Letter: Paid parking does not encourage recreation
To the community:
Recreation has been identified as the “new” vision for South Lake Tahoe.
Recreation in Tahoe is not a new idea. For as long as I can remember our marketing slogan was: Tahoe — America’s All Year Playground.
That was until the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority wonks decided to brand South Lake Tahoe “Tahoe South” and put up cartoon drawings on billboards in the Bay Area that invite visitors to “Cross Over to the Wild Side”.
We’d probably be well advised to get back to basics.
For a community that is defining its economic future as recreation, a parking program that clearly deters access to the lake seems contrary to our stated mission.
Putting $2 per hour parking meters at El Dorado Beach, Venice Drive and in front of the privately owned Lakeside Beach and calling it a user fee seems to lack vision. The beach attendance at Lakeside this summer was down by more than 50 percent. The $55 parking tickets that overzealous parking enforcement employees were writing just added to the mass exodus. The many businesses at Lakeside Beach are reporting a substantial decline over last year’s sales. In addition, all businesses near paid parking have become the front counter for the parking complaint department.
The city made the case early on that this parking program was all about the money. The projected income for the city was $312,900 and was identified as enough revenue to preserve two police positions that would be lost if we didn’t raise that amount. The city then proceeded to spend/borrow more than $300,000 plus staff time to install the meters and the dozens of pay to park signs that for reasons not completely clear face into the street where they are not visible to the driver. This may begin to explain the estimated 2,000 tickets that were written this summer. The $312,900 projected profit will not be realized; however, city management is calling the program a success. Forty percent of the more than $300,000 investment in the kiosks sat mostly vacant as parking customers for Venice Drive and Paradise Avenue never materialized.
The city is now probably thinking that they need to find a new home for those 13 kiosks that were not performing in two locations. Moving them to the airport would allow city staff and council members to better understand the hardship that minimum wage seasonal workers faced when their free parking was replaced by the $10 per day fee. An estimated 150 workers found themselves scrambling to find free parking at Nevada casinos and in residential areas.
City sponsored programs that are solely designed to generate income should not harm local businesses and displace low wage workers.
On Nov. 5, the City Council will be reviewing the paid parking program. This will be their opportunity to listen to the community and decide to keep or dismantle the program or let the voters decide with a city sponsored ballot initiative. If a ballot initiative is not volunteered, it will require just 836 registered voter signatures for citizens to advance an initiative to the ballot.
Peggy Bourland-Madison, committee member Tahoe 4 Tahoe
If you’re trying to sound professional, I’d recommend skipping the name-calling. Referring to the LTVA as “Wonks” makes you sound rude, immature & British.
As for the paid parking… Get over it. It’s 2013 and most cities have paid parking. There’s still plenty of free parking around for you penny pinchers that can somehow afford to live or vacation here, but can’t afford a couple of bucks to park in select areas.
Plus, do I really have to point out that installing the kiosks & signs is a one time expense? If paid parking looses money, I’m not sure why the vast majority of cities do it.
“Wonk” is a very commonly used AMERICAN term. As in “policy wonk”, usually used in reference to Washington DC.
“Get over” paid parking? Really? Did the city DO anything to improve the parking before charging the locals to park at some of their favorite places? You know, the places along the PUBLIC streets that we ALREADY pay for with our taxes? No? I didn’t think so.
“One time expense”? Nope. People always forget about maintenance. And replacement of vandalized parts. I’d suggest not buying a house or car from someone who thinks the initial purchase price means it’s a one time expense.
This whole thing has been a public relations nightmare. People feel like they’re being nickel & dimed to death. We’re almost as popular as the airline fees now! Give the people more, and they will feel like spending more while they’re visiting. if they feel like they’re getting good value, they leave happy, wanting to come back, and they tell their friends. I can’t emphasize enough how important good word of mouth reports are. And we aren’t getting them.
Paid parking at Tahoe is just another blunder that the Council has to add to it;s list of screw ups over the past years.
The beaches are the Beauty of Tahoe and although there may be some that feel that paying to use them is okay, the majority of the people feel that it is wrong. the locals have a problem with it and that is who votes and soon we will have a chance to remove this Council and replace it with some that will think about the locals rather than there own personal beliefs.
The entire Council needs to be replaced, they have done enough damage to this town.
Paid Parking – “Get over it”.
That is hilarious.
… and another thing you tourists, don’t come back… !
OK
Tahoe south and the marketing of Tahoe is a joke. Please stop trying to sell the **** know as South Lake Tahoe to the unwelcomed bayfoons. Maybe if our city council could stop trying to get people here and improve what we have then maybe we will see positive growth here in town. Our business fronts are ran down and the city if over ran by vacation rentals. A billboard won’t help what is happening here. This town just needs to regroup.
The truly concerning issue here is that the businesses located near the paid parking claim to have been down 50% this summer from last. If this is correct, it proves that people are not willing to pay for parking. And once again the City of South Lake Tahoe is harming local businesses. Would it not make more sense to help businesses succeed and generate revenue in sales tax?
Dump the meters. It is a silly idea from people who likely have never owned a business based on foot traffic. They should have bought used units for this experiment. Now we have our own shiny new meters to pawn off on some other town.
I also live in another area that has paid parking everywhere and hate it. I’ll never “get over It”. It keeps me from patronizing businesses that I have to worry about having change for a meter and risk getting a ticket if the meter runs out. Not quite sure why Tahoe Mom thinks its good to have these meters that are keeping tourists away and making them spend unnecessary money. That extra money could be going to local businesses. I know I’ve stopped going to places here that now have meters.
Not to forget the biggest blunder between “America’s All-Year Playground” and “Tahoe South – Cross-over to the Wild Side”… was when city tourism officials renamed Lake Tahoe “Lake Moolah” in its promotional efforts.
And the new city color brochure “City of South Lake Tahoe – Parking Program” lists Venice Avenue as one of the streets affected. There is no such street in the city. It is Venice Drive.
Get your act together, City.
If I remember correctly there was a survey earlier this year which showed that 87% of the residents were against paid parking at the recreation areas.
The city survey used to sell the council to vote yes on this ordinance did not ask the question if they wanted paid parking. Rather it asked if transactions and use tax should be charged. The response was 65% against. They did however want tourists to pay but through TOT and charges on the Tahoe Queen, etc.
I only hope the council listens to the people, sees the negative impact on recreation and overturns this anti-tourist ordinance.
I believe the wild side marketing is being wound down. The reason they had to go to tahoesouth is because tahoe.com and southtahoe.com was not available for a website.
I agree with Tahoe Mom and would like to know from where Peggy Bourland-Madison got all her statistical data regarding the evil kiosks that will cause the ultimate demise of SLT. The definition of “wonk” according to Random House Webster’s College Dictionary also states “a person who studies a subject or issue in an excessively assiduous and thorough manner”. One could consider that Ms. Bourland-Madison is a “Wonk” when it comes to the evil kiosks, but more likely she’s just discharging information funneled to her from Mayor Tom Davis in her official capacity as his lackey. I think Ms. Bourland-Madison’s artificial concern for minimum wage seasonal workers in SLT is transparent at best since I’ve rarely seen retirees of El Dorado County who’ve held high ranking and high paying management positions in excess of 25-years demonstrate concern for SLT’s minimum wage workers.
Ms. Bourland-Madison’s suggestion to move the kiosks to the airport so that no harm would come to local businesses and low wage workers in the City and so that City staff and Council Members can pay for parking fails to identify that every local business person, contractor, and individual needing to conduct business with the City, and those people wanting to attend a City Council meeting would also need to pay for parking. But I guess she thinks that would be better than just those visitors and people wanting to recreate in our community needing to pay at locations which are akin to valet parking spaces.
I’ll be closely reviewing the City Council meeting on this topic and scrutinizing the staff report and financial information to see how closely it matches what Ms. Bourland-Madison reported, and if it appears that someone was feeding her information that has not yet been made public to the community at large since the agenda packet has not been released.
The “City” has had an ongoing financial fiasco parking garage problem at the Heavenly Village area. Now, with the meters on various streets, it has additional paid parking area(s) problem. These two parking situations are not the same, but the effect is.
People do NOT like to pay for parking. The ‘word’ on the paid parking is fairly widely known to locals, and will be more-so as time goes on.
Some of us dislike paid parking.
I don’t care, not at all, what other cities do.
When something comes up that might require me to drive from the West side of town to the Parking Garage, my first or second thought is usually the parking situation. As far as I am concerned, Heavenly Village is not likely to be visited often by me, I am sure it is over a year now since I’ve been there. If the tourists pack the Garage with paid parking, fine by me. I doubt that has been happening. The Garage might be breaking-even…? I don’t use paid parking anyplace I don’t have to.
Yes, some could say I’m cheeeeeeep. Maybe, however, I am wanting value for my money.
I want the whole City to be welcoming to tourists…after all, they are what sustains us.
Just noticed the other day how Venice Blvd. is empty. No one is paying for parking there!
And a consequence is that far fewer are accessing the trail at the end of Venice that takes you down to the Lake. Unfortunate, because it’s a great walk to take on the nice Fall days we’ve been having!
The other issue of the meters, is the spillover effect of everyone parking in the neighborhoods in order to avoid the meters. On Paradise Ave, every weekend is busy as can be as the tourists park in our neighborhood. This creates additional traffic, noise, congestion and no place for us to park! Its really sad to see all of the meters empty while the surrounding areas are congested. The city gets no money while the neighborhoods suffer. Not very smart on the city’s part!
Seems like a 4-mer city employee is a lackey for Tahoe Mom.
So the question is, which council person or staff member championed the paid parking program and pushed to have it voted on? Was it Kerry? It is important to know because if it was a failure someone needs to be held accountable besides the council members who voted for it.
4-mer The city staff report dated Dec. 11, 2012 ,which was used to sell the Parking Management Program, gives all the forecasted numbers which Peggy is quoting.
The name “Parking Management Program” infers there was a parking problem needing to be managed. If fact, the report states it is a revenue generator. It had nothing to do with a parking problem. But, true to the unintended consequences rule, it did cause a parking problem. It also caused a tourist and local resentment problem.
Peggy’s group has been soliciting inputs from the many small recreational/tourist businesses who have been affected by the “parking management program”. It is some of those preliminary numbers she has started to present here.
As far as the actual cost of operating the ‘parking management program’ (new people hired (full cost at a loaded salary including pensions, etc.), kiosk costs, signage, installation, costs of new vehicles and operational costs) and a report on how much money was collected through the kiosk, how many tickets were written ($55 each), how many tickets were actually paid, and how much money did the city collect from each ticket, this report hasn’t been released yet to anyone for review.
I do understand that it will be presented to the city council on Nov. 5th.
If the council does not come up with a ballot initiative, sign me up now for one of the 836 voters signatures.
Included in the costs of this meter program: 3 FT metermaid positions, several PT positions, the metermaid vehicles. So how does the projected profit save two PD positions?
‘Our’ council failed our community once again. They speak of budget constraints, yet they continue to change the names of positions to give raises to some who are working more (maybe they shouldn’t have laid off quite so many to pay outrageous salaries for this town to managers, directors, department heads, etc and left frontline service people with shortened hours and less service). And I know, less benefit/pension monies being paid out, but also less people paying into the system.
FYI: recreation isn’t a new vision. The council dismantled the Recreaton side of Parks & Recreation Department and renamed it Community Services.
Quite interesting numbers thrown about here. If indeed Peggy’s numbers of the decrease in beach traffic and more importantly the decrease in business income are accurate it shows a very negative and detrimental impact on the area and the city. If the number listed for residents in the beginning that were against parking meters, then the city did not listen to it’s people. Not good. Personally, I was and still am against them. Get rid of the ones in place and forget paid parking in the future.
tahoeadvocate:
While Ms. Bourland-Madison may have quoted certain information that was contained in the December 11, 2012, Staff report, her declarations that “Forty percent of the more than $300,000 investment in the kiosks sat mostly vacant as parking customers for Venice Drive and Paradise Avenue never materialized”, and that “The $312,900 projected profit will not be realized; however, city management is calling the program a success”, have not been reported to the community at large since the November 5th City Council agenda packet has not been publicly released. So I ask again, where did Ms. Bourland-Madison get that statistical and financial data that she represented as fact? And thank you for sharing that information regarding “Peggy’s group” and their solicitations; that was information to which I had not been made privy as a regular community member.
While you may have perceived that the name “Parking Management Program” was an inference for something other than what it was, it was always clear to me that its sole purpose was to generate revenue for the City. And while most posters on this site have repeatedly stated their objection to any type of paid parking, I’ve talked to many people with whom I work (at a casino) and with tourists and most people with whom I’ve talked are quite accustomed to paying for parking when they travel somewhere and they just aren’t bothered by this. Not everyone in this community takes such great offense at paying a few bucks to park in essentially a valet parking space while simultaneously helping support our local City services. If you don’t want to pay for a valet parking space location just walk a block or two. I sometimes wonder if all the complainers about these fees are the same local people that stiff the cocktail servers, food servers, bartenders, and dealers in our “tourist/recreation” economically dependent town.
During the rim fire issue(around a month?), Heavenly Village was a ghost town, no new fee parking there.
I’d like to see a competent analysis of a parking tower/transit center on the 50-60 acre city/county lot across from the Lakeview Commons beach.
4-mer, I’ve never failed to tip the cocktail servers, food servers or bartenders when I’ve used their services in your casino. And I’ve never had need for a dealer’s service. Nor have I ever paid to park at a casino.
But I don’t need their services, or anyone else’s, when I park on Venice to walk out to the beach at Cove East. Or, at least, I didn’t when I used to enjoy that stroll. I’m almost as happy now walking to beaches outside the City, and don’t have to bother with parking meters or tickets. But I’m not happy with the reputation as a cheap money grubber that has befallen my former home, South Lake Tahoe.
I am most concerned about the lack of pedestrian safety at Lakeview Commons. As an Al Tahoe resident, I frequent Lakeview Ave multiple times a day and nearly every time I enter the Commons area I see pedestrians jay-walking across Lakeview Avenue from the paid parking lot to the lake. For the pedestrians who do try to follow the law, the “crosswalk” at Harrison and Lakeview is nearly invisible. I have witnessed too many times drivers completely disregarding the walkers in the crosswalk and even a few “close calls” by cars trying to make the green light at Lake Tahoe Blvd. How is that a nice welcome to the parking meter paying tourists?
I am upset with the City Council and the project planners who did not have the foresight to have a crosswalk painted or even better yet, install one a pedestrian “flashing” signs. With so much focus on projected revenue, seems like there was complete disregard for how the parking payers would get to the reason why they are paying.
Please make pedestrian safety a priority! Please have the crosswalk painted immediately!
A pedestrian injury lawsuit due to city negligence is on the horizon and the City Council can kiss that “projected revenue” away.
To anyone concerned with the parking at Lakeside Beach and the safety and well being of our visitors to South Lake Tahoe, you should watch the utube video that I made. I am a manager at the Lakeside Beach House in the summer. I made this video so both sides can see how badly executed this plan was.
The parking destroyed our business, especially in the evenings. Why pay for parking after 6pm, when the beach is empty and you can get in there for free? It was even worse for folks in the fall, when it would be dark by 6pm, making it impossilbe to see the unlit signs, and they would still get tickets.
Why would you charge after Labor Day, at night ? If the guests did see the signs, they wouldn’t believe them! Locals, they just pulled up, looking at the meters, and drove away. Residents of Tahoe do not pay for parking when they go out to eat, but we have no lot of our own, so they had to.
Heres the link, good luck to those arguing for common sense. This video was geared towards the point of view of the dangers posed to many of our guests who took to walking down from local casinos and hotels. But I do show the lack of parking signs
(P.S. I am not a professional and this was shot when I was walking with a smart phone, so please don’t complain about the quality of the video!)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPtvAkU8oM
Peggy hit the nail on the head. We are America’s All Year Playground or at least used to be. Thats what young and old are looking for in todays market. Parking meters are for big cities LA, San Francisco, Sacramento not a town of 15,000 to 18,000 locals with long shoulder seasons. It makes no sense to hurt businesses in these areas during their peak season. I am sure if you go talk to the businesses in these paid parking areas you will hear just what Peggy said. I hope the council demands a FULL accounting of this parking management program and a break down of each area for each month. Then cost it out over the next 8 months with no revenue. We just added 10 years to pay off the parking garage because it never made money. Let’s quit beating a dead horse in SLT.
Thanks for the tour, Judy; I checked out the Venice parking during the summer, but haven’t been to Stateline Beach in years. That’s really a disgusting set up. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the signage is made no more visible than the operators might be able to defend, and the revenue being chased is less the parking than the citations – a percentage of both no doubt going to the Southern California company that sold this to the City.
Most cities (in my experience) separate the revenue producing parking enforcement from the Police Department’s mission of public protection and criminal prosecution – most law enforcement folks would agree that it would be a violation of professional ethics to enforce laws solely for the sake of revenue. I haven’t asked, and perhaps don’t want to, but I sincerely hope that SLTPD has avoided any participatory involvement in this sorry business.
I think we should eliminate the paid parking that nobody wants and replace that revenue with some user fees that would help us balance our budget.
Vail Corp. should pay some small user fee for every lift ticket and gondola ride they sell. They have new plans for mountain biking trails and other summertime recreational opportunities they want to market that sound great but why should they be able to get away with no SLT taxes on the money they make?
http://www.laketahoenews.net/2013/07/mountain-biking-part-of-heavenlys-epic-plans/
Bijou Bill:
I agree 100-percent that other user fees could replace the paid parking user fees and agree that Heavenly should need to remit a fee to the City. It’s unfortunate that a good old boy City Council from long-ago apparently gave away that opportunity so that likely will never come to fruition. (Maybe that’s something on which Ms. Bourland-Madison should rally the local voters: 836 registered voter signatures to advance an initiative to the ballot requiring that Heavenly pays some kind of user fee for all those people who drive on SLT’s roads to get to Heavenly to be able to ski and board and often need to use other City services.) A one-percent increase in TOT could replace paid parking user fees and would be fees paid only by individuals using those services, but good luck getting Tom Davis and the Lodging Association to go along with something like that. The fact is, if residents don’t want fees increases that affect them then the only place left to go is to the tourist that uses our roads, and oftentimes our Police service, our Fire service, and our EMT service which are all paid for by a town of roughly 20,000 residents in spite of that population swelling to 80,000 or 100,000 on any weekend or for weeks on end during the summer. The tax paying residents of this town subsidize a lot of the costs for services that tourists use so tourist related businesses can generate more revenue.
I am glad there are some who are starting to push the idea of HV paying their own way. I have written several articles on that subject going back years to when Blaise called me a**hole for even bringing it up. I have also had council members tell me to back off on the subject as to not rock the boat for any future plans. 4-mer, you have some great ideas and suggestions but you live in the county so good luck on anything you say. Great ideas and suggestions do come at a price for those of you willing to actually state your name and stand behind your convictions as those who are willing to stand up have learned. Do not give up and I applaud you for watching the council meetings but to actually go there, stand up and be counted is a price most are not willing to pay for the price of changing anything. Look up the 2009 El Dorado Grand Jury report on the city council at the time and you will learn that nothing has changed, some faces have changed but the dysfunction continues.
4-mer-usmc I dont know if you reliese this or not but the tourist already pay alot for roads, police, fire, ect. in the form of TOT taxes. Of the General Fund expenses of 30 million about 5 million is covered by TOT taxes and if I was to hazard a guess about half of the sales taxes are paid by tourist for about another 3 million. If we were to also include the real estate taxes that the hotels pay(paid for by the tourist in their room rate) it would be even higher. So a full 25% of the general fund is covered by tourist.
I hear many of you say lets not soak the tourist by having a parking fee, instead lets increase TOT. What you are really saying is lets soak the tourist with this increase because us locals dont want to pay for a parking fee. We dont even want to pay for fixing our own roads that the tourist hardly use. Because lets face it most tourist only really use 50 & 89, both maintained by Cal Trans, not the city.
I find it interesting that old Hal did not want parking meters in front of his Ski Rental Shop
on Ski Run Blvd.
the City will probably hire the same old people to write the report.
and you know it will say the same old stuff.
Peggy has a good idea
but most of the locals are just to lazy to get behind it
Thanks 4-mer, you’ve hit on issue that, during the 25 years I lived at the Lake, I did everything I could to address. Little Tommy and his Lodging folks have insisted almost forever (relatively speaking) that TOT should pay for marketing SLT. The scheme was that, if it’s not actually paying for anything serious, no one will try to increase it.
TOT, in every tourist area you can think of (excepting, of course, the tourist areas that likewise have purchased the votes of the locals – a recent City Manager from Colorado comes immediately to mind, and a pair of brothers who intend to manage our country also show up), TOT is meant to pay for the services that visitors use yet would, otherwise, have to be paid for by the locals. A city of less than 30,000, can’t possibly pay to service a regular influx of close to 100,000 visitors, but you’d never know it if your only information source was Tommy and the lodgers.
Copper, I as I understand it not one dime of the TOT is being used to market our area, this was changed in 006 when the city took away the 2% that was earmarked for marketing. Whereas most cities do use a portion of TOT money to promote more growth, generaly 20% of the TOT, this is what Placer county does. Our Budget problems stem from deciesions made back in 2002 when CALPERS told city goverments that they are overfunded and they could offer better retirement benefits at no costs. We jumped on board, but when the pension fund took a hit on the stock market, they came back to the cities to make good on those loses. If you look over past budgets you can see that employee and retiree benefits are taking a larger portion on a percentage basis every year and that percentage will continue to grow every year.
The city has allowed motels to become low cost housing. This lost TOT should be recovered by charging those properties, not trying to make up for it by putting up barriers to recreation/tourist facilities.
reloman, you may be right; since I was gone from the city, except for remaining an interested spectator, almost a decade before 2006, I’m likely relying on old information – information that covered almost 30 years of City behavior – for my thoughts about TOT.
You may also be correct about CALPERS being overly optimistic about its retirement funding since, in the years following 2002, a lot of us were overly optimistic as well about our personal funding – at that point we hadn’t sufficiently read up on the criminal inclinations of the well known names on Wall Street. But the optimism of the City regarding CALPERS wasn’t entirely misplaced since a few years prior CALPERS had forgiven the City its obligations to pay its share of employee pensions for, as I recall, about 8 years.
It was probably during that time that the City, including a couple of City Council persons who are still on board, took on, at their own suggestion, financial benefit obligations to retirees that they failed to bother funding. Their commitments enabled them to tell the voters that they were holding the line by dumping their employee salaries from the bottom 20 percentile of the state to the bottom 5 percentile. For the politically weak and incompetent, nothing excites the voter more than reducing, or seeming to reduce, employee compensation. After all, years later, when the competence and credibility of new hires, especially public safety workers, has declined, who’ll recall why?
Over the years that I’ve observed, South Lake Tahoe officials have often demonstrated about as much financial responsibility as the average 8 year old. I’m not certain that they’ve set aside the “tantrum” response even today.
Tahoe Advocate, the motels that are renting long term are the ones that our tourist dont want to stay in, and if they were on the market for tourist they would tend to drive down the nightly rents for the rest and thereby decrease the overall tot collected.
Copper, this was done in many many cities, My thoughts are that when the elected officials offered it to the city employees it helped them get elected to other offices and re elected to whatever seat they were on. But as I said offering bigger retirement packages and larger benefits was offed to almost every city and now it is coming home to roost.
reloman,
I don’t believe the rates would be driven down because I don’t think the tourists would stay in them.
The city should demand that licensed business operate under that license and not modify themselves without applying for the appropriate classification. If they were forced to operate as a motel they would have to upgrade their property which would attract tourists and raise TOT collections for the city.
Reloman and copper:
I completely agree about those long ago decisions regarding CALPERS and their tales of overfunding not only to this City but to the State and every other jurisdiction that participates in CALPERS. Unfortunately the tale that wasn’t widely disseminated was that any losses that CALPERS incurred from their poor and risky investments with those retirement monies for which they have a fiduciary responsibility needed to be made up by the very jurisdictions that had been paying into CALPERS for all those years and were told that the fund was so awash in money that nobody would really ever need to make any more payments. The City had no control in that circumstance but is now forced to deal with the fallout.
Add to the CALPERS’ debacle the equivalent of giving away the farm regarding healthcare for employees and their dependents and for retirees and their dependents, which as we all know was later followed by the now infamous escalating costs of health insurance, and you have the perfect storm fiscally that now uses up around 70-75% of all annual general fund revenues received by the City. But like Tom Davis has said on every occasion when the City staff has provided a budget report and addressed the current exorbitant costs of health care for the City, “We just didn’t know when we approved those benefits that insurance would get so expensive; it was only like $200 a month then and now it’s like $1,600.” Seems to me that the question those decision makers should have asked was “What will the fiscal effects be if the cost of health care increases and we cover all current and retired employees and their dependents?” It’s a simple question that finance and business people I know were asking back in the early 1990’s. It’s really easy to run a business or government when revenue is free flowing; the trick is to do so when revenue gets tight, and what you don’t do is give away the farm when times are good. Now this City Manager and City staff need to work to clean up a leftover mess, but Tom Davis who was one of the creators of this fiscal mess still wants to run things the way they were back in the old days and isn’t willing to compromise in any way, shape or form. So he publicly states his opposition to parking meters and recruits Peggy Bourland-Madison to do his dirty work while he throws the City staff and the other Council Members under the bus when they’re trying to identify ways to generate more revenue to pay for his mess. Davis was one of the people who helped create a financial hole for this City that’s as large as the one at Stateline, and when he provides his State of the City Address at the November 5th City Council Meeting he should apologize to this community.
Charging for parking at the end of Venice is a joke but unfortunately I’m not laughing. The city provides no services (i.e bathroom, garbage) but just took advantage of one of the locals favorite areas for walks and access to the Truckee River. Yes, being one of those that watch my dollars I didn’t use one of my favorite launch sites for paddling the Truckee and the Lake. Since I usually go out for 2-3 hours, each paddle trip would have cost me about $6. I still use the trail, as its an easy bike ride from my house- guess I just need to get that bike trailer for my kayak and SUP. Based on my observations, use of this area was easily cut in half if not by 75%. So, as a result of the paid parking program, the city has reduced recreational use on one of The Tahoe Conservancy’s prime lake access parcels. I would like to hear from them in this forum as to their views on this situation.
Another abject failure to lead. Another idea with exaggerated projected income that will cost more than it makes. Another reason to lose visitors. Another reason to hurt business. IMHO, another reason to do away with the City completely.
tahoeadvocate, It may very well bring down average rates. Those close to 700 rooms added to the inventory means more competition, unless they are bring more tourist. The law of Supply and Demand. If your supply increases yet your demand stays the same price will likely go down. There has been rumours that some goverment entities will try to buy these motels and tear them down(conservancey?) The better deal that the new RPU will allow is change of use of the commercial floor coverage from motel to something else. Esp those that are close to stramzones like maybe Nickelodeon Motel
4-mer-usmc, I dont think Tom needed Peggy to do his dirty work, this is an Idea that had been floated around for a while, I also was wondering when someone would get the idea to run a ballot issue on this, and Tom did not suggest it to me. I just know that if you want change there are ways to get it other than with electing someone to a council seat(which is risky as you need 3 council votes, and these people may not vote the way they said they would when running) which is with a ballot issue
Cooper—-you said you hoped that SLTPD has avoided any participatory involvement in this sorry business.
In fact this revenue generation program was lead by the SLTPD starting on June 1, 2011. The Staff report was signed by Brian Uhler, Chief of Police. They developed and implemented this “Parking Program” which had nothing to do with a parking problem. It was and is blatantly designed to generate money for the city. It did create a parking problem in the neighborhoods surrounding the recreational/tourist facilities and tickets are being issued there to generate money as well.
The program is managed through the Police Department by police department employees (some of which they had to hire).
Independent of the revenue which they might have collected this summer (the next 9 months will show next to no revenue), the program is a failure from what it is doing to the community (87% against in a newspaper survey), the small businesses which have been impacted with reduced revenue at our recreational/tourist facilities on the lake, the tourists who will not come back to get away from the cities they live in and the fact that it had the opposite impact to the City’s stated vision of a recreational/tourist economy. You can’t have this vision when one of your ordinances drives away over 50% of the people you want to access the lake.
We have more parking kiosks in town then we have stop lights. Get over big-city-itis. Back to the basics. If we are so broke as a city why are there sooo many new city vehicles? They couldn’t wait one more year to buy? After 40 plus years in town I to will sign that Ballot initiative by Tahoe 4 Tahoe and I know many more folks that will sign to bring it to a vote. The meeting in March at the Senior Center, where Angela(the only city council member present)there were over 100 that would sign. She did not hear the locals.
To the city and council members:
When you are in a hole stop digging. Listen to your community. Remove the parking meters from our city streets and beach parks. A ballot initiative could be your worst public relations nightmare as it will create opportunity for the voters to shine a light on this “so called” parking management program. aka. citation cash cow.
Does our city never learn from past mistakes? The Heavenly Village parking garage comes first to mind. The garage has been in technical default since day one because there was never enough income to pay the debt that was created by faulty decision making on the part of our city government. While this may be another issue entirely, are we still using the same high priced consultants to determine what is financially feasible for our already strapped economy? Was the price of the consultants and the 10 or so parking studies the city has commissioned over the years factored into the cost of this parking meter project? How long, if ever, will it be before we actually see a profit? Is it worth the ill will created by issuing tickets to locals and tourists who do not comply with the regulations? While we are stuck with the Heavenly Village parking garage, wouldn’t it make sense to get out of this boondoggle before we are forced to go into further debt to pay for the upkeep and staff required to maintain a program that adversely affects local businesses and is not endorsed by a majority of our citizens? Will we be giving more and more tickets to try to obtain a positive revenue? Is this legally or ethically the direction we want to move?
There is another issue worth mentioning. I believe there is an ordinance which states that parking on unpaved property is a code violation. There has been talk about paving the dirt parking area at Lakeside Beach, but this does not address the fact that paid parking areas near San Jose Ave. and Riverside Ave. force people to park on dirt. Is our city council now endorsing off road unpaved parking?
The city council installed these meters despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of citizens were not in favor of this project. If they are not willing to admit they may have once again made a mistake, than I will be more than happy to sign the ballot initiative.
An interesting twist to the possible ballot initiative to remove the parking meters (“kiosks”). As a county resident, city manager/paid parking advocate, Nancy Kerry, would not be able to vote.
Anyone know what it entails to get an initiative on the ballot?
Does our city never learn from past mistakes? The Heavenly Village parking garage comes first to mind. The garage has been in technical default since day one because there was never enough income to pay the debt that was created by faulty decision making on the part of our city government. While this may be another issue entirely, are we still using the same high priced consultants to determine what is financially feasible for our already strapped economy? Was the price of the consultants and the 10 or so parking studies the city has commissioned over the years factored into the cost of this parking meter project? How long, if ever, will it be before we actually see a profit? Is it worth the ill will created by issuing tickets to locals and tourists who do not comply with the regulations? While we are stuck with the Heavenly Village parking garage, wouldn’t it make sense to get out of this boondoggle before we are forced to go into further debt to pay for the upkeep and staff required to maintain a program that adversely affects local businesses and is not endorsed by a majority of our citizens? Will we be giving more and more tickets to try to obtain a positive revenue? Is this legally or ethically the direction we want to move?
There is another issue worth mentioning. I believe there is an ordinance which states that parking on unpaved property is a code violation. There has been talk about paving the dirt parking area at Lakeside Beach, but this does not address the fact that paid parking areas near San Jose Ave. and Riverside Ave. force people to park on dirt. Is our city council now endorsing off road unpaved parking?
The city council installed these meters despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of citizens were not in favor of this project. If they are not willing to admit they may have once again made a mistake, than I will be more than happy to sign the ballot initiative.
Tahoe advocate, if the program fails is the blame on the Chief of Police for suggesting the program or his boss, Kerry for approving it to be forwarded to city council. Or, council for approving it or the finance department for validating the numbers. Or, all of them? Someone needs to be blamed for this and held accountable.
It isn’t about blame it’s about management. From my experience the job of management is to make adequate decisions using inadequate information. I never had as much information as I wanted before making a decision.
In this case the study provided inadequate information as to the broad impact of the revenue generation program.
The managers did not make an adequate decision using this information.
Their job now is to understand that their decision was wrong, overturn it and move on to the next decision.
I hope they will stand up, admit this and remove the paid parking at the recreational/tourist facilities without someone having to put it on next election year’s ballot. This would demonstrate that they are the leaders we expect.
I think the vast majority of our visitors are drive in from Sac/Bay area. Wouldn’t be nice for them to be able to avoid those things that they are escaping from?: traffic, excessive fees everywhere, parking tickets, parking meters ect.
Chief Slowroller you are right that Hal did not want meters on his block because the Ski Run businesses were adamant on no parking meters. They knew exactly what it would to their businesses. I hope his vote changes this time because of this programs effect on businesses and locals. It’s more like a job killer law.
sandsconnect what a novel idea! Thanks
I agree with Tahoe Mom!!
noticeably lacking comment here is from Joanne Conner. Could it be, like her “other letter” from the tourist 5 months ago, that she is in fact, Tahoe Mom? Semantics used are pretty similar.
Venice Blvd parking is FREE from October 15th to April 30th! Just was there today. Lets show our solidarity to free parking and have a park-in this weekend. Everybody take their cars, 2nd cars and clog the street and enjoy Cove East Beach! Time to take back what is ours!
Tahoe Advocate, sorry I didn’t respond sooner; I take great pride in the fact that I try not to live on the internet – sometimes successfully so.
I’ve met Chief Uhler once; seems like a nice guy, although I’m tremendously sorry that, for the first time in its history, SLTPD(and the city fathers – or, perhaps, mothers) didn’t see fit to promote from within. Yet recent promotions have seemed to show that the quality of promotional candidates has slipped substantially. Lack of internal leadership and the, ever popular, reduction to non-competitive salaries and benefits, have, no doubt, changed SLTPD from the high quality organization it once was – not meaning to denigrate anyone. I know that there are some very skilled and competent employees still working there.
I’m sorry, but not surprised, to learn that the PD is managing the parking program. I suppose that my concerns about the ethics of using law enforcement personnel and techniques to manage a for-profit, non-criminal (in any sense of the term) citation program can be circumvented by using only non-sworn folks to do the enforcement. And the Chief can certainly bifurcate his management of the program – unlike the rest of his Department, he does, after all, answer to the City Manager (not meaning to scare anyone who’s familiar with the City Manager’s office occupants during its recent terms).
For at least 40 years – likely more – in my experience, police departments have been accused of writing traffic citations in order to produce revenue. During that same 40 years, with many mitigating issues to deal with, I’ve never actually experienced or seen financial pressures put on officers or supervisors trying to enforce traffic safety. And the cities I’ve been familiar with delegated parking enforcement programs that were solely in place for revenue producing to totally separate traffic enforcement offices – known in some circles as “meter maids” – not even remotely connected to the Police Department.
I lived at Tahoe for 25 years and had a tremendous amount of respect for the SLTPD; I am very fearful that politics has finally begun to exercise its corrupting influence. I hope I’m mistaken.
copper…. you should attend the city council meeting next Tuesday when Chief Uhler will present the status report to the council. It’s all about revenue. His department may be enforcing ordinances, but it isn’t about stopping criminals, it’s about ticketing tourists.
I agree with your opinion about the Chief. I think though his job is more political than it should be for a town this small.
Sorry “ta,” it’s been a lot of years since I lived and voted in the City. I’m posting as a mere nearby, interested observer. Who’s familiar with some of the issues and even some of the issue causers. And always has an opinion.
The “new” vision for South Lake Tahoe’s parking program is all about the money and how to the pay civil servants, like the police and fire pensions, health care, overtime and the rest. Heard it many times…been there done that, nuff said.
It seems South Lake Tahoe doesn’t ever get it. Provide an environment where tourists want to spend their money, not where they have to. Try Carmel