Letters | TahoeDailyTribune.com


County manager botches library issue

Editor’s note: The following letter was addressed to Mr. Daniel Holler, Douglas County manager, and appears here at the author’s request.

To the editor:

My calendar shows that it is the middle of March and the citizens of the Lake Tahoe portion of Douglas County have not heard from you as promised. On Jan. 20, you promised the citizens of Lake Tahoe that you would disclose your review of the relocation of Patty Timmens back to the Lake Tahoe Branch Library at the end of February. This lack of interest in the concerns of the Lake Tahoe residents shows me that you don’t care how we feel, what our issues are, and that issues in the Carson Valley are much more important to you than those at the lake.

You say that there are no “Lake vs. Valley” issues, and that everyone is treated the same. This blatant disregard for promises made to the lake residents disputes this claim.

I would be interested to know if you have even looked into this situation as you promised. Are you too busy with valley issues to concern yourself with the issues presented at the public forum on Jan. 20? You stated, and I quote, “But if we don’t do what people ask, it doesn’t mean that we aren’t listening.” I don’t believe you are listening to the concerns of residents at Lake Tahoe. I hope that you will prove me wrong.

I am enclosing a copy of the newspaper article quoting you, as a reminder of what you promised the citizens of Lake Tahoe. I do hope that we hear from you in the near future. I am sure that other citizens of the Lake Tahoe area would join me in letting you know how disappointed I am that you do not care to keep your promises to us. Does this mean that possibly the feasibility study is being conducted behind our backs? I can only wonder …

Jan. M. Christensenm Zephyr Cove

Recycling Center can be a gold mine

To the editor:

In the March 9 issue, “Ask the professional,” you asked Jeanna Lear, “How do we recycle in South Lake Tahoe?” She states that we recycle through the MRF.

As a longtime recycler, I would like to set this statement right. The MRF is for people who do not recycle. I recycle at the South Tahoe Recycling Center on Ruth. They take glass, aluminum, tin, bi-metal, plastic, newspaper, magazines, phone books, office paper and cardboard. These should be separated. You may get some cash back or donate it, as I do, to a local charity. If you don’t know of one, there is a list at the Recycling Center. Pick one; it will be appreciated.

Since some friends and I have been doing this, we have donated between $9,000 and $10,000 to the Voluntary Action Center, Tahoe Prevention Network and The Family Resource Center.

Jeanna, I hope to see you at the Recycling Center. If you have any questions, you can call or ask Tracey or Juan, and Oscar and Jose will help you unload your recycling.

Willie Olson, Stateline

Crawford presents a variation on STAR

To the editor:

I thank Steve Yonker for his letter printed in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on March 15, because it gives me a chance to address my position on S.T.A.R.; why I oppose S.T.A.R.’s plan as presented to the City Council on March 7.

But first, here is my public record on the ice rink. 1) I voted for the allocation of $50,000 for the ice rink’s design. The city has paid for the design. 2) In February, I outlined for the City Council and the public an alternative to a Mello-Roos assessment of $18 on residences. I proposed the Green Bay plan. Its basics include:

A) Individuals purchase shares in Green Bay’s professional football team. Tax dollars do not support the team or the ball park.

B) The shareholders elect the board of directors. The board serves without pay.

C) Concessions at the park are run by local charities, which receive part of the sales dollars.

If we employed Green Bay’s plan we would avoid S.T.A.R.’s increase in taxes, which would last for 25 to 30 years. At $200 a share, we would raise $3 million by selling 15,000 shares and avoid the tax. I said in February that I would buy a share to support the cause.

If the Green Bay plan isn’t attractive to the public, there is another way for the city to pay for the ice rink. If the City Council were to divert the $700,000 annually given to the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority and the chamber of commerce and drop the $300,000 given each year to the airport, the city could within four to five years pay for the ice rink without an increase in taxes. The council is free to choose.

As for S.T.A.R., it is an entanglement. Its plan now includes:

1) A road for the South Tahoe Public Utility District. How much the road would cost STPUD’s ratepayers, I do not know.

2) Al Tahoe Boulevard would have to be widened. I assume by the city. How much it would cost, I do not know.

3) It requires a Joint Powers Agreement between the city and the county. JPAs can create public debt without the consent of the public.

4) The ballfields are proposed for the college grounds, but the city would keep them up, which would require hiring more staff.

5) The bike trails, 25 miles, would have to be maintained, cleared of snow, etc., if the community were to use them year-round. What the cost would be, who knows?

Also, it is a fact that the community Athletic Coordinating Council gave to S.T.A.R. $15,000 for S.T.A.R.’s political campaign to sell its plan. The $15,000 came from assessment fees paid to the council for boys and girls to play baseball, etc. The assessments are not for political campaigns, for political games.

And the S.T.A.R. folks wish to tilt the election. They want a September election when nothing else will be on the ballot. Why? To get a low turnout, to control the vote.

Again, I thank Steve Yonker for his letter because we are free to speak and choose.

Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


California re-opens enrollment for health insurance coverage

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California on Monday re-opened enrollment for its state health insurance exchange, hoping more people will buy coverage now that the federal government is offering new assistance that could lower monthly premiums by $1,000 or more in some cases.

See more