Opinion: Time to abandon Loop Road reconfiguration
Publisher’s note: The following letter was sent to the South Lake Tahoe City Council and Lake Tahoe News on July 19 in advance of the July 20 10am Tahoe Transportation District meeting at the TRPA office in Stateline.
Dear Mayor (Claire) Fortier and Council Members:
I am writing to you to offer a few thoughts regarding how city government can further increase confidence in the community in regard to the “Loop Road” and still continue to pursue options that create a more transportation and pedestrian-friendly area in and around Heavenly Village. Those of us who oppose the existing TTD road alignment and massive destruction of private property support the City Council’s existing policy opposing the TTD road alignment and the use of eminent domain.
In addition, I wanted to share with you all information contained in the city’s adopted General Plan that precludes city government from allowing or approving the construction of the TTD project in its present configuration.
Dave Jinkens
The city’s existing General Plan, adopted in May 2011**, contains the following language regarding relocation of Highway 50:
Existing City General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element Language
Policy TC‐1.7: Highway 50 Relocation Project
“The city shall coordinate efforts with Caltrans and the Tahoe Transportation District to relocate Highway 50 to south of Heavenly Village in the Stateline Community Plan area. This will allow for reduced numbers of travel lanes on Highway 50 between Pioneer Trail and Stateline, creation of a dedicated transit lane, and enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian amenities.”
Comment on the current language
The goal of the policy has been expressed recently and publicly to create a more transportation and pedestrian-friendly area between at Heavenly Village and the proposed convention center/hotel/commercial project and to encourage use of public transportation. The existing policy does not propose a specific street alignment but speaks to the subject in general. General plan policies are intentionally general and seldom speak to a specific project in detail but rather to goals and objectives of a particular issue. The present language in the General Plan could be clarified to explain that the present General Plan policy does not contemplate massive destruction of private property and displacement of hundreds of low income and minority residents. Even if the existing language could be somehow interpreted by an overly imaginative mind to allow for the proposed specific road alignment (which it does not) it would still be inconsistent with other parts of the city’s General Plan as noted below. Clarifying the existing General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element language would help to avoid misunderstanding and promote public confidence in city government policies.
Proposed new language to clarify the city’s General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element:
“The city shall coordinate efforts with Caltrans and the Tahoe Transportation District (as may be needed) to develop programs and improvements that create a more transit and pedestrian-friendly venue in and around the existing Heavenly Village and proposed conference center/hotel/commercial area. Proposals for rerouting of traffic and creating pedestrian bridge linkages should be evaluated and examined in this regard. Any proposed actions or projects in this area must be consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and be financially feasible.”
As you know, the city’s General Plan may be amended by the City Council by resolution or by initiative of the electors of the city.
Existing TTD Loop Road alignment is inconsistent with the city’s adopted General Plan.
In addition to the numerous and substantive reasons why the proposed alignment of the Loop Road is bad public policy, the City Council and the Tahoe Transportation District need to consider the following. The proposed TTD Specific Loop Road alignment is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Housing Element. It discourages and destroys affordable and workforce housing in the area and diminishes the supply of such housing. The City Council and Planning Commission cannot make a finding of consistency of the proposed TTD Loop Road alignment with the city’s General Plan (that it is required to do under state law) for the construction of such a project because it violates at a minimum the following adopted policies in the City’s Housing Element (HE).
HE-1
To provide housing opportunities for South Lake Tahoe residents of all economic level
HE- 2
To encourage construction and maintenance of affordable and/or workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe.
HE-3
To preserve and enhance the existing supply of housing.
HE-5
To provide decent housing and quality living environment for all South Lake Tahoe residents regardless of age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, disability, or economic level.
HE-7
To provide for a variety of housing types, sizes, price ranges, and densities compatible with the existing character and integrity of residential neighborhoods.”
Conclusion
All of us in opposition to the TTD Loop Road alignment want to be in a position to support measures that promote the use of public transportation, pedestrian facilities and bicycle use in the area in and around Heavenly Village. We look forward to working with all parties to achieve these objectives when evaluating possible new road and/or pedestrian bridge and bicycle route options.
Sincerely,
Dave Jinkens, South Lake Tahoe
Time to abandon the loop road period.
But, David, it is just “those people” that will be displaced and “those people” that will pay for the work. And, best of all, business will be more profitable.
I’d have to agree with David on this one. The businesses that will be more profitable will not be on the California side, the loop road is designed to go around all that and deposit customers directly in Nevada. Sure, there will be an “in” the the existing Village Center but most traffic will not flow through the back of the retail establishment, they will just follow the herd to Nv. I say “NO” to the loop road as well. Let’s finish taking care of our existing eyesore first…..the hole.
I have to disagree with a lot of what I see in the comments. Our family doesnt ever go to casinos but we also only rarely go to Heavenly village because of the difficulty in navigating traffic and parking there. If the loop road helps create a more usable walking center with more shops and restaurants we would be more inclined to use it. Every indication is that the real estate market is improving. So it is reasonable to think that the “hole” will get developed and that the loop will deliver folks to use Heavenly Village. It would be great if the area could function much like a European city center. And I think it could.
I can’t say it often enough; the loop road sounds to me like a second fiasco waiting to happen. Let the “hole” be developed first, and finished, before undertaking another “magical” reinventing of that area.
There are other ways to create walking town centers, and by the way, Stateline is not our town center.The work along Harrison Avenue and Lakeview Commons is more in keeping with a walkable town center for SLT. The businesses in the Village Center are struggling, as well as those along HWY 50 and Pioneer. But,they are hanging on, employing California residents, and paying business license and taxes to South Lake Tahoe. To demolish viable California businesses, put employees out of work, and displace the business owners, in some cases taking their livlihood, would not serve SLT. To circumvent the businesses in Village Center (not the same as Heavenly Village)would damage their businesses, perhaps irreparably. Visitors see a shop that is intriguing or a name that is known and turn in. Going around the back, they would see ugly walls, loading docks and, if the businesses could get TRPA and City approval, merely signs. Not attractive. Again, the benefit is to Nevada, not SLT. I attended the TTD meeting yesterday and was told by one representative from Nevada:”Nice job, leaving Nevada to do this on our own.” We have children to feed here too, and giving their “food” to Nevada is not ok. Right now, it is tough and we need to take care of our town first.
John:
I absolutely agree with your comments. The status quo is just not working and more of the same will only deliver more of the same. I think it would be nice to have greatly slowed one-lane traffic in each direction from Pioneer through Stateline and then on to Edgewood with metered diagonal parking along that roadway section which would simplify accessing that area’s shops/businesses, and the metered parking on the City’s side would help generate money for the City to maintain that area. Also, since that stretch would be a City street and not a Federal Highway it could more easily be closed off to conduct festivals, parades, etc. Heck, we could even work with Douglas County to have great holiday/winter festivals, July 4th parades, etc., extending from Pioneer to Edgewood and maybe try working collaboratively for something that would benefit both the City and Douglas County rather than adopting an “us versus them” position. More of the same will certainly guarantee more of the same, and I think some alternate ideas and longer-term thinking needs to be undertaken.
To JoAnn Conner,
I’ve never met you but I like your comments here on LTN. I’m glad to hear you’re going to run for one of the council seats. From what you’ve written, it sounds like you’re someone I’d vote for. Keep up the good fight!
David Dewitt and Tahoemom, glad to see we’re on the same page in regards to the proposed loop road.
Take care, Old Long Skiis