Lawsuit could prevent loop road ballot question
By Kathryn Reed
A lawsuit has been filed to stop the loop road from ever going on the ballot.
Jason Collin, director of Home Health & Hospice for Barton Health and likely candidate for South Lake Tahoe City Council, filed the lawsuit last week. The city of South Lake Tahoe received notice late July 18; with council members then being notified.
Also named in the suit are Bill Crawford, Bruce Grego (also a presumptive council candidate), Laurel Ames and John Cefalu. Those four are the leaders of a movement to get an initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot regarding the loop road.
Today is the deadline for the council to decide whether to approve the ballot measure. The discussion will not begin until at least 2pm at Lake Tahoe Airport.
The council today will not be able to discuss the lawsuit because it is not on the agenda. A special meeting could be called, but that takes 24 hours’ notice at a minimum. Today the electeds have the choice to approve the language as is and adopt it as policy, request a financial study or place it on the ballot. Insiders say the latter is most likely to happen – despite the lawsuit.
It will then be up to a judge to decide if the question ever sees the light of day in November.
The four individuals and the city have 30 days from July 14 to respond to the suit.
Collin could not be reached late Monday, nor could City Attorney Tom Watson.
There had been speculation all along that the measure would face a legal change, though many figured it would not occur until after the vote had been taken.
At issue is whether any entity can prevent the council from doing its job.
The question loop road opponents want voters to decide is whether the council should be able to take action on the project without constituents first voting on a preferred alignment.
The loop road project would realign Highway 50 near the state line so it goes behind Harrah’s-MontBleu, starting at about Pioneer Trail. The current highway through the casino corridor would then become a city-Douglas County road.
Ultimately, the opponents want to derail the project.
It is Tahoe Transportation District that is spearheading the highway reconfiguration.
The suit calls the defendants’ initiative “flawed”, says it would “violate state law”, is “unconstitutionally vague” and that it would “strip the duly elected South Lake Tahoe City Council of its authority to take action, even administrative action, with respect to certain land use matters.”
There is also the question of whether the initiative by the four individuals violates the state Streets and Highways Code.
The suit goes on to say, “It would impermissibly hold hostage the city on all matters related to the loop road – binding the city’s hands until and unless the votes approve a General Plan amendment.”
Ta Da! Oh really etc;)~
Sooner or later the REAL stripes show…looks like some people are as nervous as previously thought! Yipee Yipee Yeah…true colors are showing now
Another poke in the eye by Barton or its employees. This person needs to go. I wouldn’t or couldn’t trust Barton Hospice to do the right thing with this fellow in charge.
While the supporters of the loop road may seek to deny the citizens the opportunity for a vote on the question, they cannot deny that nearly 1500 residents of our community are concerned about the viability of this project, its impacts upon our community, and their desire to have a direct voice concerning the approval of this project.
As an aside, this lawsuit on its face is legally defective and subject to a motion to strike. Bruce Grego
That’s why we have courts to settle these issues.
So a member of the Barton management team wants the voters to elect him to the City Council while he simultaneously tries to prevent voters from providing input over an extremely controversial local project? Is he actually clueless or is he simply trying to take advantage of clueless voters? Certainly no shortage of arrogance, either way.
I am assuming that the ballot will go before the voters. When it does I would like to see the option of putting H50 underground from Tahoe Meadows to Edgewood Golf Course so that the 2/3 of the traffic that has no intention of stopping at the casinos can zip right through town. The other 1/3 can use the existing loop road to gain access to Raleys or Edgewood or the casinos.
Redeveloping those so called blighted homes is a different issue and needs to be solved by the owners with maybe the help of the city. Those so called blighted home provide low income housing now. New low income housing will rent for more than what is there now.
But first of all, put H50 underground.
Aloha
Such an interesting turn of events. The four individuals who established Let Tahoe Decide so they can use the law for their own purposes are now subject to the same treatment. But now instead of their actions only costing the City’s taxpayers money it may likely cost them money to defend themselves. Turnabout is fair play and Mr. Collin’s has all the same rights to use the law for his own purposes as the Let Tahoe Decide proponents. There should be no complaining from those individuals who’ve heretofore supported the use of the law to get what they want because someone else is now doing the same.
Congratulations to Mr. Collin’s on this legal tactical move and for stepping forward to represent those members of the community that don’t agree with the doctrines of Let Tahoe Decide. Please, DO RUN for City Council, and for every registered SLT voter that is not satisfied with the status quo or being told that they aren’t really entitled to having an opinion in the decision-making of the community where they’ve decided to live (and raise a family if that’s what they envision) I encourage you to vote in November either at the polls or by absentee ballot, and make your voices heard. Take control of SLT and help shape it into the community that you want for your future.
Extensive voter information can be obtained on the following website:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/frequently-asked-questions/
And a vote by mail ballot application can be obtained at the following link:
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vote-by-mail/pdf/vote-by-mail-application.pdf
It is my hope that Mr. Grego will be providing all the legal representation for the individuals named in the suit.
4-mer-usmc states that the proponents will have to defend themselves. If 4-mer-usmc would have taken the time to review the actual complaint, it states in paragraph 9 “none of the causes of actions stated herein are brought against Real Parties Ames, Cefalu, Crawford and Grego”. In paragraph 32 states “the allegations and causes of action set forth herein are not directed against Real Parties Ames, Cefalu, Crawford and Grego personally…and this action is not being brought for the purpose of chilling the free speech rights of any such persons or groups. The Summons only names the City as a defendant (and misspells “Tahoe” as “Tachoe”). How 4-mer-usmc can come to the conclusion that proponents will incur defense liability is incorrect and wrong.
Mr. Grego:
Thank you for correcting my erroneous conclusion as a lay-person who has not been privy to the review of the actual complaint. It’s so good to see that your law-degree is working so well for you.
Mr.4 Your getting personal with your anonymous remarks again. You were wrong.
Pawnbroker:
I admitted I was wrong. What part of “Thank you for correcting my erroneous conclusion as a lay-person who has not been privy to the review of the actual complaint” did you not understand?
…ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION…says it all
kinda like…”I don’t have all the facts but the police acted stupidly….
oh hmmmmmm
Robin Smith:
Since you want to discuss erroneous conclusions, the first was Mr. Grego saying that I’d stated that “the proponents will have to defend themselves”. I did not state that: what I wrote was that “it may likely cost them money to defend themselves”. While I overlooked Mr. Grego’s misstatement of what I’d written, his was an erroneous conclusion. Next was Mr. Pierini saying “You were wrong”, to which I responded “I admitted I was wrong. What part of “Thank you for correcting my erroneous conclusion as a lay-person who has not been privy to the review of the actual complaint” did you not understand?” And now comes Robin Smith.
You people are laughable.
As an aside though, it was most enjoyable watching Bill Crawford circumvent the Brown Act at the City Council’s July 19th meeting by referencing this lawsuit during public comments on New Business Item (c)(2). Even after being advised that the lawsuit matter was not on the Council’s agenda which thus prevented any discussion on that topic he proceeded to make comments on that matter. I would have thought that his combined prior experience as a City Council Member coupled with his extensive knowledge of the rules of the Brown Act would have guided him on that conduct, but he nonetheless managed to get his remarks in about social media and the lawsuit in spite of those circumstances. Way to go Bill. After all, why should you or your crony friends ever be held to the same rules as every other individual that addresses the City Council?