 2) a consultant’s report that no one could see would need to be presented in Closed Session and those matters are confidential and not available for release to the public. Also, I heard the City Manager and City Council discuss this topic at a City Council meeting that was publicly broadcast on the City’s website.
Parker, I don’t know any other way of attempting to communicate with you on this or any other matters, and truthfully I just don’t want to try anymore. You are absolutely entitled to think whatever way you want, just like I am. But while you may not think honoring one’s commitments is important, I disagree and think it’s quite likely that those people you referred to earlier who are getting those pensions that they themselves can’t even justify might also agree with me on the need to honor one’s commitments.
JoAnn Conner you want ideas and you and Hal like user fees, charge a $1.00 user fee to ride the gondola. You were very condescending at the council meeting. If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen. This town is very upset. Tahoe Tribune survey very much against paid parking anywhere unlike most of your comments!
JoAnn, I was talking about Venice Drive, and the marina that used to be very handy for locals. Now we cant park trailers there, and the marina is basically unusable by us. The marina offers a season pass for locals, but that is useless now because we cant park. Now the CTC owned beach and the marina are beyond what a typical local family can budget.
Congratulations, well done.
The city provides nothing on Venice, and I already pay taxes for the roads.
JoAnn, do not assume I don’t volunteer. I do and I bring in big money for projects. Its why I have to stay anonymous.
Finally, you have mentioned the parking before at Lakeside Park, they answered you in great detail, you still have failed to reply to them.
Finally, I need to look into it more, but I have a feeling the city has no where near $6 million into El Dorado beach, its was grant funding. But I will do the research later.
John,
Which part of JoAnn’s 3rd paragraph regarding LPA didn’t penetrate the nutshell?
Perhaps you could forego just one of those $1000.00 checks you boast of sending so frequently to the NRA and that would cover your pleasure boat parking for a good long time.
The part where the city ever contacted LPA about parking and tried to work something out.
What I fail to understand is why the City doesn’t cut back on personnel AND create an attractive regulatory environment for business investment in the community.
Somewhere along the way, the entire Lake Tahoe area has forgotten that if business thrives, everybody wins. If businesses fail, everybody loses.
We do not live in a redisbribution society, so it is imperative that local government stop squeezing businesses and in turn, help them thrive.
A.B., I agree, I also don’t understand why the city is putting in permanent solutions to a temporary problem. Property values are rising quickly.
4-mer, sorry, you’re the one that doesn’t understand when you buy the City line so much. Unless you’re part of the bureaucracy?
So I will clarify my points or what I was getting at: 1. The City claims it’s cut back, but compensation keeps rising!
2. Oh, they maybe did put on the agenda that they were going to discuss exec. compensation? But they absolutely DID NOT say they were going to discuss 30% raises! So are those of us who have jobs supposed to show up at every meeting at the chance they might try to ram thru such a ludicrous proposal? They brought it up and passed it in a small portion of one meeting! When people complained, “Too late!” we were told. It’s already passed.
The return favors that the City Mgr. and Dept. Heads did for Council Members for the raise, were shocking in the shamelessness of it all! And now we’re supposed to pay for all the backroom shenanigans?
And went down to the City Offices and to ask for the report. Denied!! I, and others, looked for it on the website. No one found it! Tell me where it is. I’d love to read it and see its logic?
3. You put words in my mouth in stating I don’t think commitments should be honored. People in our City govt. slipped stuff in that we can’t afford. Don’t come to the taxpayer with the bill! It’s wrong. And more importantly, hurts our economy!
John, we have had numerous conversations and meetings with LPA and we continue to do so. Back in December, we asked them at a televised Council meeting who they thought should pay to pave the strip they admitted their customers had been parking on for sixteen plus years. Answer: “Well, the City, it’s city property.”
AB, the City cut staff by 30% just a couple of years ago and just so you know, we are constantly working to make this a more business friendly town. Those two new big businesses that came into town, brought jobs, sales tax revenue, and stopped some retail leakage, are part of that effort.
Buck, I’m sorry you feel that way. Several others thought it was great to point out the compromises and ask people for viable solutions. We are limited on what we can do with private businesses however, and that is as it should be in a free enterprise system.
We have received a few ideas we are exploring.
If you had a conversation with LPA, they don’t know about it. This quote from LPA:
“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.”
I noticed you wont touch the Venice Drive and marina issues where the city has ruined access to the best marina for locals and access to a CTC owned beach.
If Joann Conner must speak, I wish she would say something intellegent. As an elected official, she seems ill prepared to lead with any kind of discretion or diplomacy. Her rude and condescending tone with taxpayers is being discussed by many in the community. She may actually inspire the city’s first recall election. As for paid parking, it will end up costing this city dearly in dollars and good will.
Why should some supposed spokesperson for LPA be believed over our Councilmember? LPA has been involved with this bogus Chateau Hole project all along and I’m sure there are lots of things they would like to conveniently fail to recall if it suits their purpose.
I’m no fan of most of the new paid parking but these LPA whiners are full of it. Their supposed benevolence in opening the beach and building the bathrooms and providing maintenance all for the good of the community is a crock. I think there’s more to their involvement, such as the water systems, than most people know about. I know that LPA’s grand opinion of themselves is not shared by most in the community.
Look folks, the paid parking thing is a done deal. Move on to another issue.
This will come to pass, and quite candidly, it will likely fail. Take one look at what happened in Truckee with paid parking. They wrecked their commercial core by alienating locals with paid parking and hefty fines.
It’s certainly not the end of the world. The bigger problem is government obstruction, confiscation, and taxation. There’s plenty of that to go around the Lake.
A.B., the reason not to move on is to stop the city from continuing this money grab. And that can be done. If they are checked this time perhaps they will think about future money grabs. If they win this, then this is just a continuation and it will happen again.
Bijou, there should be a letter putting them on notice about the parking. Do you really think LPA would not attend a meeting if they were invited? JoAnn is talking about a public meeting where an LPA person was in attendance, not a negotiation. I know you hate businesses, but think about it.
Hopefully the large (check the Tribune’s poll this week) anti-paid-parking group will hire legal representation and pursue termination of this latest city misstep, similar to what was done some years ago with the ill-fated BID blunder. If so, I will gladly contribute.
It is unfortunate that these emperors must be reminded so often when they are not wearing clothes.
Parker:
Like I said before, you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine. Fortunately since we live in the United States we don’t have to agree.
The tax on lift tickets is being proposed in Nv. We should tax gondola rides here cuz the city gave away their power to tax lift tickets long ago. BK is always available.
I live in an area affected where I now need a permit to park in front of my own home.
I established an account on the 22nd at the city parking website and started to request permits for my vehicles. After entering the first vehicle it wouldn’t allow me to do anything else. Since then when I try to login in I’m told to come back on the 24th. When I tried to login on the 24th I was told to come back on the 23rd.
I’ve sent 2 emails to Danelle Spaeth the point of contact listed on that page but haven’t received a reply telling me if there is a problem with the process or the website.
Not a good start to an unwanted imposition on our lives.
The 33% increase to the City’s upper managament: department heads and managers happened about 5 years ago. The increases were deemed necessary by a comp and class study (yep, another out of area paid consultant) to be able to attract ‘top contenders’ to compete with ‘comparable’ cities.
Because of these added costs, furloughs started: the first year had two per month; and the second year had three per month.
Along with the furloughs, frontline FT and PT staff hours were decreased. Golden hands shakes were offered to some.
A year and a half to two years ago, the city implemented layoffs, forced retirements, and not filling any empty positions to ‘balance’ budget constraints.
They have increased some current salaries (to ‘compensate’ for workloads), increased PT hours and are now adding 3 FT and more PT positions to cover the metered parking areas.
There are too many signs showing up everywhere and they take away from the natural environment that draws many to Tahoe.
I am against all metered parking anywhere.
To the city leaders: live within your means (and that could mean going back to basics: PD, FD, snowremoval); enforce TOT collections and parking fines during snow conditions, add a small surcharge to lift tickets and gondola rides; and, focus on our residents’ and visitors’ experiences by not dinging us every place we go with excessive signs and fees.
And Noodle, isn’t it amazing how the consultant was hired by the City Manager, and what do you know?! The consultant said the City Mgr. was underpaid!! Go figure???
Of course, the raises were given shortly after the City claimed it was broke (heard that before?), and just had a sales tax increased passed by the voters!
It’s again amazing how people keep buying the same story!
Paid parking will not be forgotten by locals. Wait till all the second home owners and tourists start to roll in. Let the —- hit the fan!
I just tried to login again to the city website for parking permits and it now says it’s under construction and check back on May 30th. A neighbor who lives in the Bay Area was told last week not to worry about his permits and to wait until June 29th.
The permitting process is cumbersome as I saw it last week when I logged in the first time. I was asked for my license plate number, the State of registration, the VIN and proof that I owned my own home. Let’s hope the “construction” works and those of us being imposed on by the city can easily register ALL vehicles which will require permits to park in front of our own homes. This would include not only vehicles I own but also permanent permits for people who regularly park at my home on the street.
So what does all this mean? What does it look like down there now?
Its been so dam cold I am guessing beach parking is not an issue so far.
Are tickets being issued?
Are people paying to park? anywhere ever?
Heard through the Tahoe-line that the City is not going to pave the areas at Lakeside, but still going ahead with meters. Boooooo.
And something that hasn’t been mentioned regarding the beach parking at Nevada Beach, Pope and Baldwin: there is a reasonable priced season pass available that is good for all 3 beaches.
Another one is Ski Run was up for meters (where the city did improvements to the sidewalks). How’d they beat the meters?
Some say more people will ride their bikes – have you ridden the suicide lane on Hwy 50? You want more bikes on there? There’s a great bike trail along Hwy 89 to ride to those beaches. Until 50 is done with the perpetual ‘improvements’, no meters anywhere.
Again, City live within your means and quit dinging the folk. How would you people with lots close to trailheads feel if you had to get permits to park or have more unnatural kiosks and such in your neighborhood?
Anyone who thinks that the cost of paying for parking in SLT is outrageous should click on the following link and watch the report on the two parking spaces that were auctioned off in Boston for $560,000! WOW!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2013/06/14/pkg-560-thousand-dollar-parking-spot.wcvb?iref=allsearch
4-Mer, for the typical casino worker or service industry worker parking in South Lake or those parking spots are equally accessible.