There’s no doubt that a battle is brewing over the proposed mega-sized Village At Squaw Valley project. With a meeting of the Placer County Planning Commission now less than 2 weeks away, the marketing department at Squaw Valley has shifted into high gear. What’s remarkable is how desperate they have become in their quest to find any sort of public support they can find for the project.
Why are they desperate for support? The Placer County Planning Commission will be meeting to discuss and potentially approve or deny the application for the Village At Squaw Valley project on August 11th. That meeting is scheduled for 10:30 at the North Tahoe Events Center in Kings Beach.
We think it’s an awesome venue for the meeting. As one of my friends notes, “Kings Beach is broken.” The other day, it took me 45 minutes to get from Crystal Bay to Highway 267. As you sit in that traffic and search for parking to attend the meeting, you can reflect on the future of traffic in the entire North Tahoe region. Despite the traffic, we encourage you to attend and speak up for the future of Tahoe.
It’s clear that there is widespread local community opposition to the project. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings spent around $850,000 to kill the effort to incorporate the town of Olympic Valley through a thinly veiled “Save Olympic Valley” campaign. But that effort only seemed to fuel the fires of opposition to the project. More and more locals and visitors from afar have stood up to oppose the project, leading to a rejection of the proposal by the Squaw Valley Municipal Advisory Committee last May.
Although SVSH has literally been begging for support over the last few months, little has been forthcoming. Two letters of support have appeared in the Sierra Sun – one from local real estate broker and the other from a second homeowner in Squaw Valley, both of whom stand to benefit financially from the project. There’s also been a scant amount of supportive comments on Facebook – notably from a prominent Squaw Valley builder of high end homes and a local architect. Again, these are people that stand to benefit greatly from the project. Is that really the best you’ve got Squaw Valley?
They’ve got to be feeling pretty desperate. Our recent post noted the creation of the SquawTomorrow website, which now encourages people to contact Placer County officials to show support of the plan via phone calls, email or tweets. My Facebook feed has been subjected to a daily barrage of propaganda from the Village At Squaw Valley Redevelopment page. The latest effort is a 30 second TV spot, slickly produced to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. I am quite curious as to what markets that ad is targeting. I would guess it’s not just being shown on local TV.
Watching that little piece of propaganda makes me wonder…is it better to wither away or Wirth-er away?
Our friends at Death Of The Pressbox posted another gem this week, which takes on the latest PR piece from SVSH. It does a fantastic job of taking down the “facts” that Squaw Valley is using in it’s last ditch effort to gain public support. Just the title made me chuckle: “The facts about the facts about the Village at Squaw Valley Redevelopment Plan.”
Author Andrew Pridgen take a step by step walk through the official release and does the fact checking that was not done by other media outlets. Truth be told, it’s not as much step by step as it does tends to weave around with sprinkles of offbeat humor and the usual sprinkling of f-bombs. But it is entertaining and it asks great questions.
Ultimately the “facts” presented by the Squaw Valley are certainly in need of questioning:
• “The project has been reduced by 50 percent since inception” We have cautioned over and over for the last four years that nobody should fall for this argument. Since the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, developer’s have routinely asked to build twice as much as they intended, so they can look like “good guys” when they reduce the project by 50%…to what they actually wanted. Don’t be a sucker.
• “The entitlements for the project would permit redevelopment over a 25-year period” That’s all they really need to say there. Any argument that development won’t necessarily span a continuous 25 years is fallacious. Because SVSH is really only asking for entitlements to build and will likely sell these rights to other individual developers, it’s actually quite likely that somewhere within the Village, some long term project will be underway…for the entire 25 years or more. Ask the people of Kings beach how they have felt about three years of redevelopment – and it’s really just getting started there.
• “500+ new year-round jobs supporting tourism that isn’t seasonally dependent” Is the trouble that there are not jobs in Tahoe, or that there is not enough affordable housing for workers in Tahoe? It’s not just Squaw Valley that has trouble hiring workers. Take a short walk or drive anywhere around Tahoe and the “Help Wanted” signs far outnumber the “For Rent” signs. The affordable housing shortage is real, and asking people to drive in from Reno is not a solution.
• “Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows contributes annually to regional transit initiatives, the resort utilized $285,000 for traffic control within Squaw Valley during the 2015-16 season, operating a successful three-lane model on a total of 44 high traffic days.” Yes, we have all seen the pictures, and most of us sat through horrid traffic jams last season. If SVSH claims their efforts solved the traffic problem, can we trust their judgement at all?
The list goes on and on. The Village At Squaw Valley “Redevelopment” project does not make sense for Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows, or the greater North Lake Tahoe region. We ask that members of the Placer County Planning Commission, and members of the Placer County Board of Supervisors deny the application as it stands and ask Andy Wirth and friends to go back to the drawing board…or back to Colorado.
- Placer County Planning Commission Meeting
- August 11th, 2016 at 10:30 am
- North Tahoe Events Center, Kings Beach
-
Source art from squawtomorrow.com
Won’t even comment anymore about the”village” proposal. Pretty clear no one living here without a financial interest wants it.
As for the Kings Beach debacle…I’m guilty. I actually thought that project would be good for KB. Man, was I wrong. That whole thing should be ripped up right now.
AYFKM? rip up the KB project? It is the best thing that has happened to this town in the 20 years I’ve lived here. You can walk through town now without fearing for your life crossing the road. The sidewalks, lighting, round-a-bouts, and crosswalks are an A+ and thanks to everyone who worked to make it happen. It isn’t like the traffic didn’t get backed up before the improvements. The lake is busy in the summer; that is nothing new. While Kings Beach is no longer that chance to pass slower traffic on the one route around the lake, as someone that lives in KB it is a good thing. WTF, take it back.
Granted, it is aesthetically pleasing and better for pedestrians. However, after trying to get from Tahoe City to incline to run an errand one day last summer, and sitting in traffic backed up one way through Tahoe Vista, and the other to the 431 roundabout, I vowed to just avoid KB altogether in the summer.
Good info Mark, as usual. The heat on the county is growing, there is mounting public resentment about the county’s failure to look at the big picture. Squaw Village, Martis West, Squaw-Alpine Gondola, Alpine Sierra and White Wolf all being considered in a vacuum. We the public need to assert the public’s interest. Attend these hearings and don’t be shy. This is our future, not the developers that all leave once the money is banked (far away from Tahoe of course).
Very misleading. Junior Varsity propaganda at best. Not one building is 10-story- not one building is more that 6 floors. How are you counting “ten-story tall buildings” Are you spinning the information by including underground levels?
I assume you’re questioning the KST graphic used at the head of the story. Although SVSH continues to say that no building is more than 6 stories, they are relatively tall stories. 10 feet per story is a generally accepted number but some construction averages 15. The argument over number of stories is a non-starter for me. It’s the overall height that matters. 96 feet in Squaw Valley is too much…stepped construction or not.
Also it should be noted that many of the proposed structures will be constructed on top of a two level above ground parking deck. They are not counting those two levels as part of the actual buildings. So in many cases the “ground” floor is actually three stories up.
Mark is correct. Guess your the one spinning reality, Reality! That’s what Wirth and his minions do…
Here’s some SVSH reality:
“We’ve hosted and attended well in excess of 340 meetings” Andy Wirth, July 9 2015, Auburn Journal.
“After more than 500 community meetings” Andy Wirth, Oct. 29 2015, Auburn Journal.
“After five years, over 400 community meetings” July 15 2016, Village at Squaw Valley Redevelopment Facebook page.
Sounds like they’re just pulling numbers out their hats…or some other location.
Maybe they should stick with number: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0WZwSx7UdU
Well it’s hard to keep track see, cuz all those meetings with Theresa May Duggan, with various famous athletes, with KSL and their stockholders, and likely behind closed door meetings with local and county politicians plus Reno politicians, and meetings with consultants about how to quash public opinion, and who knows who else, it’s a lot of meetings!
So the number of meetings with a burger for lunch while using Heinz 57 red commie catsup?
KSL has a hard time keeping track of anything less than a 100 million.
http://www.wisdc.org/InfluencePeddler2016May
Alpine Freedom
KSL is playing a game of chicken with Placer County, i.e. approve this or it is over, we walk, bankruptcy, failure, blah, blah, no revenue to Placer, Placer goes broke, etc.
Reality 1. They will not leave their investors with nothing and what about the 41% the Poulson family owns, ask each of them, see what you get. How will they fight?
2. Bankruptcy – do they want to go away or restructure? OK, either way they have to open the books, assuming they file, I am sure they will not do this as financial accountability to the public is not KSL’s style, but let’s consider.
2.1 Restructure, another fund, another blah, blah, ok, go for it, the most likely scenario, big discount, etc.
2.2 Courts – It hits the bankruptcy courts, now everyone can bid on pieces, i.e. the current Village condo hotel operation, the mountain, open space and ALPINE MEADOWS.
The threat pf bankruptcy for KSL’s holdings in Tahoe opens up the opportunity for Alpine to be free.
Bottom line attend the 11 August meeting.
to
Thank you for standing up for Lake Tahoe and the surrounding wilderness. Thank you for standing up for what is right. Thank you for fighting KSL. Thank you.
Thanks Mark. From the start, there was something fishy about KSL’s move into Tahoe and you have followed the thread. Now we can see that KSL is looking for the short-term gravy while we are left with the legacy of denser traffic, urbanized village, incessant construction (except for the pauses brought about by bankruptcy of one of the scores of developers that will pass through the community). Those of us who want to make north Tahoe a nice place to live beyond the next quarter or fiscal year will need to show up and make sure the Powers That Be hear us.