Opinion: S. Tahoe has obligation to manage parking
By Garry Bowen
As the 15-year debate about paid parking hopefully nears an end, as yet another of the misguided subject matters that have occupied public discourse here for far too long, the presentation on the outcomes of its progress so far was illustrative, not so much as a final answer to the ongoing furor, but of thinking that might actually allow necessary change.
As we are a gambling town (with looming better success elsewhere) I’m reminded of the comment made by the legendary “Baghdad-by-the-Bay” San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen years ago, about “metered-parking” there: “They’re betting your own 25 cents against your $25 that you don’t make it back in time.” A rather provocative way of looking at it.
But in today’s world, the idea that designated places to park need to be managed is more and more a given, especially as citizens expect maintained services with a reduced workforce. In case anyone needs a reminder, South Lake Tahoe has undoubtedly taken on more responsibility in the current beautification efforts that have resulted in the increased popularity of El Dorado Beach, now known as Lakeview Commons, but also with the roadside improvements of the Caltrans projects from Trout Creek to Ski Run and beyond.
Managing the influx of traffic that goes along with that increased usage (what popularity means) without assuming the additional “charge” of properly maintaining it would quickly render the improvements as another blight subject to even more derision as to “why not?”.
Given the current paid-parking structure among our corporate citizens (and, yes, including our own parking garage in that “row”), as most charge at least $25/day (with in/out privileges), it may be useful to review previous parking scenarios, in times with way more traffic than today.
As but one example, where the former Embassy Suites now sits, Harrah’s Tahoe had a 500-car valet parking operation (governed under its California corporation, Harrah’s South Shore Corp.), as Police Chief Brian Uhler made his presentation Tuesday in terms of transactions (per metered area), I found it useful to think back on the business of the above mentioned parking “space”, as someone saw fit to replace it with a 400-room hotel, each one of which can only be rented once/day. In short, about 20,000 transactions/week were done in Harrah’s parking valet operation, given that there were about 12-15 attendants per day parking and retrieving, for free, with those unlimited in/out privileges.
“America’s All-Year Playground” was made eminently available to any or all of those not wanting to spend all their time inside a casino, as is today’s wish, simply by redeeming your car via a little plastic tag tendered with the elegant doorman, then brought, in most cases, within a minute or so.
As the traffic in town was easily enough to uphold such an operation as above, what did they do about moving around the town, exploring and visiting other places and people? It was not a concern, as that traffic was diffused among many other popular locations (restaurants, beaches that were accessible to all, trailheads, etc.) evening out with the choices that people made as to where they wanted to go. Today, we have a more limited selection with ever-more focused access, such as the emergent popularity of Thursday night Live at Lakeview events, and the ever-popular use of the myriad barbecue pits, even more so as the result of the great new look at the Commons.
The shift in perspective and focus on South Shore issues that folks have not had to think about before, understandably set their heels in the way it was, thinking that they are somehow being put-upon in the inevitable shift, curious when some of those same people have joined in the call for the obvious need for change. But they have not fully understood the difference between what it was and what it will need to be, especially when they don’t acknowledge the vast shortage of a high-level of traffic, and the coming need to replace that with particular places of interest that have not existed before – and to facilitate doing it without the nightmare of choked-up demand, when the newly-realized supply comes into question.
There was one number in the chief’s presentation that caught my eye, under the category “Residential Permit Zone”: it went from zero in one year to 199 in the next, presumably reflecting the simultaneous introduction of Lakeview Commons popularity with the management of the newly-needed and introduced parking management scheme, as that might also presumably be the major source of soreness, given that that popularity has caused change along with any presumed heartburn.
In that case, it is probably not parking management that is the culprit, although I myself have issues with early overzealousness and need to refine training: it is the interruption of the cozy relationship associated with the laid-back days when not as many wanted to enjoy a particular facility.
No mention was made, for example, of the extraordinary bike valet service rotated among various volunteer groups in the city; had several hundred people not chosen to ride their bikes to the large and fully-occupied events, I believe the same Al Tahoe people would be stepping up to demand better management of the neighborhoods due to the immense number of cars occupying areas in Al Tahoe way beyond a several-block peripheral, had everyone there brought a vehicle instead.
That would be the nature of the coming emphasis on walkable/bikeable communities: offering other choices that can be made, if offered, toward more balanced traffic flow for access by all.
It is those other offerings that constitute well-managed transportation, as in today’s world those options are increasingly important, especially in places which are notoriously car-centric. As those other offerings are patronized more, a certain stability can also be offered – but absent the stick of some being OK with paying, as they’re used to, then the carrot of maintaining newly-realized attractions will become a serious burden, but rather just part of doing business in offering better and attractive amenities.
When Bill Harrah entertained the big-boat hydroplane races in his short-lived operation of Zephyr Cove, this writer was charged partially with organizing the traffic-flow and parking for that event – as then, and to too much of a degree even now, everyone wanted to bring their car along, particularly since there were more in the audience than transit could bear.
Déjà vu?
Garry Bowen has a 50-year connection to the South Shore, with an immediate past devoted to global sustainability, on most of its current fronts: green building, energy and water efficiencies, and public health. He may be reached at tahoefuture@gmail.com or (775) 690.6900.
Change is not an easy thing for most. I’m not advocating one way or another on the issue of paid parking, haven’t come to a conclusion on how exactly I feel about it. But this situation reminds me (on a much smaller scale) back in the later nineties when California banned smoking in the bars. In the long run it was probably one of the better things that has happened to me and how the job I was doing pertained to my health, contrary to what I believed at the time.
At that time I was tending bar at Nepheles, and had been a bartender (a non-smoking one) for darn near twenty years. I remember fighting the new law tooth and nail because I was convinced that I would lose money, and actually did right out of the gate because here on the South Shore people could just mosey on over the state line and smoke in bars AND restaurants to their hearts desire. But a funny thing happened within the first year of implementation. Even smokers started to see the benefit of not sitting in a stinky smoke filled bar, and this new weird thing started happening where smokers not even talking to one another while sitting at the bar would go outside to smoke a cig and become new best friends.
Anyways, my convoluted point is I think we need more time to analyze the paid parking situation in use to find out if it is as big a negative as some are making it out to be, or will we be able to adapt as a community and view it as a positive (revenue generator) thing. The paid parking issue has been talked about here for many years, and now that it is implemented I believe we should refrain from acting to hastily in trying to dismantle it. Knee-jerk reactions rarely serve the best interests of everybody.
Keep in mind, the majority of residents are opposed to paid parking as witnessed at council meetings and comments in the The Tahoe News. Keeping that in mind, it is not unusual to pay for parking when services such as bathrooms and garbage services (including picking up garbage left on the property by inconsiderate people) are provided. Local examples are the forest service beaches such as Baldwin, Pope and Camp Richardson. However, there are plenty of exceptions around the state, even at crowded beach areas like Ocean Beach in San Francisco and many beach and other public areas around San Diego that provide free parking. With that said, I can understand (but don’t agree) the city deciding to charge for parking at Lakeview where they are providing services but to slap parking meters up along Venice and over at Lakeside is a stretch. This is street parking providing access to non-city owned property. There are no restrooms or garbage service at Venice and these services are provided by private parties at Lakeside. I’ve heard the arguments that the city maintains the streets and thus should charge for parking. Well, then to be fair, I suppose all city streets should have paid parking. Putting this issue to vote as many are advocating is a reasonable solution. If in the end, the paid parking continues, then let’s at least have a season pass ,reasonably priced, (i.e $70 at forest service beaches) for those that use these areas on a regular basis.
“the majority of residents are opposed to paid parking as witnessed at council meetings and comments in the The Tahoe News.”
Steve, considering that the last council meeting only had nine people who spoke opposing paid parking, and the maybe 10 vociferous anti parking posters here at LTN, I’m not so positive it’s the majority you speak of. And the relatively few negative published letters we’ve seen from visitors doesn’t point to losing any measurable number of return visitors due to parking problems.
It will be interesting to see if the TahoeForTahoe group gets enough signatures to create a ballot item.
While some good points Toogee, I think most in our City Govt. are hoping that if they can wait it out, most in town will get used to the dumb idea of paid parking. And thus hope that it’s found to be: acceptable, tolerable, and just the way it has to be from here on out.
But the paid parking program is not a health issue like smoking. And if it’s truly felt that the funds are needed to maintain the Commons well then: First, eliminate the program on Venice and in the Lakeside area!
And secondly, the City should then rebid the Commons concessions (In an open and transparent process, unlike how they did it the first time!) so the concessionares at least cover the cost of the Commons’ maintenance. Or, at the very least, gives the bids the highest bidders! Something they also did not do originally. Then we could feel a degree of comfort in knowing the City was doing all it could to maximize current revenue opportunities, before trying to soak more from the public.
Of course it’s not about maintaining the Commons. Paid parking is merely a revenue grab! And I have no doubt, at all, that if it comes to a vote of the public, the paid parking program will be ended!