Letter: City playing games with parking question
To the community,
Is the City Council just silly? It appears so on the subject of parking meters. First, the council created a ballot resolution for the June election that if it passes, would for the most part kill the city’s parking meter program. The vote was 5-0. So the resolution will be on the ballot.
Bill Crawford
The on Feb. 27, the council voted to place on the ballot an argument that urges voters to vote no on the city’s ballot resolution. In other words, the City Council wants to keep its parking meters.
The end game is a tricky one. By acting as it did, the council passed the buck to the voters. And that is OK with me. Regardless of the fate of the city’s ballot measure, whether it’s voted up or down, the political calculation is the council will claim it supports the democratic process. Pretty slick game. A can’t lose game the council must think. But what has been the cost in time and money?
And if the city’s resolution passes, something the council doesn’t want, will the council see it as a vote of no confidence, rethink how to govern and stop playing silly games?
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
Bill, you’ve framed your point quite w………….wait a minute. What’s your point again?
Some people love to hear themselves talk, and some just love to read their words in print. Bill, by virtue of many, not all, of your letters we know which category you fall in.
Bill: It will be a vote of no confidence, they just did not listen to WE THE PEOPLE. This vote of no confidence will follow each of the council members to their next election. We will not forget this mess and what it took to get out of this mess!!!
They are income….. city needs income…. so why do they want to keep them? It’s clear to me. They help pay to maintain.
To all those that have been led to believe that this parking meter program is making money…….IT”S NOT!!
Government accounting and the way they project income is a moving target. Anyone that wants to take the time to review this program’s financials will find that the CITY is actually losing money on parking meters. The meters from Venice Dr and Paradise Ave have been put in storage, for now, because these locations were costing the city money.
Frankly, I am not surprised. Our city council should stay out of risky business adventures and get back to basic.
Yo Bill you should know very well, that you can not trust Old Hal and the Team.
as I recall you were one of them for many years.
I don’t trust them and I think that they have something up there sleeve.
it will be interesting to see how it’s worded on the ballot
Chris O: Please tell me where your business is or where you work or where your house is so we can put a meter in front of your place to feed. If this ballot does not get repealed this parking management program will spread like wild fire thru town. It is only temporarily stopped in the keys. Look out Ski Run BID! Cheif you are correct there is something fishy in them thar hills.
Chief says:
“it will be interesting to see how it’s worded on the ballot”
The Initiative for the ballot in opposition to paid parking has already been written thus it can already be read.
Buck says:
“If this ballot does not get repealed this parking management program will spread like wild fire thru town.”
The City passed an “Ordinance” related to paid parking. Tahoe4Tahoe wants to place an Initiative in opposition to paid parking on a “ballot.” A ballot cannot be repealed in this instance.
Mr. Crawford:
You must feel great pride that you have such well-informed supporters. This example of the signatories on the Tahoe4Tahoe Petition has made me question the accuracy of your spouse’s declaration at the February 4th City Council meeting that the people who signed the petition “were not stupid people, they were not ignorant, and they understood what they were signing.”
Perhaps Tahoe4Tahoe should have engaged competent legal counsel representation rather than a volunteer that would have advised them that all they needed was a Referendum against this which would have eliminated paid parking almost at the onset and would have been fast and cheap. Now there is this Initiative which is not the legal method of achieving what they want along with being cumbersome and expensive for the taxpayers. Good work.