Opinion: A call for disclosure by the League
By Rochelle Nason
The League to Save Lake Tahoe has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, asking it to release public documents regarding the expenditure of public funds. The recipient of those funds, South Lake Tahoe City Councilwoman/TRPA member Claire Fortier, says the League’s FOIA request is an “attempt at bullying”, and an “attempt to discredit me”.
What is going on here?
On April 13, 2011, the TRPA disclosed that in 2010, it had paid $9,681 to Fortier’s company, Laren Inc. Wondering why TRPA would make payments to a political activist/researcher, the League reviewed copies of the economic disclosure forms that she had filed with TRPA to see if we could learn more.
Rochelle Nason
The payment from TRPA to Laren, and from Laren to Fortier did not appear on the form. We therefore wrote to Ms. Fortier and the agency, pointing out the omission and asking that she correct it before participating in any more of TRPA’s meetings. On April 27, 2011, before participating in the TRPA’s meeting on that date, Fortier indeed corrected her economic disclosure statement to show the payment to Laren. The corrected statement declared, “Laren Communications completed a project for the TRPA on the history of the agency in Jan[uary]2010.”
That same day a story ran in the Tahoe Daily Tribune in which it was reported that: “According to both Fortier and TRPA spokesman Jeff Cowen, the planning agency paid Fortier the $9,681 for research on a 40th anniversary project. Fortier said the research revolved around the TRPA’s pre-1980 history.”
The League praised Fortier for the disclosure: “[t]he League is glad Claire has stepped up and done the right thing in disclosing her financial dealings with the TRPA. We are encouraging her to be proactive about contacting the Fair Political Practices Commission and making sure she has made all the disclosures required by state law as well.”
We pointed out that: “We are still concerned with the question why TRPA would spend almost $10,000 for historical research on its 40th anniversary. All that information has been assembled repeatedly in the past, in connection with the 30th, 25th, 20th, and 10th anniversaries of the agency.” We noted would be seeking the documentation on the project – and that is why we filed our FOIA request.
Why does Claire Fortier consider a request that a government entity release public documents relating to its expenditure of public funds to be an act of “bullying” against her? She asks, “Is this a pissing match or an unabashed attempt by the League to intimidate me?”
Well, it is neither one. It is what it is: a request for public documents about a matter of the public interest.
We encourage everyone with an interest in all that is going on between the city and the League – or in the broader issues of land-use and environmental planning in the Lake Tahoe Basin — to spend a few minutes viewing my presentation to the City Council on May 3, 2011.
You can find the presentation by moving the “slider” at the bottom of the video to 1:07.10 (1 hour, 7 minutes, 10 seconds into the meeting).
You will see that the League is not seeking to obstruct the economic development of the city of South Lake Tahoe when we try to assure that regional planning achieves environmental goals, nor when we seek to enforce the laws that protect Lake Tahoe. We do believe that by working together, we can keep Tahoe’s local communities sustainable – and that we can and we will Keep Tahoe Blue.
Rochelle Nason is the executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, also known as Keep Tahoe Blue.
How dare Rochelle Nason make a request for public documents about a matter of the public interest. It may be heresy to say so, but it appears to me that the League is the only group who plays by the rules.
Perhaps, if we had more folks asking difficult questions, like Ms. Nason, our city wouldn’t be broke, there wouldn’t be a crater in the middle of town and our roads wouldn’t be a $300 million unfunded liability.
It is important not to confuse bullying with accountability, which is what Ms. Fortier appears to be doing. Frankly, it is entirely inappropriate, (not to mention embarrassing) to watch Ms. Fortier and the city council make negative public statements and write nasty letters to the League, which is a private organization and has every right to advocate for their own point of view.
Ms. Fortier and the city council are out of line and owe Ms. Nason and the League to Save Lake Tahoe a public apology.
I dunno. Looks like a pissing match to me.
Steve is right, this is a simple policy of public disclosure. Claire accepted this possibility when running for public office. It’s unfortunate and unprofessional for her to mock a legitimate request.
Further, as Steve points out, The League is a private entity whose job it is to safeguard the Lake. For some members of the Council to make a request for a ‘shakeup’ at the League would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
Cue the Circus music…
Exactly dogwoman….and I didn’t know this type of action fell into the League’s mission at Lake Tahoe.
Not on the same subject but here was something I found on the group’s website. Rochelle’s comment in the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.keeptahoeblue.org/news/in-the-news/?id=197
It looks like the battle grounds of Rochelle Nason verses the City of South Lake Tahoe have been set.
Definition of bully tactics is to treat people in an intimidating manner, to force one’s way aggressively or by intimidation. When we think of the League, and Rochelle its nothing short of bully tactics on every matter, in every subject. Why not spend all your membership and donation money searching down every possible opportunity to intimidate and destroy, that’s really saving lake tahoe. And how about suing everyone, keep it up, that really saves lake tahoe. Nah, don’t bother spending money on environmental projects, funding programs to clean up this place, and why bother helping to improve buildings that are falling apart right into the lake and don’t waste your time spending money saving the lake from invading muscles or funding programs to keep the lake clear, nah, what fun is that?
No, keep right on intimidating, bullying, hollering and hoping people don’t look behind the curtain of your tactics, as you work in Berkeley and meet with lawyers in the Bay Area, meet with those who have houses they visit a couple of times a year up here, keep bullying them into giving you more money to save the lake no not from what is harming the water, no no no, from us who live here, who want to improve it and make the area beautiful, who want to fix up the place, save the lake from us, the residents so you can destroy it and keep it for yourself and all your buddies in Berkeley. The definition of bully tactics.
Yo Kubby did you just take a bong hit or something? I think you are missing the point here and trying to create something out of nothing. Ms. Fortier wasn’t on the council when all the things you described occurred. I don’t think she can go back in time to fix those mistakes. Move forward and acknowledge what’s really going on here. Out of area people trying to pressure locals into doing what they want. Yes, disclosure of public funds should be made available, but I think we can see through the smoke and mirrors and see what’s happening here.
Nice one jman! Right on point.
A point of clarification. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are not private organizations when compared to LLC’s or corporations. All tax-exempt entities are required to provide reasonable access to their last three Form 990 filings. State laws may increase disclosure requirements. But typically providing a complete list of donors is not required. In general membership organizations make their board meetings open to the public but also have a right to have closed sessions. When a tax-exempt entity closes shop the assets may be given to another tax-exempt entity or are given to the government. This is an important point because it demonstrates that the assets of a tax-exempt are public assets.
jman enough of the anonymous slander. Disclosure creats the most sunshine.
Ms. Nason fails to mention the League’s attorney who addressed the City Council prior to her speaking. Attorney Lozeau (who drove up from Oakland for that meeting) made no fewer than 4-threats of litigation by the League against the City if they (the City) didn’t go along with the League’s recommendation. Nason also blamed the TRPA for everything and said if the TRPA had done what the League wanted them to do the City wouldn’t be in the predicament they were in regarding the General Plan Update/EIR. While the TRPA in fact has culpability, the point is that Nason used them as the sole scapegoat and eliminated any League responsibility whatsoever for any delays to the Regional Plan Update, etc. Personally, I’ve never witnessed such skilled manipulation and side-stepping at a SLT City Council meeting as that of Lozeau and Nason, and still wonder about Nason’s obvious reluctance for the City Council to meet with the League’s Board for a discussion, which the Council requested of her numerous times at that meeting. I am left to wonder what she is hiding from her Board.
I think Nason is quite wily and found the condescending attitudes and actions of her and Lozeau as representatives of the League to Save Lake Tahoe extremely tiresome.
The statements and stands that the league takes, show that it stands for things other than lake clarity. I’d be curious what it’s real mission statement and objectives are, cause they are not for the “people”, not really sure who they are for, has their membership, board, and donators ever been disclosed?
The TRPA is enough regulation, much of which already is over kill or nonsensical due to it not being based on anything scientific. The League just takes everything to a whole nother level of ridiculous. What a waste of money, and time. Not to mention, a whole lot of negativity.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=9795
Thanks Kenny :)
$143,500 salary in 2009, not bad in a recession.
Why is the disclosure of a payment less than $10,000 still an issue? Claire appropriately disclosed it, indicated why she felt it was not an issue at the time, the League seemed to have accepted the disclosure… Cant’ we be done with this and move on?
I guess not. Now the League is questioning the validity of the study after Claire noted the study was part of an effort to get all material on line in an effort to increase public access and transparency. I would think those are appropriate goals, and spending less than $10,000 is chump change in the greater scheme of things.
Let’s face facts: The League is solely concerned about protecting the Lake – water quality, air quality, scenic thresholds, etc. We all get that, and we all appreciate that. And other special interest groups exist to protect their respective interests.
However, the City is required to balance all issues – the economic environment, the social environment, the scenic environment, the air environment, the water quality environment, etc.
We need the City Council to make the tough decisions to help our community. We have dilapidated buildings that can’t get remodeled due to exhaustive permitting. Scenic concerns prevent the “strip mall” feel of Highway 50 from being consolidated to smaller yet higher density areas while implementing low impact designs to protect water quality. We have what is commonly referred to as “sex offender alley” by Stateline because we don’t have an adopted regional plan to help guide redevelopment in that area and because motels that rent by the month are exempt from the TOT lodging tax. Basically, without a solid regional plan, we are unable to move forward to make the necessary changes this town so sorely needs (Hey Rochelle – see Claire’s comments around minute 48 while rebuffing your legal counsels threats of continued litigation).
We need our City Council to make decisions. All special interests must realize that they will not get everything they want in any decision that is made. That is called compromise. We need the City Council to be able to weigh the immense amount of information that has been provided over the years and make a decision.
That time is now because we really need to move on. Our town cannot afford further delays due to more and more litigation because one special interest group didn’t get everything they wanted.
As of December 2010, the City of South Lake Tahoe was paying its City Attorney $222,961 per year in salary, according to the Tribune.
I presume that, like other public employment, that position comes with a nice defined-benefit pension contributions, early-retiree health care, other insurance benefits, etc. – probably a total package of around $300,000.
So as City taxpayers we are probably paying our city attorney well over twice what I am making – and and then we pay much more when the City hires private attorneys, who make a LOT more than either municipal or nonprofit counsel.
We could certainly argue about whether lawyers are overpaid, and if so which ones . . . but the real question here should be: is the City getting the legal advice it needs to correctly apply the laws that protect Lake Tahoe ?
How much does the League’s attorney make?
But if you truly want to get back to teh real question, then perhaps you can respond to whether the League intends to file more lawsuits if the City tries to move forward with a plan. We all know that we can get attorneys to give legal advice that conforms to what we want to hear, and at the end of the day it’s all fluff until the case is decided in court.
At what point is the League willing to compromise, and at what point is the League going to initiate a legal challenge?
I stand by my comments earlier, and agree with ‘dogwoman’ and Eric Taxer: this is still a “pissing match”, apparently between Claire and Rochelle – why is Rochelle now drawing the City Attorney into this ?
Touchy, touchy. . . about what exactly ?
It surely couldn’t be about a rinky-dink 9,000 dollar bill (a livelihood issue) in the face of hundreds of millions of dollars of misguided policies, about a TRPA Board member (among over a dozen) and City Council member (1 of 5)- that just adds insult to injury, focusing anything on these two.
Is this a deflection of concern through not knowing what the issues actually are now. . . it’s not strictly environmental, it’s about the socioeconomics of a healthy community (or not, as we are now acutely aware of). . . everyone is stumbling now.
Who’s going to fall first ?
Eric Taxer, the League agrees with much of what you say. If TRPA were functioning properly we would have a Regional Plan to achieve environmental objectives in place. The City would then be positioned to do its policy balancing among economic, social, and environmental objectives, and produce a consistent plan.
Unfortunately, TRPA is NOT functioning properly, and the City’s response is to adopt a plan reflecting its policy perspective that impervious coverage provides an environmental benefit. This is a plan that the City acknowledges cannot take effect unless and until TRPA adopts the same approach.
If you watched the May 3 video you should realize that the League will NOT be slowing anything down if it challenges the City’s approach – as the City’s approach cannot be implemented until after TRPA acts in any case.
The League has for decades been a supporter of engineered solutions, especially area-wide solutions, to water quality problems where infiltration and/or limits on development are not practical – the approaches the City now accepts, and is expressing a willingness to implement, and which I assume every thinking person supports.
However, the League also believes that watershed protection and restoration has MANY environmental benefits – to water quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, scenery, recreation, climate change, etc. – and should be applied wherever practical. For this reason, we stand by the current rules that limit coverage. For similar reasons we stand by the current rules that limit the intensity of development that can be put on top of that coverage – at least until a different plan to achieve the same objectives has been developed.
Over the long run, we think the City will be far better off with this kind of approach from a social and economic perspective. You are right that it has the discretion to choose differently – but not until TRPA has made the environmental policy decisions about impervious surfaces and limits on the intensity of development that the City must follow.
Rochelle – I’m glad to hear that you support appropriate solutions. What is the League doing to help bring these to fruition?
In the past, the League was a huge supporter of the basin’s waste discharge ban, and the League provided great information that helped STPUD get the necessary grant funds to upgrade its facility and cease its discharges within the basin.
Is the League willing to work with the players from the get-go now as it has been able to in the past? Lawsuits should be the last resort used, not the first.
You say the TRPA is not functioning properly. Why not? What is the League doing to help?
And how many years has it been without a regional plan? Why should our community be held hostage to the plan’s adoption as opposed to taking the bull by the horns and getting something accomplished?
Look around – our community is impoverished. Look at the squalor that exists. Did you realize that other communities ship their hardship cases up here because of the cheap rent that can be found? Did you know that mental health-managed individuals flock to this area to “fly under the radar” that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do in larger urban areas? Just ask your local mental health social worker what’s really going on in our community.
Yes, watershed protection and restoration is vital to our area – that’s what keeps the tourism dollars flowing. But what is the League doing to help the City find the solutions to implement water quality goals while at the same time trying to prevent our community from falling into further state of dispair?
I’m suggesting that lawsuits can no longer be the answer. You and the League can grasp this opportunity to do something good…. or not. It’s your choice.
Lou, You’re accusing me of slander? What’s slanderous about stating facts Lou? Ski Bum is “anonymous”, why aren’t you calling him out, Lou? What’s your point anyway, Lou?
Nice deflection of the point Ms. Nason. The point of the article is Claire Fortier’s dastardly hiding $9,000 in payment from the TRPA. Now we are talking about city employee’s and watershed. Well done, Rochelle, well done.
Anonymity is safety, Lou.
City assembles significant properties it deems to be “blighted,” exercises eminent domain to seize property if necessary, and then contracts with a corporation that has the financial wherewithal to clear and redevelop it.
When redevelopment works, it can provide economic benefits and funding for environmental improvement. When it does not work, the environment may suffer, and communities sustain economic damages to schools and public services as well as small-business losses.
What if all the many millions of dollars that were shoveled into the “hole,” and that flew away at the airport, had been invested instead in sidewalks, bike trails and other small-scale improvements that would make our town a better place to live and visit? What if our economic policies promoted the incubation of distinctive local businesses, rather than recruitment of developers for massive projects?
The projects envisioned in the plan would increase traffic and air pollution, block scenic mountain views, and expand urbanization at Tahoe.
“Truth hard to handle, I take my hat off to you lady.”
I still crack up when I recall the TRPA saying we could not have bird feeders because it made squirrels too aggressive to attack humans and they were going to close Emerald l Bay.
Maybe Davis, Cole, and the new City Attorney could shade some light on this besides free rides in a patrol car and the donut, coffee massacres,
I DO RECALL WHEN Tom Fay, Ted ,Stan, COMPANY which all worked for the city streets maintenance years ago, were called out on another local city hang out, they use to park all the city car pool with city logos up next to the World cup run up on Keller, Wooed the girls in tight pants.
When somebody complained it Got” cleaned up in a Hurry.”
Thanks to Ms. Nason for providing a partial answer to Mr. Taxer, but a lot of this is now ” a day late, and a dollar short” – particularly with regards to questioning the impervious coverage issue.
Pervious concrete was studied until the guy hired to look into it quit, and the “scientists” decided for them. Wrong !!
TRPA’s very apparent dysfunction is also apparently toxic to common sense as well, as the Lake suffers from both maladies of the Peter Principle and GIGO.
The League’s stance on multiple-level development is, for example, misguided, as it is a ‘footprint’ issue. A larger amount of folks can be distributed on the same ‘square footage’, consolidating the impact to a more manageable space, with less O & M. More bang for the buck.
TRPA, on the other hand, wants to include transect zoning issues when there is no one in the local design community that knows anything about that – a sure recipe for both imported “help” and/or once again setting up for failure.
None of this, however, has anything to do with the origins/disposition of that now infamous 9,000 ‘remittance advice’, that I understand Claire acknowledged already. Why not ‘put that issue to bed’ ?
Another deflection of real issues ?
There are many example worldwide of the types of sustainable development that would be amenable to both the League and the TRPA, if all the consultant fees were not spent on justifying obsolete positions on either side.
The Boulder Bay project project far exceeds a minimum level of green building standards, so a stance against it smacks more of constituent (read ‘donors’) concerns than actuality.
Anyone sense issues of hubris here, in defending positions that have no place in significant dialogue. . . Which is ??
Eric, you ask me nine different questions in your e-mail, I cannot realistically write nine essays in response. I will say two things:
First, I can tell you that for years we co-led, and solely funded the lobbying support for the work of the Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition in Washington, D.C., which brought hundreds of millions of dollars in SNPLMA funds into the Basin – one of our few economic bright spots.
Second, you still seem not to be hearing the reality that the City plan cannot take effect before the TRPA plan. This is true no matter what the League does or doesn’t do – the City itself acknowledges this. There is simply no issue here of ‘holding hostage’ anything, or preventing the City from ‘getting something accomplished’.
Here is a question for you: do you support the League’s proposals for working with the City that I made in my presentation to the Council?
I find it interesting to learn that in fact, Claire Fortier did receive payment for services provided… THIRTEEN months prior to the date she was asked to complete a disclosure form. Was she supposed to be clairvoyant and know that the League would attempt to stir all of this up about her? Perhaps she should have completed an addendum that stated “oh, but by the way, I DID receive pay from TRPA outside of the dates of required disclosure per this form… ” If this is such a huge concern, why not ask the TRPA to revise their disclosure form to state “have you EVER received payment from the TRPA??” Also, wasn’t Clem Shute hired and paid by the League at one time?? Is THAT a required disclosure??
Rochelle –
Regarding your proposal to work with the City… You talked about prior years of coordination, but what about now? I strongly urge you to listen to Angela Swanson’s and Tom Davis’ pleas to host a joint open meeting with your board and the City Council. Ours is in the only incorporated area in the basin, and coordination is key. You communicated how effective coordination in the past got things done in the past… Why is that not still happening?
Since we are so interested in disclosure how about the League to Save Lake Tahoe providing us with a list of the members of the League and the name of the
City and State of their principal residence.
Once again, pissing match. Complete with insults, questioning of each other’s integrity, threats of lawyers and lawsuits, questioning of motives for privacy and distraction. None of this will help Lake Tahoe. Is it not obvious that a joint open meeting may be helpful? Coordination and compromise in a public forum will be the only path to solutions.
Ms. Nason:
Your “proposal” to the City Council was not a proposal at all, but threats of litigation if the Council did not go along with the “recommendations” that Oakland Attorney Lozeau stated and you reiterated, which was don’t adopt a General Plan Update at this time and submit comments to the TRPA. And if as you say, the City’s General Plan Update can’t take effect before the TRPA’s Regional Plan no matter what the League does or doesn’t do, then why initiate or threaten a lawsuit against the City at all?
By the way, have you contacted the League Board about a “meet and greet” with the SLT City Council so the Council can conduct face to face discussions regarding their concerns/issues related to the League’s policies and management?
I will say however that I did appreciate Hal Cole’s request of you for a direct dialogue with the League regarding the City’s desire of removing blighted areas via the creation of pedestrian orieted areas that would require more density, height, and coverage, but would remove development from areas where it was not wanted. I also thought his comment later in the meeting that he intended to contact the League to initiate discussions was both astute and generous on his part.
In my opinion, Eric, the effective coordination of the past was lost because TRPA decided to abandon its roles as (1) the planner responsible for achieving regional environmental goals while respecting local autonomy to the degree compatible with its plan, and (2) the convener and facilitator of stakeholders to achieve those goals.
The agency decided nearly ten years ago that it wanted to be far more powerful than that. It assigned itself the role of a super-local government, at the cost of making unrealistic promises to the actual local government jurisdictions, to developers, and to other proponents of projects and plans.
We suspect that it is these unrealistic expectations have led to gridlock. TRPA finds it can’t adopt a plan that would fulfill all its promises without breaking the law. But ultimately only the agency can answer the question: why is it still, in 2011, working on Pathway 2007, which was due to be adopted in December 2006?
They will probably blame the League. It is convenient to blame us for the fact the agency is constrained by the laws that protect Lake Tahoe. It is tough to admit they made promises they cannot fulfill, and that everyone is going to have to get much more realistic about how much we can expect from development projects for which there is really no demand.
The misdirection of TRPA is the reason we now have nine local environmental organizations in addition to the League – which used to stand alone as the nonprofit defender of the public interest in keeping Tahoe blue. It is also why litigation is now so frequently required to enforce the laws that protect Lake Tahoe.
The current administration at TRPA did not create this problem, but it is responsible to stop perpetuating it. The agency needs to get back on track – doing its own job and not the local governments’ jobs – so that local disputes can be resolved without endangering Lake Tahoe. The City and the League should be shoulder to shoulder in trying to make that happen.
Don’t waste your time arguing with the stoners Rochelle, rather they should look into what Grego and the City Atty are making per year. You have always played by the rules, but the ones who hate all of the agencies aren’t really going to care about that. Keep doing your good work.
Rochelle,
Answer the question about you and your board meeting with the city please. If not, I will make it a mission to get the addresses and contact information for your board and distribute to the public. I’m sure they will appreciate receiving 100’s of pieces of mail a day and having demonstrators at their next big gala.
You can diffuse this by agreeing to broker the meeting.
Did Tahoegal just call me a stoner?
Seriously? THAT’s funny!
tahoegal:
Are you stating that anyone who disagrees with Rochelle Nason is a “stoner”? Please respond.
Thank you.
To everyone,
While opinions are wonderful, threats are not. Threats, like the one above, will not be tolerated on Lake Tahoe News. It doesn’t matter if they are directed at individuals or organizations, be they private or public.
Passionate disagreements are welcome. Name calling is not.
The League to Save Tahoe as a private nonprofit does not have to disclose certain items to the public. However, a lot of information is online and can be accessed by the public.
And it’s a promise, not a threat, that Lake Tahoe News will ban people who do make threatening remarks.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Thanks, Kae!
To correct misinformation provided by Ms. Nason, the City Attorney’s current approved salary is $146,736 per year, plus benefits. However, as a result of furloughs, the salary was reduced to $127,175.
The City Attorney’s contract is approved by the City Council in a public meeting and is available online. The last amendment to his contract was approved at the July 13, 2010 City Council meeting (Item #13). A link to that meeting where the contract is approved is here: http://slt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=376&meta_id=36026.
All City employee salary ranges, job descriptions and benefits are available online, through this link http://cityofslt.us/humanresources/index.html.
Nancy Kerry (nkerry@cityofslt.us)
Public Affairs and Communications
City of South Lake Tahoe
530-542-6043
And here I thought I was engaging in an informed dialogue, only to be referred to as a stoner. I guess it’s easy to resort to name-calling when you hide behind a made-up moniker.
Silly me.
Ms. Reed:
Thank you for your speedy response and clarification of LTN’s position on this practice.
jman, Skibum is a 35 year resident who bartended up here at Carlos for 19 years, knows just about everyone in town, has been a contractor for 30 years as well pokes his nose into just about everything named Ken Curtzwiler. That aside I have to agree with Rochelle on this one in her statements on the TRPA. They need to function better as well as get out of the construction business. It is them who have stimied residential and commercial improvement up with an overwhelming array of regulations of which most have nothing to do with the clarity of the lake. The league’s stance is one of environmental watchdog with their only teeth being litigation or lawsuits. Most of the time I agree with them, someone needs to control the TRPA and they have elected themselves for which I am glad. At least they have the bucks to fight them. Our focus should not be on a petty little item such as this but on reigning in the TRPA. I also think we need the TRPA as well, they just need to get back to their original mandate if anyone can even remember what it was. Thanks Kae for stepping in as I know that you are fair and even with this situation as I have gone over the line several times and you have talked to me lol. Also to all the folks who write their name and we know who it is, why get worked up over knowing a name? Anonymous people’s comments or “facts” mean squat if they don’t want to put their name, they are just bloggers who should just write blah blah blah because that’s all you should read. Rochelle, you don’t have to defend yourself or the leagues actions to bloggers and shouldn’t. Respond only to those who are legitimate
That threat above, of exposing addresses with the hope of opening someone to large scale harassment. That is why I remain anonymous. People have attempted to make public what car I drive and where I work. Fortunately they were incorrect. Some people want to take what should be an a discussion between minds on here to a possible confrontation in person.
Anyway. These types of forums, as chaotic as they may be, are good for this town. There is so much disinformation spread around from the rumor mill that keeps us polarized and incapable of solving any problems.
Bum: I disagree that the only comments to be considered legitimate are from individuals who use their personal name. As long as ideas are based on fact, which one should be able to verify, and opinions are well presented in a polite manner, an individual’s credibility should not be diminished because of their preference of not publicly disclosing their identity. I choose not to use my real name because I’m in the telephone directory with my address listed and don’t want to place my family at risk from an over-zealous person that opposes my opinion. Passions can run high is SLT but I still want to express my opinions.
This is good to talk of all this. It gives you an idea of what all the peoples perceptions are, of what is going on with all these environmental agencies.
Many of us feel like they lord over us. The emotions that get expressed are often anger, this happens when people feel issues in their life are out of their control.
It’s hard enough to deal with a normal cities rules, regulations, and permit processes. At Tahoe, projects are daunting, and unobtainable to many.
I think most people would agree, that anyone who would like to live here, should be able to, and that this area, shouldn’t belong to only those with deep pockets.
I also believe, that those who live here, and visit it, appreciate the uniqueness of this beautiful place, and do not want to destroy that. We just don’t want to throw money at unproven science, as well as regulations/codes that don’t have anything to do with lake clarity. These make us question the whole policy ie paint colors of buildings etc.
Please work together, play nice, and remember that it’s ok to not always be right. It’s not your way or the highway, this is a process, lets move forward, and not waste precious money on lawsuits, that could go towards bettering our community.
Remember, new science is always around the corner, this is ongoing, so you don’t have to get it perfect today. The communities around the lake will forever be upgrading themselves, to protect our lake and surrounding environs, as new techniques and products become available.
Move forward, and don’t forget that people are a beautiful and important resource as well :)
conservation, I read and reread my writings and I can’t find a threat anywhere. This is exactly what I am talking about, where in the world did you get a “threat” from my comments??
4-mer; I will agree to disagree lol
Remember when I talked about someone leaving nasty notes at my work yard? I also get hate e-mails and hate phone calls but that’s life, I sure as heck don’t lose sleep over it. It’s always a good idea to check out facts on your own as cr talks about but when someone throws “facts” out they should stand behind their writings and especially when throwing a neener neener out, show some class. cr, where is the threat??
4-mer, well said also!
No no, not you Skibum. I was talking about the original threat maker. Could have been more clear but I didn’t want to quote or give any attention to them.
Ms. Kerry:
Thank you for setting the record straight regarding City Attorney Enright’s current salary. I was certain it was not $222,961 as Ms. Nason stated and thought that amount may have been the combined salaries of Jacqueline Mittelstadt and Mr. Enright. Since I could not verify such I declined to make a rebuttal comment to Nason on this topic and thus appreciate your comments and candor.
cr, lol thanks
SkiBum, I know who you are, I was just making a point.
Regarding the use of an alias, half the people on here don’t use their real names. If you think you’re a hero or something for using your real name, well then rock on.
So we basically have 2 “environmental” agencies calling each other out. Idea: Get rid of both of them and start new. Call it the League to Plan Tahoe’s Region.