Letter: Time for Meyers to unite
To the community,
We do not have our elected leaders’ voice at the Board of Supervisors:
As you may have heard by now, our new (El Dorado Count)y supervisor, Sue Novasel, cannot vote on, nor participate in planning for the new Meyers Area Plan. First, we respect Sue. She’s a hard-working woman who clearly cares for her community. However, with the county’s legal opinion that she cannot participate due to a conflict of interest, our community has been left without an elected vote on the plan. Yes, a second opinion is being requested from the state, but this takes time.
This is unsettling to say the least. Worse yet, this comes after many community volunteers have spent over a year trying to slow the fast-moving TRPA and El Dorado County train down so that the Meyers community has the chance – through a transparent, inclusive, and clear process – to develop the plan for our own future that is based on the desires of area residents, not TRPA nor special land speculator’s interests. We had high hopes that our new supervisor could help ensure the kind of process our community deserves. Now, we have an appointed supervisor from another district who comes from downtown Placerville, not Meyers.
The planning process is flawed, undemocratic, and not inclusive. So what do we do now?
That’s the big question. The last thing anyone wants is a repeat of the county’s 2014 process, whereby TRPA and the county present a spruced-up “dog and pony” show at yet another community workshop intended to impress but lacking clear and transparent information regarding the changes TRPA wants to impose on Meyers. Nor does anyone want to see the community’s input tossed out the window (again) by a Planning Commission unfamiliar with Meyers and the poor planning process we’ve dealt with to date.
There is a better way to plan for Meyers’ future.
We believe we can still turn this around. We have an opportunity to decide our own future. In fact, our neighbors at the Y in the city of South Lake Tahoe have recently given us a reason to be optimistic — the South Lake Tahoe community stood up to TRPA, and through a well-informed process led by city staff, citizens were able to define the future they want – not what TRPA imposed on them. As a result, the draft Tahoe Valley Area Plan (the “Y” Area Plan) has been modified and scaled down from the increases imposed by TRPA’s 2012 Regional Plan update. For example, the 56-foot height (four stories) prescribed by TRPA for the entire “town center” (most of the Y area) was reduced. In another example, TRPA’s “one-size-fits-all” town center approach was divided into five districts to recognize the unique qualities throughout the area. Notably the 1993 Meyers Plan included four districts in “downtown Meyers” before TRPA’s Plan lumped them all into one “town center.” We have wondered if the SLT community can choose unique districts and height, why has there been so much resistance to the Meyers community doing the same?
We have also heard positive comments from numerous members of the public regarding the city’s public outreach; rather than spouting off numbers and presenting charts, staff brought pictures to workshops and asked the public to voice opinions; thus giving people the chance to express what they wanted without having to first take an LTCC class in land use planning.
The entire Meyers Community, not outside special interests, must decide what is contained in any new Meyers Plan.
Meyers can still take charge of planning for our own future. But, the community volunteers need your help. The County has scheduled another public workshop for the Meyers Area Plan update for May 6 from 5:30-7:30pm at the magnet school in Meyers, 1095 East San Bernardino Ave.
We need you to attend and speak up. Demand a clear and transparent process and one that includes the entire Meyers community. Tell the agencies what you want to see for Meyer’s future. Make a fuss and don’t put up with another “dog and pony show.” If our community does not rally to this effort, we will be pushed aside by TRPA, county representatives from outside the basin, and NV-side development interests (e.g. Stateline’s Tahoe Chamber) and left with TRPA’s plan for the future of Meyers. From what we’ve heard from the community so far, their vision for the future of Meyers is a far cry from the interests of those of us who have made the Meyers area our home. TRPA does not represent Meyers, and the only board member that has lived and worked in Meyers had to recuse herself from the Meyers Plan update.
Meyers community members can make a difference if you get involved.
Some food for thought: Lack of involvement and complacency allowed TRPA to push their plans on us over two years ago without most of us knowing it. If we don’t get involved now, we will remain vulnerable to TRPA’s plan for Meyers. So, we can sit back and be upset about the inability of our elected representative to participate in our plan update, or we can take action and demand that the new plan represents what we want to see for Meyers. Let the other El Dorado County Board members know that we don’t want TRPA’s plan for Meyers – we want our own. Please join us on May 6 and be ready to be heard.
Sincerely,
Joe Cardinale, Angie Olson, Jennifer Quashnick, Moya Sanders, Rebecca Schwartz and Diane Verwoest
People need to show-up and participate. Who decided to put a sign on HWY 50, right before Apache and the turn to the Elementary School, directing the public to the Tahoe Paradise Park? It’s a neighborhood park (paid for by property owners in the district) with little or no services for the motoring public and NEWSFLASH!!!!! it is right next to an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (Can anyone say -ease of abducting access?!) Where do the motoring public park, poop, pee, change dirty diapers and toss their trash???? This is wrong. Period.
We have to insist that our neighborhood assets don’t turn into selling points for real estate agents and developers. Please dive into all 87 pages of the details (for an area less than 700 acres).
Be ready to pick-up your jaw -off the floor ’cause it is jaw-dropping, to be sure. By the way, the Visitors Center on HWY 50 has been closed for almost all of it’s existence ’cause no one could supply toilet-paper, remove trash or plow in the winter. The County and Chamber wanted nothing to do with it- even when a local offered to remove snow in the winter for free. Why should we expect any better from them now? We Can’t.
Isee, there actually is a good reason for there to be a sign directing people to the park from Hwy 50. Weddings. There are quite a few weddings that take place at that park, and without signage, it’s a very difficult place to find. Better people know where to turn than to have them racing around lost in the neighborhoods!
Dog- We the People do not owe free advertising for private wedding vendors.(Like Sue’s daughter) All the info on weddings and venues can be found on websites.
Wrongula-always wrong but never in doubt
Dogula is correct this time, even if it is one of the few. Isee lives near the park and is concerned people might walk behind his house where he hikes. He also likes the private park. So everything Isee says is about his own selfish self interest.
Some people in Meyers need a dose of reality. There are no major developers waiting to invest and transform Meyers into the same scope and size as Stateline, Ski Run or the Y. The city can’t even get the investment it needs in any of these areas so it’s highly doubtful Meyers will transform itself anytime soon. I mean really what makes anyone think big time developers are lining up to transform Meyers into another Stateline? We need reasonable dialogue and pragmatic solutions. The fear mongering that has gone on is just plain unproductive and we need to get past it.
What we do need to realize is we do need to be open to change and reasonable scaled development that allows the Meyers economy and quality of life to succeed. We barely can keep the park open let alone the improvements we would like to see. Doing nothing or preventing investment to get reasonable returns just locks in place what we have. We need to keep our options open both today and in the future. Who knows we may want and need a small hotel or some other development to help make our existing small businesses and restaurants successful. By all means everyone go to the meetings get yourself informed but keep your mind open, look for pragmatic solutions and look past the extremist positions on all sides.
Sue is a capable and earnest person but she is unable to represent Meyers when it most needs representation. She should consider stepping down.
The viciousness of your personal attack is unwarranted. Look beyond your own ignorance.
I never said anything about private wedding vendors. YOUR OWN NEIGHBORS might have their wedding there. Have a pot luck reception. They PAY for the private use of the area. Great grandma and old Uncle Lou might not HAVE a GPS or know how to use a computer.
What is your problem?? Are you really that selfish?
Sue Novasel was not elected by the voters in El Dorado County District 5 JUST to represent Meyers. Those that are demanding she give up her seat on the EDC BOS are not only wasting their time, they don’t seem to be aware of the bigger picture of issues that face we EDC residents in the Tahoe Basin. The population of Meyers accounts for roughly 13 to 15 percent of the EDC District 5 population with, and I’m guessing, less than 1 to 2 percent of the businesses in the district, far from being the most important issue facing county residents in the Basin.
The wedding planners are free to create chaos and the patrons are free to wander around neighborhoods. That’s the free society you want. Why should everyone in Meyers contribute for a sign that saves 12 people annoyance? If the Wedding planners will benefit economically from signs, the signs will be put up. Free market at work.
We do not currently HAVE a free market economy. We pay taxes so government puts up directional signs to tax supported facilities. Duh. Do you really need to disagree with me SO badly that you say stupid stuff like that?
Let me start off by saying I’m not a Meyers resident.
I do consider Meyers part of So. Shore even if those city limits don’t extend out that far.
Do the residents of the area want rampant devlopement?
From what I’ve heard, I think not.
Is the Meyers Area Plan just a ploy for a group of investors to run away with bundles of cash? Is the TRPA in on this? Giving said investors and a developer approval for this project?
Who profits? Follow the money. OLS
OLS once again your comments are part of the problem. Rampant development? What rampant development are you talking about? What investors? Nobody wants to invest in Meyers how would they get a return on their investment. Meyers can barely keep the level of retail it has going. The city can barely attract investors.
Slapshot, Once the Meyers area plan gets pushed through, developement of the re-zoned area wll start. Construction of the Edgewod property is ongoing.When someone with the money buys the Tahole to try and finish that project that will continue. On the north shore two large housing projects are planned.
Just wait untill they use emminent domain to start the construction of the loop road.
Those are just the ones I know about but I’m sure there are others being kept under wraps so as to not get the public riled up. OLS
Dogzilla, always the victim…
OLS comparing Edgewood to Meyers in not even close, not even in the same ballpark. Completely different worlds. Completely different economic scenarios. Just because someone builds a project does not mean it’s a bad thing. In fact when someone redevelop or builds something it comes with significant environmental improvements. The Edgewood project as with all new projects are tied to significant environmental improvements that reduce sediment loading as well as other environmental benefits. I think you are just against change and someone making money. That’s a great position to have if your retired or have what you need. You have yours but the people who might get jobs in these places get nothing. Very greedy view you have. Without some new development how do you propose getting environmental improvements done and paid for? Is your idea to just continue the degradation of the environment?
Again there will be no rampant development in Meyers, no one can make any money and so what if there is some new development? The community will have plenty of say in it and in fact it might be beneficial. Do you think someone is going to sneak some project in without the community knowing about it?
You take one piece of information then another and with a little pixie dust draw a conclusion that may not be even close to reality but it fits your story line. Very dangerous thinking. Like I said above keep an open mind.
If we could set aside the mud slinging for a few minutes…
I think that there are a few points worth discussing regarding this letter. First, there is a legitimate concern that the residents and local business owners opinions may not be considered and/or adopted via due process in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with law. The concerns are well placed given the history of back door politics in El Dorado County.
This leads to the matter of local representation. The Meyers Area Plan discussion predated the election of our District Supervisor. The fact that she is legally required to recuse herself from participating in the planning and decision making processes of this matter should come as little surprise to those that read the campaign material and are familiar with the Supervisor and the location of her family’s property holdings. The laws regarding public officials and conflict of interest are quite clear. I’m sure most of us recall a certain west slope District Supervisor who’s recent actions were deemed to be unethical and a conflict of interest. We don’t need a repeat of that type of behavior. That being said, I do not see a conflict of interest if our District Supervisor sees to it that the opinions of her constituents are heard and concerns are addressed, that due process and open meeting laws are adhered to, and legitimate compromise is achieved.
Though I don’t live within the Meyers Area Plan boundaries, I believe that there is room for improvement and upgrades (and the rest of the South Shore, for that matter). Perhaps some smaller scale, locally owned or operated shops, cafe’s and maybe a small hotel would fit within the vision and scale of Meyers.
I believe that the purpose of the well intentioned authors of the subject letter is to encourage attendance and open-minded civil discussion of this opportunity to assist in shaping the future vision of Meyers. If you don’t care, fine, don’t participate. Just don’t complain when the result is not to your liking.
Slapshot and tc:
Thank you for elevating the intellectual level of this forum which is oftentimes obtuse.
I would ask all interested to review history and recall that the last Supervisor, Norma Santiago, was (without notice or input from Meyers residents) actively meeting and writing to congress people about the “Catalyst project”, which was seen as a large development in Meyers, a rat warren of small apartments, underground parking etc, aimed at a “training facility” and “smart Hub” for training athletes for Olympics and other competitions and events.
The degree of paranoia about what the County and TRPA are thinking about outside of public venues was reinforced by the revelation of Santiago’s actions and the publishing of her correspondence.
The vague nature of all the agency responses and answers to direct questions has done nothing to dispel a fear that Meyers is in a bulls eye for a development of unknown or at least unclear type and size.
It is sort of a “where there is smoke there is likely a fire” concern, and I personally believe there is something to it.
We need to take emotion out of the equation as the main driver, and deal with the facts.
It does seem that the agencies who are charged with planning and control of future development are not communicative, and are not cooperative, all the while setting up revised zoning and other preparations without a clearly stated goal describing what it is they are planning and zoning for.
Cranky: Thank You
Thanks Cranky: and after Meyers gets a grip on this “Catalyst Project” we the people can start on the Loop Road.
It will be a shame if this meeting turns out to be nothing more than a paranoid “shouting down” of anything construed as progress. Here is a great opportunity to mold and direct the conversation. Trash talking the county supervisor, local agencies and the chamber of commerce is amateurish and a quick way to be dismissed as a bunch of NIMBY’s and the vocal minority.
Should be an interesting meeting.
South Lake Tahoe needs more small businesses helping to improve the damaged economy.
Not the crony government + the Corporatists and their non profit minions, especially the Nevada based Chamber of Commerce.
Gerald- You’re right about Meyers being in the Bull’s eye for development but some property owners have a bigger target on them. Refer to the map in the plan that shows the trading values on lots in the area .You can see how stupid the process is and why people are fearful of the plan for Meyers. Stream Environment Zones have less trade value than tiny parcels in commercial areas. Again, plain stupid.
There is nothing here against Sue. Fact is, she can’t represent Meyers on the Area Plan. The County decided that, not Sue. At this point, the community can speak up to the (hopefully temporary) Board assignee, Supervisor Veerkamp, and help educate him on what Meyers wants.
If there is no interest in the large developments allowed by TRPA’s 2012 Plan, then why can’t we scale things back and saying what kind of new development we DO want in the new Meyers Plan? If the community doesn’t tell Supervisor Veerkamp, all he knows is what he’s heard from TRPA and our last Supervisor.
We have beat the Meyers Area Plan to death in the last couple of years. Most of the changes that have been made resulting in plan #3 were decided on by the community and implemented into the plan. The one change that was of concern was the height of the buildings (approx. 9 feet). We lost the ability or access to the BOS to either approve or deny the plan as not only a community but vote as well. The influence the community has on the BOS is miniscule when compared to the agency’s and developers. I personally like most of the new plan and do not want to stop moving forward as we know we need to move forward with the implementation of the community chosen plan. What the community has lost is the vote on the BOS along with accountability of the developers to look out for community’s interest rather than theirs. Do what is best for the community first, do what is right for the community. To everyone that has an opinion that does not live in Meyer’s, I appreciate your input but just like those of us that live in Meyer’s and give input to the city, your voice, your vote and your opinion however well stated, does not count on what takes place in Meyer’s. We need to move forward but we need to do it our way and not depend on Placerville to decide what is best for us. This meeting tonight will be the last time Mr. Veerkamp comes up as all correspondence from this point on will be done by email according to county website. The only way we can be truly heard is through voting power by our representative. If I want to be heard by the city I have to live in the city. If we want to be heard by Placerville we need to be able to have a vote on the BOS. The BOS (4) will also have a chance to appoint 7 residents that will govern the plan as was stated in the plan. The community needs to be able to vote on that as well through our representative which is now not possible. Mr. Veerkamp (from Placerville) is also the alternate voting representative on the TRPA. Our representative has recused from the last two TRPA votes, Heavenly master plan and Wildlife Care Center of which both are excellent plans for our area. Thank You
Kenny Thanks- At previous meetings it certainly was evident that planners, consultants & developers were being listened to more than residents (and ,of course, they are allowed a longer period to speak). People, don’t mince words, say it loud and clear- whatever your position, it’s as important as any and our stand-in Board member needs to hear it all to be clear on what’s best for residents and businesses.