The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) governing board, under the banner of workforce housing, approved major area plan amendments in the rural basin. This decision, made Dec. 13, allows for five-story buildings up to 65 feet in height inside town centers, unlimited density, with 100 percent land coverage and no required parking if the housing is deed-restricted as “achievable.”  Unfortunately, there is no income cap on “achievable” deed-restricted housing, and the history of enforcing deed restrictions in Tahoe is abysmal.  

These proposals, which will forever change the character of Tahoe towns, galvanized public attention. Some 60 people showed up in person and online. More than 600 pages of written public comment flooded in, raising serious concerns about the amendments’ environmental impacts and questioning claims of new housing affordability.

Following the meeting, some TRPA governing board and staff are likely thinking public service would be great, if it weren’t for the public. That’s evidenced by comments made by TRPA sources, stating they’d never received so much opposition to a proposal: Never received more emails, never read more articles, nor heard more public comment from basin residents asking them to vote “no.”

Still, the amendments were a slam dunk that evening, passing 12-1. 

This result comes across as a “don’t worry your pretty little heads, we know what’s best for you,” moment. Yet it’s the residents of Tahoe — the basin’s full-time stewards — who feel they know its sensitive and beautiful environment best. The feeling of disregard was underscored in a curious Scrooge-like moment, as what was expected to be a long meeting was further delayed for nearly an hour while TRPA hosted a holiday party for staff. The public was pushed out of the meeting room and into the halls or outside into the cold for the duration of the festive lunch.

I’d wager if these land-use amendments had been put to a referendum of registered voters in the Tahoe basin — where local lawyer/lobbyists, developers, interest groups and so on had no more influence than anyone else — this amendment package would fail. So, one must ask whose interests are the TRPA board and staff supporting? 

It’s easy to dismiss the opposition of residents and environmental groups with a wave of the hand as “NIMBYs” or “alarmists” or “tree huggers” …  or merely “old people with too much time.” The usual slights. This is a mistake. With few exceptions, smart, caring and experienced people waited nearly six hours to deliver a 180-second public comment. They offered measured, thoughtful and well-researched feedback. 

It’s also easy to say that the new development these amendments will allow may not be fully realized for another decade or more, long after some of us aren’t around. But that’s a horribly cynical and selfish view. This is about preserving Tahoe for future generations. 

Residents did not oppose all development per se. Before approving the proposed amendments, they asked for smart development. Their requests of TRPA included: 

• Conduct an updated comprehensive Environmental Impact Study that reflects the dramatic changes in the basin’s population, visitation and climate change. 
• Determine the carrying capacity of the Tahoe Basin given those changes.
• Ensure the development of a single, comprehensive wildfire evacuation plan in concert with responsible federal, state and local agencies. 
• Get an independent validation of the cumulative impact of large developments, rather than regarding each on an ad hoc basis.
• Cap short-term/vacation rentals basinwide to open up already built housing for locals.  

And, having done so, to return with a better plan. None of the above is NIMBY or alarmist. Nor is it a big ask of an agency created to be the Tahoe basin’s environmental watchdog. 

Still, TRPA moved forward with a false sense of urgency citing “two years of work” and emphasizing platitudes like “perfect is the enemy of the good.” (Someone would be wise to advise TRPA that the latter buzz phrase in the business world has come to be understood to preface the introduction of a mediocre or half-baked proposal.)

The draconian code changes are now a done deal, with a “phase three” soon to follow. 

Note that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the TRPA governing board member who holds the highest elected office, namely Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar. His office is responsible for ensuring fair and transparent democratic processes to ensure the voice of the people is heard. Maybe TRPA should think about that.

Alex Tsigdinos is a full-time Tahoe resident.

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].