Opinion: South Lake Tahoe needs to say ‘no’ to loop road
Publisher’s note: The following letter was submitted to Lake Tahoe News by the author.
Dear Mayor [Claire] Fortier and Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of Michael McKeen and business and property owners in South Lake Tahoe who oppose in its present form the project and the application by the Tahoe Transportation District for federal funds to construct the project commonly referred to as the Loop Road. The applicant agency has not done its job in resolving outstanding issues and concerns that I have highlighted below.
1. The project is ill conceived and not ready for funding because it does not have the support of those dozens of property owners who are most impacted by it;
2. The project will displace approximately 80 residential properties and 13 existing small businesses;
3. The project appears to displace dozens of lower-income and minority workers living in the path of the proposed road realignment who do not have many affordable housing options in the area;
Dave Jinkens
4. The project is bad for the city of South Lake Tahoe tax base and local economy in a city that already has an unemployment rate last reported over 17 percent where small businesses are struggling under a poor local economy and enormous bureaucratic and regulatory control in the Tahoe region;
5. The project will likely require the use of eminent domain to acquire all or a portion of the parcels needed because many owners are not in favor of selling yet there is no agency that has expressed its intent to use eminent domain to acquire the properties. TTD does not have the power of eminent domain. Caltrans will not use eminent domain, and the City Council of South Lake Tahoe, where the project is located, has not expressed its intent to use this extraordinary confiscatory process. I applaud the city for not doing so;
6. Eminent domain is a highly controversial tool that most residents of the city do not favor even if a California public agency chose to use it;
7. The project has not received environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is arguably a premature grant application. TTD is proceeding independently as though the project has received all necessary approvals.
8. The project and application for grant funds to implement this incomplete project arguably places a cloud over title of the residential and commercial properties subject to acquisition. This could will discourage investment in the properties by property owners and reduce the likelihood that lenders will make loans available for improvements; and
9. The project arguably creates potential claims in inverse condemnation. Approving a project that does not have the support of owners of property to be acquired who cannot then get loans to improve or repair their properties could create the case and argument of a “taking.”
As you know from the petition in opposition that was submitted to you by Michael McKeen (a directly affected party), there is growing opposition to the project by the people of South Lake Tahoe who are most directly negatively impacted by the Project and by people living in the area.
The Tahoe Transportation District needs to do its homework and leg work with the people most impacted by this project and gain their support before seeking funding for it and attempting to implement it. Opponents do not see the project in its present rendition as a fait acompli.
I would argue as well that even if the project proponents overcame the objections of directly affected property owners, it will have a negative impact on existing business in South Lake Tahoe by dramatically shifting the shopping base to the Nevada side of Stateline. All of us have a high regard for our fine Nevada neighbors, but not to the extent of damaging the business base in South Lake Tahoe. The city of South Lake Tahoe needs to focus its attention and efforts on improving the economy and lives of the people living and working in South Lake Tahoe first.
I urge the City Council to oppose the Loop Road Project in its present rendition and support local business owners and residents who oppose it for the reasons stated above. I ask that the City Council place this matter on the agenda in the near future so that clear direction from the City Council is provided for all to see and hear in advance of the general election in November.
Thank you and best wishes,
Sincerely,
David Jinkens, retired South Lake Tahoe city manager and community advocate
other than that Ms lincoln how was the play??
Why is this issue even up for consideration? It was a non starter when conceived years ago and remains so today. And spending any money to prop up gaming concerns in Nevada is sheer lunacy! The old grey mare (Nevada gaming) just ain’t what she used to be! 48 states now have gaming in some way, shape, or form, and it’s time for Nevada to reinvent itself.
Noone seems to remember that this is a FEDERAL project and by it’s nature cares not about local tit for tat issues such as gaming, sushi, or liquor. This is a property rights issue and the fact that eminent domain is off the table from everyone, how exactly is this supposed to get done?
I’am with Dave all the way, on this issue.
The road behind the casinos is not wide enough for 4 lanes. Who owns the land, that would be sold to widen the road, Is it Park Cattle Co (owner of Horizon, Montbleu, Edgewood, and the land where Borges Sleighs operates)? How much money do they stand to acquire for the land needed for the project? Enough to fund their expansion at Edgewood? and provide a pretty pedestrian plaza for their future Horizon plans?
Sounds like no one in South Lake Tahoe is for this, we will not pull eminent domain for a company, so it will not go forward.
Also, I would not call this a realignment, unless there is some history of the road taking a weird jog against the hillside, than back towards the lake again.
The Tahoe Transportation District proved its ineptitude with its incompetent oversight of the bus system. Now to find it running further amok, chasing tax dollars to make another mess, borders on insanity.
Concerned taxpayers would be well served to be advised who to write to, to protest in advance any public funding whatsoever for this latest boondoggle.
Two thumbs up from me. Thanks Dave.
Firefly
“Short term cruelty for long term gain.” That was the argument one council member publicly put forward as justification for the proposed demolition of profitable businesses and personal residences. The people in our town have a HEART and our councilwoman made a heartless proposal that will affect many who have invested here long term, are old now, and will not be around to enjoy some abstract dream of “long term gain”. The uncertainty that government here continues to impose on its people is cruel. Enough! Have a heart!
Gloria, which council woman said this?
dryclean,
I don’t like to be so cruel as to name names, so I just say the councilwoman who said this was not the Mayor. The other woman city council member said this at the loop road work shop.
I’m for anything that swings the pendulum away from SLT support of the casinos. What have they done for us lately?
I have not heard the term “inverse condemnation” since my days in San Diego.
That could cause problems for those advocates of loopDloop
While improving traffic flow and turning the casino corridor as far west as Park Ave. into a much more pedestrian/bike friendly area is great idea, the current plan being advanced by the TTD is IMHO the absolute wrong way to proceed. Along with all the good arguements already expressed, here’s a few more:
Splitting the through traffic between the mountain and lake side of the casinos makes much more sense. We already have virtually all the road width we need to route eastbound through traffic to the mountain side and westbound to the lake side. This still gives access to all the back entrances of the casino parking lots. 2 lanes of local traffic through the current alignment provide access to the valet parking entrances and the new CVS building. Using existing roadways virtually eliminates the need to take out any housing or businesses. There would no doubt have to be some compromise to make for a smooth transition, but nothing on the scale of what is being proposed.
Additionally, putting four lanes of traffic between the back of Crescent V / Heavenly Village / Harrahs and the entrance to the brand new Van Sickle park creates a formidable barrier to access the park unless you put a light there which would defeat the purpose of improving traffic flow. The only other solution would be a tunnel or pedestrian overpass…more $$$.
If improving traffic flow is a primary goal….JUST COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THE FRIGGIN’ TRAFFIC LIGHTS ALREADY!!!
I feel like a broken record as I’ve been advocating for this for 20 years now and we still have the same pathetic ill-timed lights that stop traffic even when there is NO side traffic what-so-ever. Narry a car, pedestrian or bicycle and the stuuuuupid friggin’ lights turn red for Hwy 50. Start by putting in a 21st century, coordinated traffic light system (which we need one way or another) and THEN proceed with a plan similar to what I’ve discribed above.
Jeesh…why are these people getting paid good saleries when the answers are RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM???
I’m totally against this latest idea to reinvent South Lake Tahoe. Do not agree it would help, anyway.
Tom, were you paying attention when they did that 4 or 5 years back for that Tahoe Festival (can’t remember the exact name) at the casino corridor? They closed the corridor down for the weekend and routed traffic exactly how you expressed as making much more sense. Well, I think the only thing about it that really made sense is that EVERY one, locals and tourists alike, considered what you think would make sense as a TOTAL CLUSTER &%@#!
The route behind the casinos and Raleys was identfied as the preferred road in Feb 2004 TRPA Stateline Transportation Planning Project. Four alternatives were studied including Tom Wendell’s suggestion of running traffic along Pine Blvd. The one above was selected as the least impact to the lake. Now the question first is do we need it. If no, issue should be killed. If yes, how do we placate those affected? One way would be to work a deal such that those business affected will be relocated into the development arising from the ashes of TAHOLE. They would be on Hwy 50 in a prime tourist location and the city continues to derive taxes. The apartment and private housing impacted owners are harder and will require fair solutions for both owners and tenants. It’s not insurmountable but one must answer the question if the new road is of benefit to the City of SLT, not the the tourist corridor from Park Ave to Lakeside Parkway.
biggerpicture,
Were YOU paying attention to what exactly I wrote? The festival you refer to (Opening Day South Shore) had Hwy. 50 closed through the casino corridor. I wrote that there would be 2 lanes of local traffic through that corridor as is part of the current plan. . .a totally different scenario than you refer to. Also, there were people supposedly directing traffic around the corridor on festival day and they did a lousy job. Reconfigured intersections allowing two lanes of through traffic in each direction on both sides of the corridor PLUS the 1 lane in each direction through the corridor would eliminate that. You should pay more attention before making ill-informed statements.
tahoeadvocate makes some valid points, especially about whether we atually need this givin the decrease in traffic volume (remember the 70’s??..It took an hour to drive from the Y to Stateline). A vastly improved public transit system would reduce local auto traffic volume further….and then there are the traffic signals…nuff said. Also, if any plan procedes, relocating businesses into a re-imagined tahole makes sense to me. I still don’t see how all the disruption of putting 4 lanes on the mountain side as currently proposed by the TTD is a good idea for reasons already mentioned.
You all need to know that the road is not needed and no gov. agency will use eminent domain. Eminent domain is the tool they don’t have and never will, if we keep the preasure on our elected officals. They will divide and defeat and or stall and defeat so lets get the loop road issue on the city council agenda for and up or down vote NOW!!!!!
I agree that the City Council should take a position before their upcoming elections.
At first I didn’t have enough knowledge of the Loop Road Project to have an opinion. But just read in the Mtn. News where the City handed out a 10k consulting contract for the project! So this project is just another excuse to fork out taxpayer money for more of these stupid consulting contracts?! Stop the Loop Road Project, Now!!
If te city council doesn’t vote soon we ‘ll call it the Hasty loop gate. Must be stopped now!!!
South Lake Tahoe awarded $10,000 for the economic feasibility study for the South Shore Vision Plan.
Here are two LTN stories from months ago about this:
1. https://www.laketahoenews.net/2011/11/funding-details-of-south-shore-economic-study-come-to-light/
2. https://www.laketahoenews.net/2011/12/conflicting-information-clouds-s-tahoe-ice-rink-bond-sales/
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Who gets the 10k?
SMG, Carl Ribaudo’s company, gets $35,000 total to do the study. The study is supposed to be released soon. I don’t have a definition for soon as it relates to the exact time.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Oh thanks! I stand corrected! Good to discover our City has 35k to waste!!
The city spent $10,000. The total for the study was $35,000.
LTVA and Douglas County each put in $10,000 and STAR put in $5,000.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Oh okay, the City is only wasting 10k! Good to know the LTVA and Douglas Co. are spending on a study that will attempt to justify getting our City to act as their lapdog!
Mr, Wendall, I stand corrected. No I didn’t digest the part about one lane in each direction on the current thoroughfare in your post. Still see your idea as a wasted effort because as it stands (and like your idea) we already have FOUR lanes in each direction basically, and we still have traffic issues at Stateline on busy weekends. Why do some feel the need to invent a better mousetrap?
The South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (in the City of South Lake Tahoe) opposed that expenditure, while the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber (Nevada based) endorsed it. STAR is comprised of Nevada based casinos and lodging properties, which the study would benefit. We MUST stop catering to Nevada and stop giving them OUR money. We should be taking care of ourselves, and that includes saying NO to the Loop Road project.
Having SMG and Carl Ribaudo at the controls of the economic study is laughable. Don’t get me wrong, Carl is a fine man, but his connection to Park cattle via his wife should have eliminated him from this study. These types of mistakes by the council are becoming unacceptable.
I believe that the council has due diligence to study this in a neutral fashion as some state that it could improve our product, which, as we all can agree, needs improvement.
Atomic, whether we like it or not the casinos and Heavenly village are the big draw into South Lake for now. I would like that to change, but for now that is what we got. In addition to that, the League and Sierra Club are going to sue any major redevelopment projects that try to change the primary tourist attractions in to South Lake. So it seems to me hiring the guy who understands our “product” and is an industry expert in marketing that product makes a lot of sense. Carl Ribaudo understand what Tahoe offers to people with money to spend here.
A lot of people on this board are making an arguement that business in South Lake is somehow separate from the health of the casino industry and Heavenly Village. That completely ignores the reality of South Lake. There are no or almost no nice hotels in South Lake outside of Heavenly Village. Anyone pay attention to Sno-Globe? There are no venues for music or festivals outside of the casino corridor. There is no way to develope anything in South Lake that can compete with Heavenly Village. The League and Sierra Club have to approve every project or they will sue and in California, they win through delay. So, we have what we have. California business is tied to and completely dependent on the success of the casinos and Heavenly Village.
While I strongly question the specific consultant, (Nothing personal, just know of no business in our town that can say, “I hired SMG. And because of it my business increased.”), why does our City Govt. even pay for consultants?! We have staff already on payroll to do our research!
When you’re not spending your own money, it’s easy to be careless with it!
This should not be a debate about us verses them. We are an intertwined community that just happens to cover 2 states.
People stay in California, enjoy Tahoe in both California and Nevada. People stay in Nevada, enjoy Tahoe in both Nevada and California.
Many of the employees from the casinos live in CA, have tax dollars spent in CA, use CA schools….that is money brought into CA from wages in NV. Ms. Connor is always complaining about our visitor dollars going into NV but think about the bigger picture. Even if the employees live in NV, where do you think they go to the movies, go out to dinner, buy clothing? Same as the rest of us…either on the CA side or we go to the valley.
Where do those staying in the casinos go to ski? California. Where do they walk to? California. Where do they grab groceries? Raleys for the most part-California. The casinos are not a contant drain of money that could be spent in CA. We need to look at it as a team…they need us, we need them. Its not us verses them and that attitude should change in order to create a prosperous community. Be good at what you do, provide a quality product and quality service and they will come.
biggerpicture,
Apology accepted…no worries.
As I said, let’s fix our pathetically outdated and inefficient traffic signals first and see how well that improves the traffic flow.
I still maintain that creating more pedestrian / bike friendly areas will bring economic benefit. The big question will be exactly how to achieve that given that our 50’s era infrastructure was built to be auto-centric.
I have to disagree with John that “the casinos and Heavenly village are the big draw into South Lake”. While people obviously visit these venues, the BIG draw is still our environment…..the lake(s), beaches, mountains, snow, trails, vistas, meadows and summer weather are primarily what draw people here. The rest is filler.
John, I beg to differ. First of all, most people who come to South Lake Tahoe today come because we offer an incredible outdoor experience, whether it be hiking, biking, water skiing, boating,camping,a marathon,skiing, snowboarding, sitting on a deck reading while looking at a gorgeous view and breathing clear, crisp air – it is not the casino corridor of yesterday that they come to visit.And just so you know, Nevada businesses may host visitors that come into SLT to ski, but Heavenly does not pay taxes to SLT. It does, however, use our roads to get there and has more emergency personnel from SLT called there than any other business in our town.
Secondly, please don’t put words in my mouth. I have NEVER “complained about our visitor dollars” going into Nevada, but I have PROTESTED against our tax dollars and City revenue going to support casino projects and studies that benefit the casinos.And, I have also PROTESTED against ideas, like the Loop Road project, that would destroy SLT businesses and displace residents to benefit Nevada.We have enough need in our own town without helping to support Nevada.The “team” effort as you call it has our dollars, to the tune of at least 163k in the past few months, going to Nevada. I really don’t see the dollar equivalent coming from the tourists that stay at the casinos. You can be a “good neighbor” without starving your kids to feed theirs.
One more thing, John. Please take a look at Black Bear Inn, Inn by the Lake, Timber Cove Lodge, and Embassy Suites at Ski Run. Pretty nice hotels, and if you get a “non-smoking” room there, you get one that has actually never been smoked in, not a room that once was a smoking room, but has been “cleaned.” We non-smokers can still tell the difference. Just FYI!
Tom and JoAnn, you completely misunderstand the market. I am an outdoor athlete and I make over $100k per year. I am what Tahoe wants to attract. I can go here Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming etc. All of those places have areas with extraordinary environments and hiking, climbing, skiing, biking etc. Some aspects better than others, but the laundry list is there. Those places however distinguish themselves with great hotels, great restaurants, walking centers and nightlife. The only place on South shore that can offer that is the casino corridor and Heavenly village. And guess what, no place will be developed on the California side outside of that area because of the League and Sierra Club lawsuites. Like it or not California’s cart is tied to Nevada’s ox.
JoAnn, lets say I get a room at Embassy suites. Where is the night life? Where are the bars? I am pretty typical, I want to go ride for probably half a day, probably fairly tough trails, but then I want to go drop $200 on a meal and get some drinks. Where am I supposed to do that near Ski Run for 5 nights?
What do you do for a living, John? Tom and I have known each other for roughly 30 years – in Tahoe.Both of us have been very active in the community, serving on different boards and with different, diverse groups. I can’t speak for Tom, but I have, and still do, travel extensively, and I look for the unique.
I am currently President of the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce and help answer several hundred calls from tourists per month, and I honestly can’t remember the last time I got a call asking about a casino. They ask about the things I mentioned above.
As far as the “night life,” maybe you should look at broadening your horizons. If you stay at Embassy, Riva Grill, with specialty drinks and live entertainment, is right across the street. You have the Tahoe Brewery and Mo’s place for local “color” also within walking distance. Good meal? Riva? Definitely compares with the casino offerings, and I have been told such by visitors of “high rank” from large cities. Chef Alex at Black Bear – also very good. Several others up ski run that are excellent.If you are looking for gambling and a few big name shows, yep, guess you gotta hike up the road a bit to the casinos.Looking for ambiance and local style fun, Classic Cue, Rockwater, McP’s, McDuff’s, Fresh Catch, the Beacon – they are here. But,I’m not buying that there is nothing in South Lake for the “young and restless” or those with a few bucks to drop.
SURE IS NICE ON THE WATER,YOU GUYS STILL BLOWING SMOKE RINGS?
SAME OLD ,SAME OLD.
TAHKE THIS BROTHER YOU’LL SEE THE PLACE IS WONDERFUL,NO MATTER WHAT SIDE THE STATELINE YOUR ON.
You got all winter to reread what’s already been written.
Just a clarification, the time share at Ski Run is now called Lake Tahoe Vacation Resort and is no longer Embassy Suites and is part of the Diamond California group.
If one were to stay at Embassy Suites, the closest bars with nightlife are across the street next to the hole and in the casinos. But, there are many fine choices in CA.
No matter where people stay we cannot control where they go at night. We just need to continue to offer a great experience and make everyone feel welcome.
I make alot o’$$$$, I enjoy firing people that don’t serve me correctly. I have degrees from colleges that allow me to be superior to regular folks. I’m not gonna trickle down unless you worship me and agree with my lame newbie ideas.
John you pat yourself on the back alot
what do these comments have to do with the LOOP Road project?
Shrink the Town that is the Goal of the people in charge
when the locals realize this it will be to late
The November election is likely to produce at least one pro-loop road candidate. That could give the city council the four votes it needs to pass the project. What matters is that this issue be decided by the present council before the election or the road will surely come to pass.
Question: If the proposed loop road and redesigned tourist corridor road didn’t cost the city any money (short and long term) and all the affected people and businesses were pleased with being relocated, would it be good for South Lake Tahoe?
My answer is yes.
It might end up attracting more “outdoors” tourists who would enjoy walking along an area near their lodging which has only local traffic and is pedestrian friendly.
Shouldn’t then the job be to see if that goal can be achieved?
I know the TTD is meeting with affected businesses and property owners and from what I’ve been told their approach is to find a relocation solution which makes them willing to support the concept.
Now I don’t know how to achieve the goal of “no near term cost to the city” but it might be possible.
Tahoe Advocate: first of all, all the businesses are not and will not be happy. Why would a business want to give up a prime location and move…where? Whenever you relocate, you lose business base. Where in Tahoe is there a better spot for say, the Bottle Shop, than it’s current location? Answer: none. The other businesses that would be “relocated” are in the same boat. Put Thunderchief at the Y to compete with a dozen other small motels? Not good for any of them.
What does the City have to lose? Revenue from business license and TOT. Higher unemployment from the jobs lost. What do they have to gain? Nothing.
What about the residents in that area? Where can they get that location at that price? Some live in that area because they can walk to work. Take someone who lives and works at Stateline area and move them to the mid-town or Y area, assuming they can rent a similar place at a comparable cost, then they have to pay for and get to transportation.Win for Nevada, loss for South Lake Tahoe. Time to start taking care of our own.
Say NO to the Loop Road.
JoAnn, let the process play out. A lot of these folks will see declining revenue and a continued loss of jobs if nothing is done. As they are in business, there is a buy out $$ that will make them happy. That part of the process is at least two years away.Check the TTD language…. no one has mentioned eminant domain.
Check the loss of jobs over the past ten years,,, as u will see things are getting worse not better.You say alot but What is your solution to making things better? Perhaps you want the casinos knocked down and no jobs will be here. Are you an ultra enviornmentalist who wants all buildings and jobs gone so that we are back to pure mother nature? Perhaps you are a schill for the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the TRPA.
Why all the fuss?, with WHERE EVER any THESE business goes?, “GET READY”,”WE ARE ALREADY IN THE DOUBLE DIP”…..
THE EUROS ARE BRINGING US ALL DOWN!
The crashing of this country is still alive, blight is a showcase of how bad the American business are everywhere,no one is excluded.
Tahoe a Golden Pig Headed for the Slaughter House, with or without you.
Why can’t YOU SEE IT?
THIS PLACE TRYING TO BUILD A BABYLON WITHOUT STRAW!
Dryclean, it does not appear you have attended the meetings, talked to the business owners, or watched the recorded for viewing City Council meetings on either TV or your computer. Eminent Domain has absolutely been a topic and in point of fact, was on the City Council agenda today. Therefore, people have good reason to be concerned.
My “solution” is to take care of South Lake Tahoe first, and support the business owners and residents in the area that will be affected. They do not see things your way and they do not feel their revenue is declining. As President of the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (NOT a paid position, by the way), my views speak for the majority of our over 250 members, mostly business owners.Some people want to work hard and build a business to improve over the years, not just to sell out.
You can call me names and attempt to smear my reputation, but I use my real name. Anyone who has known me in my over 31 years here knows I have never worked, volunteer or otherwise, for any of the entities you have named, nor in the fashion of which you speak.
Ms. Conner:
Hello. Just curious—do you plan to run for City Council in November 2012?
P.S. — Did you see I finally got the spelling of your surname correct. About time huh–yeah for me!
Hello 4-mer-usmc – thank you! I do appreciate the effort; truth be told, it was O’Connor in the olde country, a few generations back!
Honest answer to the City Council question is: I don’t know. I have been approached by several different people and factions, much to my surprise. I promised to give it some serious thought.
God?
Dear Mr. Jinkens,
I agree with most of your views and also oppose the loop road. It is nice to see a retired city manager with a large pension become such an involved community advocate.
It has been over 5 years since I lost my motel job to the “tahole.” my wife and I along with our 2 young children have struggled ever since my place of work was bulldozed for a hole in the ground.
Mr. Jinkens the “tahole” became a reality on your watch. As city manager why didn’t you speak out against the use of eminent domain 5 years ago? afterall you now applaud the city for not using this “extraordinary confiscatory process” for the loop road.
Do you feel any responsibility for the use of eminent domain while city manager?
why the change of heart?