Letter: CTC’s ‘Asset Lands’ are public disgrace
To the community,
The California Tahoe Conservancy is about to approve the first two of a possible 322 “Asset Lands” sales. These initial sales generated $1.75 million.
The identified “Asset Lands” do not belong to the California Tahoe Conservancy; the lands belong to the citizens of California.
The executive director and this board are entrusted to be the protectors of its lands and Public Access, yet this agency has begun playing a dangerous game of monopoly.
When the public funded the agency with $108 million, there was no inkling it would become a real estate speculator and inventory clearing house: stripping the lands of entitlements, then reselling the parcels to the private sector which blocks public access, all to fund the agency and an untested scheme to become the tourist accommodation unit (hotel, fractional, timeshare) czar for Lake Tahoe.
Engaging in this new TRPA plan which also promotes development on conservation and forest land outside the urban boundary is not the CTC’s charge.
Where does the $1.4 million generated from the 15-acre Sherman Way parcel go? Will it buy old motels? Pay for salary increases? Who is keeping track and where is the transparency?
The CTC posts property and notifies neighbors 300 feet away a mere 10 days before the sale is approved. These parcels are not just affecting the property values of the neighbors 300 feet away, it affects the whole community. As is the case with the following three Asset Land parcels:
a. 5.76 acres off Queens Way (Kingswood West) — This acreage is surrounded by residential homes and used extensively by the neighborhood.
b. 14.56 acres above Estates Drive and Donner (North Tahoe Regional Park Tahoe Vista) — Currently this parcel is heavily used by the public for hiking, ski skating, cross country skiing and access to the balance of the North Tahoe Regional Park and Forest Service lands.
c. 9.21 acres off Ward Creek (West Shore) — The public heavily uses this parcel for hiking, ski skating, cross country skiing and access to the balance Forest Service lands.
If the agency won’t notify the public of its intentions, concerned residents will be forced to.
Asset Lane sales guidelines are vague and unspecific. Simply stating: “These parcels simply aren’t needed for ongoing restoration or recreation projects,” said CTC Executive Director Patrick Wright, “but their sale could generate significant revenue to support the Conservancy’s top priorities, including restoration of the Upper Truckee River and expansion of Tahoe’s bike trail network.” Is ambiguous at best. This description could be applied to all their holdings and is an inadequate justification for eliminating the public’s access to open space.
How much of CTC’s 6,000 acres of open space has an ongoing restoration or recreation projects?
CTC must perform the following actions:
The CTC shouldn’t be allowed to sell the 322 designated Asset parcels unless:
1. There are hard and fast specific guidelines for protecting lands
2. The affected Community is adequately notified, including neighbors within 1,000 feet.
3. Once on the Asset Land list, the potential sites are permanently noticed. It’s not enough to notice adjacent owners 10 days before board approval.
4. It is clearly explained where the money to purchase each site came from, i.e. 1990 bond.
5. It is clearly explained where the money is going. (CTC salaries, buying old motels, promoting concentrated development?)
6. Clearly outline restrictions on further development. Explain to the Public that these parcels could be fenced.
Thank you,
Ann Nichols, president North Tahoe Preservation Alliance
Sales of CTC land for development would not just impact immediate neighborhoods and neighbors, they would most likely also negatively harm lake clarity, traffic, and the aesthetic appeal of our precious Tahoe environment, which could permanently affect us all. Selling off CTC land without allowing input from the general public is irresponsible. The general public funds the CTC and benefits from its having (permanently, we used to think) taken parcles out of circulation. Putting them back into circulation without public inout betrays everyone’s trust. It is completely possible that the public would agree with some or all of CTC’s proposed transactions, but CTC needs to be transparent about its plans and let us help decide.
Finally, has CTC considered that the property owners who sold to CTC might only have done so, perhaps at well below market value, because they believed their parcels would be kept permanently out of circulation and were trying to do the right thing? CTC is doing them a terrible disservice. In fact, if CTC is going to sell parcels (and if this were a fair world), former owners who sold to a CTC at a discount should be given the first right of refusal at buying them back.
Sure seems wrong to me. The bureaucrats spent all the money and now need another source to keep their beautiful buildings, wasteful spending, high salaries and benefits going. If anything is predictable, this is it.
All I can say is that “selling-off-of-assets” was in fact predicted, depending on which government magazine you read – as this was thought to be a good idea “somewhere”, it then becomes “monkey, see, monkey do” as agencies run out of ideas along with running out of cash flow. . .
This is what passes for good government when all decide to go in a given direction, such as the lack of care & concern for the economy all these years – the first one to suggest the way to do it gets the prize of policies in the chosen direction. . .
And the so-called ‘public/private partnership’ direction is equally not that well thought out either. . . once again (some would say finally) more private than public.
Wish I had the luxury of having California’s taxpayers fund, and indemnify for as long as needed, all of my speculative real estate investments.
I don’t trust them!!!
I’m surprised there was not more public outcry in the neighborhoods adjoining these parcels. We have a full block that is Conservancy in our neighborhood and it is used heavily by folks walking their dogs and has a surprising amount of wildlife. The neighborhoods should be up in arms when the conservancy proposes these sales. They could almost justify the land sales if they purchased more sensitive land or important public access parcels i.e. access to Tahoe or to the national forest where there is not presently access. However, the folks in the affected neighborhoods may not feel this way so speak out!