THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Letter: Gore needs to know another side of Tahoe


image_pdfimage_print

Publisher’s note: This letter was sent to Al Gore today and reprinted with permission.

Dear Vice President Gore,

It is with a great sense of urgency and concern that we collectively write this letter to you. It is relatively well understood in the Basin that the primary environmental and citizen-action nonprofit organizations are the Sierra Club, Friends of the West Shore, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, Friends of Lake Tahoe, and the North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance. The Sierra Club and the Friends of the West Shore are currently plaintiffs in a lawsuit, which we support, against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The League to Save Lake Tahoe, formerly a member of our group, is absent from the list because most of us no longer consider them an ally in terms of keeping Tahoe blue.

Our primary effort here to convince you that your selection as the keynote speaker at the Tahoe Summit is designed by its sponsors as additional “greenwashing” of their plans for the Tahoe basin. Contrary to their promises, the urbanization through densification of several centers in the Tahoe basin will exacerbate environmental degradation, especially with inadequate measures to reverse the current decline in water quality.

Your presence, essentially, is, we are very sad to report, environmental “window dressing” by the chamber of commerce type of organizations that support the TRPA’s Regional Plan update (RPU) that is currently being challenged in court. The association of your prestige would lend credence to their planned resort boom and further their relentless campaign. We know you are familiar with this type of politics and have witnessed it throughout your career. The best description of how the ski resort development industry operates is chronicled in the Hal Clifford’s critically acclaimed book “Downhill Slide”.

We hope that this cautionary note will prompt you to look more deeply at the whole truth regarding the environmental status of Lake Tahoe, the incorrect underlying assumptions of the RPU, and how their economic promises are replete with miscalculations. We believe it is important that your remarks may be properly tempered and include that those of us who value Lake Tahoe as one of the few “Outstanding National Resource Water” under the Clean Water Act, oppose the RPU since it will environmentally and economically degrade the region.

A very sustained public relations campaign by the TRPA, ski resort industry developers, chambers of commerce, gaming interests, local governments, and select federal and state agencies have focused on half-truths, significant omissions of “inconvenient truths,” and other ploys of deception to manipulate public opinion. Each stands to earn terrific revenues in the short term resulting from over-expansion cloaked with the pleasing environmental rhetoric of “smart growth.” Indeed, we, too, support “smart growth principles” but also understand that they don’t, can’t, and won’t work at Tahoe because the region lacks the requisite conditions for their success. Tourists and visitors do not enroll their children in local schools or behave as year-round residents in their shopping habits or work schedules. Since roadway and utility infrastructure is currently at capacity, increased densities carry excessive costs and environmental impacts.

The desire of your sponsors is, essentially, to have your speech writer(s) lace your comments with their talking points, slogans, myths, and stereotypes thereby endorsing their validity. Such terms have emotional appeal and have evolved due to the lure of federal dollars for metropolitan areas.

If your speech uses terms such as “environmental redevelopment,” “building sustainable communities,” “improved clarity,” “compact, hi-density development,” “culture of cooperation,” “livable, walkable villages,” and so on, then you will have endorsed false claims such as the notion that people will ride a bike in the middle of winter at Tahoe to buy groceries. These terms divert attention from the real causes and parties responsible for environmental damage to Lake Tahoe.

Few people are aware, for example, that throughout the basin heavily contaminated unfiltered stormwater runoff from roadways and parking lots is dumped directly into the lake.

Sadly, here as elsewhere, while the scientific and environmental community knows the truth, the agencies and their consultants are locked into funding mechanisms based upon theories that require the perpetuation of an illusion replete with false claims that ultimately become perceived as reality. Again, we know that you are all too familiar with such phenomena.

Sophisticated propagandists in support of resort planning that delivers high profits to distant owners and destroys local businesses have already done a relatively good job at selling inapplicable planning principles to many of your colleagues. They are already on the wrong side of history politically, environmentally, and economically. Not unlike Gov. [Jerry] Brown’s comment at the summit two years ago about the problem at Tahoe being one of “squaring the circle,” while few readers will understand this analogy, need we mention Samantha Power’s analysis of an avoidable debacle that you are personally well aware of? You do not want to join those who have been duped with false claims and who will sadly acknowledge years from now that “they simply didn’t get it” at the time.

We would be delighted to meet with you or your staff to provide substantive evidence, which can also be found in the legal complaint, in support of our position.

Sincerely,

Roger Patching, president Friends of Lake Tahoe

David McClure, president North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance

Ann Nichols, president North Tahoe Preservation Alliance

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (9)
  1. Jack says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    Hope he takes the time to read such a long letter

  2. dryclean says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    Wow! I wonder if the League to Save Lake Tahoe is insulted or delighted to be part of the entities listed above.

  3. Garry Bowen says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    It is apparent that, even in reading such a well-written (if “long”, as noted) letter, that the concept of “not knowing any better” (the precursor of ‘not getting it’), as espoused by the renowned “mastermind of sustainable development”, William McDonough, is ever-rampant in Lake Tahoe even from those who purport to advocate “environmental” causes.

    True sustainable development includes all who live in any area, as true sustainable objectives establish conditions under which all species can inhabit their natural habitats. . . the advocates within this letter are as ‘dead-set’ as to what the TRPA has determined as the TRPA is in being unaware of the deficiencies with their latest work, as they try to control only what they understand to be the dictates of their hallowed threshold approach.

    Setting conditions amenable to a sustainable quality of life merely requires all of us to more readily acknowledge the things we all really already know to be destructive, and do something about it on personal levels: drive much less, eat as nutritionally possible while eliminating all “processed” foods & need for the toxicity of “pharmaceuticals”, elect & select people who will forego ridiculous political pressures in thinking for themselves in who they put in office, what policies they root for, and more appropriately use the original environmental tagline:

    “Consider the Source”.

    The main divergence between groups here (including & especially TRPA) is in putting so much effort in things they still don’t quite understand, as in treating Tahoe as it’s somehow alien (“unique”) to the rest of the planet.

    Air, water,(which also comprise) climate, soil, vegetative growth (or the absence thereof), animated life (or the decline therof) are all planetary issues at the moment, not some sort of political football that favors one over any other – the “meat” of most limited political discourse.

    Water, DNA, and energy are what comprise “life as we know it” on this planet, and Man is adversely affecting all of them currently. TRPA leaves one of them out all together, focuses pretty extensively on one aspect (aesthetics) of another, and more-or-less discounts any attention at all to the third (energy is not just a “sub-element” of conservation) – suggesting at the least there is much more to learn about what they are doing than they’re doing right now.

    Until we can find ways to discuss these issues as “grown-ups”, they will continue to be seen as but partisan to someone’s (anyone’s ?) idea of “lifestyle”. . . as to the “inclusion” (or “exclusion”) of The League, just be reminded that most collaborative efforts have a hidden side, as in being seen as “collaborating w/ the enemy” as happened in WW II. . .

    Lastly, a more recent quote, by the same Mr. McDonough: “To be able to take care of the ecosystem, you must first take care of the EGOsystem. . .”

  4. Shannon says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    I would like to know what solutions these organizations have? All I see in this letter is a complaint with what is wrong in the Basin. I challenge all of these groups to come up with SOLUTIONS to these problems rather than just pointing out faults.

    Coming to the table with suggestions may actually be more beneficial then constantly complaining with what is wrong.

  5. Jack Durst says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    The simple fact is that Tahoe has gone far too long without doing anything about the mess that got us into the heavy environmental damage in the first place. We can’t move forward environmentally without addressing the problems of older development and that necessarily means replacing older, environmentally problematic structures with newer better designed ones.

    BUILDING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION if we wish to address these environmental problems and though the TRPA general plan has some flaws, the option of “stop everything” has been used for 40 years and is a big reason why we got in this mess in the first place.

  6. Tuffy says - Posted: August 6, 2013

    I find this preemptive strike letter to be very unfortunate but also very enlightening. The primary environmental and citizen-action nonprofit organizations listed in this letter are scared. Their fear comes from the fact that they no longer oversee the TRPA, and the state and federal agencies that have controlled Lake Tahoe for decades. Their fear is genuine and MAY be well founded, but is the result of their own actions. As overseers they became complacent, believing that all they needed to do was say NO! and all the players would go along. As the Tahoe basin struggled with a changing economic reality they did not look for, or propose, solutions and creative ways to address the issues but continued their policy of No!
    Lake Tahoe is a national treasure but it is not a National Park. This means EVERYONE must come together to address homeowner, business, government and environmental issues plaguing the basin. All of us who live and play in this very special place have A DUTY, to restore and protect it, along with our communities, that can only be accomplished collaboratively with solutions. I would love to hear these proposed solutions from the authors.

  7. John says - Posted: August 7, 2013

    The League must be popping champagne bottles now that they have officially disassociated themselves from these radical fringe environmental “organizations” intent on destroying Tahoe forever. By the way, each of these “organizations” consist of one cult-of-personality individual hiding behind a “Friends of…” moniker. There are about 5 of them total in a Basin with a population of 50,000. It’s about time the community fought back and did what 99% of us want.

  8. Pete says - Posted: August 7, 2013

    Friends of this,agencies of that,associations ,of all,HYPOCRYTE piles of crap, I got mine you can’t have yours,Al goriness and all,need to parachute in Antarctica with your swimsuits on,y!!

  9. orale says - Posted: August 7, 2013

    I would like to know what solutions they offer as well.
    While I don’t like dense population centers either, the alternative – everyone building out in the forest, making more roads, driving to work, driving to get groceries, driving, driving driving, and impacting wildlife by living out there, doesn’t sound all that grand either.

    Whats the alternative?