Letter: TRPA Building a Resilient Future for Lake Tahoe?

In the 23-February-2024 column entitled “Building a Resilient Future for Lake Tahoe: 
Confronting Existential Threats with Modern Solutions” written by Julie Regan of the TRPA, she makes statements about what the TRPA has done and what they are currently doing.

She begins with the Washoe people’s connection with Lake Tahoe and the connections to Lake Tahoe today by current people. That “the health of the lake and the very well-being of our communities have become inextricably interconnected.” But this has always been the case. The Wa She Shu by her own comments had taken care of the Tahoe Basin, and the lake. It was the mostly wealthy European settlers who, upon discovering the basin and lake, decided to exploit the region's resources for their personal gain. Thus, beginning the degradation of Lake Tahoe.

This has continued to the present. The “bridge between community and environment.” seems to only be in favor of the community. More precisely, landowners. Since the TRPA’s inception in 1969, there has been much controversy. Not the least bit, on the approval of homes being built that are in excess of 5000 or even 10,000 sq ft. and large mixed-use complexes that cater to high-end people.

From the TRPA.gov website -

“The development rights system was adopted in 1987 to cap the total amount of development potential and ensure the pace of development aligns with environmental capacity.”

“Today, urban development makes up approximately 10 percent of the land use in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Although this may seem like a relatively small percentage, development has huge environmental impacts.”

Per Ms. Regan, “Guided for over half a century by the Bi-State Compact, the agency set caps and size limits on all development in the basin, helped establish the Environmental Improvement Program and the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team to restore the watershed and forest health, and is leading water quality strategies that are keeping more than 600,000 pounds of pollutants out of the lake every year.”

She states, “The states created our regional framework to unify local governments and provide consistency for property owners to protect the lake while improving local communities.” I won’t even get into the Tahoe Keys debacle of invasive species.

While all these statements taken alone and/or together seem like Lake Tahoe is being taken care of, one has only to look at the current reality.

Promotional advertising for Lake Tahoe as a destination was ramped up in the past to encourage visitation. This was done not only domestically, but internationally as well. More and more businesses have opened around Tahoe to capture tourist dollars. The outpour of sympathy towards local small businesses has been extreme. But what percentage of these business owners were native to Tahoe to begin with? How many lived in the region for over 10 years plus? Many long-time residents consider being native to be 10, 15, 20 years or more. Most of these new businesses have owners that are cash-flush, weren’t native to the Tahoe Basin and have the ability to buy homes in the basin. They then rely on locals to fulfill any labor positions. When pay allotment doesn’t meet local standards of living, the business owners and employees want government and/or local government assistance.

It has been within the last few years that the TRPA has taken up the affordable housing crises within the basin. They’ve had this opportunity since their inception. Their main goal originally, was the protection of Lake Tahoe’s ecosystem. Allowing houses to be built on land that is adjacent to the lake that exceeds a typical, let’s say 1500 to 3000 sq ft home is irresponsible. Because of finite buildable lots, the current trend is to build as big as you can. How is that contributing to the protection of the ecosystem of Lake Tahoe that the TRPA is supposed to uphold?

Because of their approval for larger than standard housing square footage and the highly marketed Lake Tahoe, which is finite with buildable lots, it’s no wonder that there is no affordable housing.

Lake Tahoe has never been deemed as having affordable housing. From the large 10,000 sq ft houses to the more realistic 2000 sq ft houses, most of these are second homes. I believe it is close to 50% that do not have full-time occupancy.

Ms. Regan states “While subsidized housing projects and financial assistance are crucial components, we must also embrace creative strategies that leverage private investment and community engagement. Just as property owners play a vital role in protecting water quality and preventing wildfires, new policies approved in 2022 encourage homeowners to contribute to housing solutions by building accessory dwelling units (granny flats).”

That’s assuming these homeowners wish to have another dwelling on their property and want the burden of renting it out. How many second homeowners wish to incur that task? How many full-time residents wish to run a rental business? How is this going to improve the environment and ecosystem of the lake?

A quick job search reveals that the average hourly pay offered is about $20. Excluding any taxes, that’s roughly $3200 a month. Current rental rates for 2-3 bedrooms average $2000-3000 a month (these figures are for South Lake Tahoe). A studio or 1-bedroom averages $1800 a month. Are these "granny flats" supposed to reduce rental prices AND burden the homeowner?

“Now we’re going to the next level to address the fundamental imbalances that are leading most new projects toward high-end upscale price points rather than affordable homes,” states Ms. Regan. This should've been addressed forty years ago or more, and not have allowed wealthy investors and individuals to buy lots and build oversized dwellings on them, with the TRPA knowing that there is a finite amount of buildable lots. Some of these have removed existing dwellings on the lots to build bigger dwellings, with most of these being second/investment dwellings. What is the true cost to Tahoe’s ecosystem? How can one justify removing a 2000 sq ft house and replacing it with a 5000 sq ft or greater house and saying there is little to no negative impact on Tahoe’s ecosystem?

She further states, “We must work together to confront these existential threats. It is unacceptable that people working in our communities are living in substandard, untenable, and unsafe housing while others are forced to commute into the basin, exacerbating climate change impacts.” The “existential threats” were contributed to by the TRPA, an influx of new small businesses and the promotion of Tahoe to attract tourists.

The TRPA has gotten too far off from its original purpose, which is to protect the lake from further damage that began with exploiting resources some 150 years ago. Tahoe has and will be for individuals who can afford it, beginning with the wealthy exploiting its resources and continuing today with the wealthy exploiting its land and encouraging more people to visit.

Building a future resilient Tahoe should include scaling downward, not upward.

- April Stephens