Opinion: Anti-paid parking advocates lay out process
Publisher’s note: The Tahoe 4 Tahoe Committee sent this letter Feb. 2 to the City Council to outline the process that was followed to bring the parking initiative to the voters of South Lake Tahoe. The council on Feb. 4 will discuss the election process for the parking initiative.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The following is a time line of the steps that were taken to advance the parking initiative that has been approved for the ballot:
On Nov. 6, 2013, Tahoe 4 Tahoe submitted to City Clerk Susan Alessi a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition. By law the city clerk refers the request to the city attorney so a title and summary can be provided. City Attorney Tom Watson responded to T4T on Nov. 14 in part: “The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the notice of intent to circulate petition and attached text of the Initiative. It is the duty of the city attorney to review the text for compliance with California law. If the text is proper and appropriate following that review, the city attorney should provide a ballot summary and title, allowing the circulation of petitions. Following our review we are not able to provide a ballot title and summary”.
On Nov. 17, 2013, T4T requested to meet with the city attorney, Tom Watson, to obtain clarification of the issues raised in the Nov. 14 rejection letter.
On Nov. 19, 2013, T4T received a letter from Tom Watson, city attorney, stating in part: “We respectfully decline as there is no assistance this office can provide your organization. The role of the City Attorney’s Office is not to provide legal advice to private individuals and groups. Our role is to provide an objective review and summary of initiatives.”
On Dec. 2, 2013, T4T received a phone call from Tom Watson inviting us to meet with him.
On Dec. 3, 2013, T4T met with Tom Watson, city attorney, at the city offices. The more than one-hour meeting was productive and we were each given a letter (dated Dec. 2, 2013) from Tom Watson at the start of the meeting. This meeting was recorded by T4T. That letter states in part: “This correspondence is to outline the issues that this office observed with the proposed initiative in our review in order to prepare a ballot measure summary. My job as city attorney is to assist both the public and the council navigate through the initiative process so that if the voters so enact, the initiative can be effective and without further challenge by legal process.”
On Dec. 4, 2013, Tom Watson was on local TV discussing the initiative for paid parking with Austin Sass on the High Sierra Report. Tom Watson described what a city attorney is and does: “Let’s at least identify what the city attorney is and his role. My role is I work directly for the City Council. I am not a staff member although I am an employee of the city. As a result I have the ultimate responsibility to be the chief legal officer for the city and I’m accountable to both the council and the people so when I made this decision (to reject the first petition) it was entirely in my purview. I would advise them that this was happening, but I don’t consult or ask their opinion or to generate some sort of consensus. The advantage of the city attorney is I am not political so I am trying to do what I believe is in the best interest of the citizens of this community by giving them the opportunity to vote on an initiative that is clear, understandable and gives a clear choice, yes or no.”
On Dec. 9, 2013, T4T submitted a rewritten and revised notice of intention to circulate petition initiative.
On Dec. 11, 2013, T4T received the title and summary from the city attorney giving the group official permission to proceed with the gathering of signatures with the intent of qualifying the initiative for the ballot.
On Jan. 15, 2014, 1,422 petition signatures were delivered to the city clerk, Susan Alessi, who hand delivered them to the El Dorado County Elections Department.
On Jan. 23, 2014, the El Dorado County Recorder Clerk certified that the signatures were sufficient to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
This committee undertook the monumental task of bringing a voter initiative to the ballot knowing we had the guidance and approval of the city attorney.
At the Feb. 4th City Council meeting you will be tasked with options as outlined by the Election Code or seek some form of legal challenge against the voters.
City Manager Nancy Kerry and City Attorney Tom Watson are recommending an impact report be commissioned at a cost of $25,000-$35,000.
This overview is respectfully submitted in the belief that the responsibility of elected officials is to the citizens.
No one should be afraid of the outcome because South Lake Tahoe belongs to the people that live here.
Sincerely,
Tahoe 4 Tahoe Committee
Thank you Tahoe 4 Tahoe Committee for the update. The time line provides clarity to the public.
The impact report, as recommended by Nancy Kerry and the city attorney is a waist of time and money. First, those reports only produce biased information in favor of the persons whom pay for said reports. Second, one major issue the voters are concerned about is that parking citations will cause a loss of tourism. This is not measurable and would not be reliably reported in any impact report. Third, the impact report would become a political tool being used to unfairly influence the voters.
Finally : If an impact report is to be ordered, the city should pay me, and I’ll provide them with a great impact report, free of any charge. But I guarantee, Hal Cole won’t like it.
The city is embarking on a losing strategy.
Tahoe4Tahoe seems to be determined and well organized.
Pizza-
You wrote:
“Finally : If an impact report is to be ordered, the city should pay me, and I’ll provide them with a great impact report, free of any charge. But I guarantee, Hal Cole won’t like it.”
Do ya ever read what you type before you hit send?
This is not funny, and this kind of comment is of no use to resolving a situation many people feel strongly about.
The council needs to listen to the voters. This is about the community having a voice on the issues that impact them. Its hard to believe Nancy and Tom Watsons best plan is to pay $25,000-$35,000 to study the program or bring a legal challenge against the voters. This winter could not have generated what was projected in revenues. Its time to give the community a vote.
I really hope that this matter just goes to a ballot vote so it can be decided by a majority of registered voters one way or the other. Then maybe it will be laid to rest and the City Council and City staff can stop wasting so much of their time on this and maybe concentrate on other matters, such as our sagging local economy. It astounds me how much time is used by the City Council and ultimately by the City’s staff on repeatedly going over and over and over the same matters, whether it’s about medical marijuana, plastic bags, parking, SnowGlobe, or whatever. Make a decision and move on to the next case. You can’t make everybody happy and those who don’t like the decisions have the right to take actions such as those described in the above open letter from Tahoe 4 Tahoe, or they can vote you out of office and elect someone of like mind.
Let’s just get this over with and move on.
E. Morrow : I thought my point was obvious. But, to you, it was not. In this way I demonstrated that he who produces an impact report, produces what they want produced, and not what is necessarily true. If we solely used math, then when a doubled price hike, would produce doubled profits. Math is flawed in the following way. Hike a hamburger price from $4 to $8 and many customers will stop coming. This is called an unintended consequence. If I wrote the impact report, I wouldn’t ignore the unintended consequences. This is about more than just math. And yes, Hale Cole would not like my report. Did I make myself clear this time ?
Even if the ballot measure goes forward and passes, there would likely be litigation after the election since the new code would go against state law. Let’s sit down, talk and compromise rather than pursuing expensive and illegal ballot initiatives.
From what I can tell, Mayor Cole and the other City Council members want to work with and respond to voters, but Tahoe 4 Tahoe is not giving them a chance.
No surprise that the City bureaucrats would want to hire yet another costly consultant to help them find their way out of another problem and dilemma they created. Not to mention, another public relations nightmare.
Fix the streets instead.
An impact report for $25,000 to $35,000 on the paid parking fiasco? Just put it on the ballot and let the good people of So. Shore decide. WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH SIGNATURES!!!
As I predicted, that 1.2 million dollars of “extra money” in the city coffers is going fast. Why this is being drug out is beyond me. Sure, the city makes some money writing parking tickets to visitors who aren’t even aware that we have paid parking but you are making more people angry than you are welcoming them to our town.
The city may be making some money on ticketing people but you are also making alot of people have second thoughts about coming back to So.Shore ever again.
Is that what you want? Less people coming here and putting money into our economy? I thought the council was elected to help the community, not to work against it. OLS
What a surprise! Our elected officials and the city attorney are seeking some legal means to undermine the grass roots community effort to allow voters to make the decision to keep or remove the parking meters all over town.
We’ve been a city for almost 50 years and have never found the need to put parking meters on our streets. What has changed?
Actually, I do recall that about 30 years ago the city tried paid parking at the airport and it was not successful and was discontinued. That was before the city manager botched the lease on the building they rented at the ‘Y’ that cost the taxpayers $100,000.00. Later the city council approved an almost one million dollars remodel at the airport (in the county) as the new home of our city offices and council chambers. Today the airport loses $500,000. each year of taxpayer dollars. We have a history of making mistakes when it comes to taxpayer funds. The kiosks are just the latest.
Not every city in America has meters. Some places are touting their free parking to attract visitors and increase sales tax revenue.
Why not welcome locals and tourists to the wonders of Lake Tahoe and stop beating them up with these $55- 70.00 parking tickets? Right now we could use a few more customers in town.
The lesson here is that governments don’t really care about being responsive to the people’s wishes. If the people want something the government doesn’t want, the government will find a way to step on the people.
I signed the petition and would like to vote on this issue. Short of that, why doesn’t this council find three votes to dismantle the whole paid parking program effective immediately?
HOGAN:
Why don’t you run for City Council in the next election since there are three seats up for grabs? You can campaign on all your good ideas for the City’s future, eliminate that ‘history of making mistakes’ to which you referred, and show everyone that you would be an elected official who is responsive to the public and not one of those uncaring members of government. I’ll bet you’d be able to make everyone happy.
Another consultant’s report? Amazing! Wasn’t there one used as a justification for the Paid Parking program originally!
Ms. Swanson, I suggest if you don’t want 1,400 votes against you, right of the gate, in your Supervisor’s run, you change your stance and end the program, ASAP!
Why would you spend more money on a study? Also Parker there are plenty of people in the county that work, own businesses, property and enjoy the beaches in the city that vote for Supervisor. She should quit digging or the hole may be too deep!
Why would you spend more money on a study? Because they CAN! It ain’t THEIR money. It’s YOURS. And somebody probably has a friend who is in that business.
They take care of each other. Government, lobbyists, consultants, it’s a nice little round robin.