Opinion: Keep Tahoe blue-blooded
By Claire Fortier
The Nevada Legislature’s frustration at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is not only understandable. It’s timely.
The TRPA should be called out to explain its archaic and cumbersome bureaucracy that costs local residents and developers too much time, aggravation and money.
Unfortunately, that’s only part of the real problem at Lake Tahoe.
Changing the “just say no” culture of the TRPA is the reason I chose to sit on the TRPA Governing Board. And finally that seems possible. The TRPA has an executive director and a governing board who understand that real environmental solutions at the lake require replacing our aging 1950’s infrastructure, not sealing our communities in a regulatory time capsule.
The problem is that “environmental” advocates, like the League to Save Lake Tahoe, are demonstrating that it’s not about keeping Tahoe blue. It’s about keeping Tahoe mired in needless litigation and regulatory muck.
In the past few weeks, the League has shown its true colors as an obstructionist organization bent on stopping any change at the lake, even change for the environmental good.
In the eleventh hour, as an excellent and environmentally sensitive project was to come before the TRPA Governing Board, it appears that “environmental” advocates convinced California Gov.Jerry Brown to replace a moderate governing board member with a League colleague.
The replacement, from what we know thus far, is attorney Clem Shute. Mr. Shute has a long history with the League.
It was Mr. Shute who represented the League to block the TRPA Regional Plan in 1985. As he states in his bio, he had “extensive involvement in Lake Tahoe issues including drafting revisions to the 1980 Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and representation of environmental groups in litigation which enjoined development contrary to the Compact.”
In that sentence alone, Mr. Shute represents just why the League is an obstructionist organization. That suit tied the Regional Plan process up for years. While I’m sure Mr. Shute is eminently qualified to serve on the TRPA Governing Board, his past relationship with the League is concerning given the League’s new litigation posture against TRPA.
Is it a coincidence that the League would tap Mr. Shute at a time when the governing board is desperately trying to get a new Regional Plan approved, a plan more than seven years in the making? And a plan that has been blocked on every front by the League?
Last week, in another 11th hour move, the League showed just how unwilling it is to be part of solution. Through a law firm renown for its environmental litigation history, the League sent a letter to the city raising objections to the city’s general plan. That plan, almost four years in the making, was to come before the council for final this month.
Why after all the public forums and opportunities to comment on the city’s general plan, did the League decide to do so at the last minute? And why did they choose to do so through an attorney’s memo and not through established lines, thus ensuring cooperation, not antagonism?
In the letter, the League states that there “is no reasonable assurance that a new Regional Plan anytime in the near future.” Why? Certainly the TRPA Governing Board is committed to getting a Regional Plan approved. Could it be because the League doesn’t want the Regional Plan adopted?
So many of the problems that are preventing this community from both improving lake clarity and its economic bottom line lay squarely with the organization that purports to Save Lake Tahoe.
As a member of the TRPA Governing Board, I take very seriously the need to preserve and protect this beautiful lake for generations to come. I also believe it is equally imperative to have planned environmental redevelopment that not only keeps the lake blue, but keeps the community green, environmentally and economically. I believe that the TRPA is capable of doing so with strong leadership and focused vision.
But it’s time to call the League on its misguided efforts. Is the League’s real mission to save Lake Tahoe or save the Tahoe of 50 years ago? Is the League, which is primarily comprised of wealthy second homeowners from San Francisco, really keeping Tahoe blue or just keeping Tahoe blue blood?
Claire Fortier, a longtime Tahoe resident, a member of the South Lake Tahoe City Council and the TRPA Governing Board.
Is writing letters to the editor part of the job description of City Council members?
If its not, it should be. What’s wrong with keeping her constituents informed?
We should be gratified that people like Claire are willing to enlighten us as to the behind the scenes activities of the League. The League’s flatlander arrogance is sadly matched only by their ability to give pro bono legal aid to their negative cause. It doesn’t make for a productive environment.
keeping constituents INFORMED is different than what she and Gregio both seem to be doing!
Sometimes the truth hurts.
The woman is right.
The League To Save Lake Tahoe should be the League To Destroy Lake Tahoe,
Claire’s a SLT citizen and has a right to say what she wants – whether she is on Council or not. Go get’em Claire!
Claire, where were your editorials when you ran the TDT. Same goes for Tom Davis, newly outspoken against the extremely heavy handed and destructive policies of TRPA.
A blind and deaf person could see the havoc TRPA and the League and Sierra Clubbies were and are doing to our community , but 10 or 20 or 30 years ago not a word was spoken (somewhat exaggerated)
against the draconian dictates of the super agency and of course the wacky court decisions made by morally and legally bankrupt judges.
Thank goodness our leaders are finally leading, instead of kowtowing to the monster of Kingsbury.
Maybe there is a chance for our town to florish again.
The League to Save Lake Tahoe’s MO is to always wait until the last second to make comments on environmental reports that they had plenty of time to comment on! It’s just so crystal clear by that and their other actions, The League doesn’t want a thriving town, but a community where there 2nd Homeowner constituents have as much of the town to themselves as possible.
And the TRPA, I actually believe their intentions are decent. They’re just so clueless because they basically don’t have to be responsive to anyone! Just look at how they’ve run our public transportation into the ground! Maybe, hopefully, the NV Legislature’s actions will wake them up?!
Somebody is “winning” here, and it ain’t the lake :(
The citizens of South Lake Tahoe were so right in electing Claire to City Council. She will make a difference and move South Lake Tahoe forward. The League to Save Lake Tahoe is finally being exposed for it really is.
The proper name for the Leage is: The League to Save Lake Tahoe four a Select Group of Wealthy People. Doesn’t anyone ever think about a lawsuit-happy group that gets it’s funding by selling bumper stickers? It is not possible. There is a lot of money behind them. It comes from somewhere.
TRPA has great intentions, but, as the saying goes: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The organization is run by a lawyer, lawyers make money on conflict. No surprises here. Once the lawyers take over, there is no hope. Look at our politicians. Mostly lawyers.
The unspoken problem yet to be dealt with is that while most of the attention is drawn by the long-standing symbiotic relationship between TRPA and the League (both of whose Boards and constituencies, respectively, are not local residents), not enough attention is paid to the citizens.
The “new” City Council is, as always, having to overcome deficiencies of prior Council decisions, leaving a third of their “mission” to happenstance once again.
Necessary transformation will not be in “balancing the budget” – it will have to include other, more vital ways of thinking if we are ever to get rid of the horrid “poverty with a view” theme.
The seventh attempt to drop out of TRPA by Nevada also only skirts the issue, as the real problem is that TRPA doesn’t have the “moxie” to confront the idea that their hallowed threshholds are, in the words of the state Attorney General assigned to oversee them,”sacred cows”.
TRPA, the League and South Lake Tahoe all need to become part of the 21st Century, if ever we are to revitalize SLT (Sleepy Little Town). . .
Sorry – I didn’t refer to two other points of Claire’s letter:
Point(1) it is irrelevant that Mr. Shute is or is not now on TRPA’s Board, he is but one of over a dozen on the board. I could have said that he is only one vote, but that in and of itself would be misleading, as it is obviously the influence he might have that is threatening, in Claire’s view.
Lack of confidence, more or less. . .
Point (2): it is also irrelevant to discuss programs that are “four” or “7” years in the making, as “good enough for government” is too much under the influence of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)the seminal computer logic that says you are never going to get out anything better than what you put in.
The longer a program takes, the more secure the job position – and the more money expended. But where is that money to come from (?). . . another reason to upgrade the thinking, “more with less”, rather than its’ toxic opposite, “less with more”.
This is where my previous comment about “other, vital thinking” is derived. . .
The less obvious problem to overcome is that any new idea is by definition, rendered irrelevant by ongoing, self-serving silos, of which there are too many to be considered functional for Lake Tahoe.
Oh, Claire. You had me until you insulted my heritage……………