Vote ‘yes’ on Measure P
As long as the city council fails to listen to the people that live and vote in SLT, we will continue to have citizens that challenge the dictates of our elected officials. Very often those we elect make decisions based on creative accounting and blue-sky projected revenue proposed by management. The paid parking program was just such a scheme that promised to deliver revenue by charging steep hourly meter rates and almost 2,000 $55 parking tickets written in less than 90 days last summer. With no risk analysis going into the program and no exit strategy if it failed, the city is currently storing nearly half of the meters at the airport, with $191,000 still due on the loan. Another failed government enterprise paid for by the taxpayers of SLT.
Measure “P” that is currently before the voters was voluntarily placed on the ballot by the city council, with the clear intent of persuading the voters to come to the city’s side on this issue.
In the meantime, the city is spending more taxpayer dollars on an “information” campaign to defeat Measure P with the purchase of advertising in the local media. This is the same city council that just raised local telephone fees, business license fees and paid $5,000 for a survey to determine if the community is willing to pay more and higher fees and taxes. Where will it end?
By voting yes on Measure P you will be sending the city leaders the message that it is the people that own this town and that they want a voice in decisions that affect them.
Vote “yes” on Measure P and take back our streets and beaches for the people that live here.
South Lake Tahoe
Clarifying stance on Tahoe issues
I am writing in response to an interview with another media source that mistakenly misquoted me in their recent publication. I said that the TRPA with their new RPU are changing the way they do business, giving back local control is a step in the right direction and I support that. Saying that I support the RPU in general is too complex an issue to address in a simple phone conversation. On the topic of the Loop road, I said that if it is done properly it would not hurt business. I said I spoke to my State Senators office and he supports it if done right. There are always two sides to any proposed project, my opinion is just mine. Saying I only spoke to two people that oppose it is news to me.
I will say that I have been pleased with most of the media coverage of this race so far. Most sources have been very fair with few mistakes or personal attacks. I do not support negative campaigning and thank all media sources for their coverage on all of us. And thank you to the Tahoe Tribune for letting me submit this clarification.
District 5 Supervisor Candidate
Tips for the next county supervisor
The races for political office at all levels of government are now really in full swing. The would-be politicians and ones wanting to keep their seats will now be working extra hard for the rest of this year to convince you that they are the one who cares about you and the things that matter to you. Let me focus my attention here on the race to succeed our elected County Supervisor.
I hope our new County Supervisor will do the following for us:
Focus on building a stronger environmentally friendly local and County economy for all who live and work here;
Focus on what is good for all residents of the District;
Be someone who can and will work with the Board of Supervisors to achieve their and our goals;
Don’t become a “politician” just because you are elected to office. Keep your ear to the ground and be a problem solver. Listen and try to help all of your constituents, not just those with lots of money or other special interests with paid lobbyists, PAC’s and big campaign donations;
Don’t make issues personal or resort to name calling;
Improve government revenues by encouraging and supporting economic growth and local prosperity, not by raising taxes, fees and charges; and
Listen to, respect, and respond to the concerns of District residents, property owners, and business owners and operators all of the time, not just when you are running for office.
I wish all those who enter the race good fortune and thank them for their interest in elected office and for their desire to serve their community.
South Lake Tahoe
Vote No on Measure P
5 Reasons to Vote No on Measure P (and retain the City’s Paid Parking Program)
1. Encourages biking, walking, carpooling - all healthy, environmentally-friendly alternatives that help reduce traffic during our busy summer months.
2. This is a new program (started in mid-summer 2013). Give it a chance to work. We’ll know better how much annual net revenue it can generate after it has been in place for a full year or two.
3. The City has been willing to change the paid parking program to reduce the most unpopular impacts to local residents (e.g. locals’ parking pass, reduced hours, keeping some beach parking areas free).
4. Provides a new, ongoing source of funding for maintenance of popular recreational improvements such as Lakeview Commons. It’s been easier to get State taxpayer $ to construct new facilities than to develop reliable local funding to maintain these attractive facilities. If we like these new facilities, we need to pay for upkeep.
5. Paid parking is a user fee. It is good public policy to have users pay more for a facility or convenience they use, than non-users. Without user fees, the maintenance burden is borne by all taxpayers. Paid parking is a fee paid by those who make a choice to park closest to popular facilities.
It is hard for politicians to develop (and for residents to accept) new fees and funding to maintain City facilities. Replacing parking revenue with other (new, but problem-free) funding sources is not likely. This parking program generates much of its revenue from tourists accustomed to paying for parking. Let’s acknowledge (and keep the pressure on City Council to minimize) inconveniences to locals. Join me and other City voters in rejecting the call to kill a program that just started. Vote No on Measure P.
South Lake Tahoe
Vote Yes on Measure P
As a city council member in November 2012, I voted against the paid parking program and will vote YES on Measure P to continue my opposition to having parking meters in our city. Why? First, this program changes the character of our neighborhoods. Due to residential parking restrictions, residents in the immediate areas adjacent to paid parking can’t park in front of their own homes without obtaining a permit from the City.
Second, any actual revenue realized from the program will come from parking fines.....this has a negative impact both with tourists and locals.
Finally, this program has only been in effect for 11 months, yet the City is trying to give you the impression that it is an indispensable revenue program to maintain City Services. How can this be? How did the City fund their services before paid parking? And in speaking about revenue, the City ignores the true costs of this program, from acquisitions of metering equipment to the hiring of additional employees, in trying to convince you to oppose this program. This program does not make money for the City and will not support any new programs.
This is a failed program and you, the Voter, have the opportunity to stop this paid parking program by voting YES ON P. Thank you.
South Lake Tahoe