State Parks, CTC exchanging land in Tahoe
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS — State agencies are in the process of swapping land on the South Shore in an effort to be more efficient.
“Our hope is the pubic won’t notice anything,” Marilyn Linken, supervisor of the Sierra District of California State Parks, told Lake Tahoe News.
The California Tahoe Conservancy is giving nine parcels totaling about 79 acres to State Parks. Twenty-seven acres will become part of Washoe Meadows State Park and 52 acres will be added to Lake Valley State Recreation Area.
This land is in Meyers. The swap is expected to be finalized by fall 2016.
In a separate deal the Conservancy will be receiving parcels in the Rubicon area of the West Shore from State Parks. That should occur in the spring or summer.
No money is being exchanged.
The change in ownership is a result of the 2012 California Budget Act that tasked the CTC and State Parks with finding a way to better manage state land. By having each agency own parcels that are contiguous instead of randomly isolated, it makes things more efficient.
In the future the Conservancy intends to transfer its rights/ownership/responsibility of Van Sickle Bi-State Park near the state line to State Parks. However, just as when that park opened in 2011, State Parks is in no financial position to take over that South Shore park, even with Nevada State Parks’ help.
The other parcel State Parks will inherit from the CTC is the Cascade property near Emerald Bay. That, too, is being held up because of the Parks’ finances.
The property near Lake Tahoe Golf Course, which is part of the recreation area, was supposed to go to State Parks decades ago based on a settlement agreement from the mid-1980s. No one from either state agency could explain why it took so long for the exchange to come to fruition.
Linken said the acreage being absorbed by State Parks will be treated the same as the land already categorized recreation and parks.
Washoe Meadows still doesn’t have a master plan governing the uses there. Litigation is stalling that process.
“Our hope is the public won’t notice anything” Marilyn Linken, supervisor of the Sierra District of California State Parks, told LTN.
This land is in MYERS. The ‘swap’ is expected to be finalized by fall of 2016.
No $DOLLARS$ are involved…only land?
LAND = MONEY At least around here it does…LOTS of MONEY
Robin, land that cant be sold doesn’t equal money. It equals land that cant be sold. By definition the fair MARKET value is zero. The land must be managed, so this is a swap of liabilities not assets.
Don’t be afraid to read around about a topic before posting.
Moral
Afraid?…Fear is not an option.
Been in Tahoe long enough to realize there is NO such thing as land that CANNOT be sold around here!
Enough MONEY/INFLUENCE will get you anything you want around here…including land that cannot be sold or built on.
Been there done that
P.S. If this was MY publication, which it is Not and I respect that. I could provide a list with REAL names on it.
Name one.
Moral…let us start with your real name.
Oh yes, it’s true. In our old neighborhood, a certain contractors bought a couple of “unbuildable” lots and put mansions on them.
It’s all about who you know.
Moral, once land becomes property of the CTC in Meyers the BOS can rezone them and the CTC can sell them on the open market. This has happened on several occasions within city limits such as the Old Drive In Movie Theater on Glenwood and the Tallac Estates up by Heavenly. Guess who bought and has developed them and guess who is the $$ behind them. Forestry land cannot be developed. State Park land can be developed with zoning changes but only to benefit the parks. CTC land can be rezoned and then sold to the public or one developer which has been happening up here for a long time. Dog is correct. There are no “unbuildable” lots up here when you are the government and can change the rules through zoning.
Kenny you are right on topic. This sets the stage for the development of Meyers. This fits in nicely with the Master plan. Whether this is good or bad for Meyers is a debatable issue.
Kenny that is not exactly true, but in the truncation, you are being misleading. If the lands were purchased with Santini Burton money it takes a act of U.S. Congress to set aside the reservation. That is the vast majority of the urban lots. There are also other sources of funds that have been used to environmentally sensitive lands. Many of those transactions included the purchase of perfectly high capability land in a transaction with sensitive lands. Those high capability lands should, in my view, be sold off to purchase the lands from private landowners where the right to develop has been removed by regulation. I think that is a “taking” as described by the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court didn’t ask me. So yes, that land can be sold. But the CTC never wanted it, it was part of a transaction where they were getting high value land.
Then there is the sliver that Dog and Robyn dont get but have heard of. You can buy and transfer coverage, and build on lots that dont in and of themselves have sufficient coverage. There are limits based on the IPES score of the parcel. The TRPA Code creates markets for coverage, tourist allocation units and commercial floor area that are intangible assets that can be sold. With limits.
Moral,
#1 Guess you didn’t notice that it’s RobIn with an i… not a y TY
#2 IPES score…TRPA Code…CTC…transfers…U S Congress…5th Amendment…blah blah
#3 LOL
“The acreage being absorbed…..will be treated the same as land categorized as recreation…”
Now, go to the Meyers Plan and see it in black & white, what constitutes recreation with the zoning changes in the greater Meyers area. Utility bldgs., police stations, amusement parks, child-care centers, …….the list goes on and on. What THEY consider recreation and what the citizenry considers recreation are two different things. (Only pay attention if you live in the basin and care about what happens to the open spaces around your neighborhoods).
Moral, you are very misinformed as to what is happening up here. If you can prove to me what I said is not happening I will restate. Your proof will have to have a name behind it as I do not believe anonymous faces. I do my homework and I put my name behind it (not for long though) The CTC bought those lands under the premise that they were not zoned for whatever the owner at the time wanted to do and they got the land at a fair price but the original owners were not led to believe they could get it rezoned at a later date. When I asked the CTC rep about that the response was “they should have read the contract closer” We are now getting some (not all) of the CTC lots rezoned for commercial / mixed residential use in Meyers. I speak from experience as I have dealt with the CTC on coverage and land issues in Meyers as well as attending the meetings and asking questions. You should talk with our supervisor about the land rezoning in Meyers. You should also find out who is the developer on the movie theater lot and the tallac site and find out who is the money behind them as it is all tied together. The same thing is going to happen in Meyers with the new town centers and plan #3. Thanks
Kenny many people cant use their name because they also publicly represent an organization. I cant use my real name, it is the same as silencing me.
I might pay my $100. I think the level of conversation will improve. You should reconsider.
More to the point. The devil may be in the detail with respect to the Meyers Plan. I cant tell you for sure you can google Santini – Burton and see that for yourself.
The bottom line is I support having congregated commercial and residential with city center areas better able to accommodate tourism without people having to drive for everything tourists do. In Meyers that would mean having utilities, public safety, visitor centers and the like in each of the core areas. I think its a great idea. But that also means Meyers changes.
I do own a home in Meyers.
Anyone can buy coverage, if they can pay for it, there are no limits.
There is construction of a new home on the corner of 12th Street and Anita Dr. that covers 80 to 85% of the parcel. How in the world did the builder get coverage to build a mansion on such a small parcel? This home has no backyard. I can only imagine that this will be a Vacation Rental property.
Moral, I believe most of us including me, want to see improvement in Meyers we are just disappointed with the process. Plan #3 was a well thought out and discussed plan that was approved by over 90% of the residents that attended the meetings and were asked for their input. For the BOS to approve anything different (which they did) was a slap in the face especially when they asked for our input. I support improvement. Not sure what you want me to reconsider. I respect the fact that what you post is from the heart but I am afraid that most people feel the way you do and that is fear from retaliation for your opinion. We had some good ideas about a visitor center but they have gone nowhere. We need to improve but we also need to not only work within our means but to work with what we have already. Thanks.
Anyone else think Robin Smith should get outside more often? My goodness. What the heck!
FFS, did someone really take a photograph of a map and add it as a low res image as part of this article?
Why don’t you people name these “certain contractors ” ?
Steven, you could pretty easily look it up. There aren’t a whole lot of local contractors regularly building 6 to 10 bedroom spec houses. On formerly unbuildable lots.
(I don’t like to name names here because a certain lawyer threatened to sue me over something I said once a couple of years ago. Even though it was true. Don’t need that.)