SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – As the South Lake Tahoe City Council is working through an updated vacation home rental (VHR) ordinance, the Tahoe Neighborhoods Group is looking at the courts to stop the action. The Tahoe Neighborhoods Group is a group of South Lake Tahoe locals formed to bring the anti-VHR Measure T to the voters. On May 1, 2025, they filed an ex parte communication with the El Dorado County Superior Court. The court overturned Measure T on March 13, 2025, due to its stipulation that allowed residents to rent their homes for up to 30 days and not non-residents. The ex parte requests the court’s standing in the matter of South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group (SLTPOG) vs. the City of South Lake Tahoe, ongoing litigation as the South Lake Tahoe City Council works through a new ordinance for VHRs.
The City was involved in the litigation in their defense of the voters’ will on Measure T. SLTPOG is a group of VHR proponents.
“The Tahoe Neighborhoods Group anticipated the city council would continue to defend Measure T as directed by a previous council in 2018 when the city was first sued by the SLTPOG,” said Peggy Bourland of the group. “Instead, on April 1, 2025, the council ended the defense of Measure T and denied the voters the benefit of an appeal to bring the Measure T issue to its final legal conclusion. The Tahoe Neighborhoods Group believes an appeal is needed to protect and defend the will of the people/voters and that there are clear grounds on which an appeal can be brought.”
The ex parte matter will be heard in a May 22 hearing. This is an action that must show an emergency such that there will be irreparable harm or immediate danger if the order is not granted.
“Should the application, on behalf of the voters, be granted, the Tahoe Neighborhoods Group can become the defendant (replacing the city) and appeal the ruling against Measure T,” said Bourland.
The Ex Parte:
This ex parte application is well grounded in law and fact. The facts supporting the application is the reality that the Tahoe Neighborhoods Group is well recognized as the official proponents of Measure T. The law is equally clear: The California ConstitutionArticle II, Section 11(a) expressly confers initiative powers to the local electorate for ageneral law municipality. Since Californians enacted this constitutional provision, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly mandated that the judiciary “jealously guard” the right of the people to exercise initiative power. Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v.City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591. As part of this mandate, the CaliforniaSupreme Court later imposed an express responsibility on trial courts to permit initiative proponents to intervene where the public official fail to defend a voter iniative. Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 822. Specifically, in Building Industry Assn., supra, 41 Cal.3d at 822, the Court wrote:
“Despite the fact that the city or county would have a duty to defend the ordinance, a city or county might not do so with vigor if it has underlying opposition to the ordinance….we believe the trial court in most instances should allow intervention by proponents of [an] initiative. To fail to do so may well be an abuse of discretion. Permitting intervention by…initiative proponents under these circumstances would serve to guard the people’s right to initiative power, a right that must be jealousy defended by the courts.”