THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Nevada bill to withdraw from TRPA moves to Assembly


image_pdfimage_print

As expected, the Nevada bill that would drastically alter the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency structure has moved from the Senate to the Assembly.

SB271 would allow Nevada to back out of the bi-state Compact. However, California and Congress would have some say in how things go forward.

“We are appalled by today’s action by the Nevada Senate,” Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, said in a statement. “This bill is a cynical ploy by real estate agents and developers upset that the courts are requiring the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to have a plan in place that achieves and maintains environmental objectives before they can build more piers, hotels, condos, subdivisions and timeshares not allowed under existing plans.”

A date has not been set for when the Assembly will hear the bill.

— Lake Tahoe News staff report

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (6)
  1. Jill Stanton-Bricker says - Posted: May 27, 2011

    Rochelle’s (League to Save Lake Tahoe) quote in this article is the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. Where does she come up with this ludicrous stuff? From a South Tahoe Realtor:)

  2. Brian says - Posted: May 27, 2011

    I wanted to reply, but i’m ay odds with my own feelings about this. I hope many will reply with good educated information, I am eager to hear what everyone thinks. Is today victory or a bust? What you think. 30yrlocal… are you out there? how about you Tahoeadvocate, clear water, dogwoman, tahoekaren??? anyone out there?…Steve Kubby I know you must be there.

  3. Boone says - Posted: May 28, 2011

    My “hope” is that when the dust settles the TRPA will remain in place but with a much different and and limited role which is both effective and important to keeping our area’s beauty. There is a need for TRPA however they’ve grown out of control, this needs to be reined back in.

    As to the evil realtors, hotels and timeshares, typical dumb comment. Really, yes the last thing we need in Lake Tahoe is growth, more visitors, stronger economy, tax revenue, etc. This comment couldn’t paint a better picture as to the problems we find ourselves in.

    They want to “save Lake Tahoe” I know, let’s everyone move out and turn the area into a National Park and everyone can just come visit, isn’t that what they really want? Wow…

  4. Mike Bradford says - Posted: May 28, 2011

    SB 271 exists because the structure of TRPA was established to arrest development in the 1960-70’s. That was good forty years ago. Times have changed. The science now demonstrates the solution to Lake clarity is the revitalization on our built environment. The renewal of our built environment is also part of the solution for our economy.

    Rochelle knows these facts. Her board knows these facts. The League wants to perpetuate a voting structure allowing minority rule. That is necessary because the League is becoming a minority as the population figures out Rochelle is not really an environmental champion. The League once stood for great things. Now the League stands for exclusivity and elitism-not to mention the inequity of minority rule and the status quo.

  5. Tahoehuskies says - Posted: May 28, 2011

    OK, I’d like to say something about the whole NV Senate justification for this bill; they interpret the TRPA Governing Board as being influenced by the CA representatives, which leads to fewer projects and plans being approved. WHAT??? These legislators have apparently never been to a TRPA Governing Board meeting, nor do they make it a priority to keep up-to-date on what projects are being heard before the TRPA. Seriously, can anyone tell me what major projects/plans haven’t been approved by the TRPA Governing Board in the last five years.The TRPA Board approved Tonapolo, which is now viewed as one of the worst projects to ever be allowed on the shores of Lake Tahoe; even the members who voted on it wish they could now take back their “yes” vote. In fact, only a few members of the Board’s CA members go against the Board’s majority voice, which includes the NV members, and they don’t single-handily stop the approvals.

    Some of the reasoning behind this bill is just plain nonsense. If you do your research you will notice that the original supporters/lobbyist of this bill were from the realtor/private developer sectors of NV.

  6. EnviroGen says - Posted: May 28, 2011

    This is a good thing… Forced restructure or elimination. Put the focus on lake clarity. Get out of the rivers and creeks.. Stop fruitless projects and years of review by I’ll qualified people halting progress. Why u so appalled Rochelle?Hasn’t the league caused battles halting projects? Isnt redevelopment a good thing? What is the main reason Tahoe is losing clarity? Anyone know? If you do…, what are we doing? I’m tired of more of the same.