Letter: TRPA policy killing Tahoe’s economy
To the community,
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency recently completed their Regional Plan update.
Possibly influenced by other environmental agencies — TRPA created a new 20-year build-out plan to dramatically cut residential building allocations for Tahoe by 57 percent — 300 to 130 total — for the Tahoe region.
This harsh new number (130/year) was conceived using a completely “fabricated calculation — designed to achieve a desired result”.
For El Dorado County, allocations were cut by 73 percent — from 119 to 29 this year.
The city of South Lake Tahoe allocations also severely cut — only nine this year.
On the TRPA website they proudly boast, “The Best Lake Tahoe Clarity in Ten Years”.
They also are preparing to offer homeowners a new and unprecedented relaxed Deck/Driveway Coverage Program with simple permitting stating, “We want to share our great environmental progress with homeowners.”
What TRPA is not advertising is their “silent slaughter” of an entire local economy, construction industry, and revenue for local county agencies, businesses, utilities, schools and fire departments, and thousands of local jobs.
Until this year we had a residential allocation system that achieved both TRPA’s goals and building industry for over 12 years. One can only speculate TRPA is slaying the allocation program because they have failed to enforce a mandated BMP program.
One consistency we can always count on is the “inconsistency” of TRPA.
This agency needs to find a “balance” between protecting our beautiful lake and allowing a local business economy to survive.
This severe restriction of land use truly rides the fence for litigation by parcel owners who lose their right to use their property.
John Adamski, Meyers
How about some numbers.
What is the vacancy rate, of rentals, vacations homes, commercial areas?
That would be a pretty useful statistic to have in this discussion.
I don’t think it would do much to help you argument.
EXCESSIVE BUILDING WOULD DROP HOME VALUES AGAIN. In the past five years, those of us whom understand the basic economic rules of supply and demand, know that the housing crisis was partly due to over building. Demand for housing was temporary, and caused by lenders willing to lend to unqualified buyers. Here in Tahoe, when demand for housing subsided, property values plunged. The foreclosure rate caused excessive inventory of homes for sale. Home values did not drop nearly as bad in regions that were not overbuilt. Texas immediately comes to mind. The local evidence is that if we, in the Tahoe basin, do not reduce building residential housing, there will be another over supply of housing, and this will lead to another collapse in real estate values. Evidence that supports this position is the vacancy rate in local apartment buildings, and the number of vacant homes. El Dorado County, and the City of South Lake Tahoe should reduce the building permits as they plan to. ANYONE IN FAVOR OF MORE BUILDING IS NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ECONOMICS OF THIS SITUATION.
AND ANOTHER TWO THINGS ! ! The home builders experienced a boom for eight years. Now, we have too many houses and they are forced by economics to pay for that boom. The only solution to this problem of putting home builders out of work is to put them to work on the run down properties that scar our community. If a building contractor bought a beat up house, restored that house. A profit would be experienced by the contractor upon the sale of that house. I’m trying to put you builders to work in a way that is beneficial, not harmful. Building more apartments is out of the question. I know that you builders don’t like the situation, but if you keep building now, the situation will be worse in two years. You builders that want jobs will have no jobs when this market is overbuilt further.
The new home construction has actually increased others home values. Typically new homes bring up the appearance of older neighborhoods and attract buyers.
If some of you have noticed – the inventory for all homes for sale are at an all time low. That alone will bring up property value.
New construction is somewhat self-governing – the recent past five years has been almost dead mostly because of the ecomony and how short sales and forclosures have affected value of exisitng. Throw in construction loans and mortgages almost impossible to get – the new home construction flounders.
If some of you want new construction stopped – you’ll quickly realize a delapidated and economically ruined town that nobody wants to invest in. THAT senario will definitely take down your property values !
Reasonable growth and a sustainable local economy makes for an attractive community both for environmental improvements and investment !
Wow, there appears to be a complete disregard for the fact that the LT Basin only has so many undeveloped lots available to build on. Having a set limit helps the watershed landscape and keeps our communities from looking like Sacramento or Reno’s urban sprawl. Come on and realize that urban coverage (especially in areas considered wetlands) has played a huge role in the decline of Lake Tahoe’s clarity.
The changes in allocations have been designed to spread them out over the next 20 years (or what ever the time frame of the new Regional Plan will be). If we continued with the old schedule of allocations then the entire Basin would of used those up by now, plain and simple. How would that of been good for the local economy?
Plus, coming with a knowledge of the residential building sector on the West/North Shore, the majority of residential projects are remodels or complete rebuilds. There just isn’t the availability of undeveloped lots that there use to be 20 years ago.
Thanks West Shore Gal. I would also add that with a reduced rate of new single family development, there are new and additional opportunities for redevelopment and infill (new bonus units, transfer ratios, etc).
This is all part of the compromises reached in the Regional Plan Update that aim to incentivize infill and redevelopment while gradually reducing the rate of new single family development as the region approaches buildout. With this rate of development allocation, we will be built out at around 2040 and no more allocations will be issued. A gradual transition to the redevelopment only framework is planned over the next 30 years. Releasing more allocations now would exhaust development rights more quickly and create a much more abrupt transition in the future. Developing indefinitely is not an option under the compact, TMDL, etc…
Kristi Boosman and West Shore Gal:
Developing indefinitely should not be an option anywhere, as evidenced by the SF Bay Area which is now about completely built out with almost no vacant space remaining. When I was growing up on the SF Peninsula (beginning in the 1950’s) that area used to be a really nice place with great weather; now it’s congested, polluted, and HOT!
A recent newspaper article made reference to the promotion of economic growth in Carson City by replicating some of the Silicon Valley type businesses. I would urge everyone in Carson to be careful what you wish for and take a trip down the SF Peninsula and through the Santa Clara area to get a good glimpse of what growth in the name of businesses and profits can do. It’s really not very pretty.
I’M BACK ! ! ! It appears that enough Tahoe residents are understanding the situation. Unlimited property rights and unlimited building results in a poor situation. If building contractors had their way, they would build a house on every vacant lot they could get their hands on; and to hell with other people’s problems. According to the comments submitted here, the majority here understand that building in the Tahoe basin must be controlled. SO BUILDERS, DIRECT YOUR EFFORTS TOWARDS UPGRADING THE EXISTING HOMES. That’s your best course of action.
In reply to some posts here I’de like to add the current allocation distribution worked very very well for the past 12 years. It had years when the max was used and waiting lists developed, and other years ( like now ) where the demand is low due to the economy and home values. But in all – it was “self governing” and achieved TRPA’s environmental thresholds every year ! It was already limited and controlled by TRPA.
The arguments that “neighborhoods will look like “urban sprawl” and “residential building played a huge role in the Lake’s clarity” are bogus. Most neighborhoods are almost built-out already dispelling the myth that a few more new homes will cause “Urban Sprawl”.
New Residential buildings have brand new BMPs and do not contribute hardly any damaging runoff compared to other uncontrolled runoff senarios. Examples – HWY 50 near the lake in SLT, stormwater and resurfacing oils, parking lots, commercial development near the lake etc. These main contributors all openly agreed upon in Sierra Club / TRPA meetings I attended.
The fact remains that TRPA is currently boasting the “clearest lake quality in ten years”, and about to give out unbanked coverage for homeowners decks/driveway projects.
I think some of those wanting building stopped are taking a NIMBY approach. Are these people going home to a Teepee each day ? I doubt it. So what is it TRPA ? Are we looking good or bad regarding environmental progess ? Is spreading the growth over 20 years with a “fabricated calculation” purposely designed to prolong your agency’s necessity ? And what about the devastation consequences to the local economy and loss of jobs ?