Opinion: Lake Tahoe’s death by a thousand cuts
To the community,
First of all, what is death by a thousand cuts? It’s an ancient form of torture from Imperial China, where a subject was given one cut after another until over an extended period of time he bled to death: The first few hundred cuts wouldn’t kill him, but the last few hundred most certainly would.
In modern usage, it’s defined (by Wikipedia) as “the way a major negative change which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments is not perceived as objectionable.” That’s just what’s happening at Tahoe right now.
First, it’s the Tahoe Keys milfoil disaster (current solution — herbicide? Really?). Then TRPA’s Regional Plan update — more height and density in “town centers” to fix our economy and sub-par development.
Now, the first big proposal since the Regional Plan update: urban sprawl on an undeveloped ridgeline above Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley, essentially creating a new town the size of Kings Beach in the middle of the forest.
This is the nightmare proposed by Mountainside Partners (formerly East-West Partners; the developer) and Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI; the land-owner).
I’m glad that SPI, which owns almost 2 million acres in California, and Mountainside Partners, which is planning a $1 billion expansion at the Mountainside at Northstar, have revealed their true, destructive intent for our area now rather than later.
Sierra Watch and Mountain Area Preservation entered into a complicated agreement with East-West (now Mountainside Partners), a seasoned developer out of Colorado.
East-West is currently partnering with KSL (Squaw Valley) on a project at the bottom of Snowmass. In the opinion piece written by SW and MAP (Oct. 28, “Setting the Record Straight Regarding Martis Valley”) they argue that they only agreed to a new land-use designation on the forested ridge. However, this is semantics.
The result of that land use designation (whatever you may want to call it) is Martis Valley West and the Brockway Campground — and now we know how outrageous the consequences of a new land-use designation can be.
We agree with MAP and Sierra Watch that Truckee shouldn’t approve more sprawl, but neither should Tahoe — and why doesn’t that reasoning apply to Martis Valley West? Except for this deal, MAP and Sierra Watch have a history of great conservation work, and we’re hopeful they will continue that legacy by negotiating a conservation agreement for SPI lands without involving development on our iconic and irreplaceable ridgelines.
Stop Tahoe’s bleeding now — or watch her die slowly, one new development at a time.
Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance
Now it is the Tahoe RealEstate Protection Agency.
“and now we know how outrageous the consequences of a new land use designation can be”. Exactly, Ann.
Everyone who likes open space needs to look at the land use changes coming to us in the Meyer’s plan. It’s not going to be pretty. Kinda like a development on a Mt. ridgeline. Future residents and visitors will be saying …. “What were they thinking….”.
Now people know why the county and TRPA were so intent on changing Meyers to a “town center” so the developers can move in and destroy it with hotels and blight. Meanwhile Meyers has no representation on the Board to stop this. This is one reason why the people county-wide are talking recalls and new leaders that aren’t developer pawns.
NOW people know why and as planned by the aforementioned agencies/persons, waay too late for anyone to do anything about it.
It’s done so MOVE ON is the mantra.
Maybe you people have learned but I doubt it.
‘THEY’ are playing chess, you ‘locals’ are playing checkers.
I strongly suggest that the North Tahoe Preservation alliance align themselves with the Sierra Club and/or the Center for Biological Diversity to quantify, organize and carry out this worthy land use fight. Just like the death from a thousand cuts, the mission to preserve this area of the Sierra may suffer from the possibility one smaller group after another trying to organize either uncoordinated actions or redundant ones.
I think the north shore groups are doing a great job of letting us all know about the upcoming environmental destruction of Lake Tahoe but I can’t help but think that an “umbrella” organization like the Sierra Club would be useful. Is the Sierra Club willing to join forces? A phone call to the Center for Biological Diversity (which has opened a Bay Area office) may be very helpful.
With the TAHOE KEYS to the South Shore’s credit..you cannot argue the North Shore is destroying the environment.
Except that the Robert E Hunter Jr./Kjell Qvale/Squaw Valley/Alpine Meadows group was in with Dillingham and Del E Webb.
Quit whining about the Tahoe Keys!
The Keys is what it is. It cannot even start to be undone without more legal and financial grief than you can imagine. And the effort would likely not succeed. Hold them to the laws, and remember, the Keys are landlocked and cannot grow.
Use the example of the Keys to NOT approve more projects which are too big, too close and too visible to be reasonable.
Owning private property is not a guarantee that you can build what you want on it.
Crank,
Not whining, totally serious.
I was here long before any of you selfishites, so why don’t you leave and set a good example for the developers to get out of town.
Don’t Give Up, if you’ve been here SOOO long you must have been party to or watched without saying a word as the cattle ranching community here RAPED the stream zones, dumped trash wherever they liked, left old beat up vehicles in creek beds like the one that sits in Trout Creek, AND never blinked an eye as “developers” destroyed the largest wetland in the basin when the Keys were built.
The attitude that someone has more rights and is better than someone else who hasn’t been here as long as you have is complete and utter NONSENSE! I’ve known righteous people who have only lived here for a short while, and I’ve known complete idiots who have lived here all their life. And visa versa.