Opinion: Tahoe Fund anything but altruistic
By Jacqui Grandfield
A couple of decades ago resort developers began their invasion of the Tahoe area. They bought homes in our communities, enrolled their kids in local schools and almost immediately became active locally by joining committees and doing volunteer work. Then they started offering “donations” to our local, struggling nonprofits.
Some far-sighted people, realizing that this was a thinly veiled attempt to buy their loyalty and cooperation for future development plans, declined to take the money. Some even resigned their jobs with non-profs they helped create.
Fast forward 10 years or so. These same resort developers began offering money to our local environmental and public agencies. Fearing these donations would constitute a conflict of interests and be seen by the public as bribes from special interest groups, the agencies danced around this issue for several years, publicly denying any money exchange.
The Great Recession of 2008 made these same local agencies desperate for money as government spending was drying up. Along comes the California Tahoe Conservancy’s new executive officer, with a “great” idea. He would start a nonprofit comprised of local environmentalists and developers to cooperate and provide financing for small, local projects … another idea of his, proved disastrous for the Delta Bay ecosystem (and the Delta Bay Authority) at a cost of over $3 billion to taxpayers.
Numerous calls to the California Attorney General’s Office and a CTC board member resulted in no answer to a simple question: Is it even legal for a state public environmental agency to start a nonprofit with such powerful special interest groups as Vail, KSL, JMA, et al?
TRPA tells us this public/private cooperation is the economic future for Tahoe.
Enter the Tahoe Fund. The picture that’s been painted for the general public is that of a nonprofit group of environmentalists and developers working together to help restoration efforts by providing funding, and presumably expertise, to all sorts of natural resource projects in the basin. The stated purpose of the Tahoe Fund is “to become a major source of private funding for environmental projects around the Lake Tahoe Basin …”
Sounds good at first, right? But, what’s really the difference from prior decades? Now they have communications and media experts who mislead the general public about their purpose and intent and the methods they use to achieve them.
In reality, this group is part of an “iron triangle”, a result of the sub-government structure that dominates in the basin. This “cozy triangle” as it is often called, consists of federal government, state and local government and special interest groups (pressure groups), both public and private. The public group wants resource protection and education while the private groups want profit.
The problem is these two pressure groups do not have equal resources in that private groups have much, much more money and thus way more influence. The Tahoe Fund is a perfect example of private special interests controlling the average Tahoe citizen’s life and environment. Add this to the fact that the majority of our local governments are run by non-elected, appointed officials. Where does this leave the less powerful public interest groups and the public in general? It leaves them virtually powerless in Tahoe’s cozy triangles.
A final insult to the public, but a great deal for developers is they can throw money or what amounts to their pocket change at small projects around Tahoe while proceeding with their mega developments. These projects, even those costing $10 million to $12 million, are great for a localized area but can in no way offset the widespread, massive environmental and cultural damage caused by huge, unnecessary developments.
What they can do is provide developers and other private investors with mitigation offsets, potential development right transfers, a nonprofit tax shelter and most egregiously, a powerful and cheap public relations tool to convince Tahoeans that developers are great people who support community, environment and economy.
Otherwise why is the Tahoe Fund board composed of ski industry CEO’s such as Andy Wirth and Art Chapman, CTC’s Patrick Wright, local government officials, venture capitalists and “token environmentalists” (who are also donors)? Why is the Fund’s CEO a public relations and marketing specialist? And, is it possible that these “special interests” receive favors for their monetary contributions in the form of extra TAUs, rezoning conservation areas, expanded coverage, height and so on?
The Tahoe Fund is not an altruistic entity. It is part of big developers’ strategy to influence public opinion in their favor.
Does anyone really trust these special entities to protect and enhance our communities and natural resources when their main goal is money? There are reasonable, effective solutions to combat the corruption and influence these types of pressure groups create. We could demand that more of our public officials are elected by the people, for the people and not appointed by questionable public agencies and special interests?
That’s one idea, what’s yours?
Jacqui Grandfield is a wildlife biologist and environmental policy expert who lives in Lake Tahoe.
. . . and all three “iron triangle” members bulldoze over private individuals and THEIR property rights.
Never forget: the smallest minority is the individual.
Jaqui Grandfield, Excellent article! Here I thought I was just one of a few who saw what was going on.
As far as ideas? I think you’re on the right track!
Thank you, Old Long Skiis
If you look at the projects that the tahoe fund has put money towards I belive they are all on the ground environmentally based projects. Grandfield seems to be froman old school ideology that believes building anything is bad for the environment which it is not, and that only old old school environmentalists of her stripe care about the environment. The Tahoe fund has done good work and filled a void of getting stuff done on the ground.
I think what Grandfield says is really important. Developers have learned that one way to forward their projects is to cloak them in “sustainability”and other friendly sounding buzz words. It seems that local agencies are more in lock step with one another than ever before. Now these groups infiltrate by offering funding and other assistance while they incorporate State programs into the mix of regional agency and funding group protocols and goals. It winds up being a confusing and often contradictory morass of bureaucracy that is very difficult to take apart so that the threads of it are comprehensible.
This is what will Take Tahoe from being a sparkling Jewell of the Sierra to a traffic clogged, smoggy shopping Mecca of a resort town.
Whoa!!!! You are soooooo right!!! Spot on!!!! Love you!!!!
Reality check there is no more state and federal money for environmental improvements. Southern Nevada money is done, the federal money will never make it through congress, and state funds will be minimal. Public private partnerships that protect the environment, help the economy and strengthen the community is the future. The Tahoe fund recognizes the future and is developing partnerships to keep environmental improvements moving forward. You old guard types are wishing for the past. You may not like it but this is the future. It’s a new era and new tools are needed.
Tahoe, specifically, south lake, is already a traffic clogged shopping Mecca town. It’s only gotten better in the last ten years with the help of groups like trpa, CTC, Tahoe fund, etc. Are you trying to say south lake is some beautiful town now? It needs a lot of help, and is getting better. We will continue to get better, without the help from old school, all development is bad, environmentalists like yourself.
some of you folks are putting too much Brandy in your coffee.
more low hanging fruit from chief christian!
“Reality check there is no more state and federal money for environmental improvements. Southern Nevada money is done, the federal money will never make it through congress, and state funds will be minimal. Public private partnerships that protect the environment, help the economy and strengthen the community is the future. The Tahoe fund recognizes the future and is developing partnerships to keep environmental improvements moving forward. You old guard types are wishing for the past. You may not like it but this is the future. It’s a new era and new tools are needed.”
This is exactly right. Tahoe SNPLMA is gone. It does not exist and there is no money even if it did. The Tahoe Restoration Act didn’t make it when the House, Senate and Pres. were all Democratic. There is no chance it makes it with all Republicans. And that is the end of the road for big dollar projects unless the money is coming from the private sector.
Jacqui is correct. Special interest developers are destroying the Tahoe region. I don’t see how South Lake Tahoe has gotten better. More traffic, more development, more trash, more light pollution, more turning the area into another Sacramento. Tahoe is a mountain jewel, keep it a small, undeveloped mountain beauty. When all the development has turned the lake green and murky, people will finally wake up. Unfortunately, too late.
Steven,
You are obviously new to the area. We have far less traffic than the 70’s and 80’s. Early development was poorly planned and had no true oversight. Planning was very little or non existent. Today’s Tahoe has layers of planning, all projects are highly scrutinized. You have to go through city, county, TRPA and in some cases Lahontan. Every project has environmental requirements attached to them. There will always be the new comers that say “No Development”, unfortunately the areas that are deemed to be developed will be eventually. Fortunately there is plenty of oversight.
Steven you could not be more wrong, by every objective measure there are way less people visiting Lake Tahoe then in the past 30 years and by not redeveloping the infrastructure we are guaranteed to keep the same environmental mistakes in place. Given there is NO MORE PUBLIC FUNDING available for large scale environmental improvement the only source available is public private partnerships so when new development goes in it brings significant environmental improvements with it or it doesn’t get a permit. We are not by any means turning into Sacramento that is preposterous. Just trying to fix the worn out, tired built infrastructure and at the same time build in environmental improvements. If the old guard has any better realistic ideas let’s hear them.
Joby and slapshot
You both either work for a developer, TRPA, CTC the city or some other group with a hidden agenda or your brain has just been glazed over by all the baloney those groups spew ! Or you are a money hungry realtor or business owner.
There are way more visitors to Tahoe, daily. There isn’t even a shoulder season anymore.
And when every parcel of open land, whether along hwy 50 or in our neighborhoods is built on, we will look like Sacramento. And when there is so much light pollution on the south shore that the stars are no longer visible, and the lake is no longer clear, you will know I’m right.
Bending over for the developers is repairing the infrastructure of our Lake Tahoe communities? How corporate/winger brain-scrubbed do you have to be to believe that pantload?
Moral Hazard, you admit that the GOP hates all environmental issues that may impede the rampant greedheads that have usurped our government, can you think of a more compelling argument to vote Democratic for our town and our country than that?
The people visiting Tahoe now are less into gambling, more into the beaches, lakes, and trails. We have less traffic but more people everywhere,including the back country. Lets also hinder the “big” ski resorts from attracting some of the people in the summer to their mountain for recreation so they can infest the rest of the outdoor basin because they are large rich developer “corporations”. Oh but its okay if they pay for enviromental improvements. Lets not give the recreationalists attracted to the area a nice place to stay and shop though because you want them to start camp fires in the back country and park their subaru on the side of the trail head. The old guard types have shot themselves in the foot, as do most special interests.
Lots of good comments as always. Joby, you’re correct there is much less traffic around here than there was in the 70’s and 80’s. I’ll add, less traffic = less money coming into town, which means people moving away, which means more schools closing, more post offices closing and more empty store fronts on hiway 50, and more empty homes on my street and thru out town.
Yes, there are multiple agencies which are supposedly put in place to oversee development, but in MY view they are often giving approval to large developements, yet the home owner who wants to put up a storage shed on the side of their home is often told “no” by the “appointed” agencies who have authority over your own property. Again, just MY view on things.
I fear for what is planned for Meyers as well as other parts of So. Shore. BIG projects planned for No. Shore as well….
Look out West Shore! I’ve got a bad feeling you’ll be next on the list for logging, new roads and housing developements you may not want, along with all of its attendant consequentces. Water and air polluttion, erosion with more dirt and crud entering the lake and streams. More homes = more trash = more bears roaming into what was once a pristine area,breaking into homes and cars looking for food.
I’m going outside and sit by whats left of my garden. There is still a few leaves of Swiss Chard, some Snow Peas and underneith the withering Zuccinni plants, a few squash are still waiting to be be picked.
I’ll see you out by the yellowing Aspens and the beautiful fall weather. OLS
After living here for 30+ years I would have to agree with the assessments that Joby and Slapshot offered up. And just to add, within the City of South Lake Tahoe the year round population is somewhere around 23,000 now whereas in the early 80’s it was upwards of 30,000+. Closely monitored sustainable growth is by no means a bad thing for our community. It would be nice in a perfect world if we could diversify our towns economic driving force, but any way you cut it tourism will always be the main engine driving or economy. I for one am personally quite pleased with the upgrades our town has been working on and look forward to the future and how the blight we’ve lived with for so many years is finally being taken care of.
And the whole “corporate takeover conspiracy” is a skewed vision of the draw these changes have made to create an atmosphere where many businesses see South Lake Tahoe as a viable market to invest in, FINALLY!
Biggerpicture, you have lived here for 30 yrs. and see the corporate takeover of our local economy from the previously family owned major businesses like Harrahs, Harveys and Heavenly as nothing to worry about and some sort of imagined conspiracy theory? Is the supply side economic model of never-ending growth and the creation of low paying jobs to service a increasingly wealthy tourist clientele something that we really want for our community? That’s not why I moved here in the 70s and may I say that it was a much better town back then than what the Tahoe Fund, TRPA , CTC etc. have in mind for our future.
Kevin, Vail, even though a corporat entity, has done more for this town in time they have owned Heavenly than Hugh or Billy Kilabrew ever thought of doing. And as to the casinos, the whole gaming industry has gone corporate so I’m not sure I see your point as it pertains to Tahoe. And last time I checked the biggest proposed Stateline
Kevin, were there ever high paying jobs here? I mean before the corporations you hate took over? Seems to me that there is now much more opportunity for advancement than there was before with the family owned businesses.
No, it ain’t great. But that’s what a person needs to consider before moving to a mountain resort town. And I sure like Vail a LOT better than I liked ASC. Big’s right on this one!
Here is the last part of my comment that I sent before finishing it:
development is being proposed by the Park Cattle Co. which I believe is a privately-owned company, is it not?
Steven do you have numbers to back up your contention that there are more visitors here than before? I doubt it but if you would like to lookup the room nights on an annual basis go to the city website under TOT there are reports that you can look it. It will show that we have 200k less room nights than we had in 2003. Close to a third less visitors. I take it you must really enjoy the rundown buildings along 50 that have no curbs, peeling paint and drug haven motels. These properties will continue to rot and put more dirt in the lake without new money to developed them. But for many here they would rather these properties keep hurting the clarity of the lake than allow any sort of development. if these posters have a plan and a way to fund them I would love to hear them. I’ve have heard commits that the city should buy them and tear them down, but they fail to realise the city has no money to even supply basic services like good roads. However the concervancy does have funds and just this last week torn down one of the eye shores on 89/emerald bay I think was its name). they are also buying the land that has the head shop on 50. They are attempting to do some improvement to help the lake.
Harrahs has its own problems, dont be surprised if we see a bk soon due to its 14 billion dollar debt.
Steven I work for none of those organization and you are factually incorrect by a mile. Check trpa traffic counts, city occupancy and gaming revenues all are public documents. I just happened to look several months ago to see what gives with tourism in this town and you are just plain wrong and it’s brings into question your objectivity or ideological predisposition. Quit drinking the same old environmental old school cool aid and open your mind. There is no more public money for environmental fixes deal with it.
it is a well written article the Tahoe Fund is only to further along the RPU.
I do not agree with the RPU I believe it’s the wrong direction for our little Town.
maybe I’m biased Redevelopment has Porked me out of thousand’s of parking stalls.
old Hal and Tom started selling the Town to the Big Developers a long time ago.
whoever gets into office is going to continue to sell the Town, that’s the way it is.
Steven,
I’m a local for 40 of my 47 years. I went through the school system. Have owned multiple small business. My family has been in the area since the late 40’s. I have never worked for the government in any capacity, but have volunteered countless hours to many organizations including a 2 year stint with the planning commission. to make a long story short, I have seen it good, I’ve seen it bad, I saw the decline, and I believe what I’m seeing is an incline. Throughout all of it I’ve seen change. What we have today is community leaders that are willing to sit down and converse on how to find a better way. I would like to say that I agree to disagree in order to keep it civil, but you have zero knowledge of Tahoe and the many changes it has seen. Shoulder seasons are three times longer than “the good ol days”… Just for the record old Hal and Tom don’t have the power to sell out the town, in fact whether you agree or disagree with their votes they primarily volunteer as they certainly aren’t doing it for the pay, and are just two votes on a council of five.
Joby, Good comment! Yeah, I been around here awhile myself. In talking with my Dad on our regular morning phone call I brought up Conolley’s pier. My 91 year old Dad tells me he met a girl out there on the pier for a date when he was still in high school! Figure outt what that year was! Yeah, lots of history!
I have to agree with you Hal and Tom sure aint’ selling out the city and they sure as heck are’nt on the council for the money. I was makin’ that much money washing dishes at the “Top of The Wheel” in 1968!
Take care, Old Long Skiis
Steven, an interesting article appeared in the Trib yesterday that definitely does not back up your claim of more Tahoe visitors:
‘Domestic travel to Lake Tahoe’s ski resorts has fallen by 40 percent since 2005 — and the problem isn’t the snow drought.’
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/13525578-113/ski-tahoe-percent-lake