Opinion: Lawsuit against TRPA absolutely necessary
By Roger Patching, Dave McClure, Ellie Waller and Ann Nichols
That a lawsuit has been filed by the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan update should come as no surprise to conservationists, politicians and governmental officials involved with it, as well as citizens who have been following the process and ignored the propaganda that duped many. Quite simply, serving as a blueprint for both urban sprawl and densification in the decades to come, while a dream come true to developers, the RPU is an environmental and economic disaster for the Tahoe basin.
Efforts to politically mitigate the damage having failed, the only remedy remaining to save the lake and the bulk of its inhabitants and nonresident property owners is the court system. It is as simple as that. No entity is ever eager to file a lawsuit; it is done when there is no other recourse.
Politics at Lake Tahoe can be a rough ride. Photo/LTN
While the specific reasons regarding why the RPU is a disaster are addressed in the legal complaint, the general reasons are neither complicated nor difficult to understand.
First, the RPU is badly flawed. Supposedly founded on principles of “smart growth” that foster “sustainable communities,” the RPU is premised on conditions that don’t and won’t ever exist in the basin. Still, the environmental language of such development is so pleasing that it allows public relations image makers to “greenwash” such planning with lofty rhetoric about science and prosperity. The unvarnished facts specified in the lawsuit explain that the RPU will actually retard the attainment of the environmental thresholds that the TRPA is chartered to achieve. The new type and magnitude of corporate resort development that the RPU will allow, in addition to the monumental increase in the authority of counties to permit bigger, higher, and denser growth, represent not a minor tweaking of existing regulations but a return to the 1950s. In addition to environmental deterioration, small businesses will suffer from the invasion of corporate giants in both states.
Secondly, the RPU was drafted in an environment of political duress prompted by a threat from Nevada known as SB271. Passed in 2011, this statute threatens Nevada’s withdrawal from the bistate Compact that established the TRPA in the late ’60s if it doesn’t 1) draft a RPU favorable to massive development, and 2) change the voting procedures of its governing board which it views as restrictive of Nevada’s economic freedom. Its withdrawal would dissolve the Compact and therefore the TRPA. And, while many astute political analysts see it as a bluff due to the current political landscape in Nevada coupled with the problems of both governance and wrath that would accompany TRPA’s demise, others have shuddered at the threat, including a heretofore leading environmental organization, and acquiesced to the deterioration of the lake and Basin in exchange for keeping the Compact. In reality, Nevada already dominates the TRPA’s Governing Board and has more to lose than gain by withdrawing.
Thirdly, having succeeded with the SB271 bluff in terms of obtaining a RPU that will increase harm to the lake in exchange for high profits for Wall Street financed corporations with grand development ambitions throughout the basin, the bluff was extended to include withdrawal due to any litigation. Well, we shall see. Currently, regardless of the threat regarding litigation, all or portions of SB271 will need to be rescinded because its mandate about a change in TRPA voting procedures locked Nevada on a collision course with California when it became law. And, since the change requires the approval of both states and Congress, which won’t happen, Nevada must withdraw or change the law. Many in Nevada are embarrassed by both the threat and the hubris that created it.
Lastly, it is clear to those who have not been duped by the pro-development propaganda spun by the TRPA, which has become, according to California Senate Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, a captive of the special interests that it is supposed to regulate, the demise of the TRPA might not really be a bad thing. That is to say, we know that the RPU is guaranteed to damage both the environment and locally owned economy of the lake, so it must be opposed. In addition, California’s stake in the lake financially, demographically, and environmentally is much greater than that of Nevada and having its own California TRPA, which can negotiate problems directly with Nevada, could actually be an improvement over the status quo.
Consequently, with or without the TRPA, the lake is best protected by the abolition of the current RPU. And, remember: the TRPA caused the lawsuit when they approved the pro-development RPU, not the Sierra Club and its supporters. It is neither the governing agencies nor their corporate benefactors that are protecting the lake and private and public property from harm; that responsibility has been taken over by our colleagues who filed the lawsuit.
Roger Patching is president-CEO of Friends of Lake Tahoe, Dave McClure is president of North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance, Ellie Waller is executive director of Friends of Tahoe Vista, and Ann Nichols is president of North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.
The plan represents a long drawn out process of balanced compromises, involving many stakeholders, none of whom got exactly what they want. It is not the plan to protect the NIMBY homeowners and second homeowners who’ve already got theirs, nor those who oppose change at any cost.
It is the plan to help the region survive, and to bring enjoyment of the area to a wider group of people while protecting the natural environment as much as possible.
It is the best path forward for enabling the long term environmental and economic/human prosperity in the basin, given the limitations of a democracy.
You obviously seem obdurate on this one. Since appealing to reason will likely be unproductive with your stance, I wish your lawsuit a speedy dismissal.
–Your fellow disgruntled Sierra Club member.
Oh, and while you’re at it, why don’t you donate my contributions to the Club to those trying to make productive improvements to Lake Tahoe, such as the California Tahoe Conservancy described on these pages also, instead of frittering it on this lawsuit?
From the CTC article:
“Today, funding is the major obstacle, Lacey said, for why projects are not going forward. What is in the Conservancy’s bank account only covers a fraction of the projects on the table.”
Well its an interesting tactic. Not well thought out, but interesting. Lets say TRPA gets disbanded, and this shows why it may be a good idea….well then what? One scenario, far fetched scenario, is that the Republicans quit ticking off the latino vote every chance they get; then we have a huge swing in California politics. Remember prop 8? Thats the conservative latino vote. They also like jobs. So it TRPA goes away, we are one election away from an entirely different state of California. Now the above scenario is predicated on the Republicans deciding to think about their views on minority education and immigration…which isnt likely, but there is a path there.
Ok we all saw problems with the rpu. Yes there were meetings and compromises and the end result is a vision for town centers. Process would have been in place to help redevelop our aged built environment. But what did the plan really do about what is wrong with lake clarity? Does anyone honestly expect actions on the ground where it matters most by allowing new development? What are the interests of the businesses supporting the rpu? Are they about conservation or profits?
I note with interest that the people identified in writing this are all from the North and West Shore.
Is all the resistance from there?
Not optimistic, redevelopment is the ONLY way to get the work you want done completed. Many existing businesses are running on such thin margins that they have no way to just pay for the scale of BMPs that are necessary. Redevelopment allows for businesses to expand in low risk areas, increase revenue and thereby afford expensive BMPs. Could you afford a sudden $100,000 bill? Probably not, neither can most of the businesses in south lake. That is a reasonable cost for repaving by the way.
Marriot type of buildings spred from Ski Run to the Y
eliminate all of the small Motels and Stores along Lake Tahoe Blvd.
that’s what is realy going to happen
if you have an Agency Job then it does not matter to you
if you have been trying to Scratch out a living here for any length of time then it does matter to you
Greenwash is propaganda
the biggest poluter is the fertilizer from all your lawns and Golf Courses
lowering the number of Residents and Visitors is the ultimate Goal of the RPU
This is very poorly written. That was my first thought after reading the first sentence. I decided to give it another chance and read the second sentence. It is also horribly written. I need a break. Maybe I’ll read more later.
I agree John 100%. we need redevelopment badly mostly in the urban centers. But not new development, very big difference between the two. The rpu includes provisions for thousands of new homes, and large increases in coverage and this I would classify as new development. Being against redevelopment is un-American,
John, I’m going to respectfully disagree with you on one point. But hear me out why. Hispanics from Mexico for decades got used to one corrupt political party called the PRE. Everyone knew they were “bad” but people voted for them for a variety of reasons. In recent years the PRE has been on a downturn. But those that came to America in the community have been told that the Republicans are just like the PRE. Doesn’t matter if its true or not, if its a good analogy or not, that stigma stuck and it doesn’t look like its going to be anywhere near easy to shake. So there is no way I ever see the Republicans taking the voters formerly known as “Mexican” (note not Hispanic).
T.R.P.A. needs to get to work,gold fish in lake another problem that will have to be abolished,OMG!Stop feeding the fish?Stop feeding the ducks at Safeway, The squirrels are working on a new method of hauling bird feeders to their neck of the woods to start another development without the proper studies,OMG!
DOESN’T MATTER WHICH AGENCY WORKS HERE ,IT’S ALL About CASH,GOOD IDEAS THAT NEVER PAN OUT,CONTROL,WHICH POT OF GOLD THE GRANTS ARE GOING TO STAY IN WHICH AGENCIES POCKETS?
How doesn’t it all make sense, since they want millions of people to come here,walk,run,swim,camp,ski,spend,drive.With it comes wear ,tear on the area.
Maybe at the entrance to town, we need to put up signs that shows which way to Yellowstone Park.
Not optimistic, that is not exactly accurate. RPU allows for transfers of coverage. But does not greatly increase the total. The idea being to allow for more coverage in core areas and remove coverage that is more sprawl. Bsically provide for development of walking core commercial areas. The original regional plan, and the coverage rules only allowed for sprawl, it was not a well thought out plan. A good plan would allow for intense development of core areas with great BMPs surrounded by open space. Well that horse is out of the barn sort of, but could happen. More development in the core areas and tearing our old dilapidated buildings at least gets us down that path.
Louis that is darn interesting, remember reading about the PRE a couple years back and their decline. But also true I cant see the Republicans ever making a conscious effort not to tick off the entire latin vote. Generally in a single sentence. But yeah, thinking back on it, the PRE in Mexico was sort of bizarre. Better the crooks we know thing I guess.
Never been a one-sided pro-green person versus the entire economic health of South Shore before. I’m switching to the Sierra Club’s actions. The business (CA and NV) and governmental ( city, county, TRPA, etc.)people have proven they are ineffective and destructive in their actions to cure what ails us here on the South Shore. No progress, no cooperation, no communication equals nothing positive for the lake, the economy or the built environment. The battle of the south shore rages on. The people have proven they don’t care by who represents us on both sides of the Stateline. Same old, same old people making the decisions.
Might as well turn the place over to the environmentalists. The businesses know its too late and there are no handouts to make their storefronts and insides up to par. Most of these businesses are run down and shabby because they never invested back into their businesses when times were good. So why should anyone feel sorry for them. Look at the Bijou shopping center. Its been a s-hole for as long as I can remember. Harvey’s looks like a pit because their parent company sees no future. Why invest into a town with no vision. Let them die and perhaps the eco-orgs will find money to buy them up and raze them, or the businesses will just wither away and be declared blight. One never knows. This will improve the run-off water quality and maybe reduce the cost of running this city.
So, go forward Sierra Club and lets just get this town down to less than 10,000 people and the surviving businesses will thrive and everyone will be happy because the jobs will be good, the lake will look better, there will be less people, less traffic and we will become (Yawn) once again a sleepy mountain town like in the 1940’s. Ever hear an pinecone drop or a bear snap a twig? Its nice.
John I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. There are no simple solutions and no one is thinking trpa missed the easy fix. It’s a perfect storm but it seems trpa is decades behind the curve whether it’s our built environment or policies on tree removal (before the angora fire) or even water quality?
But we need to separate the reasons for certain actions and quit characterizing everying as “keeping Tahoe blue.” Redevelop and rebuild our town because it’s the right thing to do, it shouldn’t be used as the only way to get businesses to put in their bmps. Maybe if they only required business’s install bmps where it mattered, right on the lake, they would have gotten more participation? When home owners living miles from the lake have to do the same bmps as those right on the lake, trpa loses credibility. Especially home owners that have watched their driveways soak into the ground for decades.
If we want to build a bike path, do it because it’s a great thing for our community, don’t tell me it’s going to keep Tahoe blue (unless your bike path is replacing a road). And if we want to build large timeshares on the lake to bring in wealthier visitors because that’s the right market that will sustain our community, fine call it what it is. Just don’t tell me new developments are the key to lake clarity, I don’t buy it. There are too many examples where trpa eip projects met non of their objectives so why do any of us believe the rpu will be any different? Am I not optimistic, yep, show me some science trpa to make me believe….
Could one of the authors or someone who represents the sierra club or friends of the west shore let me know what your vision for the lake tahoe basin is if you did not have to compromise it to appease other interests? Something succinct would be preferred.
Thanks for this well-written opinion piece. It lays things out clearly and simply.
Louis that’s the PRI not PRE and they won some of those elections simply by stealing them, hence the mass protests after many presidential elections. Hmmmm I wonder why Mexican-Americans would think the PRI is so much like the Republican Party?