S. Tahoe council supports Nevada leaving TRPA
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe’s City Council took a baby step toward wanting to be done with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. On the same day, the council agreed the board and members of the League to Save Lake Tahoe should get a clue about what is really going on in the basin and then find a new executive director.
In what was a marathon council meeting April 19, one topic was whether the council would support a bill in the Nevada Legislature that would have it withdraw from the bi-state Compact with California that formed the TRPA 42 years ago. Another item centered on a letter to the League.
In what appeared more like a sparring match between Councilmembers Bruce Grego and Claire Fortier that had to be refereed by Mayor Hal Cole, it was eventually agreed the council would send a letter in support of the Nevada Senate bill. The vote was 4-1, with Fortier the lone dissenter.
But the motion was much more than that. It also included sending a letter to South Tahoe’s representatives in the California Legislature stating all the reasons why it doesn’t like TRPA, the proposition of forming a new bi-state agency, and the threat of South Tahoe withdrawing from TRPA if its demands are not met.
South Tahoe wants more control. It wants an elected Governing Board, not political appointees. It wants logic in decision-making by the TRPA, not having it involved with the paint color of houses or whether a drive-though business should be allowed.
Fortier supports petitioning California lawmakers for change, but does not believe the city should be involved in Nevada politics.
To complicate matters, during councilmember comments at the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Angela Swanson said although it was not legal at that point to switch her vote to no, that is how she intended to vote.
The motion as it was made was convoluted and probably should have been separate motions to adhere to protocols the city operates by. Nonetheless, the motion would have passed if she had voted no.
A no vote by Swanson would have been in line with her arguments. She, too, has issues with a California city telling Nevada what to do. She also said a letter to California lawmakers needs teeth and that a meeting with Tahoe’s reps should be called for so they could introduce legislation.
No one at the meeting, including the city attorney, could say what happens if Nevada votes to pull out of TRPA because Congress formed the bi-state regulatory agency.
The NTRPA and CTRPA existed before the TRPA was formed.
“NTRPA still exists. It’s essentially the Nevada delegation of our board. They have a special meeting once or twice a year to discuss gaming issues and to elect the ‘at large’ Nevada board member,” Julie Regan, TRPA spokeswoman told Lake Tahoe News. “CTRPA dissolved in the early ’80s after the Compact was amended to gain more statewide representation on the Governing Board.”
Special interest groups got a bad rap Tuesday, with Fortier calling the League a special interest, and Cole saying Gov. Jerry Brown and the Attorney General’s Office are special interests. Brown is labeled as such partly because of his most recent appointment to the Governing Board – attorney Clem Shute, a longtime League supporter.
“He has been a problem ever since he was attorney general,” Cole said of Brown. “If I were in Nevada, I would support this whole-heartedly.”
It was Davis who brought forth the idea to write a letter to the League, in which the original draft said the environmental nonprofit used “underhanded tactics.” His colleagues voted to have that scraped.
At one point Davis said he wanted to cooperate with the League and in the next breath called them obsolete. But he could never answer Swanson’s question of what the purpose of the letter would be.
Grego added that the letter should also ask for a meeting between the council and League’s board.
Although Davis kept saying this is a new day, his tactics are the same as they were when he was first on the council from 1992-2004 – write a letter to complain. He had no other ideas to effect change.
How does this fix the crappy streets, lack of sidewalks, Hole 1, Hole 2, and the other serious issues facing SLT?
Sounds like scapegoating by council members who don’t have a plan to improve the town.
It felt like sharks in a feeding frenzy during parts of the meeting. Lets get the TRPA, lets get the Leaugue. Fine, I’m all for it. However, you need to think these things out. Where are the specifics of what we are are accusing the League of? What specicically did the executive director do to warrant a public entity to tell a non-profit what to do?
What do we want the TRPA to change. Most importantly, if NV pulls out of the TRPA what are we legally left with and what is it the council wants?
Council… you could have done this in a more professional and well thought out manner. You let Grego’s emotions get the best of you and as a result we saw some of the worst of you. Even Swanson lost her cool and voted wrong admittedly.
For years, it has been difficult to find a more dysfunctional, ineffective, hopelessly naive group than the South Lake Tahoe City Council. And times haven’t changed.
I second that, Steve. Couldn’t have said it better.
I’m not sure that electing the TRPA board would be an improvement politically. It would likely be more political with developer interests well represented.
I find it hard to believe the children on the City Council are trying this again. I thought we are supposed to learn from our past and our mistakes. These comments could have come from Tribune articles in the ’70’s and ’80’s.
Now it appears that the toxic partisanship that has infected Federal politics has digressed to a point where the local level needs to resort to only knowing that they must find someone to point a finger at, sort of like the “Donkeys” & the “Elephants”. It’s in season.
“Well-thought out” (?) An extinct species !
Instead of just focusing on what has not been done that needs to be (as a job description), it also appears that this direction will allow them once again to ‘skirt all the issues’ by allowing a sidestep of their own duties via embroiling themselves in a TRPA/League/Legislature debate.
Your choice: CA/NV/Fed
More bad blood, and for what (?)
Perhaps they think that TRPA being gone will absolve them, inasmuch as the entire region has always waited with bated breath as to what TRPA deigns to do (?) Or Not. Without an idea of their own ?
“Mother, May I” or “Jump” – How high ?
Is there anyone left in this town that doesn’t end up in over their head if they engage anything about its’ governance (?)
Wow I think it is so wonderful that the newly seated city council members have taken to task all the important issues that the city is facing, fixed them all and now have absolutely nothing better to do with their time then to reach out and tackle the TRPA and the League. Hum what is that hole, what is the budget? What is the vacancy and unemployment percentages? How many firefighters and police officers do we have on the streets?
. Well I’m sure everything must all be fine since they seem to have so much more interest in these outlying issues at this time. At least they can see where the real crisis sits. The real issues that affect us all.
Of course they do realize if the lake is green instead of blue, the city will continue to be red instead of black.
Hal, Clare and Angela….. shame on you! You know better than to jump so quickly on anything Bruce Greggo or Tom Davis get so emotional about. What the heck were the three of you thinking? What was the rush?
Hal, really? You trust Bruce Greggo (even with Clare editing) to write a letter to the TRPA and then state publically that you (as mayor) trust him and will sign anything he crafts? What the heck were you thinking? You want a dialogue with Jerry Browns office to fix the TRPA yet publically call him out as being the problem.
Can’t believe you let the comments by the Greggo family, the McCarthy family and Joy Curry rattle you so much. Take a Xanax before the next council meeting.