CTC changing the focus of its mission
By Kathryn Reed
California Tahoe Conservancy outlined Tuesday how it is transitioning from being an agency that buys land so it would not be developed to one that is collecting commodities associated with land to further development.
Patrick Wright, executive director of the state agency that is based in South Lake Tahoe, and Peter Eicher, planner with the agency, gave a presentation to the City Council on Feb. 4 about the Tahoe Livable Communities Program. Under that umbrella come the Conservancy Land Acquisition and Land Bank programs.
- ANALYSIS
The land bank program has existed for decades, but only recently has made headlines because of the Conservancy’s selling and trading property.
“Perhaps some lands could be used for better things than open land space,” Eicher told the council.
Wright said the agency is looking at its nearly 5,000 parcels in the Lake Tahoe Basin to determine if it’s better to shift from acquisition mode to selling in order to better meet the state’s priorities – which is greenhouse gas emissions, and the mandates of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan – which is dense development in town centers.
Tahoe is unique in that commercial floor area (CFA), tourist accommodation units (TAU) and coverage are commodities. This means a parcel is worth more than just the land. How much of the dirt can be built on – aka coverage – is valuable. It’s possible to buy a parcel and transfer coverage to another area, therefore rendering the first parcel unbuildable.
It’s also possible to transfer CFA and TAU to other jurisdictions. South Lake Tahoe has a rule on the books that the council must approve such transactions.
The basin does not operate as a true free market society. It’s about who has money to buy these limited commodities.
With the CTC budget drying up, it needs to find another way to generate money. Going into the Tahoe-centric commodities business is how it can stay afloat and presumably stay relevant.
Hah! As with ALL statist agencies, it ain’t about conservation. It’s about control and it’s about money. YOUR money, and usually about how to separate you from it.
sounds like a tree hugger who cuts it down because a developer said the grass was greener on the other side.
One must question whether a state agency has the right to continue to indulge itself in and literally compete in a local real estate market. Their land coverage and property sales do impact market value. Is it fair that a state jurisdiction has the right to somewhat control a local real estate market ?
The other question raised is does this agency have the right to literally change the purpose/intent of acquired sensitive property purchased with tax dollars and convert it back to development land ? ( to prolong it’s existence )
We’re seeing TRPA also engage reverse-ecological practices with “dense development in town centers” purely for self-sustainment.
Maybe the missions of both agencies are completed and the agencies should shut down.
John + 1000
Local development codes are more than enough for the limited amount of privately owned vacant land. Might be more restrictive on the West slope of El Dorado County than in the basin.
“With the CTC budget drying up it needs to find another way to generate money.”
Can a state agency arbitrarily change their focus/operation without the public input and paper work that created it in the first place? It seems that to take public money and public trust and simply change gears is a bit of a stretch. Imagine if state agencies routinely did this kind of magic. (sounds like something comediennes would have fun with) Is this a precedent? If so, is it a good one?
As much as ctc and trpa would like to transform tahoe into dense development in town centers, their ability to influence the existing built environment is too limited. Instead, their current policies are simply undoing development restrictions by pretending that new development is redevelopment