Voters get a peek at S. Tahoe council candidates
Seven people are vying for three seats on the South Lake Tahoe City Council. Photo/LTN
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS – Defining the role of a council member and the use of eminent domain were the only questions all seven South Lake Tahoe City Council candidates were asked to answer at a forum Wednesday night.
The event was a bit schizophrenic, as the questions were all over the place and not everyone had the opportunity to answer each one. It left several people gathered at Lake Tahoe Golf Course more confused about who to vote for and where the candidates stand on issues than when they arrived. This was in contrast to the South Lake Tahoe Lodging Association forum the following morning at which the same three questions were asked of the four candidates who showed up.
The last question asked Sept. 10 by moderator Evon Yakar was racist in nature. When candidate Bruce Grego asked Yakar if he was questioning whether race played a role in marketing, Yakar merely repeated the question. The question was: With 70 percent of Lake Tahoe’s visitors being from California and many are non-white in California, should this change our approach to becoming a world-class recreation destination?
(Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce and the Tahoe Daily Tribune were the sponsors.)
That particular question was asked of the four challengers. Grego said don’t change things because of the color of people’s skin. Matt Palacio, who works in sales for Sierra-at-Tahoe, said the resort has changed its approach by offering different food choices, and more lessons and helmets to cater to a population that is less comfortable with taking risks. Wendy David did not articulate her answer. Austin Sass said the city is not in the business of marketing, but added the ski and lodging industries are well versed in attracting an international clientele.
As for the responsibility of a council member: Sass said look to the future; Grego – listen to the community; Palacio – set direction; David – have a vision; Tom Davis – focus on the economy; Brooke Laine – do your homework; Angela Swanson – do the business of the city thoughtfully.
Regarding eminent domain:
• Swanson: Use it when all other options have been exhausted.
• Sass: Would use it, but hopes to never have to.
• Palacio: If it’s for the greater good. (His family had land taken in the Bay Area to build a bridge.)
• Grego: Won’t use it; believes it has been abused in South Lake Tahoe.
• Laine: OK as a last resort.
• Davis: Would use it in extreme circumstances.
• David: Would not be her first choice.
When it came to the demeanor of the council Davis had to be asked the question twice because he avoided answering it the first time.
• Davis: He called this the most progressive council he’s been on, that there will be differences, but at the end of the day you stand by the majority decision.
• David: Important to be professional and respectful at all times.
• Palacio: He sees political infighting and believes personal issues need to be resolved out of public view.
Here are some key comments from the candidates:
• Sass: Create a vision for the entire South Shore that people can embrace, know where the return on investment is going to come from, create town hall forums to engage the public, make the trails for biking and hiking easier to get to.
• David: Advocate of transparency, three-quarters of the town looks old, do something with the dilapidated hotels, plastic bag ban is the right thing.
• Palacio: Need better jobs to stop the brain drain of younger residents, raising the transient occupancy tax is short-sighted, supports Tahoe Prosperity Center.
• Grego: Night meetings could attract more input, need more flexibility with land use, never favored paid parking.
• Swanson: Government needs to get out of the way for businesses to succeed, Tahoe Valley Area Plan will be good for the Y, TRPA’s Regional Plan is good.
• Laine: Disappointed more policies are not enforced, need community vision, old hotels should be allowed to be converted to different uses.
• Davis: Nothing wrong with representing minority opinion, wants free bus service, believes town is on the right course.
At the Sept. 11 lodging meeting, the candidates were all asked the same three questions. Only one of them was in the room at a time. All the candidates were invited.
Question: What is your position on raising the transient occupancy tax?
• Davis: The council can’t just do it; it would have to go to the voters. He prefers raising average daily rate and occupancy. TOT accounts for just less than one-third of the city’s revenues.
• Grego: Believes the motel industry is taxed enough. Believes the private sector supports the public sector enough.
• Swanson: Not appropriate at this time. Could see doing so in the future for recreation.
• Palacio: Against raising TOT. Says other locations like San Diego have a lower hotel tax rate.
Question: Are you in favor of the loop road?
• Davis: He prefers cars driving in front of a business instead of around it. Will not use eminent domain for it.
• Grego: Has never been in favor of it.
• Swanson: Wants the loop road. Believes it will bring profound changes for the positive to the area.
• Palacio: Supports it, citing how most tourist areas don’t have a four-lane highway with a middle turn lane in the middle of town.
Question: What is your vision for the city to bring more tourists to town?
• Davis: Infrastructure, including complete streets, will attract new businesses.
• Grego: Land use regulations need to be flexible so businesses will come to town. Government needs to get out of the way.
• Swanson: City needs to invest in its own infrastructure.
• Palacio: City needs to remove barriers, streamline regulations, and bring in recreation events in the shoulder season.
Thank you Tahoe Chamber for a great forum and candidates for your participation.
I would like to clarify some false statements in the article. The Tahoe Regional Young Professionals (TRYP) was not a sponsor of this forum and although we would be very happy to have him as one, Evon is not a TRYP member. He did an incredible job last night representing the Tahoe Chamber’s CEC.
TRYP hopes the attending community and our members enjoyed the great mixer hosted by Lake Tahoe Golf Course after the Forum. Reach out to us at TahoeTRYP@gmail.com with any questions about our Civic Engagement Program This great program does not take a political stance or endorse candidates, but provides information and encourages our members to get involved.
“When it came to the demeanor of the council Davis had to be asked the question twice because he avoided answering it the first time.
• Davis: He called this the most progressive council he’s been on, that there will be differences, but at the end of the day you stand by the majority decision.”
“…at the end of the day you stand by the majority decision.”??? What a crock! When Bruce Grego was on the last City Council he and Tom Davis engineered a way for a minority of 2 Council members to place a matter on an agenda. Both those individuals made excellent use of forcing repeated Council discussions on matters that had been voted on where they were outnumbered, and now Davis and Conner are doing the exact same thing. When Grego and Davis, or now Davis and Conner, don’t like being voted down they just bring back the same item over and over again in their attempts to wear down the other Council members until they get their way, all the while they’re wasting staff time and precious taxpayer/City resources.
At the end of the day Tom Davis stands by the majority decision. What a joke. If 3 out of 5 Council members can’t agree to place something on an agenda then maybe it doesn’t belong there. Since when is the minority supposed to dictate to the majority?
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
I applaud that questions pertaining to race were brought up, especially in our ethnically diverse town that has limited representation for anyone who’s not a Caucasian Baby Boomer.
As an attendee of this event, I found these questions relevant and not racist at all. But, I can tell you that it is straight up AGEIST for Lake Tahoe News to keep incorrectly associating politically involved community members under the age of 50 with TRYP. What’s next, saying all women who volunteer are Soroptimists? (Thank you, ladies, btw!) First it was running an op-ed about Jason Drew and the Meyers Area Plan that incorrectly associated both with TRYP, now it’s Evon Yakar and the Tahoe Chamber. These are outstanding members of our community who see a future here; and though they’re not TRYP members (yet!), they want our town to be a better place and aren’t afraid to roll up their shirt sleeves and work for it.
I urge Lake Tahoe News to get informed about TRYP instead of propagating misinformation about the organization and the next generation of engaged South Lake Tahoe locals.
The story was immediately corrected after the first comment. I’m sorry I misunderstood during the introductions about TRYP and Evon’s involvement.
Jenna, no need for the tongue wagging. But it’s always good to hear from you. Do you want to disclose your current/past affiliation with the Tribune since that could be relevant to voters as your husband is a council candidate?
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
My past affiliation with the Tribune? As in, I read it this week? Kae, let’s just grab coffee and discuss this in person. There’s clearly much more misinformation than I thought floating around. Peace, love and butterflies!
The sound was a little light at the beginning of the forum, and I must admit that I heard, or at least perceived to hear, exactly what Kae’s original text conveyed.
Kae, the part about one person being in the room at a time at the lodging meeting was a little cconfusing. I believe you meant one candidate at a time. It was setup that way so that we got original answers from each candidate, each candidate was supplied the
questions a couple of days prior to the meeting. We would have had more questions but we had other items to cover at the meeting. Namely the Fire Chief about the spat of hotel fires this summerr and the water board about the Tahoe Tom contaminationn of a local Motel.
Lyndsay Bryant , I would like to get informed about the TRYP. Do you have to be in a certain age range to be a member? Can you provide a membership list? Do you have to live in the Tahoe basin? Is there a cost to be a member? Thanks
Have to admit, I found it a bit odd that the questions were scattered in nature and not uniformly asked of each candidate.
It seems necessary to go across the panel with each question so voters can make the comparison.
Regardless, I did get a little better understanding of what each candidate is about.
Wow, even more instant negativity, misinformation, and “tongue-wagging” in the article and comments section by the author (and publisher). Let’s just tear it all down, Kae, shall we?
Tying Mr. Yakar directly to the question that you allege as “racist” is unfair as it occurred during the “public questions” portion of the evening. I happen to believe it is a legitimate question in a capitalist society such as ours, in a city as diverse as ours, that hosts such a varied group of visitors.
Was there anything productive that came out of the evening? All 7(!) candidates together for 2 hours? A standing-room-only crowd? A free meet-and-greet after the forum? An engaged electorate that spanned the ages?
Your sensationalistic doom-and-gloom approach is helping propagate the apathy that is hindering our town’s progress. It would be refreshing if we could focus on the candidates, in part through accurate reporting, rather than the post-script corrections and malignant blogs such as these.
Thank you to the Candidates, the Attendees, TahoeChamber, TRYP, and the LTGC for an informative and engaging evening.
Bad timing since it was also back to school night. Parents (voters) have to prioritize, and are more concerned with their children’s education. Maybe an oversight? Or perhaps by design from the Plutocrats?
Mr. Yakar, as moderator, has responsibility as the moderator to ask or not ask questions, understand them and be able to take responsibility for them in part whether a panel or individual put them forth. The moderator is the gatekeeper.
I applaud Ms. Reed for painting a picture of what the night was like. I was there and agree the questions should be asked of all the candidates so voters can have a more apples to apples comparison of the candidates.
Perhaps Ms. Reed should get credit for owning her mistakes. Most people don’t have their work on display for the public to rip apart, and yet she keeps doing it day-after-day. Would you want every mistake to be out in public view, and then ripped apart?
If this new generation is about civility, leadership and doing things differently, why not start with your comments on LTN?
And I was charged for being at the TRYP mixer, which I expected. It does seem like a great group of people.
4MER-USMC
Davis exposed again! A wakeup call for GET OUT THE VOTE.
Hi Lou, Thank you for asking questions. For more questions and answers please email TahoeTRYP@gmail.com, visit http://www.tahoetryp.org, or come to an event and speak with us. To answer the ones above: there is no age limit to our membership as we believe in having a “young at heart” mentality. Our events are always open to the public. I don’t think we can supply a membership list to the public as we have never asked for permission from each individual member to do this, but I will have to check with the BOD. Our membership is open to anyone as we know some people live outside of the basin, but work and play inside. Membership is only $40 per year from the day you sign up.
BrianK, thank you for looking for a positive outlook. We need more positive energy moving our town forward.
BobL, No one was supposed to be charged to attend the TRYP mixer at LTGC after the forum. Can you contact TRYP and let them know who you paid and how much so that your money can be returned. Thank you again LTGC for providing free appetizers and discounted drinks.
Lyndsay,
Thank you for your reply and offer of a refund. The Chamber’s website (http://business.tahoechamber.org/events/details/city-council-candidates-forum-7671) and accompanying flier stated $10 for nonmembers to attend the mixer. That is why I was prepared to pay. I paid a TRYP member, merely saying here is my $10 for the mixer. I will assume it was an honest mistake and not a member putting cash in their pocket. Either way, it was $10 well spent.
A bit of irony with all of this. This thread shows reporters and nonprofit members all make honest mistakes, and will step up to do what is right.
Bob
I found it very interesting to compare the ‘reporting’ on this Forum, as provided by Lake Tahoe News, and what was in today’s Tahoe Daily Tribune. There was nothing much of value in the Tribune’s reporting, and not one mention of any of the more important points. Tribune FLUFF or FILLER is all it was.
I suggest that you all read BOTH once more, one right after the other. There really is, rather often, quite a difference in description and reporting between them.
BTW…I’d love to hear something from Candidates Swanson and Palacio, about WHY they are FOR the ‘new’ Loop Road.
LYNDSAY, Thanks for the prompt reply. Can you disclose the BOD names and do you have a contact phone #? Thanks
Even though the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce claims to not have a preconceived political agenda and says it wants to be transparent, board member Jason Drew last year at a public meeting said, “Our goal is to find, recruit, and elect people to the South Lake Tahoe City Council and then hold that council accountable.”
(from LTN)
Check out:http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx?fiscalyear=2012&chart=5
David there is never anything to be gained by driving a wedge between South Shore communities. Right now, Stateline is moving forward with major redevelopment that is reshaping the tourist draw to the REGION.
The City benefits from what is happening in Stateline and the current council has no relationship with Douglas County. That is completely insane.
Yes the Chamber should endorse candidates who support regional collaboration and should come out strongly against people like Conner who have no interest in working with El Dorado County or Douglas County. They should do that because driving this wedge between South Shore communities is completely asinine.
FYI, MH, I serve with Douglas County and El Dorado County Commissioners and Board members on several JPA’s and we get along quite nicely.
Looking out for South Lake Tahoe businesses as opposed to the Douglas Co. plan to funnel everything to their stateline projects is why I voted for JoAnn Connor. I’m glad she serves on those boards so she sees what locals already know about how the Nevada side views the California side as their labor and free infrastructure source.
I found the last question very disturbing and inappropriate. As a 67 year old, I feel there is a very bad vibe about individuals who could belong to AARP. I have been lived in the South Shore for eleven years and been activity involved. Please it not about the young vs the older members of our community.
My qualification for making these comment our:
City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission for 7 yrs, ending my 4th year as chair
APC Board for TRPA, finishing my 2 year
Public Working Group for Pathways 2007
Oversight committee for Measure M
Spouse-
1. Lives outside City
2. Is ex-City of SLT employee
Her comments and criticisms should be taken accordingly, along with her spouse’s.
I don’t see any problem with unions, the chamber, the anti-parking meter group, the pro recreatiion group, the young professionals, the old professionals, democrats, republicans or environmental groups working to get elected the people they think will do the best job for their interests. If your going to dis or condem one why not all?
Brian:
What’s your point? Even if I had worked for the City it would seem that would just give me some insights that other people may not have. All of my opinions about Tom Davis have been formed from what I’ve witnessed during the broadcasts of the City Council’s meetings on their website.
And does not living within the City limits of SLT mean that all those people are uninformed and not entitled to an opinion?
Give my best to your good friend Tommy.
SPOUSE-4-mer-usmc
Does it seem obviously out of line to any of you that the South Shore Chamber directed the moderator to take precious time away from the candidates questioning to address funding the “Tahoe Prosperity Center” ?
Some of the Chamber and Council members are on that TPC membership. They shouldn’t be pushing their own personal agenda in a candidates forum.
Why is another Tahoe business/agency collaborative necessary and where do we draw the line with private enterprise and government agencies collaborating to create their own vision for the general public ?
Toxic Warrior, Becaue we never have enough agencies, committies, groups or whatever they call themselves in this town, I’m forming my own.
It’s called the “Retired Old Farts Liberal Minded Association Organization” or well ? maybe something like that, so it will be called “ROFLMAO”.
We will force our will upon the city of SLT to submit to the needs of those of us 60 and older! Our demands will be met or we’ll make quite a ruckus with our canes and aging dogs.
Now what did I come in this room for? OLS
Dear Spouse:
If my recollection is correct, I advocated, before Tom Davis was elected to his current term, a change of the protocols so that an item could get on the agenda with the consent of just one other council member. Why? First, the Brown Act prevents a councilmember to discuss a particular legislative idea with no more than one other member. So you take positions during a campaign and make promises to the voters, and then, after you are elected, when you have an opportunity to promote new ideas or legislation, you need two other to agree, which made it exceeding difficult to see any of your proposals and thoughts placed on the agenda. How can you convince a third member of the Council of the merits of any proposal, if you can’t talk to the third members outside Council and you can’t discuss it with any substantive efforts during Council Meeting (because it is not an agenda item}? By changing the rule, new and different ideas have a better chance to be placed on the agenda for discussion and possible vote. The old rule of having three council members to agree to place something on the agenda permitted the possibility of tyranny of the majority and permitted the majority to avoid discussing matters that may have been uncomfortable. I am proud that I caused this change to occur. Each Council Member is elected by the People, not just the three that appear to think the same way. You are totally wrong that only the majority at any time have the sole insight to govern.
Mr. Grego:
After performing research I was reminded that Tom Davis’ current term on this City Council became effective on December 14, 2010 at which time he, Claire Fortier and Angela Swanson were sworn in as Council members. At the January 25, 2011 Council meeting during Council member comments you made the following request as per that meetings minutes:
“Council consensus to place on a future agenda the topic of changing the Council’s protocols requiring a three (3) member consensus to place an item on an agenda. He remarked that this protocol may be too restrictive.”
Per that meetings minutes the Council members provided consensus. On February 8, 2011 during the NEW BUSINESS Item (a) – Protocols discussion you requested the elimination of the 3 Council member consensus so that 2 Council members could place a matter on an agenda, and it was actually new Council member Angela Swanson who made a motion first on that which you then seconded. Prior to making her motion Swanson said the following as per that meetings minutes:
“Councilmember Swanson stated her belief that a three (3) Councilmember Consensus was a protective measure to prevent any single Councilmember from taking control of agendas/meetings and being disruptive to the work of the City. …Swanson remarked that good ethics and good professional working relationships included trust and she acknowledged that while she may not entirely agree with a Councilmember wanting to place something on an agenda she believed that this Council would be responsible in terms of staff’s time and using the Council’s valuable time. She indicated for that reason she could support changing this protocol so that a minority could place an item on a future agenda.”
Mr. Grego, I was incorrect that this 2 Council member control mechanism was engineered by you and Mr. Davis and I stand corrected.
While you state that the old rule of having 3 Council members agree to place something on the agenda permitted the possibility of tyranny, I believe that the opportunity of 2 Council members dictating to the majority is tyrannical. I think that your and Mr. Davis’ actions on the City Council related to the color of exterior decorative lights on local businesses and related to sandwich board signs is clear evidence of that pretext, and most recently the actions of Davis and Conner related to the ban on single use plastic bags.
I think that Council member Swanson’s belief that every City Council member would be responsible in terms of staff’s time and using the Council’s valuable time was unfortunately incorrect, and I think that the misuse of that 2 Council member dictate clearly shows the need to return to a 3 Council member consensus edict.
SPOUSE – 4-mer-usmc
Why was this forum held in the County ? County residents cannot vote in city elections.
I think all of El Dorado County that is part of South Lake Tahoe should be able to vote in City elections. Decisions made by the SLT City Council affect everyone on the South Shore.
If there is another forum, this should be one of the questions asked.
OLS …….. where do I sign up ?
Steven ……… I fully agree !