Letter: Parking money needed for maintenance
To the community,
I’m reading and hearing quite a lot of questions about how Measure P would affect the maintenance funding of the Lakeview Commons. In February, the city made some changes to the paid parking program. These include a local’s annual pass (M-F) for $40, the removal of paid parking on Venice Drive (which is mostly used by locals), shortening the hours to 8am-8pm.
Pete Fink
In the current budget, all money collected from kiosks at Lakeview Commons and the boat ramp goes to maintenance and improvements of the commons (boat launch fees are already dedicated to boat launch expenses). What the result of attaching the paid parking revenue directly to the commons means is that maintenance funding will not come from the general fund and thus, it will not be in constant threat of being cut to fund other programs as the budget fluctuates. Maintenance of the commons is critical to keeping it a stellar spot for visitors and locals alike.
When the various groups are all asking for the city to spend money on more police, recreation, bike trails, roadway maintenance, and many other things that all come from the General Fund, things like park maintenance don’t look so glamorous and can too easily be cut.
Please vote no on Measure P to ensure maintenance funding for the commons.
Pete Fink, South Lake Tahoe
“In the current budget, all money collected from kiosks at Lakeview Commons and the boat ramp goes to maintenance and improvements of the commons”
Where does the money go in next years budget? Anywhere they want it to is the answer. Probably airport improvements.
All money collected at Lakeside Park and the Lakeside Park neighborhood goes elsewhere because Lakeside Park Beach is privately owned and privately paid for yet the public is allowed access.
Vote Yes on Measure P to stop this ticket writing program.
How much of the money stays in Tahoe and how much goes to an outside firm?
I can’t find that information on my own, please help.
of course money goes to an outside entity, and goes there in the name of efficiency. economies of scale. if this blog is any indication, south shore is generally populated by illiterates.
How can maintenance funds magically appear from a program that many say indeed loses money? Only in South Lake Tahoe, where 3-Card Monte is the game of choice at City Hall to dupe gullible taxpayers.
Coso it has been 50% for the last 30 years. for the parking ticket fines.
if you recall the City got a waiver from boating and waterways so they do not have to use that money for that facility.
lies and deception have been the norm from the City
since 1988 when we got swindled into measure C the start of Redevelopment.
measure S was another one full of half truths.
Be nice to fund cleaning all the ketchup, mayonnaise, mustard, ect…. off of the tables and masonry walkways on a regular enough basis. I don’t go there a lot, but I don’t allow my yard to look like that.
Road maintenance money has been going into the coffers for years, yet the roads are falling apart. The conclusion that I come to is that, while the funding may be insufficient, the City is incapable of actually accomplishing goals. It seems to me that before any more funding sources are created, the City should be demonstrating their ability to make responsible choices. So far, that has not been shown, IMHO. I would like to see City management spend the taxpayers’ money like they would spend their own. Does anyone hire a consultant to find an consultant to hire workers at their home?
Mr. Fink I think you are one of those people who does not know the difference between gross revenues and net profit, as this total parking program is a loser like the parking garage. Also, our council does not know the difference. This program will spread like wild fire if not stopped now. Yes on P for the tourists, neighborhoods and businesses.
Be afraid , very afraid. If we don’t have paid parking the Commons will crumble. Nice try Fink but holding the Commons hostage just won’t work.
Yes on Measure P!
Oh, the poor poor tourists that want everything on a silver platter and leave us with the mess. I say forget about the NIMBYs that don’t want paid parking near their properties and charge the Tourists for parking; locals will figure out ways around it like we always have.
Am I correct that you are saying that Lakeview Commons has a funding source built in – the concessions (kiosks and boat ramp)? Those funds go to the general fund and then is budgeted for maintenance of Lakeview Commons but we cannot trust our elected officials to perceive this as a priority for the community and for our tourist based economy so we cannot count on those funds to continue to be allocated to Lakeview Commons in future budgets? The dubious revenue from parking meters is the solution? If that is the case we have much bigger issues. I see this parking initiative more about transparency and trust that our local government will listen to their constituents. It is the lack of transparency and distrust that has led to this contentious issue.
I plan to vote yes on Measure P.
My understanding as stated by a former head of parks (before our “community service director came and went”) is that there were restrictions on what the public could be charged for parking vehicles and launching power boats at Lakeview Commons. Evidently these restrictions were tied to the boating and waterway grants (public funds), that were received by the city, to develop the 2 parking lots and the original boat ramp. That is why the boat launch fees have been cheap compared to other boat ramps at the lake and why parking was free. Then the park received the more recent major face lift with a grant (public funds) from The Tahoe Conservancy. So regardless of what you think of paid parking, keep in mind, you have already contributed to this park if you are a California taxpayer (that would include our tourists). I’m not necessarily against paid parking when services are provided, like at Lakeview Commons; But I would be interested to know if the city is following the spirit and guidelines of the boating and waterways grant, even if legally, they can charge for parking. Is a significant jump in boat launch fees on the horizon as well?