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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

S. Tahoe challenging League’s suit regarding General Plan


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

Frivolous is basically what South Lake Tahoe is calling the lawsuit filed by the League to Save Lake Tahoe against the city’s General Plan.

cityIn closed session this morning, the City Council agreed to have City Attorney Patrick Enright file a motion to dismiss. That paperwork must be completed by the end of business July 12.

“We argue they don’t have standing to file in federal court,” Enright told Lake Tahoe News on Tuesday during a break in the council meeting.

The League filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento citing the General Plan violates the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Compact and Regional Plan.

The city counters that the League cannot claim to be an aggrieved party under the Compact.

In addition to that, the city says because there is no project – the document in question is a planning tool – there is no basis for the suit.

“There is no damage to anyone, including the League,” Enright said.

Once the city files its motion, the League has time to file an opposition motion, with the city given a week then to file a response to that motion.

A hearing has been set for Sept. 12 before Judge Garland Burrell in federal court.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (3)
  1. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: July 12, 2011

    Is the city going to file for reimbursement of their costs? That is the only way to stop frivilous suits from being filed.

  2. Tahoehuskies says - Posted: July 13, 2011

    “In addition to that, the city says because there is no project – the document in question is a planning tool – there is no basis for the suit.”

    Seriously, the City is still holding on to this? In every other city in this state a general plan is still considered a “project” under the CEQA definition.

    Seriously!!! The ‘good old boys’ need to come up with something better then that.

  3. satori says - Posted: July 13, 2011

    Sounds like ‘dogs chasing their tail’ – especially when TRPA’s regional plan is almost 5 years late…

    Which plan are they to follow ?

    Placer County chose not to wait any longer – is the league suing them ?

    Perhaps they all should “dog pile” TRPA.