OPINION by Kristie Wells
The ongoing conversation about beach access in Incline Village has certainly piqued interest, with our incumbent Trustees actively seeking input on the potential installation of large steel gates at all entrances. (Share your thoughts in the survey here)
However, the FlashVote survey hasn’t been without its critics, who raise concerns about its perceived bias, especially in guiding respondents towards predetermined conclusions. Cost is another biggie, with estimates exceeding $1 million just for installation, not to mention ongoing maintenance expenses. Transparency on these fronts is key.
The idea of having vehicle gate access might sound fine at first, but there are lingering concerns about what could happen if those gates hit a snag or bad weather rolls in. Imagine property owners being locked out, or even locked in, of the beaches if there was a power outage or excessive snow blocking access. This would not go over well.
One survey question prompts respondents to consider parking on Lakeshore Drive and walking to the beach. While this works for some community members, it would not work for all, especially concerning the distance to locations such as Burnt Cedar Beach. Not to mention the potential parking nightmare on Lakeshore Drive.
The core issue revolves around the objectives the Trustees aim to achieve with the proposed installation of gates. What problems are they really trying to solve?
Presently, there appears to be only two outspoken members on the Board advocating for this initiative (Schmitz and Dent), prompting concerns about its alignment with community priorities, particularly in comparison to other pressing needs. And as a reminder, neither Schmitz nor Dent will be a Trustee come January 2025 (a mere eight months from now), so it feels like they are trying to ram something in before their terms end.
Critics assert that directing funds towards gate projects while neglecting essential infrastructure such investing an appropriate amount towards a new beach house raises valid questions about resource allocation.
Additionally, the discussion surrounding guest access punch cards has stirred controversy, particularly regarding a survey question proposing just “one” card per property owner. This raises concerns, as multiple cards may be necessary during peak seasons for activities like accessing the golf course or beaches.
We eagerly anticipate analyzing the responses from the latest survey and their potential impact on the Board’s decisions. However, given the significance of this contentious issue, there is a call for the Board to convene a Community Forum at The Chateau to directly engage with the public. Responses via FlashVote alone may not suffice.
Stay tuned for updates as the situation unfolds.