South Tahoe paid parking on divergent paths
By Kathryn Reed
In the same week South Lake Tahoe’s anti-paid parking advocates secured enough signatures to forward their petition to the El Dorado County Elections Department, members were given documents from a 2011 Southern California case that prohibits the initiative process from getting rid of parking meters in any city.
Bruce Grego, who has been retained to work as the attorney for Tahoe4Tahoe for free, had yet to review the documents when contacted by Lake Tahoe News. But he told LTN that in some ways it does not matter what they contain. “The bottom line is the government should do what the people want and they don’t want this particular tax.”
Tahoe4Tahoe collected 1,422 signatures from residents who said they want paid parking to be decided by the voters of South Lake Tahoe. City Clerk Suzie Alessi counted the signatures Jan. 15 and was to take them to Placerville that day. The county must now certify they are valid signatures of registered voters. Then it comes back to the city.
A pilot parking meter program started in 2011 on Bellamy Court. Photo/LTN file
“(The council) can enact the initiative without it going to the people, they could put it on the ballot, or they could have staff review the financial and legal impacts of what the initiative says,” City Attorney Tom Watson said. If the latter position were taken, the city staff has 30 days to do so and then present their findings to the council.
The legal work can be done in house, but it’s undetermined if the fiscal impact would have to be hired out.
Peggy Bourland, spokeswoman for Tahoe4Tahoe, deferred comment on the legal documents to Grego.
It was the City Attorney’s Office that provided the documents to the anti-paid parking group.
“It was simply legal research that my office performed anticipating the initiative may be moving forward,” Watson told Lake Tahoe News.
The case out of Ventura parallels what is going on in South Lake Tahoe. Residents didn’t want parking meters and drew up an initiative to ban them, and had the paperwork all set for the ballot.
Ventura went to court seeking its removal from the ballot and won.
Parking meter jurisdiction has been covered by the state Vehicle Code and upheld by the courts since the 1960s – including the California Court of Appeal.
The court said, “… since the subject of traffic regulation on the public streets and highways of the state is a matter of statewide concern, it is not a ‘municipal affair’ unless the state shall completely abandon all or some part of that field. Under the constitutional and statutory provision here applicable, the initiative can come into play only through its use by all the people of the state, and not by some local segment thereof.”
Courts have ruled that parking programs are an administrative function of a city that does not require voters to have a say.
Grego, though, said, “This paid parking, is it really about traffic regulations or tax revenue? I think that is an important issue.”
Court docs repeatedly say all paid parking comes under the Vehicle Code, so it is a state rule, not a city regulation.
The way the local group – and others – could have legally tried to stop the process is through the referendum process. But the deadline to do so has long since passed. There is a 30-day window after ordinances are passed before they become law so challengers may file a referendum. They could have also asked to repeal the ordinance.
The last clause of Vehicle Code 22508 reads, “Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section establishing a parking meter zone or fixing rates of fees for such a zone shall be subject to local referendum processes in the same manner as if such ordinance dealt with a matter of purely local concern.”
Paid parking has been discussed as a revenue generator for South Lake Tahoe since 2010. It wasn’t until after the council had adopted previous budgets that included parking revenue that the public became super engaged and enraged.
The first parking meters were installed in summer 2011 – 20 spaces on Bellamy Court near the state line. Last summer parking kiosks were put in on Venice Drive, near Lakeview Commons and by Lakeside Beach.
The council has not changed its mind – to date – about paid parking. Councilman Tom Davis has always been against it and the others for it. The five will discuss the matter again on Feb. 18. A scenario being floated is to abandon the program on Sept. 30 – the end of the fiscal year. This would not impact the current budget. However, $144,000 is projected to be needed to dismantle the program. That money would come from the 2014-15 budget.
Watson said, “The city obviously would like to listen to the community and I think the council has been doing that. On Feb. 18 we are going to bring back a comprehensive review of the program and make appropriate adjustments that folks here think or feel are necessary or appropriate.”
Grego said, “I hope this gets resolved in a more amicable fashion. We don’t need confrontation.”
Grego said when he was on the council he voted in November 2012 against paid parking. He was voted off the council that month and therefore did not have an opportunity to vote at the second reading. (He is planning to run for council again in November.)
Paid parking is really a turn-off for locals who are the “year-round” customers in a limited, seasonal, environment. Local wages are dismal – so locals who live on the dismal wages don’t have the bucks earned by City staffers & officials to pay parking in order to enjoy the area they live in that pays sub-standard wages. Seriously, if you want to do something to upgrade the area – pass a minimum wage law like SF and Richmond. The BIG employers hire non-citizens from other countries to work cheap jobs that should go to locals for a reasonable wage. A “supervisor” at Heavenly Sports is offered a wage of $8.50 per hour (no benefits)…. gimme a break! FIX the real problems locally and get rid of paid parking.
My take from this article is that our best chance is to have the council members change their votes voluntarily-just enact the initiative without further legal maneuvers and stalling-maybe some of those with deep pockets on tahoe4tahoe could buy radio and print ads-get a couple hundred voters to show up on Feb. 18 to get their attention-problem solved-game over for paid parking in one day
I think the first 2 comments here are correct… There’s a clear legal standard that banning paid parking won’t work. You’re only chance is to convince the council to vote it out. Better start a PR offensive right away or give it up now and save a lot of time & money.
all parking meters should be installed on the loop road
Maybe we should all park around the council members homes and see how they like it.
Lots of us have second snow vehicles I think they would look good all around the council members homes. (except for Davis he gets it)
Just think about all the free press in our primary market areas. Tahoe is open for business again come see our new sidewalks. People need to park somewhere to use them right?
The people are not “speaking” they are “yelling” and some current council members are covering their ears.
Why are they refusing to listen?
Remember who they are at the ballot this year.
Relocate all parking meters and costly kiosks to the airport/city hall parking lot. Keep them in operation there until the kiosks are paid off.
Bruce Grego is their lawyer and didn’t know the Ca vehicle code? No wonder. What a waste of everyone’s time this is.
I signed the petition, to vote FOR paid parking and argued with Peggy when I signed it.
The City better realize that not everyone who signed the petition is against the parking.
I own a business at the Y and property near Harrison. I don’t want people parking in front of my business all day or the businesses I rent to. Paid parking keeps people moving along. Otherwise, they park all day to go to the beach taking up spaces other customers can use.
So it’s only a statewide process to REMOVE the meters? Seems to me that if that’s the case, it should also be a statewide process to install them. Maybe the council overstepped their authority?? Double standards??
I think I am not getting the full picture. It appears from the article that a City can install parking meters,… yet it takes a STATE function to remove them? I think something is missing from the article….or there is more to the legal story. I have a lot of questions about the streets in the So. CA case…city? State road? Needed State approval in the first place to install the meters? I have more questions. AND…I am way too lazy to go research the So. CA case myself.
Hilarious. A few months ago when this all started, I googled “local initiative banning paid parking,” and the referenced case popped right up. Been waiting for the locals or LTN to do the same. Welcome to the party, guys! It’s simply stunning that no one on the Tahoe4Tahoe side took the 15 seconds to do the same thing before spending thousands of dollars and hours on a wild goose chase. Pure incompetence.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/22/judge-orders-parking-meters-initiative-removed/
good point, frank. i also signed the petition, knee-jerkingly intending to vote for the removal of the meters, but have subsequently revisited the topic and am inclined to agree with you…
Paid parking is here to stay folks. The only way to eliminate it is to vote in new council members who will vote it out.
Seems like the meters aren’t very strong. Maybe the snowplow will “hit” a few rendering them unusable. Seems if they keep breaking they will give up on the project. In the UK they installed speed traps on the highways and people just painted over the cameras. State plays dirty so can the people. Paint the kiosks!
We might have found what to do with that surplus money.
Frank, does your business near Harrison have kiosks that customers use to visit your properties? If so, that probably hurts business.
If not, then you can expect locals that don’t want to pay for parking to visit the beach to park near YOUR property for hours, thereby blocking potential customers!
Either way, it is detrimental to those businesses!
I recently visited Santa Rosa and used a downtown parking garage, the fee was only 1.50 for 2 hours… I am ok with that small amount for convenience in a city that size with a congested downtown area…
I am against paid parking anywhere other than the Embassy garage, as we must strive to do anything that encourages visitors ($) to come here and enjoy our natural resources!
I am amazed at how many folks would like to Ruin our Town.
they must take there marching orders from El Diablo
For starters, I would like the numbers quoted in this article and that used in another quote of Nancy Kerry – the number here is $ 144,000 and the other number used elsewhere was $ 600,000 – reconciled, as that kind of confusion merely adds “fuel-to-the-fire”, whose ever fire it is. . . as to the costs of dismantling the meters, now that they’re deployed. . .it would be hard for reasonable people to come to any decision ill-informed as to what the consequences might be. . .or actually are.
As the City will have additional maintenance costs associated with all the “redo” (Lakeview Commons, landscaping, sidewalks, more things-yet-to-do, street lamps, etc. where does “Tahoe4Tahoe” (in quotes on purpose) think the revenue is coming from for that (?), or do we just let the improvements languish into disrepair like the rest of town. . . thereby going down that path for our new ‘Gateway to the City’ (?)
The probable cost of an “annual local permit” will no doubt pale in comparison to any ‘footing the bill’ for those other things, as capital improvements don’t usually include the cost of care. . .
I hope the city takes this to heart and seriously evaluates the feelings of the citizens. Tom said he does not remember anything like this ever happening in SLT. The people are very serious, 1422 and 400 county signatures to support the vote in under 3 weeks. I hope the city sees fit to put this on the ballot or just eliminate the whole thing. This would be the least amount of confrontation and reunite the city.
Buck:
I don’t think this City will ever be a “united or a reunited” area. It seems when some people (fortunately not all) are at odds with others on just about any matter they resort to name calling, insults, and personal attacks accompanied by their “it’s my way or the highway” attitude. The lack of respect for others who have a different viewpoint seems to eliminate much possibility for the conduct of civil and constructive discussion toward finding a mutually agreeable resolution, which is somewhat reminiscent of grammar school.
You might want to look at this another way.
The city needs to make money. Parking meters only charge the people who use the parking. If the city needs to find another way to raise money, say raising the sales tax, or real estate tax then everyone gets hit. This is not going to go away, just because the city removes meters, they’re not going to be like: “Oh, we actually didn’t really need any money, silly us, why did we go cause all this turmoil, when we really didn’t need money”
No one wants any tax, and if you try to switch this to another entity,say TOT, there will be a fight there, and this will go round and round forever, while we all pay for the extra meeting time, signature counts, lawyer hours, ballot measures etc, this ain’t free.
I don’t see it as so outlandish to pay for preferred parking, and the price is cheap compared to other areas, seems like in San Francisco you get 5 or 6 minutes for 25 cents. If you get a ticket, because you weren’t paying attention, then maybe you will learn something and not do it again next time, people need to accept a little responsibility in life.
And as I’ve said before, those in residential neighborhoods should be given free parking permits.
Tax the people who use the service, not everyone.
Interesting turns in this situation. Personally, I am against paid parking. However, in light of the new information coming to light, I think a compromise might be in order. There are some places where paid parking is good. Again, not that I like it, nor do I have to park there. There is talk of a voucher system for residents. Nice thought. There is talk of disbanding some of the locations. Good. Let’s get all the facts together first and them discuss them and come to a mutual understanding and compromise. This is not life and death, but parking. Only parking. Keep smiling Tahoe!
Right on Scott!
In the heady days of the 70s and 80s when planes flew every day and traffic was actually worse in the touring and winter seasons than now, why was there no push for paid parking? Where did all those people park? Same places we do now, obviously.
The city government has grown into a size and into areas where it doesn’t belong, and is hung on an economic model that is never going to be viable in the foreseeable future due to forces and developments outside Tahoe.
The city council seems to be constantly running the city to bolster their personal business interests in many ways, and the rest of the SLT residents (AND County residents who have to shop/work/drive thru etc) wind up paying for it.
Personally, I don’t see a reason why the piddly profits projected from parking are worth all the furor. Take ’em out and sell them.
Based on how successful advance ski pass sales obviously are, I think selling a one week parking pass, or annual passes depending on who the target customer is would make more sense than meters that have to be checked every day. Hell, the kiosks could probably be programmed to issue them. 25 bucks to avoid the possible hassle of a 50 buck ticket. Makes sense to me if I was vacationing here.
Could we look into this????
Sounds like you don’t have enough work to take on the State of CA, Grego. If you really want to help the public then why not take on Obamacare – a real tax! On a secondary note if the city coughs up $144000 to dismantle the program I would hope someone files suit against SLT for wasting our tax dollars. After all there were public workshops around town for those meters and I didn’t see 1422 people show up at the time to voice their concern. So why change your mind now SLT? Stop being so wishey washy and stick by your decision! Don’t disappoint the ones who still support you!
At the public workshops (there were three) the people in attendance spoke out loud and clear against parking meters and this council went ahead and spent the money to buy the meters anyway. Actually, we are learning now that the city borrowed the money to buy the meters. The cost to dismantle the program is now being reported to be twice the cost to start the program. This council was in a big rush to get those meters in for the 2013 summer season. Nobody on the council asked anything about where the money was coming from to start the program and nobody asked what it would cost to dismantle the program. It is just now that all this important information is being investigated. If anything,our council is guilty of not considering the risks of spending taxpayers money on an unproven program, but rather relied on outside consultatnts who were paid more than $100,000. to advise how much money this parking/citation program would make for the city. To make matters worse, there was NO public education program as seen by the number of tickets written starting on day one. If you went out to Cove East that day, every car on the street had a ticket on it. Even people that went out there looking for the meters had a hard time finding them. The signs were facing into the street. Imagine coming up to a STOP sign that is pointed into the street rather than straight ahead and getting a ticket for not stopping. In the end most people just stopped going to Cove East.
Putting this matter on the ballot, will allow the voters to decide this issue, not the three women on the council that support it and want to deny the communty a voice. Our elected council should embrace the democratic process as that is how they were elected.
Sure, no one likes to pay for parking, but I would rather share the cost for upkeep of our town with visitors, than us locals foot the whole bill ourselves through a property tax or something. I love the new face of our town – Lakeview Commons, sidewalks on Highway 50, Ski Run Farmer’s Market, soon Harrison Avenue – our town is starting to feel like a real place, and it didn’t before. But all that stuff will fall apart if we can’t generate the money to keep it nice. I hope the City council doesn’t cave in to fear of change and nix paid parking, or ban it totally. Maybe there’s room for compromise – lower the price, or have a locals pass. But you know what, if they want to stick with the program the way it is, good for them. We elected them to move our town forward, and they and Nancy Kerry are making the hard choices. Someone else want to try to raise the money we need to keep us afloat and better our town, go for it.
Mary Ellen:
Perfectly stated. Thank you.