Letter to the Editor: Be sure to think through rec pass changes
May 5, 2014
I'd like to first commend the IVGID board and community members in attendance at the April 30 discussion of Ordinance No. 7 for both the manner in which they conducted themselves and the thoughtful nature of what was said.
The board voted to defer the effective date of recent revisions to Ordinance No. 7, so as to afford members of the community an opportunity to submit more input and take part in a public hearing on June 11.
I am a firm believer in the adage that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." That said, I have no problem with dropping the "family tree" requirement for Picture Cards, since it is intrusive and difficult to administer.
I have big problems, however, with those parts of the revised Ordinance that would allow parcel owners to (1) purchase an unlimited number of Picture Passes and Guest Access Cards, (2) assign the rights to make these purchases to others, and (3) appoint an agent to handle all of this for them. (See revised Ordinance, sections 2.13, 2.17, 5.01, and 8.09).
The proposal to charge $10,000 for each Picture Card in excess of ten cards is a bit of a red herring in this regard, since as phrased, it would not apply to Guest Access Cards.
Who benefits from these provisions? The needs of residential property owners can be met by removing the family tree restriction (thereby accommodating non-traditional co-ownership, renters, nannies, etc.), increasing the number of extra cards that can be purchased to a reasonable number such as five additional cards, and allowing appeals for exceptional circumstances.
Recommended Stories For You
It would appear, then, that the only beneficiary of the proposals to allow unlimited purchases and assignments through agents would be a commercial property (think "time share") that wants to offer Guest Access Cards to customers as an added perk.
Is this really something that the community wants or needs to promote? At the very least, if the board still favors these provisions, they need to explain at the June 11 meeting why there is a need, and how these particular provisions are the answer, as opposed to something less draconian such as better pricing and availability of daily use cards.
Trending In: Opinion
- Churchill County defeats Truckee for 3A state championship (GALLERY)
- Work to be done: Nevada County economic model is unsustainable
- Truckee Town Council race too tight to call
- Council approval moves Grocery Outlet project forward in Truckee
- Truckee Town Council moves forward with McIver Dairy restoration