Letters to the editor
April 22, 2005
Thanks for your April 15 letter to the editor. Maybe, with your corporate clout, you could get some answers for me and the residents of South Lake Tahoe as to why the gasoline buying price for California-based service stations is so much higher than Nevada. My profit margin on a gallon of gas, today, averages 21-23 cents per gallon. That being the case, how do we explain a 40 to 60 cents street price differential, California to Carson Valley? I know our requirements are different. Taxes may vary and transportation may be higher, but not 40-60 cents higher.
I can assure you your Tahoe station operators aren’t getting rich. We are doing our level best to stay financially healthy in today’s business world. In the old days a five-cent profit margin coupled with rent and volume rebates worked. Today, with a $55,000 per month operating cost and suppliers with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, yesterday’s strategies have disappeared.
Mr. Warnaco, I’m disappointed with my supplier. Forty-four years in this business must show some loyalty. However, with Chevron Oil Company consistently showing historically high profits, largely due to gas prices (Inside Business Periodical, April 5), it’s hard to understand why they are unwilling to bend, just a little in helping us crawl closer to our Nevada competitors. I, personally, can’t sell gas any cheaper without their help. My loyalty is wavering.
Your local station operators want to be competitive and need to be profitable. It’s a no-brainer – if fuel sales stay here, tax dollars stay here – civic and social organizations can be donated to – employees get paid – the garbage bill gets paid – everybody is happy. It’s not business as usual and hasn’t been for some time. We need our suppliers to understand. Chevron can justify its high profits. I, unfortunately, can’t explain my high price. Come by for coffee and we’ll talk more.
Al’s Chevron Way
Recommended Stories For You
South Lake Tahoe
Long, Crawford in poetry battle
A short ode in the vernacular to Councilman Ted Long.
Tediously wordy, on and on Mr. Long goes.
Words, words, words.
Verbs, verbs, verbs.
Where he stops, does he know?
From A to Z,
he turns on to everything.
And for all things
Ted tedious has a solution,
just talk, talk, talk,
sending around in revolution
words, words, words.
A column here, one there.
You’d think all is resolved
by blowing hard, spinning around thin air.
And when there’s disagreement, he declares,
any reply isn’t fair.
So it seems in conclusion, for this councilman
it must be spewing ink,
that keeps going,
without ever a blink.
South Lake Tahoe
A plea to the county board
Editor’s note: This letter was sent to the Board of Supervisors April 21.
Dear Board of Supervisors:
I am an attorney in South Lake Tahoe. My practice consists of family law, criminal law, and juvenile law (both dependency and delinquency). In each area of my practice I have had the occasion to be involved with the office of Child Support Services. I have referred any number of my clients as well as others in our community to Child Support Services for help in establishing and collecting child support on behalf of their children. But for the office of Child Support Services there would be many children in our community not receiving the benefits of child support.
The office of Child Support Services provides their service to persons of all economic brackets. Obviously, those in an economic position with limited means benefit most from the efforts of Child Support Services.
Closing the Tahoe office of Child Support Services would significantly limit the availability of child support services to the South Lake Tahoe community. Leaving one case worker here in South Lake Tahoe would not meet the needs of our community. While I fully understand the professed need for budget cuts in all areas of local government, it would seem only fair that both sides of our county assume those proposed cuts equally. By closing the Tahoe office there is no impact on the availability of child support services on the Western Slope.
In addition to services to the community, the closing of Child Support Services here in Tahoe will cause the loss of jobs and likely even more people leaving our community and our school district. The public position is that no staff positions will be cut and that the Tahoe employees can continue to be employed. The reality of the situation is that most of the Tahoe employees will not be ale to afford to commute on a daily basis to a job based in Placerville. They will then have to move or resign their positions with Child Support Services and hopefully find other employment in our already employment-depressed area.
The Board of Supervisors has an obligation to work in the interest of all of the citizens of El Dorado County. By closing the Child Support Services office in South Lake Tahoe the indication to your constituents is that the board is not working in the interest of all of its constituents, just those on the Western Slope.
I urge the board to support keeping a fully functioning Child Support Services officer here in South Lake Tahoe.
Lori G. London
Attorney at Law
South Lake Tahoe
Trending In: Opinion
- Ask Tessie: What’s the point of voting in June?
- Letter: ‘Thank you for keeping me updated’
- LTVA column: Tahoe South continues full speed into summer with national media exposure (opinion)
- Guest column: Will new VHR initiative be the answer for South Lake Tahoe? (opinion)
- Guest column: Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless grateful for community support (opinion)
- In tourism-driven Tahoe, hotels are turning into homes
- Man who stole ski passes from Lake Tahoe resort faces probation violation
- Caltrans: Stoplight at Camp Richardson discontinued indefinitely
- Lake Tahoe AleWorX prepares to open second taproom featuring full bar
- Big mudslide blocks US 395 near Nevada-California state line (updated)