Opinion: Partnerships may backfire for South Tahoe
To the community,
Now that redevelopment, except for the gigantic debt, is dead, the city has a new mantra, partnership. It is routine for the word to pass from the lips of the city manager, Mr. (Tony) O’Rourke.
He supports giving $250,000 to the school district. Why? Will there be a contract between the parties?
Bill Crawford
And he supports exporting a large number of TAUs out of the city to a hotel project at Edgewood. In exchange for the TAUs, Edgewood promises to build a park playground on 1 acre in the city. Again, is there a contract between the parties? When will the park be built? What are the specs for the park? What about parking?
The export of TAUs to Nevada could have serious blow back for the city down the road. Perhaps a project in the city would need the TAUs. And it is a question mark how building an upscale hotel at Edgewood will influence what will be done with the convention center site, and what affect on the city’s TOT revenue.
Also we’ve heard all the rhetoric before. Such as a world-class destination will bring the rich to town. Hence, the city will reap millions in sales taxes, etc. That is nonsense, pure bunkum. The hotel will be in Nevada and if it truly is world class, it will house fine shops, cafes and so on. It will be self-contained. The proposal is a transparent political deal. It is not a business partnership. As such, it is “business” as usual. Nothing new, nothing new. The city has been a push over time and time again.
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
Well I was not aware that the TAUs were going to be transferred to Nevada! That Idea I would be soundly be opposed to. Forget all of these projects for now and forget giving $250,000 to the school district. To our new City Manager the City of South Lake Tahoe was incorporated in 1965 to improve Police,Fire and Roads.
It is the city streets that need some of your immediate attention
Serving the needs of Stateline and linking our fate to the Stateline areas diminishing financial impact has not served the City of South Lake Tahoe well since the late eighties and will not work now.
We need to use our assets (TAU’s) to improve our own towns situation, so we can stand alone from Stateline, while working with them to improve our area.
We have to long been abused by Stateline as a provider of low cost employees and services, while we bear the burden of the incumbent costs, Police, fire, roads, housing, social services, etc.
We need the City Council we elected to improve conditions for us in SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, to do just that. For their constituents not for their friends and cronies in Stateline, NEVADA!
There is enough to concentrate on that needs doing in SOUTH LAKE TAHOE without them wasting time and money worrying about poor Stateline.
Maybe Stateline could help fund the city’s costly and money-losing airport.
No, Stateline’s too smart for that. Yet it has representation on the city’s airport committee that governs it.
Tot isn’t the only revenue loss. What about property tax that goes to the city and county. If the city is given this “park” who will be the owner? I doubt the city pays property tax on it’s own property!
On the other hand, I think the more open space the better, and tearing down of the old to build new is far better than building on open land. The new housing project at ski run and pioneer trail should be moved into the already developed neighborhood area and old run down buildings should be replaced with this new project.
Sounds like the California side is becoming the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Glad I own in NV.
Joe, Nevada put up the tracks a long time ago.
Someone will get a golf pass for life!$$
Setting the record straight:
Earlier today (June 7, 2011) the South Lake Tahoe City Council heard from numerous community members about why they support a transfer of TAUs, that Edgewood Companies owns, from the blighted C&M Lodge to the Edgewood Golf Course.
After hearing from a variety of locals, the Council unanimously approved the authorization to transfer 50 TAUs, owned by Edgewood Companies, outside of the city limits.
The TAUs that the City conditionally agreed to authorize the transfer of are not owned by the City but rather, they are the private property and development rights owned by Edgewood Companies.
Importantly, the TAUs will be moved into a productive use to better our local community, economy and environment.
It is our belief that by working together (meaning private and public
partnership) we can make a better quality of life for locals and a better experience for the visitors. The future of Lake Tahoe will be in private/public partnerships and we hope that you see that this transfer decision today, is a great example of this.
Further perspective for the discussion is the fact that there are over 6,000 TAUs in the City of South Lake Tahoe. In a 2007 a study commissioned by the then City Council, 1,476 of the total TAU supply in the City were identified as being in excess, as they are low to non-TOT producing units and act as defacto substandard low-income housing units.
The number of excess TAUs today has likely grown significantly since 2007. However, even if the excess supply were only 1,476, the 50 authorized for transfer by the City today represents
just 3% of the previously defined excess supply.
Edgewood Companies has been in the community a long time (150 years)and we want to respond to the desires of the community because ultimately our community¹s success is our success.
How about the former residents displaced when the ownership changed.
The TAU’s should remain tied to California, and taxes should be paid on them. If this is not the case, why did Edgewood buy a property in California?
We have these crazy senseless laws that we have to live with, and the TAU’s are limited, so not to be treated lightly, by trading them for a park that will not only make $0 income, but will cost us to maintain.
Give them the TAU’s, they pay tax on them, as if they were in California (they will always remain California), they build the park, and we will maintain it. Otherwise forget it.
The older and grouchier I get, the more I agree with Bill Crawford. Seriously, why would the City of South Lake Tahoe, in California, give up anything of value to a “city” in another State (Nevada)? This makes no sense, IMO. Surely, if some investors in Nevada really want to develop a piece of property in Nevada, they will have the wherewithall to make it happen without help from California.
Also, I cannot believe that the City is still considering the $ 250,000 to the School District. Are the roads suddenly fixed. How is this to be a “world class” resort if the roads are third world? Because of our athletic fields? Really?
Well, I’d like to add that my neighbors and I think it is great news that we are going to get a park in the place of a beaten down, crime infested eyesore.
While I agree with Bill on some points, I respectfully disagree with his assesment of the Edgewood / Bonanza Park deal. We’ve all seen the number of run-down motel properties in SLT that act as defacto low-income housing as Mr. Hill points out. And if the 3% of non-productive TAU’s figure he quotes is accurate (which I suspect it is), this sounds like a very creative and collaberative solution to meet two diverse needs. Yes…NEEDS. Edgewood must need these TAU’s in order to have sufficient sewer hookups to complete their project (which will be built to LEED standards). Bringing in visitors with a generous amount of disposable income to spend would undoubtedly bring revenue to all of South Shore. Such visitors would not be content to stay put…they enjoy novelty and unique experiences. They would seek out the Freshies, Evans, Beacons, Sprouts, Fresh Ketches, bike/kayak rentals and so on.
All people NEED various forms of stress relief to maintain some sort of mental/ physical/spiritual balance. Recreation and relaxation are two such forms of relief and that’s what parks provide. I attended the original charette where ideas for a park were captured from a diverse group and also the Bar-B-Q where dozens of people from the neighborhood gave their input on those ideas and added their own. The thought of having a park there was embraced by everyone who came. Some shared stories about the history of the property like about the recently deceased gentleman who had decades earlier planted a tree at the center of the property. That tree will remain and is included into the still evolving park plans. This level of incorporating input from stakeholders is exceptional.
Craeaboutthecommunity, I generally agree with your posts and don’t dispute the fact that there will be a realitively small maintenance burden on the city.. but… there is an intrinsic and quality-of-life value that could be created here.
While financial bottom line arguements have their rightful place–(local property values WOULD increase with a park)—so do quality-of-life issues which have an incalcuable value.
It is prudent to carefully examine ANY such ‘deal’….especially during this crucial time in our communities’ evolution. From everything I’ve seen this is a good deal for everyone. We can’t afford to let good deals slip through our hands because the past has so crippled our ability to grasp a novel approach.