Group takes step for loop road to go to voters
By Lake Tahoe News
Three former South Lake Tahoe city councilmembers and a founder of the city are on a quest to get the loop road before the voters.
Bruce Grego, John Cefalu, Bill Crawford and Laurel Ames have filed a notice of intent to circulate a petition regarding the loop road.
The loop road is a project spearheaded by the Tahoe Transportation District to realign Highway 50 so it goes behind Harrah’s Lake Tahoe and MontBleu casinos. It would make the current highway a city and county street from about Park Avenue to Lake Parkway. It would also require the demolition of several residences and a handful of businesses in South Lake Tahoe.
“While the group has serious concerns about the loop road project, including the use of eminent domain, they believe that putting this decision in the hands of the voters will empower the community to get involved and make an informed decision on a project that has far reaching implications now and in the future,” Grego said in an email to Lake Tahoe News.
The foursome wants to prohibit the city from approving or supporting the loop road. That is what would be before voters.
City Attorney Tom Watson has 15 days to write a legal summary that does not exceed 500 words and he must write a ballot title, assuming one can legally be written. If it cannot, the petitioners could start over.
Assuming Watson writes the summary, the quartet must publish the intent in an adjudicated publication, and then take that document to the city clerk. Then the group must get nearly 1,000 valid signatures on the petition. If certified by the county elections department, it goes on the ballot.
The city would be responsible for bearing the costs of the election, which could be about $10,000.
It would be great if this group would outline their specific concerns.
The notice of intent is now embedded in the story.
LTN staff
Thank you that is helpful. I am not sure
about all these issues but with regard to item 6 I think the assumption is incorrect. If done correctly the major beneficiary will be the City of South Lske Tahoe. There is far more upside potential for the city.
YES, YESS, YESSS!
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!:)
“While the group has serious concerns about the loop road project, including the use of eminent domain, they believe that putting this decision in the hands of the voters will empower the community to get involved and make an informed decision on a project that has far reaching implications now and in the future,” Grego said in an email to Lake Tahoe News.
Ah yes. Lip service brought to you by some of those same people who successfully manipulated the end of paid parking and eliminated a few hundred-thousand dollars of mainly tourist derived revenue to the City of South Lake Tahoe every year.
If the residents of South Lake Tahoe are satisfied with their community in its present state, if they are satisfied with the current economic opportunities available to them in this community, if they don’t care about themselves or their children having the opportunity to get ahead, and if they want nothing to change and for everything to stay the same, then they should go along with the desires of these four, long-time, financially affluent South Lake Tahoe residents who many years ago had their opportunity to prosper in South Lake Tahoe at a time when such was possible.
What are or have any of these people proposed that will help elevate the living standards and the financial opportunities for the majority of South Lake Tahoe’s residents? “Just keep everything the same”. Unfortunately more of the same only guarantees more of the same, or less, and that prevents many people from ever being able to get ahead.
It’s starting to look like the taxpayers of South Lake Tahoe will once again get to foot the bill for an election imposed by a minority group of people. Residents not caring about a minority group controlling the future of their town and of not having opportunities for their own or their children’s future need not show up to vote.
Excuse me…everyone that has signed on the dotted line…ie: paid their taxes and fulfilled their responsibilities to the City is obliged to VOTE.
Don’t show up to vote?…where does a comment like that come from?
Robin Smith:
The comment in its entirety was “Residents not caring about a minority group controlling the future of their town and of not having opportunities for their own or their children’s future need not show up to vote.”
Your extracted snippet of “Don’t show up to vote?” is out of context.
If they do show up, how will they vote?
Mr. Pierini,
My hope is that if Ms. Ames, Mr. Grego, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Cefalu are successful in their bid to place the topic of the Loop Road on a ballot that is going to cost the taxpayers of South Lake Tahoe about $10,000, that the people of South Lake Tahoe will become informed on all the associated consequences of the Loop Road Project and they will show up and vote. The feeble 1,800 or so voter turnout for paid parking was not representative of the entire community but was instead representative of a very well-organized and well-mobilized opposition that communicated with their like-minded cohorts and made sure they all got out and voted.
More people in this community need to show up for our local elections and start guiding the direction of their town through their votes so that a minority group won’t control the future and the opportunities of SLT. I can respect the voice of a majority that speaks; but I can’t respect a direction dictated by a minority constituency just because they were the few who showed up to vote.
For the record I am well informed on the Loop Road Project and I support the Loop Road Project. I also think there comes a time when the old guard needs to relinquish control to those who are younger, stronger, and have greater clarity regarding contemporary issues. To those young people of South Lake Tahoe wanting to influence the direction of your community, register to vote and then go and do so—take control of the future of your town.
You want them to vote the way you do?
Mr. Pierini,
Of course I’d like everyone to vote the way I do, just like you’d probably like everyone to vote the way you do. But that’s not going to happen because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It would be nice though if people would be informed on both sides of issues before they form their opinion and not be influenced solely by what other people tell them they should believe.
4-mer
The feeble but well organized ‘voters’ were to my understanding, residents of the affected area where these parking meters would have been placed in peoples front yards and their neighborhood turned into ‘paid parking’
Correct me if I am wrong as I do not live in that area.
4mer, Are you informed enough to tell us what will happen to the 200 plus people displaced by the project you support?
Robin Smith:
I did not say the voters themselves were feeble but that the voter turnout had been feeble at only 1,800 people. I don’t appreciate you trying to alter the meaning of my words.
Every SLT registered voter had the opportunity to vote in that special election on paid parking. If as you have said, that only the residents of the affected areas where the parking meters had been placed had voted then that further supports that the voter turnout was indeed feeble and was not representative of the entire City.
My point is that more people need to be informed and then vote so that a handful of voters don’t make decisions for the majority. People need to be informed and they need to vote.
Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions, but please don’t alter the content of what I say to make it sound like something else.
I think the issue of those displaced is absolutely important and needs to be dealt with. But I think a broader discussion on low income housing and what the needs of the community aldo needs to be fully addressed . But I do think the issues once clearly defined can be dealt with, other communities have done so and we can too.
Mr. Pierini,
At this point in time there is an affordable housing component in that Project plan that would replace the slum housing currently in that area.
Our further debate of a topic on which we both know the other disagrees is futile. You are entitled to think the way you do and I am entitled to think the way I do. I support the Loop Road Project, you do not. My opinions are based on my personal experience living in an area where these types of growing pains took place and I witnessed the outcomes of communities that did nothing and those that were proactive. Perhaps had I lived my entire life on a mountain top with a population of 20,000 people my perspective would be different, but living in a populated area with extensive exposure has influenced my opinion on this matter.
If this goes to a ballot it would be best for the community to have a good voter turnout.
Carl, You have any solutions? Let us know.. How about those people, when they are displaced?
4 mer, Someone as “well informed” as you should get out the vote and or start your own ballot vote for the loop.
Mr. Pierini,
I would imagine that you are “well informed” also. All your suggestions back at ya.
Let’s debate it in public, anywhere, anytime your choice.
Mr. Pierini,
I don’t think so. From comments written as recently as this evening which magically disappeared, it’s abundantly clear there are some people in SLT who would like to know my identity whom I think would have no compunction harming my loved ones in an effort to get even with me. I share a home with a family and a dog and I don’t want them to be collateral damage caused by someone with uncontrollable anger issues that is incapable of conducting a civil discussion or accepting that people are entitled to opinions that differ from theirs.
I paid the minuscule cost of a subscription to this web-based publication as a way of supporting a local business, I’ve stated my opinions on this matter and others while trying not to be verbally abusive to other people or resorting to name calling, and I’ve been polite. That will need to suffice, and if that’s not good enough live with it.
Comments on this and other stories have been deleted for lack of payment.
LTN staff
4-mer
“…Perhaps if I had lived my entire life on a mtn top with a population of 20,000 my perspective would be different.”….
Simply the point! 4-mer we finally agree! and also trying to point out that this is a unique place and that with all this uniqueness comes the allure;)
If it is ‘shopping’ people want they really should stay in SF. I understand the shopping is great in SF as is the entertainment. Everything is available in the greatest city in the world!!
We offer the, according to Mark Twain, most beautiful LAKE in the world.
Woods, bears, ski slopes and space is therefore limited. 20,000 is probably close to the max limit for ‘year round permanent residents’ therefore vacation rentals and timeshares and all the problems that come with managing that type of population.
This place isn’t big enough, and never is going to be. People that are trying to turn the woods into SF are doing you know what in the wind;)
I dont think you can turn this place into Ssn Francisco nor does anyone want to. But shopping like dining, recreation, sightseeing are all integral parts of a vacation and why people choose a vacation destination. By every measure the total shopping experience we offer can be improved. We don’t need to be San Francisco but we do need to have more then we do. In this day and age having a lake is just not enough.
Carl
It depends entirely upon the Lake. All Lakes are not created equal.
The point here would be that people come all the way up here to Tahoe for the experience and the abundant HISTORY of the area. They do not come here for the fine dining and expensive shopping.
The need is to refurbish the existing history and locations. Not to tear down and obliterate the existing.
Robin Smith:
Would you please identify exactly where I wrote that I wanted SLT to be San Francisco? I again politely ask that you do not alter the content of what I say to make it sound like something else.
If I’d wanted to live in San Francisco I’d have moved to San Francisco. I didn’t. I moved to SLT because that is where I wanted to live out the remainder of my life. I wanted to be surrounded by the majestic environmental beauty of Tahoe, to be able to see bears, coyotes, and other wildlife walk through my yard, and to enjoy the four seasons of spring, summer, fall, and winter.
More than 50-years ago the people of SLT contemplated and then made SLT an incorporated city and the economic driver they utilized was mostly tourism. Gaming was a booming industry back then because there wasn’t the competition from Native American gaming there is today, so it was Nevada or New Jersey if people wanted to gamble, and people wanted to gamble. Back in the early 1960s the people of SLT didn’t choose to make their City a park but instead they chose the course of promoting tourism, and many long ago business people/residents reaped some nice benefits and a lot of money associated with and from those activities. SLT can’t now be turned into a park because some people find tourism unappealing and don’t want it as the primary economic driver. The decisions that were made by SLTs Founding Fathers and City voters from the time SLT became incorporated until today are what shaped this community. I disagree with you that Tahoe’s history is the main draw to SLT and think the primary reason people come to SLT is for the environment and for entertainment, and I agree with Mr. Ribaudo that shopping, dining, recreation, and sightseeing are all integral parts of a vacation and why people choose a vacation destination. People don’t choose a vacation destination that looks run-down and depressed, and since some people have wanted SLT to remain the same there was little consideration or preparation for the future, thus SLTs economy and standard of living diminished.
Your observation that “this place isn’t big enough and never is going to be” is too little too late. The only thing left to do now is try to mitigate what went before and hope the upcoming generation will make good decisions to again make SLT prosperous for its residents while simultaneously protecting the environment. The early 1960s and a California population of 15.7-million are long gone–welcome to the trials, tribulations, and problems of 2016 and a California population of 39.1-million, and growing.
I hope there aren’t enough signatures to require a vote, this road should have been built thirty years ago. All this nonsense about history, there’s nothing that’s historic left to save, just a bunch of dilapidated apartments and houses that need to come down.
Subject: Three former SLT councilmembers and a founder of the city are on a quest to get the loop road before the voters.
Bruce Grego, John Cefalu, Bill Crawford and Laurel Adams have filed a notice of intent to circulate a petition regarding the loop road.
I personally cannot wait to sign it:)
Not putting much wight in the previous city council members and an “environmental activist” some people choose to side with.
This will be good for the environment BTW.
Improving the city is what we should be doing. It will help make SLT more prosperous in the long run, or we’ll be playing more catch up in the future.
VOTE…THE PEOPLE WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.
The petition will put the subject to a total community VOTE
Vote to delay progress. Vote so it costs more money in the long run. Vote to keep run off going to the lake, instead of implementing measures to stop that run off. Vote to make sure it takes longer for this project to see the light of day. Vote so maybe 3000 people have a say.
Fish…”VOTE so maybe 3,000 people have a say.”?
You are NOT against people voting now are you?…say what again?
Man this is getting scary!
BigFishy1, Would you feel that way if you were being displaced? I am assuming you don’t live there.
Robin Smith pull your head out, and try not to spin what I or anyone here says that you disagree with. That’s not what I said. But I know YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LAST WORD, because YOU are the all knowing Robin Smith who speaks for everyone, You can’t even have a proper debate. So NO, I AM NOT AGAINST VOTING, I am against wasting money on the inevitable.
LOU, Feelings are overrated, so maybe. I live close by and i would put on my big boy pants and deal with my situation. Do I want progress is the real question. The answer is yes.
Fish…RCI
One of the things appreciated by me is the fact that anyone that can read, can go back through the comments here and see for themselves EXACTLY who said what.
That’s right, and the fact that you spanned my words. I think putting this issue up to a vote is a waste of money. I did not say I am against voting. We can also see how you cherry pick phrases that suit YOU, and it’s without real substance.
Vote to keep polluting the lake, good move.
I am confused!I 4-mer-marine for or against citizens voting and would he deny citizens the right to form an opposition to policies of local govt? The vote on parking meters was fair and square. The city council put the question on the ballot! The citizens at the poll said NO to parking meters. The election was not rigged and citizens make no excuses. They exercised their right to vote. My husband and I are opposed to the loop road. And we are not financially affluent.
Any comments that suggest south shore would even come close or should come close to the shopping in San Francisco is out of the realm of possibility. We can however improve the shopping and dining an overall visitor experience to match other communities and destinations. Even having Lake Tahoe is not enough the destination needs a full compliment of activities including recreation, shopping, dining, entertainment, special events and quality lodging to remain competitive and keep locals working.
Mrs. Crawford:
For clarification, I am not against citizens voting or of denying citizens their right to form an opposition to policies of local government. I am against the wasting of precious taxpayer dollars on the desires of a few so they can attempt to force an election to get their way. That said, if a small group is going to force an election along with all those associated costs to the taxpayers, then I want the greatest voter turnout possible so that a majority of the community can be represented and not just a few. I would imagine that you would agree that the greatest voter turnout is always desirable and is what should always be sought.
At the time of the June 3, 2014, Measure P election, SLT had a population of 21,600 people; 8,400 people were registered voters; 2,545 people voted on Measure P which was 30.3% of SLTs total registered voters and 69.7% did not vote in that election. 1,705 people voted for Measure P to eliminate paid parking and 840 people voted against it to continue paid parking. I don’t think that a 30.3% voter turnout should be considered a huge amount, and I don’t think that the opinions of 1,705 people determining important financial issues for a community totaling 21,600 is any type of majority.
And since we’re revisiting Measure P issues, had Tahoe4Tahoe’s legal counsel filed the proper legal documents there would have been no need for an election. A Referendum filed in a timely manner would have vetoed the City Council’s action and would have quickly prevented the City from moving forward with the Paid Parking Ordinance and Program. That would have eliminated the purchase of the kiosks, installation costs of all the kiosks, the costs associated with the City staff’s time in report preparations and the conduct of numerous meetings, and all the costs of conducting that Measure P election. The whole issue would have been done and over but that didn’t happen. The City’s attorney on 2 occasions had attempted to conduct a dialogue with Tahoe4Tahoe representative about the initiative they were proposing and they’d advised him that they had legal counsel. They later blamed the City for not providing them legal direction which I found especially amusing.
On a side note, perhaps the current City Council will consider Mr. Crawford’s suggestion provided at their February 2, 2016, meeting to construct a City Hall at the current Recreation Center location (instead of rebuilding that facility for the public) to honor Marjorie Springmeyer since as he said her 6-acre land donation to the City for a City Hall had been squandered. Since City decisions are voted on by City Council Members I’d certainly be interested in learning what City Council and which former City Council Members were responsible for squandering Ms. Springmeyer’s 6-acre land donation, and I’d like to know the disposition of that land. I’d also like to know what Mr. Crawford would recommend for a Recreation Center for the residents and visitors to our community since he suggests that that location become a City Hall.
4-mer, You should get out the voters you want, because the ones voting don’t vote the way you desire.
A comment was just made by B Gorman from the Chamber of Commerce that she doesn’t think the loop road issue will be on the ballot.
I am wondering here what makes her think that?
Mr. Pierini:
I’m working on that. Why do you think I’m posting here? I want to share information with the next generation of Tahoe residents/voters to encourage them to take control of their future and their town and get out and vote on the matters that will affect their community, their lives, and the lives of their children. If the majority votes in opposition to what I think that’s the way it goes. Doesn’t mean I’ll agree with them but at least it will be the majority making a decision and not a minority of well-organized and well-mobilized people. And I don’t understand why the people who voted to eliminate paid parking get so offended by being considered well-organized and well-mobilized. You all got what you set out to do—you got rid of paid parking. Do you want me to agree with you now? I don’t agree with you, I never will, and I’m entitled to my opinion.
I believe that it’s time for younger, stronger, more contemporary minded individuals to take control of SLT and for the old guard to enjoy their retirement.
My own opinion is this issue is a very different dynamic from the paid parking issue. It’s really about the future of the community. The federal and state government will be providing in excess of $80 million that will probably trigger hundreds of millions more in investment capital which will spur more jobs, opportunity etc. vs. a parking tax. Pretty sure this will attract way more attention and voter turnout. This will also be seen in generational terms the old guard trying to steer and reduce the opportunity for the future. The youth are much more organized and aware of this issue. This could be the last stand of the old guard, politically speaking. Also if it does get to a ballot the narrative will change as much more information will be available. It will be interesting.
Carl, You are old guard on this. You favored paid parking, how did that work out for you?
“The federal and state government will be providing in excess of $80 MILLION that will PROBABLY trigger $100’s of MILLIONS more in investment capital…blah blah blah…”
Didn’t the rhetoric follow this route when the City was sold the HOLE??….which is still a HOLE.
It worked out fine for me Lou. But it will cost this community millions that could have been put into maintenance that will now come out of the general fund or not get done which will only add costs over the long term. It was in my opinion a bad financial decision that The community will live with. Those that led the effort should take no pride in costing this community millions. Yes there were some problems but they could have been worked through like every other community has worked through them. Read the auditors report that was unfortunately published after the summer. If the voting public had seen that report that vote might have been different. A dumb decision.
Robin unless you have a point I will disregard your last post.
The point is the HOLE is still costing someone $MILLIONS$.
Who is footing the bill for that? The property owners that were fleeced out of $MILIONS$? or has everybody been paid and we the people just get to admire the HOLE every time we drive by it.
Aren’t the same city people that caused that fiasco still around? Enjoying THEIR spoils? and it appears getting to strike again.
“If the voting public had seen that report…”
The voting public did not want parking meters in their front yards.
I can’t say honestly that I blame them. Put public parking meters in their front yards? REALLY…UNBELIEVABLE the nerve.
The hole was a problem. Developing it in a recession was an even bigger problem..
That being said the owner has just put it up for sale and someone’ will buy it and it will get built.
Across the street the village has done incredibly well with a waiting list of retailers who want to get in. The magic show has opened to rave reviews. So from your perspective we will stop all progress we will turn away millions that be spent to improved infrastructure, help generate jobs, make the destination more competitive? You really can’t be serious.
TOTALLY serious;)~
P.S….the ‘HOLE’ is still a problem…for how many years now?
Mr. Pierini and Robin Smith:
I’ve heard loud and clear from both of you that you opposed the Paid Parking Program and that you’re against the proposed Loop Road Project. I accept that those are your respective opinions, I recognize that you are entitled to your opinions as am I, and I don’t intend to initiate a who is wrong or who is right dialogue.
But I have a request of you. Would you each explain your respective plan(s) to rebuild the City’s crumbling neighborhood streets that were originally constructed by El Dorado County more than 50-years ago, to rebuild the aging recreation center facility and other city owned structures, to replace the City’s antiquated snow removal equipment that the $20 assessment no longer covers the costs of, and to perform all the government required environmental improvements that have been mandated by the Federal and State governments to protect Lake Tahoe. Those are just some of what our local government is responsible for today and unfortunately it appears that some past City Councils did not direct that those tasks be performed and they did not anticipate those needs and expenses and set-aside any money, thus today we are stuck with all those needed maintenance and repairs and the associated costs. I recognize that all the neglected work that needs performing is daunting and it likely needs to start with one first step and then build on that. What are your first steps and the subsequent building processes?
You’ve said no to what’s been proposed so I’d like to hear something to which we can all say yes.
Other issues that need attention are jump-starting the local economy so local businesses can better succeed and employ more people and pay them better wages, and to improve the aesthetics of the majority of buildings along Highway 50 so the built environment better matches the natural environmental. What are your plans for that?
Lastly, since you’re both very long-term SLT residents maybe you can shed some light on what happened to that 6-acre land donation to the City of SLT by Marjorie Springmeyer for a City Hall all those many years ago which apparently was squandered. I’d like to know what actually happened and the ultimate disposition of those 6-acres, and since you’ve both lived in SLT for such a long time with SLT history being of such importance to you, information from you on that topic would be very much appreciated.
Hail Marjorie RIP
I suggest the Historical Society for the Johnson/Springmyer family history and legacy to the City of SLT.
Robin Smith:
At this time I’m only seeking information related to the 6-acre land donation that Ms. Springmeyer made to SLT for a City Hall. Are you unfamiliar with that part of Tahoe history related to Ms. Springmeyer’s land donation? Also, would you please respond to the other questions I posed to you.
Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
4-mer…There are several ‘local’ people that were personally involved when the City and County built a Juvenile JAIL on that property…across the street from the graveyard.
These people included many lawsuits by the city and they included Dennis Crabb the city attorney at the time that said to me personally that everything was done by the RULES at the time…it is very dirty and corrupt.
Why did the city rush to move into the airport? Ask yourself for an explanation for that.
Robin Smith:
Who were the other ‘local’ people that were personally involved in what you describe as being very dirty and corrupt, other than Mr. Crabb?
In response to your question regarding why the City offices moved to the airport, I watched those City Council meetings when those discussions and that decision-making was taking place and the reason the City moved their offices to the airport was because the renewing lease agreement on the building where they were located was increasing to a point that it became unaffordable. They moved to the airport since the City owned that property and the building thus it was more cost efficient to the taxpayers for them to be there. They didn’t move out to the airport for any conspiracy reasons or because moving is so much fun. Moving a business or organizations offices are expensive and a huge pain in the butt.
I answered your question now would you please answer more of mine.
Thank you.
4-mer…You want me to write down the names of crooks?
The hot bed of cold cases better known as SLT?
I don’t even know who you are…what I can say is that your ideas about what went down between the City and County re the airport is skewed all wrong…follow the money/favors.
Uh oh, back to the “HOLE”!…the City did not even require the proper legal papers or whatever they were supposed to and the taxpayers are still on the hook for that.
When you find yourself in *****….STOP DIGGING
Robin Smith:
You said: “I don’t even know who you are…what I can say is that your ideas about what went down between the City and County re the airport is skewed all wrong…follow the money/favors.”
I never said one word about the City and County related to the airport and don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you could share that tidbit of history with me and the remainder of the reading public as it’s certainly sounding interesting, especially since you made reference to “The hot bed of cold cases better known as SLT.”
Anyway, back to my original questions. Would you please explain your plan to rebuild the City’s crumbling neighborhood streets that were originally constructed by El Dorado County more than 50-years ago, to rebuild the aging recreation center facility and other city owned structures, to replace the City’s antiquated snow removal equipment that the $20 assessment no longer covers the costs of, and to perform all the government required environmental improvements that have been mandated by the Federal and State governments to protect Lake Tahoe. Those are just some of what our local government is responsible for today and unfortunately it appears that some past City Councils did not direct that those tasks be performed and they did not anticipate those needs and expenses and set-aside any money, thus today we are stuck with all those needed maintenance and repairs and the associated costs. I recognize that all the neglected work that needs performing is daunting and it likely needs to start with one first step and then build on that. What are your first steps and the subsequent building processes? And what is your plan for jump-starting the local economy so local businesses can better succeed and employ more people and pay them better wages, and to improve the aesthetics of the majority of buildings along Highway 50 so the built environment better matches the natural environmental?
Like I said earlier, I’d like to hear something to which we can all say yes.
Once again – thank you.