Letter: Land management in Tahoe questionable
To the community,
On any subject to have a discussion, bona fide discussion, it is necessary to define the terms. When we speak on the subject of the city of South Lake Tahoe and its relationship with the Forest Service and the California Tahoe Conservancy, especially on the subject of land use and land management and maintenance, it’s necessary to ask what is a city?
Webster’s defines a city as 1) a center of population, commerce and culture, 2) an incorporated U.S. municipality with definite boundaries and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the state.
Bill Crawford
Webster says a forest is a dense growth of trees, together with other plants covering a large area. And conservancy is conservation, especially of natural resources.
And wilderness is 1) uninhabited region left in its natural condition, especially a large wild tract of land covered with vegetation or forests.
So what is the point? When I look at the lots owned by the Forest Service and Conservancy in my neighborhood, it appears they are managed as if a wilderness. That’s a contradiction because they are within the city, small lots in an urban area that are subject to fire. And that’s the sticking point.
We live in a city that has no authority within its boundaries over land owned by the federal government and the state of California. So things are in a muddle. They are free to thumb their noses at the city. They do not have to conform to the legal powers of the city.
That’s not right. But that’s how it is.
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
I still dont get the point? It’s obviously a complaint of some sort, but about what exactly?
And one could just as easily argue that the City is withing the boundaries of the National Forest, (which it is) and that is an issue for National Forest Lands Management?
Have you tried asking the Forest Service or Conservancy to thin the trees? There is a big push for healthy forests with lots of work being done.
The work has been done over there. Bill wants the grass mowed and pine cones picked up. Thats not fuels reduction.
in quotes as a guess as to ‘point’:
“We are at the mercy of agency decisions, in spite of our validated structure as an incorporated City; these decisions may in some cases still put our City & Citizens at risk, and are”. . .forest restoration need not add to the accumulation of more brush-piles (thousands), as there are too many in existence now to even think about adding more, as their alotted time here has been to simply ‘dry out’, becoming mere kindling as another “event” waiting to happen. . .
In that regard, I’m in complete agreement with former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo, who said she was sympathetic to the idea of all grant monies for Tahoe, as the ‘agency’ ownership (both Fed & state) does not allow them to be part of our tax base, hence part of our revenue stream to care for some of this ourselves, should we want or need to.
Think ‘Pipe Club’ issues along with Bill’s comments, and a picture forms.
any home or city that is built in the middle of a forest is at risk for fire, even with a fuels reduction program. Fire is a natural part of the forest ecosystem and as long as there are people that build in the forest there will be homes and business lost to fire. There are things we can do to reduce the risk but fire will happen.
Both agencies have done what is required in the urban lots for fuels reduction/healthy forest management. We live in a forest! Not a Park! I wish my residential neighbors would do actual fuels reduction/defensible space on their lot. The CTC/FS lots in my neighborhood look a lot better then this neighbors property. And this individual doesn’t care how many times he gets warning notices or fines.
If Mr. Crawford is so worried about the state of these urban forest lots, then why doesn’t he just clear the pine needles and pine cone, and cut the grass himself!