THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Is Tahoe a glass half full?


image_pdfimage_print

By Garry Bowen

Consolidating what seems to be a frenetic effort to actually define South Lake Tahoe, especially in the last few months, for this article we’ll start with Feb. 21, when South Tahoe officials strategized about a future (not the future as originally titled).

As moderator, Ted Gaebler (co-author of “Reinventing Government”, 1992), asked them each to offer an unalloyed expression of a vision, and, as subsequent meetings like the very recent tourism forum tried to do the same, twice now, with Park City presentations (the first was last summer at a leadership forum at MontBleu), an appropriate vision would seem to be rather cloudy or opaque, at best, as our best minds need a most-needed added focus to bring any vision to fruition. The best will be their own persuasion.

Garry Bowen

Garry Bowen

To that end, I remain entranced with yet another book title: Joan Baez’s brother-in-law Richard Farina wrote a book called “I’ve Been Down So Long, It Looks like Up to Me”, which is why I used the word frenetic above, as someone still thinks of Tahoe as in the doldrums, needing a significant boost so as to be able to look up.

In spite of one leader’s earlier idea that “South Shore is poised for growth”, this was somewhat fortified by City Manager Nancy Kerry’s comment at the strategy session that, “South Shore is starting to take hold”, although the question of what exactly its taking hold of mirrors Lake Tahoe News’ report — “barely touched upon was how to turn the ideas into reality”, tabled, as a lot of things are, for yet another “(budget) meeting in April”.

The running theme from that and the one just concluded is a lack of vision as Kerry stated in February, “Until we know who we are, we won’t know why we are doing it” and there is “no shared agreement of who we are”. This ironically coincides with the message that Park City emphasized (perhaps led by forum organizers as subject matter), also fortified by yet another forum, that of Tahoe Regional Young Professionals, as Jamie Orr and Scott Fair on that panel said that Tahoe “needs to decide”, respectively, “what it wants to be when it grows up” and “what it wants to look like”. So, what’s been envisioned so far?

We are in the ramp-up to South Lake Tahoe’s 50th birthday. In 1965, the slogan was “America’s All-Year Playground”, eerily reminiscent of the current vision proffered. The major difference is in the corporate leadership we continue to rely on, as they went decidedly covetous of their customer base over the years, not really understanding Tahoe’s real attractions, for the sake of job and bottom-line profit protection.

Harrah’s, for example, gained prominence by what real estate still knows as “location, location, location” – being the first place encountered as the state line was crossed, they placed a very-wide parking entry there, the better to welcome those coming to patronize. The mistake was in making that subservient to hotel interests (on both sides), shifting significant cash flows away from their own business model.

Today’s re-emphasis on recreation is partly due to not understanding how it worked back-in-the-day. If someone no longer wanted to “play” at the casino corridor, they could very quickly redeem their car and be on their way to whatever other Tahoe attraction beckoned, as there was almost immediately five or six cars entering to take their place to everyone’s benefit, resident and visitor alike with a much higher experiential value.

Also misunderstood was Harrah’s commitment to its visiting clientele (comprising the now-decimated lodging community), as the South Shore room bookings were designed to “make hay while the sun shines” (i.e., the reason the best-known entertainers were always three weeks in July), thereby filling most of the motels in town for the entire summer, not being able to trust the other seasons to build the numbers up, or not to be able to adequately access the South Shore due to Echo closures, etc. That was their strategy – the roads may be closed or be inaccessible; family school years that shifted, etc., but business went on, at least partially by a Harrah’s-Greyhound bus system I had a hand in organizing – as shift work demanded customers, if full employment were to be: food-on-the-table, clothes-to-buy, etc.

As corporate ownership came about (remember, Harvey Gross and Bill Harrah were entrepreneurial), bottom-line issues became higher concerns, corporate leaders in their brilliance ended up “exporting” gaming everywhere, which also ended up being a cause celebre for ill-managed civic and tribal municipalities to satisfy beyond their means. This of course was at the expense of a place like South Shore, absent other business vitality, but where it all began.

Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce Executive Director B Gorman has stated that this decline was in 1997, but it actually started with the above-mentioned shift (late 1970s and on), as the momentum was great enough to not have anyone notice any abrupt change, therefore not making needed adjustments, until the lodging industry kept turning over and over as earlier expectations of buying one were not met.

That turnover included a continual rotating cast change so it became difficult to conjure up a vision, absent knowing what the issues really are from a historical perspective, one that I’m intimately familiar with. For example, the shift in Harrah’s ownership from a five-star hotel sold to an essentially very large motel company shifted the service aspects to the detrimental side, as some entering are not checking in at a hotel, so parking valets didn’t ordinarily have to cater to those with luggage, to be staying in the limited number of rooms. More of a major shift than is noticed by the average person.

There are other examples of strategic missteps, in wait.

In the current day, Lake Tahoe generally, and South Shore especially, doesn’t have the perspective necessary to create a vision, as they watch the casino industry stumble around. Now even winter weather doesn’t cooperate as yet another changing cast of ownership keeps trying to find its way back to “year-round”.

It is said that the word “obvious” is actually a conundrum, as what is obvious to one is not to another – that’s why communication is needed, and in South Shore’s case, a historical perspective to “right-the-ship”, in putting the “wind back-in-the-sails” is navigating in a language of the future, if we truly want one.

Vision has the connotation of a long-view, which itself might seem obvious, but the last few decades here have been definitively short-sighted, absent any real marketing message eliciting Lake Tahoe’s timeless qualities, with more of a “slot promotional” approach due to its need to cover itself in mostly a “short-term” manner. This contributes to the churning feeling of anxiety in the middle of humanity’s impending need for more serenity and space, not less – that a place like Tahoe can provide if done well.

There are ways to share Tahoe naturally that are not explored, but can result in its reviving a global cachet – what is natural beauty, if not for its ultimate attraction, from however far away on the planet.

Now, the city hopes to engage the public (yet again), but in my own experience, unless they firmly have in mind really listening (being able to both discern, then act on), any learning will follow an already outlying response pattern: “that’ll never happen here”. And its professional’ version, exemplified by a vivid reminder when a city department head was called to answer a question by the City Council, the response was in the same mode as “not happening here” and “our consultant came up with a number of ideas, but our decision was that our people were not ready for that”.

Why then the need to consult if the consultation is rendered moot via existing biases as inadequate?

The same question concerns the engagement of the citizens – and my counsel in past candidacies – the key to success is both “trust and transparency”, and an adequate perspective with which to judge, now still in short supply.

From my long-term perspective, consider this my “speak up”, as inaugural to another 50 years or more.

Depending on queries and response here, a next installment might be: A glass half-empty.

Garry Bowen has more than 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.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (19)
  1. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    I remember visiting the area during the 60s. Recreation was the greatest and most voluminous of the memories. Less infrastructure, less people, ect…

    With more people and more infrastructure came the time to maintain the infrastructure. SLT has come a long way the last few years in maintaining and improving recreation infrastructure, much more to be done too.

    Some claim if we like the place, the tourist economy will follow. Seems the fine line to come to terms with is if locals earn around $30K a year, and visitors earn around $100K a year or more, how can we both enjoy the place in a reasonable manner, taking for granted the huge income difference affects desired experiences.

  2. a_better_SLT says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Good points. We are a glass half full and heading fuller. Year round recreation and showcasing the natural beauty are part of the steps to getting better. Continuing to retire aging hotel properties is key. Higher room rates mean higher paying customers and more opportunity to make real money for service industry workers. Continue to find bike paths and showcasing natural beauty like Lakeshore Commons projects. Hopefully the CTC can buy the Meeks property at Trout Creek and tear it down for that beautiful view. Taking out the Bijou CVS would open up views that most visitors never experience in SLT. Creating a walking/biking boulevard down to the beach from the Stateline corridor would enhance the natural beauty part of visitors experience that most currently do not get at the casinos.

  3. Old Long Skiis says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Good comments on Garry Bowen’s opinion piece. I agree SLT is getting better…at a crawdads pace, but we are moving forward but still slowly making improvements.
    Can we do more??? Oh heck yeah!!!
    Lets not drop the the ball and we keep making things better for everyone. Keep the ball rolling, OLS

  4. AROD says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    If the glass is half full get a smaller glass.

  5. LeanForward says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Garry, well said.

    I think the big thing for South Lake Tahoe is to think Bigger than we have previously. With our juxtaposition to Reno, Carson, Sacramento, and the Bay there is no reason we can’t follow in the footsteps of Boulder, CO.

    We as a community need to focus on infrastructure, the college, and attracting new business. We need to diversify the economy. Lucky for us there is a steady stream of highly technical workers who are choosing to move to South Lake Tahoe.

    Heck, there are even a hand full of tech companies present here. A year and a half ago that wasn’t true.

    As venture capitalists become more comfortable with distributed companies (and they are, look at wordpress, inc. for example) we are going to see more and more tech folks put their roots down here in the basin. We already are seeing that trend increase dramatically. The real question becomes, knowing all this, how do we take advantage of it?

    South Lake Tahoe has a bright future ahead as long as we work together!

  6. Cautious and Skeptical says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Be reminded we have a fixed infrastructure. Can you say carrying capacity

  7. Seriously? says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    I ask all of my out of town clients what they like most about Tahoe. They ALL reply, “the small town mountain boutique feel.” If we grow too much, Tahoe is going to lose that charm. Protecting the beautiful forests and clarity of the lake is top priority. What does everyone think is going to happen when we pack tons of people & new buildings into our little town? Do we want the beauty, or do we want the tourists and revenue? Build it & they will destroy.

  8. LeanForward says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    I don’t think I’m suggesting we go crazy with building. We might have a TON of vacant buildings everywhere. Those vacant buildings lack infrastructure, and horrible for the environment. ESP considering their BMP’s were done decades ago. I’m talking about taking existing properties and bringing them into the 21st century by filling them with tenants. We can do that by attracting business :)

  9. Slapshot says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    We need redeveloped areas with modern up to date buildings with the most up to date BMP’s and great architecture.

  10. Reloman says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    taking out meeks and for that matter the muffler shop, would be great. If not a purchase get them to paint, put up higher fences and move their trucks further from the highway to enhance the veiw. I will bet you whatever price you want the Bijiou complex will be redeveloped. Not that it would help anyway to just tear it down as, there would still be buildings in front of the lake.

  11. Dogula says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    The reason the muffler shop still exists is because of Federal regulations! Before the current owner had it, it was a gas station. With leaky tanks. The hazardous cleanup required means nobody wants to buy the place. Poor guy is stuck with it.
    Meek’s isn’t real pretty, but they provide a lot of jobs and a very necessary service in this town. One of the few businesses in town that pays more than minimum wage and provides products for other businesses that pay good wages also. SOMEBODY’s gotta provide materials for all our houses and other buildings. You can’t just force a business to move because now, after 30 years, you don’t like the looks of it.
    People in this town are so unrealistic. Private property matters. You start taking other people’s property, they’ll come and take yours eventually.

  12. duke of prunes says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    You can’t create a mess for other people to clean up, sell the property and move on. Blame falls 100% on the original owner. This isn’t some private property rights issue, its a dealing with irresponsible and selfish people issue.

  13. Dogula says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Well, Prunes, the original station owner did exactly that to the current owner of the muffler shop. And they are long gone. And yeah, it stinks.
    Happens often, though. Just like the authorities tried to nail the current owner of the pharmacy for having dumped hazardous waste, even though it was done long before that guy owned the pharmacy. It was a dry cleaner when the damage was done. But those people, again, are long gone, so the city tried to collect from the new guy. Bogus.

  14. Reloman says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    if meeks does a little cleanup, wont cost much, do something to hide the lumber yard, they will probably find cleanups like this would help their bottom line as, people with more money may buy here and do rehab work on that purchase. it sounds like the same problem that the old Midus shop has and why it wont sell because of enviromental cleanup issues.

  15. LeanForward says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    Hey, at least we don’t have superfund sites like the bay area does. At least we didn’t let a semiconductor industry pollute our ground enough to cause serious issues. They have over 26 superfund sites. There are folks down there living on properties that are right in the middle of that. Imagine what that does for their health.

    Dogula, thanks for the perspective on The muffler shop. What a shame. I hope one day the government or some other group cleans that up.

    Damn I’m glad I live in Tahoe.

  16. Reloman says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    yes, but we do have some pollution issues that are affecting our ground water wells, last summer a well for a motel was undrinkable because MTBE from Tahoe Toms.

  17. fromform says - Posted: May 8, 2015

    2 local superfund sites

  18. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: May 10, 2015

    The Keys is a very questionable development,….. Probably take billions to clean the biggest river going into Tahoe.

  19. lou pierini says - Posted: May 10, 2015

    Maybe “the glass is to big”, George Carlton.