Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The Tribune held a question-and-answer series with the six candidates for South Lake Tahoe City Council. The candidates were given a list of questions on some of the city’s major issues and asked to reply to each in 175 words or less.
At the conclusion of the Q&A series, the Tribune gave its endorsement to two of the council contenders. Click here to see who the newspaper recommended. Voters will select two of the candidates on Nov. 4.
At the conclusion of the Q&A series, the Tribune gave its endorsement to two of the council contenders. Click here to see who the newspaper recommended. Voters will select two of the candidates on Nov. 4.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 1
Austin Sass: I’m running because I am concerned about the direction the city is headed in. The overriding issue is we are a tourism-based economy. There are many components that allow a city to be successful at such. These include:
Employee attraction and retention; maintaining and improving our water, air, forest and the visual environment of Highway 50; authenticity in our retail businesses; local understanding and support of tourism — we need to understand how changes in visitation affect our economy.
Others include successful marketing coupled with events that will drive visitation — it’s naive to think that tourists will come here without an effort; programs that will keep locals spending here and secure tax revenues. It’s crazy that off-the-hill gasoline is 50 cents less a gallon and sandwich meat is $4.50 less a pound.
Expanded recreation opportunities with appropriate signage; a better information and education program for visitors — they need to understand how they can help us keep our ecosystem healthy.
I want to address all of these issues because combined they will contribute to our future success.
Jonnie Crawford: I’m interested in public service.
Bruce Grego: I have seen the frustrations expressed by our citizens concerning the direction of our community.
Last year, our community was damaged by the Angora fire. Why? Because the policies of the various agencies refused to consider the welfare of our community. There are too many appointed government agencies that dominate decision-making. There is no reason that we should not advocate a change in the TRPA compact so that the TRPA board can be elected by the people of this basin.
Other issues include: the completion of Project 3 (convention center); public transportation, it is not effective; ADA compliance should be exempt from land-coverage restrictions; parking should not be sacrificed in the name of erosion control; and housing should not be eliminated for the benefit of large development. I feel I can offer fresh insights to the challenges facing us.
Ted Long: There are several reasons, I enjoy the work and the opportunity of making new relationships. I have met people locally and statewide that I could never have met otherwise, all fine, knowledgeable people.
I believe in our town. I appreciate the opportunity to live and serve in a place that offers good schools, a college, an art league, high school sports, and so much more, all in paradise.
Without strong, knowledgeable leadership, our status as such is threatened. We will become another wealthy enclave around our beautiful lake. I have the time and willingness to work, I attend every meeting of every group that I can and whether we might agree or disagree I participate, as Woody Allen said, "I show up," trying to find workable solutions and a consensus to help solve our problems.
Warren Kessler: I have always had an interest in government and its operation. Having been an investigator, I always had to keep myself independent and look from the outside. I didn’t join associations, clubs, political parties, etc. My wife died 3 1/2 years ago, and I thought this would be the ideal time to run.
Over my 25 years here at Lake Tahoe, I have seen many decisions made that I didn’t think were wise, either long-term or short-term. Many times I made public comment to no avail as the council members had already made up their minds and the public comment was a waste. I want to leave my decision-making until every piece of evidence is presented, then decide what I think is best for the city and its residents. I think the locals need better representation than they are getting.
Hal Cole: When I decided not to run for re-election two years ago, I sincerely thought that I would retire from public service permanently. Events of the past two years have changed my mind. Our federal and state economies are in crisis, and it is inevitable that this will affect our local coffers. The convention center is stalled. Our infrastructure is deteriorating and public confidence is waning.
I am running so that the public will have an experienced choice in this election. I have a strong connection to this community and am willing to devote my time to establish a functional and professional City Council that will serve the public and make educated and well-reasoned decisions.
Employee attraction and retention; maintaining and improving our water, air, forest and the visual environment of Highway 50; authenticity in our retail businesses; local understanding and support of tourism — we need to understand how changes in visitation affect our economy.
Others include successful marketing coupled with events that will drive visitation — it’s naive to think that tourists will come here without an effort; programs that will keep locals spending here and secure tax revenues. It’s crazy that off-the-hill gasoline is 50 cents less a gallon and sandwich meat is $4.50 less a pound.
Expanded recreation opportunities with appropriate signage; a better information and education program for visitors — they need to understand how they can help us keep our ecosystem healthy.
I want to address all of these issues because combined they will contribute to our future success.
Jonnie Crawford: I’m interested in public service.
Bruce Grego: I have seen the frustrations expressed by our citizens concerning the direction of our community.
Last year, our community was damaged by the Angora fire. Why? Because the policies of the various agencies refused to consider the welfare of our community. There are too many appointed government agencies that dominate decision-making. There is no reason that we should not advocate a change in the TRPA compact so that the TRPA board can be elected by the people of this basin.
Other issues include: the completion of Project 3 (convention center); public transportation, it is not effective; ADA compliance should be exempt from land-coverage restrictions; parking should not be sacrificed in the name of erosion control; and housing should not be eliminated for the benefit of large development. I feel I can offer fresh insights to the challenges facing us.
Ted Long: There are several reasons, I enjoy the work and the opportunity of making new relationships. I have met people locally and statewide that I could never have met otherwise, all fine, knowledgeable people.
I believe in our town. I appreciate the opportunity to live and serve in a place that offers good schools, a college, an art league, high school sports, and so much more, all in paradise.
Without strong, knowledgeable leadership, our status as such is threatened. We will become another wealthy enclave around our beautiful lake. I have the time and willingness to work, I attend every meeting of every group that I can and whether we might agree or disagree I participate, as Woody Allen said, "I show up," trying to find workable solutions and a consensus to help solve our problems.
Warren Kessler: I have always had an interest in government and its operation. Having been an investigator, I always had to keep myself independent and look from the outside. I didn’t join associations, clubs, political parties, etc. My wife died 3 1/2 years ago, and I thought this would be the ideal time to run.
Over my 25 years here at Lake Tahoe, I have seen many decisions made that I didn’t think were wise, either long-term or short-term. Many times I made public comment to no avail as the council members had already made up their minds and the public comment was a waste. I want to leave my decision-making until every piece of evidence is presented, then decide what I think is best for the city and its residents. I think the locals need better representation than they are getting.
Hal Cole: When I decided not to run for re-election two years ago, I sincerely thought that I would retire from public service permanently. Events of the past two years have changed my mind. Our federal and state economies are in crisis, and it is inevitable that this will affect our local coffers. The convention center is stalled. Our infrastructure is deteriorating and public confidence is waning.
I am running so that the public will have an experienced choice in this election. I have a strong connection to this community and am willing to devote my time to establish a functional and professional City Council that will serve the public and make educated and well-reasoned decisions.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 2
Austin Sass: Legally, we have to work within the terms of the contract between the city and the developer. As long as the developer is living up to the contract, we should be available to support his efforts to find financing and partners. To be clear, this does not include the city providing further financial assistance unless the contract is renegotiated.
Jonnie Crawford: I hope that the developer gets the money to finish the thing. The city cannot do anything until the center is finished. Only then does the redevelopment agency take over ownership.
Bruce Grego: I am very concerned about suspension of the construction activities at Project 3, known as the “big hole.” We had a similar situation with the Ski Run project about 15 years ago. This project was delayed for about five years. Some council members have indicated that since the direct financial burden rests with the developer, that the delay is harmless. It is not. Small businesses have been removed prematurely. Sales tax monies have been lost. All the employees of said businesses lost their jobs. The remaining businesses in state line have their activities disrupted and impacted.
First of all I would want full disclosure by the developer as to the status of obtaining new financing or other financial support and then evaluate whether these financial approaches are realistic. I would want to work with the developer in trying to bring the project to a successful conclusion.
On the other hand, if the developer is failing and unable to proceed, then I would promote the concept of having the developer sell the project to a new developer or have the city of South Lake Tahoe condemn the site and then sell it to a new developer.
Ted Long: Work with the developer to find solutions. When the project was begun, everything was in place, including the lost financing. Most people agree that much work is done, the property was acquired and the infrastructure put in place, the city has no financial obligation and will only benefit from the final product. It was totally unforeseen, that the housing, thus the financial markets would fall apart. There is work being done to stage the project and I predict that work will begin soon.
There is another underlying question: Where are we as a community, do we want to bolster our shoulder season business, build our economy? Most I talk to say yes! The best way to do that is with the convention business. Snow brings skiers, summer vacationers, we need those other seasons. When the Shingle Springs casino opens, we will lose 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. This means fewer families, and another drain on us as a community. The convention center will fill that gap with jobs, year round business for our town’s shops.
Hal Cole: First of all, as an advocate and participant in the planning and permitting of the convention center project, I can say that I still believe that a convention center is a good project and will go a long way to help attract visitors to this town, especially during our “off seasons.” As for the status of the project right now, I feel that the “heavy lifting” has been done. What some see as a “hole in the ground” is the culmination of over five years of negotiations, planning, permitting, site acquisition and construction. Unlike the gondola project, this was done with the developer’s money, not the city’s.
From what I have learned, I anticipate funding to be forthcoming in the next few months and construction to resume. My job, as a city council member, will be to keep the integrity of the project intact. That is, I want the convention center to remain the size and quality as originally planned and community access to be documented.
Jonnie Crawford: I hope that the developer gets the money to finish the thing. The city cannot do anything until the center is finished. Only then does the redevelopment agency take over ownership.
Bruce Grego: I am very concerned about suspension of the construction activities at Project 3, known as the “big hole.” We had a similar situation with the Ski Run project about 15 years ago. This project was delayed for about five years. Some council members have indicated that since the direct financial burden rests with the developer, that the delay is harmless. It is not. Small businesses have been removed prematurely. Sales tax monies have been lost. All the employees of said businesses lost their jobs. The remaining businesses in state line have their activities disrupted and impacted.
First of all I would want full disclosure by the developer as to the status of obtaining new financing or other financial support and then evaluate whether these financial approaches are realistic. I would want to work with the developer in trying to bring the project to a successful conclusion.
On the other hand, if the developer is failing and unable to proceed, then I would promote the concept of having the developer sell the project to a new developer or have the city of South Lake Tahoe condemn the site and then sell it to a new developer.
Ted Long: Work with the developer to find solutions. When the project was begun, everything was in place, including the lost financing. Most people agree that much work is done, the property was acquired and the infrastructure put in place, the city has no financial obligation and will only benefit from the final product. It was totally unforeseen, that the housing, thus the financial markets would fall apart. There is work being done to stage the project and I predict that work will begin soon.
There is another underlying question: Where are we as a community, do we want to bolster our shoulder season business, build our economy? Most I talk to say yes! The best way to do that is with the convention business. Snow brings skiers, summer vacationers, we need those other seasons. When the Shingle Springs casino opens, we will lose 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. This means fewer families, and another drain on us as a community. The convention center will fill that gap with jobs, year round business for our town’s shops.
Hal Cole: First of all, as an advocate and participant in the planning and permitting of the convention center project, I can say that I still believe that a convention center is a good project and will go a long way to help attract visitors to this town, especially during our “off seasons.” As for the status of the project right now, I feel that the “heavy lifting” has been done. What some see as a “hole in the ground” is the culmination of over five years of negotiations, planning, permitting, site acquisition and construction. Unlike the gondola project, this was done with the developer’s money, not the city’s.
From what I have learned, I anticipate funding to be forthcoming in the next few months and construction to resume. My job, as a city council member, will be to keep the integrity of the project intact. That is, I want the convention center to remain the size and quality as originally planned and community access to be documented.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 3
Austin Sass: I think the new Ski Run shopping center, main street, marina and the Crescent V shopping center are perfect examples of what our commercial areas should strive to be. Those landlords and tenants have reinvested in what was once rundown and unattractive retail space. These centers are now very pleasant to look at, and they are easy to stroll in and navigate. I think new and existing businesses can thrive in these areas from both local and tourist sales. If more local businesses moved to upgraded shopping centers, perhaps the remaining centers would then reinvest vs. sitting vacant.
Jonnie Crawford: First of all, do they need redeveloping? Are the commercial areas “blighted”? An area has to be declared blighted before it can become a redevelopment project. I would prefer to see the commercial areas self-improve if that is needed.
Bruce Grego: This question brings up a larger issue. Why do the commercial areas need improvement? Answer: TRPA’s regulations do not favor older, nonconforming development, and has stifled property improvement on a per-parcel basis.
In the 1980s, we thought that redevelopment could include in its planning all the elements important to TRPA, but the cost of doing these kinds of projects is too great because it destroys the business community as it presently exists, in favor of one large developer. I would like to see changes at TRPA that would permit older, nonconforming properties to make improvements without having to go through tremendous expenses in trying to comply with TRPA standards. I feel this can only come about if we can change the TRPA compact and make it an elected body.
Finally, I will not support any project unless the developer can show full funding for its completion at its inception. Further, I do not favor redevelopment that will result in the dislocation of the remaining small businesses in our city.
Ted Long: State line to continue in the direction it is going: quality hotels, dining and tourist-related venues, lots of open space and eye appeal. A new marina that would provide slips for locals at less then $50 per month; a place for us all to visit, dine, walk and enjoy.
The “Y” I would like to see any development centered around recreation, parks and open space, supported by locally owned business. A residential theme that allows people to live and play where they work. More bicycle trails and walking trails, maybe another dog park.
In the middle, sidewalks all along Highway 50, with a real bike path, landscaping and good drainage. We need to convert more of the ’60s commercial areas to a more modern design with a mountain feeling. Look at the difference at Ski Run and Highway 50, with the new center being built. Government working with private business can do this — government provides the needed upgrade in infrastructure and private business the development.
Warren Kessler: At present, I would not like to see any more redevelopment until we can work out the kinks so we won’t be in another “hole” (convention center project) situation. Redevelopment means debt, and I don’t think Tahoe is ready for more higher-priced, higher rents for business owners. Highway 50 is littered with empty stores, and I realize new businesses will not be attracted here if they don’t feel they can make it financially.
When Miller’s Outpost, Mikasa and Burger King leave the city, I think it’s an indication there is and has been a direct link to getting everybody up to the casino and ski end of town. I think the businesses in the rest of the town need to upgrade their properties and make them attractive to locals and tourists alike. Tourists like to get away from their city life and vacation here, and the more mountainy and different we are from where they came from, the better off we will be. I’ve traveled this country, and the best places are where the towns are unique and have character.
Hal Cole: By “commercial areas,” I’m assuming you mean the four community plan areas, two of which have significant development (Stateline and Ski Run). The other two, Bijou/Al Tahoe/Lakeview and the “Y,” are in serious need of an upgrade.
First of all, any development needs to be driven by the property owners themselves; the city should not implement redevelopment unilaterally. Secondly, the most efficient projects are done over a large area and not parcel-by-parcel. The city’s Redevelopment Agency can facilitate financing on many projects in these two areas as long as they meet certain criteria and the debt is repaid by 2038. As with the previous projects, water quality, pedestrian access and views must be improved. I’ve been involved with all the redevelopment projects to date, and with the adoption of the South “Y” Community Plan and the renewed interest in Lakeview Avenue and the 56-Acre project, I look forward to helping these property owners invest in their area as well.
Jonnie Crawford: First of all, do they need redeveloping? Are the commercial areas “blighted”? An area has to be declared blighted before it can become a redevelopment project. I would prefer to see the commercial areas self-improve if that is needed.
Bruce Grego: This question brings up a larger issue. Why do the commercial areas need improvement? Answer: TRPA’s regulations do not favor older, nonconforming development, and has stifled property improvement on a per-parcel basis.
In the 1980s, we thought that redevelopment could include in its planning all the elements important to TRPA, but the cost of doing these kinds of projects is too great because it destroys the business community as it presently exists, in favor of one large developer. I would like to see changes at TRPA that would permit older, nonconforming properties to make improvements without having to go through tremendous expenses in trying to comply with TRPA standards. I feel this can only come about if we can change the TRPA compact and make it an elected body.
Finally, I will not support any project unless the developer can show full funding for its completion at its inception. Further, I do not favor redevelopment that will result in the dislocation of the remaining small businesses in our city.
Ted Long: State line to continue in the direction it is going: quality hotels, dining and tourist-related venues, lots of open space and eye appeal. A new marina that would provide slips for locals at less then $50 per month; a place for us all to visit, dine, walk and enjoy.
The “Y” I would like to see any development centered around recreation, parks and open space, supported by locally owned business. A residential theme that allows people to live and play where they work. More bicycle trails and walking trails, maybe another dog park.
In the middle, sidewalks all along Highway 50, with a real bike path, landscaping and good drainage. We need to convert more of the ’60s commercial areas to a more modern design with a mountain feeling. Look at the difference at Ski Run and Highway 50, with the new center being built. Government working with private business can do this — government provides the needed upgrade in infrastructure and private business the development.
Warren Kessler: At present, I would not like to see any more redevelopment until we can work out the kinks so we won’t be in another “hole” (convention center project) situation. Redevelopment means debt, and I don’t think Tahoe is ready for more higher-priced, higher rents for business owners. Highway 50 is littered with empty stores, and I realize new businesses will not be attracted here if they don’t feel they can make it financially.
When Miller’s Outpost, Mikasa and Burger King leave the city, I think it’s an indication there is and has been a direct link to getting everybody up to the casino and ski end of town. I think the businesses in the rest of the town need to upgrade their properties and make them attractive to locals and tourists alike. Tourists like to get away from their city life and vacation here, and the more mountainy and different we are from where they came from, the better off we will be. I’ve traveled this country, and the best places are where the towns are unique and have character.
Hal Cole: By “commercial areas,” I’m assuming you mean the four community plan areas, two of which have significant development (Stateline and Ski Run). The other two, Bijou/Al Tahoe/Lakeview and the “Y,” are in serious need of an upgrade.
First of all, any development needs to be driven by the property owners themselves; the city should not implement redevelopment unilaterally. Secondly, the most efficient projects are done over a large area and not parcel-by-parcel. The city’s Redevelopment Agency can facilitate financing on many projects in these two areas as long as they meet certain criteria and the debt is repaid by 2038. As with the previous projects, water quality, pedestrian access and views must be improved. I’ve been involved with all the redevelopment projects to date, and with the adoption of the South “Y” Community Plan and the renewed interest in Lakeview Avenue and the 56-Acre project, I look forward to helping these property owners invest in their area as well.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 4
Austin Sass: I would like to see the TRPA allow a section of the city to test a three- or four-story building code with the understanding that such a project would result in low-income and deed-restricted housing for locals. This will result in several things, including:
-- A place for the $8- to $15-an-hour employees to live affordably.
-- A place for middle- and entry-level managers to call home for as long as they would like to own a piece of Tahoe.
-- Underground parking would allow for water-runoff filtration and more green space, and ease snow removal for the city.
-- Reduce carbon emissions by servicing these higher-density areas with public transportation.
-- More tax revenues.
-- Increased school enrollment, which ultimately gets us more funding.
-- More locals vested in our community.
Beyond this, I encourage all homeowners to remodel and put in place energy-saving solutions such as new glass, more efficient heating systems, better insulation, fireproof roofs, better landscaping, safer wiring and such.
Jonnie Crawford: My neighborhood doesn’t need to be redeveloped. It does need the government land owners to take care of the lots and land that they own. I mean defensible space and trash removal. The apartments in town should be livable and safe for the renters. I would like to see real neighborhoods that are safe and attractive.
Bruce Grego: In the way that redevelopment has currently been defined, I would not favor it at all. The city of South Lake Tahoe does have programs for lower-income homeowners to upgrade their properties. There is a problem when large redevelopment projects can add multiple stories, extensive coverage and limited parking accommodation when a single family homeowner in our community can’t add on a garage or a second story or an additional bedroom without being put through “the mill” regarding engineering, erosion improvements, limitations of land coverage and all the other requirements of TRPA that prejudices improvements in our local residential areas.
There has been a philosophy in local government that we can work with TRPA and hopefully convince them that providing flexibility in planning is in everyone’s interest. I believe that we have proceeded down this course too long with little to show for it. I will not accept the status quo.
Ted Long: We need affordable, quality work-force housing, where hospital, college, city employees, everyone, can all afford to live in the town they serve. What makes a great community is the contribution of its citizens’ time, mostly after work; many of our citizens have to commute off the hill at that time.
I think we need to look at housing, working with the owners, to reinvent neighborhoods built long ago. Most of our vacant land belongs to the government and is unavailable. There are neighborhoods that have “grown up,” that started as limited-use vacation homes, many prefab homes dropped on a lot or a small cabin, that with the right incentives can be turned into beautiful neighborhoods. Sierra Boulevard for example, a wide boulevard in the middle of our town, could be one of the most beautiful streets in town. Could we bring the landowners together to reinvent it? Town houses, a linear park, bike trails and open space — if we talk about it, we may find a way. I have many more ideas than this space allows.
Warren Kessler: Because many of the areas in the city limits were built way back and as vacation homes, I am not sure how at this point we can improve the neighborhoods with redeveloping them. I think there has to be some pride in where you live, and I believe we can get communities to get that pride back. But we are dealing with homeowners, renters, vacation renters, etc., and they all look at the neighborhoods differently. It’s something I will have to think about and see what ideas and solutions might work.
Hal Cole: First, let me frame the problem as I see it. Many of our neighborhoods such as Bijou, Al Tahoe and the Sierra Tract, were built in the ’50s on small lots and served as summer homes. They were small, usually less than 1,000 square feet, and never intended to be occupied year-round. They now comprise much of the housing for our working families. The biggest impediment I see for the upgrade of these houses is the limited land coverage they are allowed. This has resulted in houses being built taller (to avoid using additional land coverage), with limited parking and decks built illegally after construction.
I have always advocated that land coverage should be determined and mitigated on a project-area basis, not parcel-by-parcel. This is what commercial projects routinely do. Allow people to build homes, decks and parking areas ample enough for a family and at the same time, with an economy of scale neighborhood by neighborhood, build the safeguards needed to keep sediment out of our lake.
-- A place for the $8- to $15-an-hour employees to live affordably.
-- A place for middle- and entry-level managers to call home for as long as they would like to own a piece of Tahoe.
-- Underground parking would allow for water-runoff filtration and more green space, and ease snow removal for the city.
-- Reduce carbon emissions by servicing these higher-density areas with public transportation.
-- More tax revenues.
-- Increased school enrollment, which ultimately gets us more funding.
-- More locals vested in our community.
Beyond this, I encourage all homeowners to remodel and put in place energy-saving solutions such as new glass, more efficient heating systems, better insulation, fireproof roofs, better landscaping, safer wiring and such.
Jonnie Crawford: My neighborhood doesn’t need to be redeveloped. It does need the government land owners to take care of the lots and land that they own. I mean defensible space and trash removal. The apartments in town should be livable and safe for the renters. I would like to see real neighborhoods that are safe and attractive.
Bruce Grego: In the way that redevelopment has currently been defined, I would not favor it at all. The city of South Lake Tahoe does have programs for lower-income homeowners to upgrade their properties. There is a problem when large redevelopment projects can add multiple stories, extensive coverage and limited parking accommodation when a single family homeowner in our community can’t add on a garage or a second story or an additional bedroom without being put through “the mill” regarding engineering, erosion improvements, limitations of land coverage and all the other requirements of TRPA that prejudices improvements in our local residential areas.
There has been a philosophy in local government that we can work with TRPA and hopefully convince them that providing flexibility in planning is in everyone’s interest. I believe that we have proceeded down this course too long with little to show for it. I will not accept the status quo.
Ted Long: We need affordable, quality work-force housing, where hospital, college, city employees, everyone, can all afford to live in the town they serve. What makes a great community is the contribution of its citizens’ time, mostly after work; many of our citizens have to commute off the hill at that time.
I think we need to look at housing, working with the owners, to reinvent neighborhoods built long ago. Most of our vacant land belongs to the government and is unavailable. There are neighborhoods that have “grown up,” that started as limited-use vacation homes, many prefab homes dropped on a lot or a small cabin, that with the right incentives can be turned into beautiful neighborhoods. Sierra Boulevard for example, a wide boulevard in the middle of our town, could be one of the most beautiful streets in town. Could we bring the landowners together to reinvent it? Town houses, a linear park, bike trails and open space — if we talk about it, we may find a way. I have many more ideas than this space allows.
Warren Kessler: Because many of the areas in the city limits were built way back and as vacation homes, I am not sure how at this point we can improve the neighborhoods with redeveloping them. I think there has to be some pride in where you live, and I believe we can get communities to get that pride back. But we are dealing with homeowners, renters, vacation renters, etc., and they all look at the neighborhoods differently. It’s something I will have to think about and see what ideas and solutions might work.
Hal Cole: First, let me frame the problem as I see it. Many of our neighborhoods such as Bijou, Al Tahoe and the Sierra Tract, were built in the ’50s on small lots and served as summer homes. They were small, usually less than 1,000 square feet, and never intended to be occupied year-round. They now comprise much of the housing for our working families. The biggest impediment I see for the upgrade of these houses is the limited land coverage they are allowed. This has resulted in houses being built taller (to avoid using additional land coverage), with limited parking and decks built illegally after construction.
I have always advocated that land coverage should be determined and mitigated on a project-area basis, not parcel-by-parcel. This is what commercial projects routinely do. Allow people to build homes, decks and parking areas ample enough for a family and at the same time, with an economy of scale neighborhood by neighborhood, build the safeguards needed to keep sediment out of our lake.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 5
Austin Sass: It would be great to have a real City Hall; Bijou seems like a good location. However, I would like to see the financials and contractual commitments on any such project before I officially endorse such.
Jonnie Crawford: I believe the City Hall should be in the “center” of the city. And if and when the city has the funds to build a City Hall, either the Bijou Park area or the old Chamber of Commerce area would be perfect. The city is 40 years old and has no City Hall. There are not too many cities that can make that claim.
Bruce Grego: First of all, the FAA would only be concerned about the fact that we are using the airport as our city offices if a commercial airline re-establishes itself at the airport. We have been unsuccessful in establishing a commercial airline for 20 years. And with current environmental restrictions as to noise, and the general decline of the airline industry, I do not see a major airline being established for our airport for many years to come, if any. In the meantime, the city can save money by utilizing this nice facility with ample parking. The city has incurred over $114 million in debt in connection with redevelopment. Should we be adding more debt at this time to relocate the city offices? If someday the city’s activities are no longer appropriate at the airport, then I would be willing to revisit the proposition of relocation. I do not believe this is the time to do anything concerning the relocation of the city offices.
Ted Long: I prefer the original suggestion of the school site along Al Tahoe Boulevard and the relocation of the bus barns. The important thing is to make it a “joint facility.” All levels of government must cut costs — income is static, and costs continue to rise. The best way to save is through consolidations; private business learned that long ago. The county has more than 15 locations here, the city and school district many more. Phone systems, rent, copy machines are duplicated all over town. Think of the community impact: one place to go for all your government needs, surrounded by locally owned small businesses; people attract people. A place to meet, to visit friends and perhaps make some new ones.
Warren Kessler: I am not in favor of building a City Hall anywhere. I really don’t think it is necessary and just an ego trip. The city has functioned and will continue to function out at the airport just fine. We don’t need additional debt at this time, or maybe any time, for a costly project just to spend money. As to how we can convince the FAA about staying there, I will have to research why this is so and what it means. It’s hard to believe that we are ever going to get large commercial airlines here. The locals I have talked to seem to agree that City Hall, where it is, is doing fine.
Hal Cole: A new City Hall, frankly, is not my highest priority. I agree it would be much more convenient to have consolidated facilities that are located in the middle of the city, but until funding is secured, I do not want us to lock ourselves into a project that we cannot afford. I understand that the FAA allowed us to use the airport on an interim basis, and when and if an airline wants to serve the airport, we are mandated to accommodate them. I do not see this happening in the near future. To me, the city’s infrastructure, particularly our streets, should be a higher priority. Bijou Park is a perfect location for city offices, and I do not want to curtail all the work being done to find financing and other partners; however, I will remain open to any other alternative that can be funded more economically.
Jonnie Crawford: I believe the City Hall should be in the “center” of the city. And if and when the city has the funds to build a City Hall, either the Bijou Park area or the old Chamber of Commerce area would be perfect. The city is 40 years old and has no City Hall. There are not too many cities that can make that claim.
Bruce Grego: First of all, the FAA would only be concerned about the fact that we are using the airport as our city offices if a commercial airline re-establishes itself at the airport. We have been unsuccessful in establishing a commercial airline for 20 years. And with current environmental restrictions as to noise, and the general decline of the airline industry, I do not see a major airline being established for our airport for many years to come, if any. In the meantime, the city can save money by utilizing this nice facility with ample parking. The city has incurred over $114 million in debt in connection with redevelopment. Should we be adding more debt at this time to relocate the city offices? If someday the city’s activities are no longer appropriate at the airport, then I would be willing to revisit the proposition of relocation. I do not believe this is the time to do anything concerning the relocation of the city offices.
Ted Long: I prefer the original suggestion of the school site along Al Tahoe Boulevard and the relocation of the bus barns. The important thing is to make it a “joint facility.” All levels of government must cut costs — income is static, and costs continue to rise. The best way to save is through consolidations; private business learned that long ago. The county has more than 15 locations here, the city and school district many more. Phone systems, rent, copy machines are duplicated all over town. Think of the community impact: one place to go for all your government needs, surrounded by locally owned small businesses; people attract people. A place to meet, to visit friends and perhaps make some new ones.
Warren Kessler: I am not in favor of building a City Hall anywhere. I really don’t think it is necessary and just an ego trip. The city has functioned and will continue to function out at the airport just fine. We don’t need additional debt at this time, or maybe any time, for a costly project just to spend money. As to how we can convince the FAA about staying there, I will have to research why this is so and what it means. It’s hard to believe that we are ever going to get large commercial airlines here. The locals I have talked to seem to agree that City Hall, where it is, is doing fine.
Hal Cole: A new City Hall, frankly, is not my highest priority. I agree it would be much more convenient to have consolidated facilities that are located in the middle of the city, but until funding is secured, I do not want us to lock ourselves into a project that we cannot afford. I understand that the FAA allowed us to use the airport on an interim basis, and when and if an airline wants to serve the airport, we are mandated to accommodate them. I do not see this happening in the near future. To me, the city’s infrastructure, particularly our streets, should be a higher priority. Bijou Park is a perfect location for city offices, and I do not want to curtail all the work being done to find financing and other partners; however, I will remain open to any other alternative that can be funded more economically.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 6
Austin Sass: I think we missed an opportunity. I would have wanted a better educational component inside the rental house. I feel this would have resolved many of the issues and put more ownership on the renter. A very prominent message inside the house and with their rental packet could have explained how many people were allowed to sleep in the house, the number of cars allowed to park outside the house and where, hours, penalties for violations, and that these would be strictly enforced. I would have let them know that their resident neighbors had a hot line to call and that the police will respond and fine them. I would have also liked to seen a bearproof trash container mandatory phase-in put in place with a very affordable purchase program sponsored by the city.
I was supportive of outside signage to allow the police and neighbors to know how many cars and overnight guests were allowed.
I would have started with these three changes initially and then revisited the issue if there was not improvement.
Jonnie Crawford: The new vacation-home rental rules have not taken effect yet; I hope the new rules will help keep our neighborhoods more like “our” neighborhoods.
Bruce Grego: I feel further refinement is necessary to balance the rights of property owners in our neighborhoods. When disturbances occur, wherever the source, these disturbances should be dealt with quickly, and when applicable, with serious fines.
I grew up in South Lake Tahoe helping my parents operate a motel in the Stateline area. I know from experience, that even if care is taken in screening guests, some can become abusive, being loud and obnoxious, and bringing additional guests and vehicles beyond those listed in the registration. In my law practice, I have spoken to vacation-rental owners, and I understand the frustration of these owners being cited by the city, yet taking all reasonable and necessary measures in respect to screening renters.
I do not believe it is effective to post signs stating the maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed in vacation-rental situations. I do feel the hiring of a community service officer is in the right direction, but I think it’s important that these officers have clear authority to impose sanctions on the actual violators.
Ted Long: I think the majority missed the point: The issue is noise, parking and trash. To single out vacation rentals is to ignore all the rest of the community that has the problem with full-time residents and renters. What is needed is an equal enforcement of the existing laws. Let’s beef up the support of the enforcement agencies and protect all of us. When the law is broken, does it matter if the property is a vacation renter, a monthly renter or an owner? I think not, if you are the victim of the problem.
Warren Kessler: A vacation rental is evaluated for how many rooms and how many guests it can accommodate. If you have an eight-person capacity, for example, and they drive up in eight cars, there will obviously be a problem with parking overflowing onto the streets. When there is a party or a get-together, even more cars show up. Shortening the late hours might create a situation whereby the excess cars will have to move elsewhere — but where? These cars can’t park on the streets when snow removal is in operation.
I think overall the handling of the situation was done fairly well, considering one shoe doesn’t fit every situation. Vacation rentals need to have some identifying marker; I don’t believe crime will rise, as we already have many homes vacant with real-estate signs. Rental agencies perhaps need to do more in regulating and informing potential renters of the rules. I would give these new rules some time to see if they are working and re-evaluate them. These units are a commercial enterprise in residential neighborhoods. Is that fair to year-round residents?
Hal Cole: Vacation rentals existed in our community long before the city ever got involved, and will remain as long as people own second homes in Tahoe. Before the vacation-rental ordinance was originally adopted, neighborhoods had little recourse for their complaints and, although I was part of the original process to regulate, I have been unhappy with the enforcement. Recent City Council actions strengthened and clarified existing regulations, including:
1. Established a hot line with the police for neighbors’ complaints.
2. Hired a code enforcement officer paid for by increased permit fees.
3. Clarified parking requirements.
4. Strengthened the wording prohibiting any events being held in the homes.
Although there will always be some tension in our neighborhoods between full-time residents and vacationers, I do think the council’s actions will go a long way to reduce it.
Please visit my Web site, halcole.com, to express your opinion on vacation rentals as well as other topics.
I was supportive of outside signage to allow the police and neighbors to know how many cars and overnight guests were allowed.
I would have started with these three changes initially and then revisited the issue if there was not improvement.
Jonnie Crawford: The new vacation-home rental rules have not taken effect yet; I hope the new rules will help keep our neighborhoods more like “our” neighborhoods.
Bruce Grego: I feel further refinement is necessary to balance the rights of property owners in our neighborhoods. When disturbances occur, wherever the source, these disturbances should be dealt with quickly, and when applicable, with serious fines.
I grew up in South Lake Tahoe helping my parents operate a motel in the Stateline area. I know from experience, that even if care is taken in screening guests, some can become abusive, being loud and obnoxious, and bringing additional guests and vehicles beyond those listed in the registration. In my law practice, I have spoken to vacation-rental owners, and I understand the frustration of these owners being cited by the city, yet taking all reasonable and necessary measures in respect to screening renters.
I do not believe it is effective to post signs stating the maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed in vacation-rental situations. I do feel the hiring of a community service officer is in the right direction, but I think it’s important that these officers have clear authority to impose sanctions on the actual violators.
Ted Long: I think the majority missed the point: The issue is noise, parking and trash. To single out vacation rentals is to ignore all the rest of the community that has the problem with full-time residents and renters. What is needed is an equal enforcement of the existing laws. Let’s beef up the support of the enforcement agencies and protect all of us. When the law is broken, does it matter if the property is a vacation renter, a monthly renter or an owner? I think not, if you are the victim of the problem.
Warren Kessler: A vacation rental is evaluated for how many rooms and how many guests it can accommodate. If you have an eight-person capacity, for example, and they drive up in eight cars, there will obviously be a problem with parking overflowing onto the streets. When there is a party or a get-together, even more cars show up. Shortening the late hours might create a situation whereby the excess cars will have to move elsewhere — but where? These cars can’t park on the streets when snow removal is in operation.
I think overall the handling of the situation was done fairly well, considering one shoe doesn’t fit every situation. Vacation rentals need to have some identifying marker; I don’t believe crime will rise, as we already have many homes vacant with real-estate signs. Rental agencies perhaps need to do more in regulating and informing potential renters of the rules. I would give these new rules some time to see if they are working and re-evaluate them. These units are a commercial enterprise in residential neighborhoods. Is that fair to year-round residents?
Hal Cole: Vacation rentals existed in our community long before the city ever got involved, and will remain as long as people own second homes in Tahoe. Before the vacation-rental ordinance was originally adopted, neighborhoods had little recourse for their complaints and, although I was part of the original process to regulate, I have been unhappy with the enforcement. Recent City Council actions strengthened and clarified existing regulations, including:
1. Established a hot line with the police for neighbors’ complaints.
2. Hired a code enforcement officer paid for by increased permit fees.
3. Clarified parking requirements.
4. Strengthened the wording prohibiting any events being held in the homes.
Although there will always be some tension in our neighborhoods between full-time residents and vacationers, I do think the council’s actions will go a long way to reduce it.
Please visit my Web site, halcole.com, to express your opinion on vacation rentals as well as other topics.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 7
Austin Sass: Yes, a novel idea: sidewalks in a city. A way for folks to walk without stepping in mud or plowed snow and be safe. It’s really a no-brainer, isn’t it?
As I understand the regulations, all new construction must have sidewalks. So the issue is current businesses that don’t have them and the parcels that aren’t owned by commercial entities. I believe these parcels all have easements that allow for a sidewalk, but then it becomes complicated. Over the years, Highway 50 has widened at points and has pushed the easements back toward the commercial structures, reducing the distance between the street and the building. I understand that there are utility lines running under some of these easements. So, my point is, it’s not as simple as just saying, “Let’s put sidewalks in.”
Now we are down to funding and working with Caltrans, utilities and landlords/tenants to make this happen citywide. Next step, get everyone affected in the same room, create a task force and let’s determine cost and what grants and Caltrans funds are available.
Jonnie Crawford: I believe that the city is not the only party involved. Caltrans has an easement, and the businesses along the highway have to be involved. When the project is built, it will be very costly — not only to build, but to maintain.
Bruce Grego: I believe sidewalks should be a continuing high priority of the city. For too long, our citizens have suffered due to the lack of sidewalks and are endangered, during the winter, where there is no place to walk along Highway 50.
In the 1980s, when I was on the Planning Commission, I did support year-round maintained sidewalks. In reviewing the matter at this time, it is funding that is the obstacle, not Caltrans as has been suggested. I will continue to explore further avenues for funding until this project is complete.
Ted Long: I have worked on this issue for four years; the highway and right-of-way belong to the state of California. And we as a city are powerless to act separately. If re-elected, I will continue to use the contacts I have made throughout the state and to make the trips to Sacramento to fight for these sidewalks. I consider the issue of priority importance and will not stop until we have not only sidewalks, but safe bike paths and landscaping.
Warren Kessler: I don’t believe we even have a need for sidewalks, curbs or street lighting along Highway 50. To spend $40 million (or whatever figure) on sidewalks is ridiculous without an ordinance to make sidewalk snow removal mandatory by the property owner. I have seen for 25 years and continue to see people trudging along in the roadway full of slush, getting splashed and in danger of getting hit because the existing sidewalks haven’t been cleared. And after a day or two, that snow has turned to ice. Most cities and towns have that type of ordinance and enforce it. In addition, If you drive from the “Y” to Stateline, you will notice that about 80 percent of that distance already has sidewalks and curbs. Another waste of money!
Hal Cole: Sidewalks don’t get built without Caltrans involvement, and from my experience, they do nothing quickly. We do have one project that has been approved and funded. It will connect Trout Creek and Ski Run Boulevard. This project has been in the planning stages for years. It will be bid on in 2009, construction will begin in 2010 and completion scheduled for 2012. This represents almost 10 years from planning to completion.
As I understand the regulations, all new construction must have sidewalks. So the issue is current businesses that don’t have them and the parcels that aren’t owned by commercial entities. I believe these parcels all have easements that allow for a sidewalk, but then it becomes complicated. Over the years, Highway 50 has widened at points and has pushed the easements back toward the commercial structures, reducing the distance between the street and the building. I understand that there are utility lines running under some of these easements. So, my point is, it’s not as simple as just saying, “Let’s put sidewalks in.”
Now we are down to funding and working with Caltrans, utilities and landlords/tenants to make this happen citywide. Next step, get everyone affected in the same room, create a task force and let’s determine cost and what grants and Caltrans funds are available.
Jonnie Crawford: I believe that the city is not the only party involved. Caltrans has an easement, and the businesses along the highway have to be involved. When the project is built, it will be very costly — not only to build, but to maintain.
Bruce Grego: I believe sidewalks should be a continuing high priority of the city. For too long, our citizens have suffered due to the lack of sidewalks and are endangered, during the winter, where there is no place to walk along Highway 50.
In the 1980s, when I was on the Planning Commission, I did support year-round maintained sidewalks. In reviewing the matter at this time, it is funding that is the obstacle, not Caltrans as has been suggested. I will continue to explore further avenues for funding until this project is complete.
Ted Long: I have worked on this issue for four years; the highway and right-of-way belong to the state of California. And we as a city are powerless to act separately. If re-elected, I will continue to use the contacts I have made throughout the state and to make the trips to Sacramento to fight for these sidewalks. I consider the issue of priority importance and will not stop until we have not only sidewalks, but safe bike paths and landscaping.
Warren Kessler: I don’t believe we even have a need for sidewalks, curbs or street lighting along Highway 50. To spend $40 million (or whatever figure) on sidewalks is ridiculous without an ordinance to make sidewalk snow removal mandatory by the property owner. I have seen for 25 years and continue to see people trudging along in the roadway full of slush, getting splashed and in danger of getting hit because the existing sidewalks haven’t been cleared. And after a day or two, that snow has turned to ice. Most cities and towns have that type of ordinance and enforce it. In addition, If you drive from the “Y” to Stateline, you will notice that about 80 percent of that distance already has sidewalks and curbs. Another waste of money!
Hal Cole: Sidewalks don’t get built without Caltrans involvement, and from my experience, they do nothing quickly. We do have one project that has been approved and funded. It will connect Trout Creek and Ski Run Boulevard. This project has been in the planning stages for years. It will be bid on in 2009, construction will begin in 2010 and completion scheduled for 2012. This represents almost 10 years from planning to completion.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 8
Austin Sass: I would start with making ridership free for anyone who has a school ID. I recently spoke with the Hispanic community, and they pointed out that many parents are working two jobs and are not able to drive their kids to recreational and school activities. The cost for them to publicly transport their children to rec centers and then pay to get inside is not doable.
I would also like public transportation routes added to our schools, play fields and recreational centers. There are many parents (myself included) driving all over town to pick up their kids at numerous activities like dance, sports and the Boys & Girls Club. We should add some covered bus shelters at key locations so children could wait safely and comfortably for their parents to get them. I’m sure the police department could drive by regularly and keep an eye on things.
Growing up in New York City, I rode city buses and trains all over the city, and South Lake Tahoe is a lot safer than New York.
Jonnie Crawford: The transit system is in transition. New management is experimenting with new routes and schedules, selling tokens to cut costs and time of paper fares. The city is cooperating with the new management.
Bruce Grego: I believe that a public transportation system cannot be effective unless it runs often and regularly and can be relied upon by the user at reasonable rates. I believe that we should have a public transportation system, whether government-run, or a combination with private enterprise, that serves the entire basin. One system. Perhaps money can be saved if a united system can be developed. Also, encouraging larger businesses in our area to provide incentives for their employees to use the system would be helpful.
Ted Long: We must have a reliable, convenient, inexpensive service. I have proposed a light-rail service that goes from the airport to Stateline and to the Camp Richardson area. A comfortable trolley, on a fixed schedule that is fun to ride. That, connected by feeder routes would make it easy to use. I have asked the city manager to include in the next citywide survey the question: “What would it take to get you to ride public transit?” I hope that we can get the answer to your question from the residents and potential users.
Warren Kessler: There are always locals in town who do not have cars and, with higher gas prices, some with cars won’t use them unless necessary. I think certain areas are not readily available to riders, and maybe we need to examine where our potential riders are so maybe we can reroute the buses to cover these areas. It might add a minute or two to go out of the usual route. Perhaps a route that covers Tahoe Keys Boulevard, Tahoe Island Park, parts of Sierra Tract and Al Tahoe. The working locals who usually ride the buses are the people with the least to spend on transportation. Maybe special discounted passes for monthly or frequent riders should be available.
Hal Cole: Our public transportation system is at a crossroads. Our existing routes are not adequate, and the existing buses are showing their age. I believe given the high gas prices, our community would embrace a clean, efficient bus system.
I understand that the city has ordered three new buses at a cost of $1.5 million (federal and state grant funds). These will be state-of-the-art with wider seats, music and newspapers on board. If we couple new buses with reliable service from Stateline to Meyers, add new routes into underserved areas like Sierra Tract and the high school, consolidate the management of the system and include the existing service from the bottom of Kingsbury to Stateline, I believe we will see ridership increase dramatically.
I would also like public transportation routes added to our schools, play fields and recreational centers. There are many parents (myself included) driving all over town to pick up their kids at numerous activities like dance, sports and the Boys & Girls Club. We should add some covered bus shelters at key locations so children could wait safely and comfortably for their parents to get them. I’m sure the police department could drive by regularly and keep an eye on things.
Growing up in New York City, I rode city buses and trains all over the city, and South Lake Tahoe is a lot safer than New York.
Jonnie Crawford: The transit system is in transition. New management is experimenting with new routes and schedules, selling tokens to cut costs and time of paper fares. The city is cooperating with the new management.
Bruce Grego: I believe that a public transportation system cannot be effective unless it runs often and regularly and can be relied upon by the user at reasonable rates. I believe that we should have a public transportation system, whether government-run, or a combination with private enterprise, that serves the entire basin. One system. Perhaps money can be saved if a united system can be developed. Also, encouraging larger businesses in our area to provide incentives for their employees to use the system would be helpful.
Ted Long: We must have a reliable, convenient, inexpensive service. I have proposed a light-rail service that goes from the airport to Stateline and to the Camp Richardson area. A comfortable trolley, on a fixed schedule that is fun to ride. That, connected by feeder routes would make it easy to use. I have asked the city manager to include in the next citywide survey the question: “What would it take to get you to ride public transit?” I hope that we can get the answer to your question from the residents and potential users.
Warren Kessler: There are always locals in town who do not have cars and, with higher gas prices, some with cars won’t use them unless necessary. I think certain areas are not readily available to riders, and maybe we need to examine where our potential riders are so maybe we can reroute the buses to cover these areas. It might add a minute or two to go out of the usual route. Perhaps a route that covers Tahoe Keys Boulevard, Tahoe Island Park, parts of Sierra Tract and Al Tahoe. The working locals who usually ride the buses are the people with the least to spend on transportation. Maybe special discounted passes for monthly or frequent riders should be available.
Hal Cole: Our public transportation system is at a crossroads. Our existing routes are not adequate, and the existing buses are showing their age. I believe given the high gas prices, our community would embrace a clean, efficient bus system.
I understand that the city has ordered three new buses at a cost of $1.5 million (federal and state grant funds). These will be state-of-the-art with wider seats, music and newspapers on board. If we couple new buses with reliable service from Stateline to Meyers, add new routes into underserved areas like Sierra Tract and the high school, consolidate the management of the system and include the existing service from the bottom of Kingsbury to Stateline, I believe we will see ridership increase dramatically.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 9
Austin Sass: I have not launched a boat in Lake Tahoe in more than 20 years and I have not personally reviewed the mussel inspection process, so I’m not the best one to ask.
I know that the Tahoe Resource Conservation District and TRPA did training in May for the inspection process that started in June. I spoke to several tourists this summer who did launch their boat, and they thought the inspectors were thorough. In fact, one from Sacramento had their boat quarantined. They were frustrated, but not mad at the regulatory agencies.
Obviously, we do not want these invasive species in our lake because of the damage they do to the environment and the species in the lake. As I understand it, the city does not have the authority to conduct marine inspections for this type of issue. If on the council, I would vote for a resolution that would support the TRPA and TRDC’s efforts.
Jonnie Crawford: Do I think enough is being done to prevent invasive mussels from getting into Lake Tahoe? The answer is “no.” I applaud the TRPA’s new rules requiring the closure of Lake Tahoe boat ramps when inspectors are not on duty. Quagga mussels can survive out of water for up to five days. They consume so much plant life that water turns clear, allowing sunlight to increase the growth of blue-green algae that can cause taste and odor problems in drinking water. A healthy female can produce as many as 1 million larvae (microscopic) a year.
Bruce Grego: No. The quality of our lake needs to be preserved. I do not feel that the interim measures represent a fail-safe approach. It is my view that having checkpoints for boats as they first come into the basin would be more effective, involve fewer personnel and avoid duplicate inspections of boats that have not left the basin. By having boats checked as they first enter the basin, boats will then be able to enter and exit the lake at all times of day, and there will be less inconvenience to the public, the marinas and private boat-launch owners. The system presently proposed cannot address situations where boats enter the lake during times when there is no one monitoring the condition of these boats.
Ted Long: Until we are sure that nothing gets by, we have not done enough. I suggested to TRPA that the existing bug station on the California side be used as an automatic boat wash. Every boat coming into the basin simply drives through and is washed. It takes only a few minutes and the facility is already there, serving little purpose at the moment.
Warren Kessler: Since the lake is divided into so many jurisdictions and agencies, I can only speak for the city area. We start at Stateline and work down to the Keys Marina and that is the extent of our coverage. Only the Eldorado Beach boat ramp is city-operated and where we can offer examination. The rest are privately owned marinas within the city limits. I believe the agency in charge of inspections can do a good job for the number of hours they are there; however, are those adequate to cover around the clock? And what about boat owners who moor in the Keys or other marinas, either owning the slips or renting them out? We need to be sure they are not being overlooked and relying on trailered boats as the root cause. Perhaps, a city site for inspections, where a dated inspection sticker could be applied to the boat before launching for a small nominal fee to cover inspection costs. Lake Tahoe is a federal lake and maybe there could be some uniform federal law applied evenly around the lake.
Hal Cole: The present policy as I understand it is to inspect all new boats entering the lake, verifying that they are clean, drained of all water in their bilges and dry. If not, decontamination will be required. Given the present information, this strategy is consistent with what other Western waterways are doing. I have seen the effects of other aquatic invasive species on our lake, such as milfoil, and preventing it from getting started is much easier than trying to remove it after it takes hold.
I know that the Tahoe Resource Conservation District and TRPA did training in May for the inspection process that started in June. I spoke to several tourists this summer who did launch their boat, and they thought the inspectors were thorough. In fact, one from Sacramento had their boat quarantined. They were frustrated, but not mad at the regulatory agencies.
Obviously, we do not want these invasive species in our lake because of the damage they do to the environment and the species in the lake. As I understand it, the city does not have the authority to conduct marine inspections for this type of issue. If on the council, I would vote for a resolution that would support the TRPA and TRDC’s efforts.
Jonnie Crawford: Do I think enough is being done to prevent invasive mussels from getting into Lake Tahoe? The answer is “no.” I applaud the TRPA’s new rules requiring the closure of Lake Tahoe boat ramps when inspectors are not on duty. Quagga mussels can survive out of water for up to five days. They consume so much plant life that water turns clear, allowing sunlight to increase the growth of blue-green algae that can cause taste and odor problems in drinking water. A healthy female can produce as many as 1 million larvae (microscopic) a year.
Bruce Grego: No. The quality of our lake needs to be preserved. I do not feel that the interim measures represent a fail-safe approach. It is my view that having checkpoints for boats as they first come into the basin would be more effective, involve fewer personnel and avoid duplicate inspections of boats that have not left the basin. By having boats checked as they first enter the basin, boats will then be able to enter and exit the lake at all times of day, and there will be less inconvenience to the public, the marinas and private boat-launch owners. The system presently proposed cannot address situations where boats enter the lake during times when there is no one monitoring the condition of these boats.
Ted Long: Until we are sure that nothing gets by, we have not done enough. I suggested to TRPA that the existing bug station on the California side be used as an automatic boat wash. Every boat coming into the basin simply drives through and is washed. It takes only a few minutes and the facility is already there, serving little purpose at the moment.
Warren Kessler: Since the lake is divided into so many jurisdictions and agencies, I can only speak for the city area. We start at Stateline and work down to the Keys Marina and that is the extent of our coverage. Only the Eldorado Beach boat ramp is city-operated and where we can offer examination. The rest are privately owned marinas within the city limits. I believe the agency in charge of inspections can do a good job for the number of hours they are there; however, are those adequate to cover around the clock? And what about boat owners who moor in the Keys or other marinas, either owning the slips or renting them out? We need to be sure they are not being overlooked and relying on trailered boats as the root cause. Perhaps, a city site for inspections, where a dated inspection sticker could be applied to the boat before launching for a small nominal fee to cover inspection costs. Lake Tahoe is a federal lake and maybe there could be some uniform federal law applied evenly around the lake.
Hal Cole: The present policy as I understand it is to inspect all new boats entering the lake, verifying that they are clean, drained of all water in their bilges and dry. If not, decontamination will be required. Given the present information, this strategy is consistent with what other Western waterways are doing. I have seen the effects of other aquatic invasive species on our lake, such as milfoil, and preventing it from getting started is much easier than trying to remove it after it takes hold.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 10
Austin Sass: A 2006-07 study indicated that the airport could produce millions of dollars a year in tourism spending with commercial service reinstituted. To me, that is a nice upside to the airport. In fact, Mammoth recently announced commercial service to L.A. If we want to compete for summer and winter business with the mountain towns in Colorado and Utah, Mammoth, Whistler, etc., we must have an airport.
Recently, we had approximately 10,000 people come out for the Tahoe air show. I would call that a successful event. We now have helicopter tours and an air-taxi service that can fly within a 600-mile radius of Tahoe. It is also being used for safety matters like air search and rescue, firefighting and air-ambulance service. Perhaps the most important reason we should have an airport.
Environmentally, the airport runway was just made narrower, improving the stream environment zone. New aircraft are less noisy and more fuel- efficient.
Yes, I support an airport.
Jonnie Crawford: Do we — the city — need and want the airport? I think the answer is “yes.” The Angora fire shows how important the airport is, not to mention the Heavenly fire and Hope Valley fire. I believe that Douglas and El Dorado counties should help fund the airport so that the cost for the city goes down. The FAA is financing the new runway.
Bruce Grego: Yes. The city needs to continue to support the airport. While commercial service to our airport is not likely, the airport serves other purposes, such as for emergency use. It was also used to help extinguish the Angora fire. It would be foolish to abandon this valuable asset. Also, if we abandon the airport, we will have to pay all the grants that have been provided by the FAA in support of this airport. Finally, some of the costs of the airport can be offset if we continue to use the airport for city offices, which I support.
Ted Long: No, it’s time that the county participated and that we return the airport to economic independence. This can be done by expanding the current hangar-rental programs and commercial tenants and by getting regional air service. With gas prices continuing to grow and the automobile threatening our environment, we need to move large numbers of people more efficiently; the airport in partnership with regional carriers can do this. There are examples all over the country — more and more smaller communities are getting service; combined with public transit, greenhouse gases are cut and travel made easy.
Warren Kessler: My view is that we are spending far too much money to keep this airport operating. I am sure that if we investigate the operation and costs currently being spent, we can reduce this amount. With this possible convention center ever being built, and no commercial service to Tahoe, only private and charter flights will be here. The conventioneers will fly into Reno, either taking a bus or renting a car. I believe the new City Council should make the appropriate arrangements to have our airport used as storage for retardants here to fight fires. Right now, the tankers must fly in from Minden, drop their load, fly back to Minden, land, load up, take off and fly back to Tahoe. Time wasted! How many houses might have been spared with our air tankers and supplies here?
Hal Cole: First of all, I want to get our numbers accurate. For the fiscal year 2006–07, the total general fund transfer to the airport was $373,000. In addition, the city and Redevelopment Agency pay rent to the airport, which also helps offset airport operations.
Secondly, the airport is presently undergoing a $7 million reconstruction project to rebuild the runways and tarmac. This project includes erosion control and restoration components. The city’s contribution was under $200,000.
Given the money invested to date, and the fact that both interest in our airport from new providers and airport revenues are growing, I support our continuing funding of the Lake Tahoe Airport.
Recently, we had approximately 10,000 people come out for the Tahoe air show. I would call that a successful event. We now have helicopter tours and an air-taxi service that can fly within a 600-mile radius of Tahoe. It is also being used for safety matters like air search and rescue, firefighting and air-ambulance service. Perhaps the most important reason we should have an airport.
Environmentally, the airport runway was just made narrower, improving the stream environment zone. New aircraft are less noisy and more fuel- efficient.
Yes, I support an airport.
Jonnie Crawford: Do we — the city — need and want the airport? I think the answer is “yes.” The Angora fire shows how important the airport is, not to mention the Heavenly fire and Hope Valley fire. I believe that Douglas and El Dorado counties should help fund the airport so that the cost for the city goes down. The FAA is financing the new runway.
Bruce Grego: Yes. The city needs to continue to support the airport. While commercial service to our airport is not likely, the airport serves other purposes, such as for emergency use. It was also used to help extinguish the Angora fire. It would be foolish to abandon this valuable asset. Also, if we abandon the airport, we will have to pay all the grants that have been provided by the FAA in support of this airport. Finally, some of the costs of the airport can be offset if we continue to use the airport for city offices, which I support.
Ted Long: No, it’s time that the county participated and that we return the airport to economic independence. This can be done by expanding the current hangar-rental programs and commercial tenants and by getting regional air service. With gas prices continuing to grow and the automobile threatening our environment, we need to move large numbers of people more efficiently; the airport in partnership with regional carriers can do this. There are examples all over the country — more and more smaller communities are getting service; combined with public transit, greenhouse gases are cut and travel made easy.
Warren Kessler: My view is that we are spending far too much money to keep this airport operating. I am sure that if we investigate the operation and costs currently being spent, we can reduce this amount. With this possible convention center ever being built, and no commercial service to Tahoe, only private and charter flights will be here. The conventioneers will fly into Reno, either taking a bus or renting a car. I believe the new City Council should make the appropriate arrangements to have our airport used as storage for retardants here to fight fires. Right now, the tankers must fly in from Minden, drop their load, fly back to Minden, land, load up, take off and fly back to Tahoe. Time wasted! How many houses might have been spared with our air tankers and supplies here?
Hal Cole: First of all, I want to get our numbers accurate. For the fiscal year 2006–07, the total general fund transfer to the airport was $373,000. In addition, the city and Redevelopment Agency pay rent to the airport, which also helps offset airport operations.
Secondly, the airport is presently undergoing a $7 million reconstruction project to rebuild the runways and tarmac. This project includes erosion control and restoration components. The city’s contribution was under $200,000.
Given the money invested to date, and the fact that both interest in our airport from new providers and airport revenues are growing, I support our continuing funding of the Lake Tahoe Airport.
Click candidate to hear answer to Question 11
Austin Sass: Absolutely. The goal is to produce the first-ever comprehensive economic prosperity plan for Tahoe that will provide guidance for various entities: government, institutions, nonprofits and business to facilitate their working together to achieve the vision for long-term sustainable economic growth with higher-paying jobs. Part of the scope of work is to write a plan providing a conversion for communities to have their own identity beyond tourism. The end goal is a statement of current conditions, a vision for future prosperity, an implementation plan to achieve the vision and success measures.
Given the number of people who are ambivalent to what is going on and who do not understand our economy, we need this report. I’m a firm believer that education and information give our citizens and businesses the insight to become aware and consequently, involved.
I would want this report clearly summarized and communicated to registered voters and businesses within the city. It might make sense for our high school to make it part of the curriculum; these students are Tahoe’s future if they understand the opportunities.
Jonnie Crawford: The Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber is asking the city for $10,000 for a basinwide economic study. I ask what is an economic study — and what will be studied? Are Placer, Washoe, Douglas and El Dorado counties involved in this? These are a few of the questions I would like answered before I would consider a contribution of $10,000.
Bruce Grego: No. I feel that too much public money is being used for studies, instead of action. There are many individuals at the South Shore who have extensive understanding of business, and I feel that a study will not add to the body of knowledge currently available. If any monies are to be spent for promotional programs, they should be for defined objectives with measurable results.
Ted Long: Yes. While we have looked at the question from a city standpoint, we have not looked at it basinwide. While I am reluctant to endorse studies, when you can get 10 times your investment paid by others and the subject is one that benefits us all, I feel we should move ahead. Our community needs to be engaged in a serious look at our economic future. While we will always be a tourist destination, we need to expand to high-tech and environmental sciences. I have had several meetings with high-tech companies, and one of the first questions they ask is, “How are the schools?” Good schools and a strong economic base will help greatly to attract these industries. Having good information will be important.
Warren Kessler: First of all, I do not think the Chamber of Commerce should receive any funds from the city, large or small. I believe they should be operated on funds from membership and not be subsidized by city money. If the chamber needs more money, then they should promote themselves and recruit more members as is done in almost every city. If the figure that only one business in four is a chamber member is accurate, then there is something wrong and they need to get more members to make them self-sustaining. I also do not like the idea of sending city money to any out-of-state organization.
Hal Cole: I have always resisted hiring consultants or preparing studies when I think the outcome is obvious. We commissioned a similar economic study in 2006 with a major conclusion being: The biggest impediment to our local businesses is the over-regulatory environment. I think most of us in business knew that already. As far as this particular study goes, I would support the city contributing the $10,000 out of the total of $120,000 or more, primarily because I think our money is leveraged quite well and to promote a spirit of partnership with the other agencies participating. Who knows, maybe we’ll all learn something.
Given the number of people who are ambivalent to what is going on and who do not understand our economy, we need this report. I’m a firm believer that education and information give our citizens and businesses the insight to become aware and consequently, involved.
I would want this report clearly summarized and communicated to registered voters and businesses within the city. It might make sense for our high school to make it part of the curriculum; these students are Tahoe’s future if they understand the opportunities.
Jonnie Crawford: The Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber is asking the city for $10,000 for a basinwide economic study. I ask what is an economic study — and what will be studied? Are Placer, Washoe, Douglas and El Dorado counties involved in this? These are a few of the questions I would like answered before I would consider a contribution of $10,000.
Bruce Grego: No. I feel that too much public money is being used for studies, instead of action. There are many individuals at the South Shore who have extensive understanding of business, and I feel that a study will not add to the body of knowledge currently available. If any monies are to be spent for promotional programs, they should be for defined objectives with measurable results.
Ted Long: Yes. While we have looked at the question from a city standpoint, we have not looked at it basinwide. While I am reluctant to endorse studies, when you can get 10 times your investment paid by others and the subject is one that benefits us all, I feel we should move ahead. Our community needs to be engaged in a serious look at our economic future. While we will always be a tourist destination, we need to expand to high-tech and environmental sciences. I have had several meetings with high-tech companies, and one of the first questions they ask is, “How are the schools?” Good schools and a strong economic base will help greatly to attract these industries. Having good information will be important.
Warren Kessler: First of all, I do not think the Chamber of Commerce should receive any funds from the city, large or small. I believe they should be operated on funds from membership and not be subsidized by city money. If the chamber needs more money, then they should promote themselves and recruit more members as is done in almost every city. If the figure that only one business in four is a chamber member is accurate, then there is something wrong and they need to get more members to make them self-sustaining. I also do not like the idea of sending city money to any out-of-state organization.
Hal Cole: I have always resisted hiring consultants or preparing studies when I think the outcome is obvious. We commissioned a similar economic study in 2006 with a major conclusion being: The biggest impediment to our local businesses is the over-regulatory environment. I think most of us in business knew that already. As far as this particular study goes, I would support the city contributing the $10,000 out of the total of $120,000 or more, primarily because I think our money is leveraged quite well and to promote a spirit of partnership with the other agencies participating. Who knows, maybe we’ll all learn something.
