Letter: Spend money on buses, not airport
To the community,
For years the city has dumped money on the airport, a loser. The airport is supposed to be a self-supporting enterprise, but that is fiction. Early in his career Councilman Hal Cole said the airport was an albatross around the city’s neck. That hasn’t changed.
Today the city funnels money to the airport by paying rent, which if not a lie, is one more fiction, self-deception. The “rent” is a subsidy pure and simple.
Bill Crawford
The city should run its own bus system. Some people like the idea, but rightly ask, “Where is the money to operate the system?”
The city should stop the airport subsidy and use the money to help support the bus system. What the city is doing is subsidizing the well healed who use the airport to fly in. Hal Cole has said he supports use fees for paid parking OK, why not the airport users?
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
PS: Before the city started airport rent the city made loans to the airport until the auditor said the loans should be called gifts because the city would not get the money back.
I totally agree Bill. 99 percent of SLT taxpayers would benefit from buses, versus 1 percent (at best) that get public tax subsidies for their private jets.
Waiting for the eternally promised commercial service to return to justify the continuing tax subsidies is like waiting for Godot.
I believe Mayor Davis rents a hangar there to store his numerous antique cars. Why would he want to lose the city’s relationship with the airport? Wonder what it costs to rent a hangar if you are a councilperson.
Since the taxpayer spends ten dollars for every dollar a bus rider spends to keep the buses rolling, Bill has a great idea to continue bleeding the overburdened working citizens. Many airport hangars are empty so uses for other purposes that generate income sounds like a good idea.
Having an airport in the immediate area comes in handy in the event of emergencies, serves general aviation, and preserves the possibility of chartered and commercial flight. I do agree with calling a spade a spade — that having this asset involves a subsidy, not a loan.
Some years ago a study found that the final destination for a high percentage of patrons of the city airport was actually Nevada and the casinos. The owner of one of the casinos sits on the Airport Commission. Then why isn’t Douglas County, LTVA, and the casinos helping fund the airport?
It’s too bad we can’t have a commercial airport again. I remember when I first visited Tahoe, I flew into the Tahoe airport. Real easy. Made my trip much better. It is a big difference and way more hassle flying into Reno or Sac and driving or shuttling the rest of the way. Very inconvient to say the least.
I am a little foggy on the facts, yet somehow I believe that Kay is somewhat on track. Because the airport is there, we must keep the airport to a certain standard if we wish to receive substandard subsidies. Therefore yes it is an albatross we must continue to pay for like it or not. Something to do with the FFA and it being used for emergencies and general aviation as a whole. (Hey we can land a Hercules on it)Never mind if we never have a single scheduled commercial flight ever land again. So if someone out there has the facts, enlighten me please.
Steve Says
I would guess Nevada doesn’t pay anything for the airport because SLT is supporting it. If SLT stops paying for the airport, Nevada would have to step in. Or SLT just has to start charging Nevada a large fee.
Airports are great assets to a community when they are managed correctly.
Truckee Airport for instance is an example of an airport that serves it community well. Located close to light industrial and small corporate offices buildings
Most communities recognize the value of zoning and promoting business parks and corporate support facilities where businesses may locate small clean manufacturing divisions of high value products or services.
In South Lake Tahoe the idea was floated many times to develop a business park that would among other things attract remote offices from bay area firms. Offices that executives could use while away at their Tahoe home. The idea was to build a more diversified economy in South Lake Tahoe.
Your government, elected and staff, and the political cronies in the city and in the county killed that off.
You should demand answers to the repeated incompetence and corruption of your communities paid and elected civil servants.
Can it be leased out? Let someone else run it?
Isn’t it odd that the city offices are at the airport and that the “city transportation ” busses fuel at the airport … But there isn’t enough money to travel the additional 3 mi to provide transportation to Meyers?!
They don’t all fuel at the compressed natural gas fueling station. Just a few. The airport is an awesome asset and can be more than a public use airport but that probably won’t happen again. Too bad too.
I once again agree with Bill. If it’s not a commercial airport there is no reason to have it. This would be a great place for a music venue for SLT, ala current business planning…hint hint
The airport has suffered from years of mis-management. That is one of two underlying issues. The other issue is landing fees, which the airport charges. No other airport in the region charges a landing fee.
There was one good airport manager there that left a number of years ago. Since his retirement, not a single thing has been improved at the airport.
The airport is no different than a road, so it’s disingenuous to say that the airport loses money. I guess the roads lose money too.
The airport is part of the city’s infrastructure. Last year, the City of South Tahoe rejected a proposal for a 3rd party to take over the airport.
Don’t be fooled – the city government wants control over the airport.
It could be a real economic generator, but it’s being held back by the self inflicted wounds of airport administration.
When the management changes, we’ll see improvement at the airport.
Av8rGal, right on the money. The bureaucrats have eaten the golden goose.