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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Loop road proponents ready to meet about relocation


image_pdfimage_print

The Tahoe Transportation District is trying to figure what it will take to relocate people after acquiring their property so the loop road on the mountain side can be put in near the state line on the South Shore.

A meeting about the relocation assistance plan and a community impact assessment will be July 25 from 5-7pm at Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel in South Lake Tahoe.

One purpose of the gathering is to inform people who would be impacted by the proposed road alignment of their rights as a property owner or renter.

The loop road is what transportation officials want to build behind the east part of South Lake Tahoe, and Harrah’s and MontBleu. This would be the new Highway 50. The current highway would become city streets through what is called the tourist core of the South Shore.

For more info, contact Alfred Knotts at (775) 589.5503 or aknotts@tahoetransportation.org.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. JoAnn Conner says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    It is important to note that the City Council again reiterated yesterday it will NOT declare eminent domain and it has NOT approved ANY Loop Road revision.

  2. dryclean says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    The TTD working in conjunction with Cal Trans doesn’t need the city’s approval. Don’t worry Joanne, with all the economic and environmental studies needing to be done and then whatever lawsuits are bought forward with relation to eminent domain and the green groups, this project won’t see a shovel for years. Not to mention that the funding source still has not been identified to pay for it.
    Its Tahoe, everything takes years and years and years.

  3. lou pierini says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    They have no money and no eminent domain power or any gov. that will use it. Were paying these people for a project that is useles and wil not be built by the TTD. Three questions for TTD: where is the money, how are you going to aquire the property and where are you going to relocate these folks? Could you answer these questions for people that can’t attend the side show.

  4. Steve says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    Another example of government bureaucrats running amok.

    Put this issue to vote at the ballot box before spending any more taxpayer dollars on yet another costly fiasco.

  5. sunriser2 says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    If they build the new loop road will they tear out the sidewalks that our being built this summer?

  6. Garry Bowen says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    There is plenty of reason (and justification) to believe “eminent domain” won’t prevail, even if they try it (stopping short of simply saying that it’s already illegal, per several Federal decisions). . .this confuses the comments made by ‘Dryclean’, as Highway 50 is already a long-standing national thoroughfare (“coast-to-coast”), that almost immediately puts it in Federal jurisdiction, subject to the Federal District court decisions that would serve as precedents here. . . there are then Constitutional issues, as in paying them what their property is actually worth, versus any public benefit derived which needs the “last resort” of eminent domain to proceed.

    Currently, I see no justification for doing this, as we surely don’t have the traffic volume of a few decades ago – I think we’re already decades behind in the transit/cycling arena alone, which would benefit greatly from that amount of money being spent, as it pertains to attracting a better & stronger-visitor base.

    $ 70,000,000 in bicycle facilities vs $ 70,000,000 for a ‘freeway’ will reach the goal of walkable/bikable communities much quicker, with much less ‘muss & fuss’. . .

  7. JoAnn Conner says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    Dryclean,CalTrans and our representatives will not override a local jurisdiction. And yes, I am aware of all the other issues.

    My statement was in response to the multitude of calls several of us have received from people who got the flyer from TTD. The wording seems to indicate they can take your property, so am clarifying the misconception for those who do not watch the Council meetings or don’t understand all the details.

  8. Scott Blumenthal says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    I agree with NO eminent domain! As to a loop road itselt, I don’t care much for most of the proposals. We already have roads looping. Why not modify them. It still seems as if we’re set and determined to grab ahold of the 60 million whether it’s good or not. Ahhhhh….

  9. Irish Wahini says - Posted: July 17, 2013

    Hmmm… Alfred Knotts, TTD with a Nevada tel contact…. telling South Lake Tahoe what to do in California about acquiring California land, relocating folks, relocation assistance, etc. Money down the drain… Sixty-million bucks could sure do a lot more to improve this area than a “loop” –

  10. Doug says - Posted: July 18, 2013

    Y’know, all one can do some times is just sit back and watch. Huge $$ spent. Displaced residents and businesses. Agonizing controversy, opposition, and vitriol. And when the plan prevails and is fully implemented, we get a road behind the casinos, and a road going right through the casinos. Can someone explain to me how to describe what is there today? Something that is significantly different?

    Bumping the speed limit 10 here and lowering it 5 there is pitiful reward for all this has entailed. I’m all for a radical redesign of the South Shore center. But it needs to be big, bold, and much more obviously bountiful.

    Eliminate the middle road. Casinos and businesses can get their traffic from the perimeter loop. Replace the middle road with a pedestrian park, lined with the quaint old nostalgic casinos, and a variety of new music venues, small businesses, restaurants, and other amusements of varying sorts. Or how about just a lot of hella-nice landscaping reflecting the local natural amenities, instead of four lanes, or OK, TWO lanes, of clogged exhaust spewing congestion blocking you from crossing the street?

    Lock up your hash pipe for a few days SLT. Clear the air and try to come up with a little vision, please.

  11. really? says - Posted: July 18, 2013

    why can the rest of the basin have a state highway go thru their towns and it not be a big deal? no one else is proposing a loop road

    follow the $$$$$$