Meyers restarts process to be a more livable community
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS – Another meeting, another plan, another promise the next document won’t sit on the shelf, but instead will actually be implemented.
That last part kept being pounded into the more than 40 people who attended the Meyers Roundtable meeting this week. But only a fraction of those people are ordinary citizens of this enclave at the base of Echo Summit. The rest have jobs with El Dorado County, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, or other planning-design-consulting firms.
County Supervisor Norma Santiago, after the more than two-hour meeting on April 4, told Lake Tahoe News, “The teams will define the projects they want to implement so then we can shop for funding to pay for it.” (Santiago is also on the TRPA Governing Board.)
El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago talks about plans for Meyers. Photo/Kathryn Reed
She said the now much-outdated community plan never came to fruition because there was no funding.
Sue Novasel, who leads the roundtable, was instrumental in getting the 18-year-old document off the ground. Back then teams worked on various components. That same way of doing things is going to be implemented this year.
The old document has things like walkable, livable communities – just phrased differently. It talks about a town eager to have connectivity through bike paths.
The original Meyers Community Plan came out in October 1993, with revisions made five years later. That document says, “The community plan for Meyers is intended to serve as the comprehensive land use and development plan through the year 1997.” The current Meyers plan may be accessed via the TRPA’s website.
The problem isn’t what is in the document – in fact, much of it will likely be used in the revision. It may just need to be tweaked to use today’s language and incorporate 21st century building requirements.
The problem is the plan has served as nothing more than a paperweight.
Community plans are one of those TRPA mandates. While in some ways they are slated to disappear if the Regional Plan update is approved at the end of the year, they are just going to be replaced with action plans that come with different criteria and mandates.
“The local community is determining their own character,” is how TRPA COO Ed Gurowitz described the new, friendlier agency and its proposed Regional Plan.
He said with Meyers starting now and intending to have its plan done as the Regional Plan comes to fruition, this particular South Shore plan could be a model for other jurisdictions around the lake.
Michael Ward, who is with the Lake Tahoe Prosperity Center and working with the Tahoe Sustainable Communities Program, spoke to the group assembled at the magnet school about the grant his group is using to help Meyers. He was evasive about the exact dollar amount that will be allocated to Meyers. Ward kept saying this is seed money that could attract other money. But for that to happen a real plan approved by TRPA that outlines priorities needs to be in place.
In the coming months a series of workshops-meetings will be scheduled so the people of Meyers can plot a course of action, with the goal being action – not just another plan.
I attended the Meyers meeting as both a member of the Meyers Community and the Public Information Officer for TRPA, but I had a very different take on the event. I walked away feeling that the Meyers Community is now in a good position to actually move forward and begin implementing their vision given the support in place from Norma Santiago, El Dorado County, and the great team of advisors put together by Micheal Ward though the Sustainable Communities Grant. I thought the meeting was very positive and I am hopeful about the future of our community.
Kristi, the story says Meyers is moving forward and the title says that process has started. The story is not negative. Maybe you need to reread it. Meyers was in a good position to move forward before. You should credit the people who wrote the original plan. If they had not done such a good job, Meyers wouldn’t be in the position it is today to go forward so quickly.
Well gosh Kae. If your going to slant the news rather than report it maybe you could try helping out the people who are working every day to make our communities better by at least framing the possibilities. I thought we were very, very clear that we were not approaching Meyers to engage in yet more planning to no good end. And I was very clear that we have small pots of funds that we can apply to help “tune-up” the Meyers Community Plan to help the community get it’s plan off the shelf and into action. The fact that the work is difficult and funding is scarce should not translate into journalism that is frankly hostile to the goal. Time to step up Kae. You have an audience that I assume wants to be part of thriving communities in the south shore. They do not need to be reminded of every failure of the past or promises not kept. The Meyers project will be community led not government led. I think that will be the difference. Feel free to join us.
Wow, Michael, talk about hostile. The story at the start and end say the goal is implementation. It is not a reporter’s responsibility to be a cheerleader for a project or an idea. It is a reporter’s responsibility to point out the facts. Fact No. 1 — more planning than implementation occur in the Lake Tahoe Basin — at a extreme imbalance. Fact No. 2 — Without knowing the past, we don’t learn. Shame on you to say it is not important. Fact No. 3 — There is not good news or bad news, there is just news. I reported the news. Lake Tahoe News is not a PR agency; it’s a news site. Maybe you should learn the difference.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Myers never sounded right,we still call it Tahoe Pardise.
That be a starter.
Todd,you are correct. The people of Meyers have worked very hard creating a vision for their community. It is great to see it moving forward.
To All:
Read my response to Joanne’s TRPA Regional Plan Update plea today. . .
To Michael: Kae is right, as planning predominates, absent better (or any) results. Conflict is still prevalent.
To Kae: Michael is also right, but some cynicism could be a catalyst, as it reflects a certain distrust in what has gone on before, as you state. . .
For those who know me, with memories of way more robust times. . .the “proof is in the pudding”, as more energy needs to be expended that simply bandying about terms like ‘sustainability’, as that does injustice to serious efforts around the world now, that Tahoe needs to join, not to slip further behind the very world they purport to attract.
Sustainability is not a veneer, bumper-sticker, or buzzword – done right, it is exactly what TRPA, the Prosperity Plan, and “agencies” say they are about. . . but don’t yet exercise.
To the Meyers (Tahoe Paradise) community:
Stay tuned, & hang in there. . .your efforts are appreciated.
To Hang Ups: After reading your post from another story, you don’t seem to respect “Tahoe Paradise” very much.
Tahoe Paradise is just a name Wilson gave to his big dream! Meyers is the real name.
Kae-
Unfortunately, Lake Tahoe “News” is nothing resembling a journalistic enterprise that follows traditional norms of fact-checking, editing, and most importantly, objectivity. Everything that you write is infected with your own personal and political agenda, and we all know it.
How can you claim that this article is objective reporting? Just look at your choice of loaded words:
1. “Another meeting, another plan, another promise…”
2. “The last part kept being POUNDED into the more than 40 people…”
3. “… the plan has served as nothing more than a paperweight.”
4. “Community plans are one of those TRPA mandates.. they are just going to be replaced with action plans that come with different criteria and mandates.”
Clearly you have a negative view of this process and are not simply “reporting the news” as you claim. None of these phrases serve any informational purpose other than to criticize those involved. I could pull the last 10 articles you have written and find similar loaded language that adds nothing to a story but is simply there to further your agenda.
Instead of being the child in the back of the class knocking everyone’s ideas down, why not serve a positive role and provide this community with the type of quality, objective journalism it so desperately needs? We are DESPERATE for it.
Tyler D.
Tyler,
Interesting for someone who does not use his real name and hides behind a movie character to promote the Tahoe Pipe Club agenda to take issue with my words. Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.
Facts: It was another meeting to talk about another plan that was full of more promises.
Facts: I use the word pounded. Michael Ward says, “I thought we were very, very clear that we were not approaching Meyers to engage in yet more planning to no good end” But you don’t take issue with “to no good end” in how he described previous planning? Wow.
Facts: I use paperweight. Michael Ward says, “help the community get it’s plan off the shelf”. Same thing.
Facts: Community plans are a TRPA requirement; under the proposed RPU the name changes giving local jurisdictions more of a say.
And I would love to know what my agenda is since you seem to. I didn’t realize I had one.
I’m not here to be a positive or negative role model — or any role model. No journalist should be.
Why are you reading LTN if you have a problem with it? Why do you want us to publish Tahoe Pipe Club news if you have a problem with us?
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Tyler Durden is not one person. He’s everyman. I don’t speak for the Tahoe Pipe Club. Call me whatever you want.
To answer your question, I don’t take issue with Michael Ward’s various comments because, in his role with the Tahoe Prosperity Center, he’s a strong advocate for the Tahoe prosperity plan, and his comments naturally reflect that. It’s not his job to be neutral. A journalist, however, has a completely different role to provide objective information (i.e., not advocating for a position). I would think that’s an obvious distinction.
-Whatever you want
If not for laketahoenews.net the pipers would be still talking to each other. Some interesting ideas. I applaud the effort.
Kristi, try living here more than a few months before offering your opinions as facts and unknowing as knowing. You’ve absolutely no information knowledge or understanding from which to take an opinion about whether things are moving forward or just another planning process. Put five, ten or twenty years into the struggles we’ve all endured at the hands of planners endlessly planning and scientists endlessly testing and outsiders like you coming to town to tell us what is best for us and your employer preventing us from basic improvements. You’ve no idea what is moving forward or not. We need action, change, money and agencies getting out of our way so we can invest in our business and residents in the way best for us, not more planners.
This article is exactly on point and exactly what we live with here; once again Kae shines a light on the real story; the wasting of more time and money. Past history and current practice is sufficient evidence from which to draw the logical conclusion, this is just more of the same.
The Pipe Club is more concerned with political ideology than science. Go read their web page, specifically the section on hydrology/meadows/river restoration. Read their paragraph, read their source, see if it lines up, and decide for yourself. Sure they have a point, do something about direct inputs from urban runoff. The rest of it is questionable at best.
I’been here long enough to know these plans never! work as expected, show me one that has. They are feel good meetings for the pols and staff of all the agencies and developers, usually nothing more, end of story, which I thought was well done.
The April 6th 4:53 comment was not from tahoe pipe club. Thanks for the article, it’s about time the Meyers plan is updated.