THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Letter: Questioning lack of Measure T defense


image_pdfimage_print

Publisher’s note: The following letter was read to the South Lake Tahoe City Council on Feb. 7, 2017, by city resident Tami Wallace and is republished with permission.

Honorable mayor and City Council. I must admit that I’m glad that I get to talk and you can only listen. I wish marriages and children came with that feature.

Tami Wallace

Last summer a varied group of citizens circulated an initiative petition that was meant to allow all the voters a chance to vote regarding the proposed loop road; 1,400 signatures were found to be valid.

Then, Measure T passed by a very large 20 percent margin. Almost 4,000 of your constituents voted for Measure T giving you, the City Council, what we believed was clear direction.

But a council candidate had sued the citizens, the city and El Dorado County to keep the voters from having input.

Many were suspicious when the county and the citizens were excluded from the lawsuit by the plaintiff and his expensive Sacramento law firm. Only the city remained as a defendant. Why was that?

Also, to this day we don’t know who paid the legal expenses on a lawsuit against the citizens of our city.

In reality most people aren’t against some version of a loop road, but many have had individual reasons for wanting to have a say based on the current proposal.

Some were concerned that over a dozen businesses would be moved or worse removed.

Some were concerned that traffic would be backed up for four years of construction.

Some were concerned that a planned shopping complex in Nevada would be waiting at the end to take away California sales tax dollars.

Many worried that new taxes would be needed for the $90 million 1-mile project when we have hundreds of miles of city streets that are broken and filled with pot holes.

Some were concerned that no new parking would be included.

Many were worried that up to 87 families would be displaced with no funds yet identified for their replacement. How does a Chicago style high rise apartment complex built next to the highway or moving those families into the old middle school in Nevada effectively solve the issue?

An almost unspoken reason has been the racial overtones of dividing a mostly Hispanic community, while no other part of town would ever allow this to happen.

Another concern is that TTD (Tahoe Transportation District), the loop road proponent, is responsible for the poorly run, underfunded bus system that does not have enough sheltered bus stops to protect the riders from the weather with such late arriving buses.

Why were the county and the citizens removed from the lawsuit? 

Was it so that the city could pretend to defend but intend to lose the lawsuit against Mr. [Jason] Collin, a fellow councilmember?

I have in my hand the transcript of the court proceeding where your attorney says and I quote:

“With respect to the petitioner, Jason Collin, the City does not oppose a preliminary injunction and/or a permanent injunction under the theories of statewide concern.”

Needless to say your legal counsel either did this on his own or the City Council directed him to sell your constituents down the river. Which was it?

The language of the measure could have easily been amended by agreement with the citizens.

I’m here to tell you how disappointed we are and that this is not the end of this matter.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (10)
  1. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    Why would a city defend something that they know violates the constitution? Or the other question to consider why would Ms. Wallace support something that was so legally flawed from the get go? One can only imagine.

  2. Robin Smith says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    Councilman Bill Crawford RIP

  3. don't give up says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    Your letters seems more than reasonable. Why should the people have a say through their direct vote when powerful forces are aligned against them?

  4. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    There is no problem with people having a say they should have a say, but measure T was poorly conceived and poorly written and unconstitutional.The judge agreed.

  5. Steven says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    What financial gain do the council members themselves and Jason Collin expect to reap or was promised them, if the loop road goes through ?
    This same deafness toward voters is occurring across the entire Tahoe Basin.
    There is only one reason, MONEY. Voters are being sold out by GREED !

  6. lou pierini says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    It appears section 1090 of the ca. gov. code will prevent some council members from voting on this issue. Check it out.

  7. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    Jeez–this is a FEDERAL project, not a City project. The City and the City Council Members don’t have control over Federal agencies. And it’s pretty chicken s**t to insinuate that Council Member Jason Collin or any of the other City Council Members were promised something or that they will reap some financial gain if the TTD is ever successful in getting the project approved, funded, and implemented.

  8. Duane Wallace says - Posted: February 8, 2017

    There wasn’t really a trial. Jason Collin’s high- powered, paid for by someone else attorney said Measure T was unconstitutional. The City Attorney agreed and, by design, no one was present to argue the other side. Slick legal move but far from allowing the public an opportunity to have their day in court.

  9. lou pierini says - Posted: February 9, 2017

    If it is a federal project it will still involve Cal trans,
    the city, STPUD, gas and electric service providers, private property owners and some others. Any vote by elected officials will subject them to section 1090 of the gov. code section 82035.

  10. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: February 9, 2017

    The judge said T was unconstitutional.