or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › A survey from Friends of Squaw Valley
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A survey from Friends of Squaw Valley - Page 2

post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post


That would make perfect sense...

If Alpine Meadows owned the Alpine Springs Community Water District. http://www.alpinesprings.org/.

 

This is all just speculation for its own sake, but...

 

Would they really need to own (or even subscribe to) the water district?  I don't know too much about California water law, but what I've heard makes little sense.  If you own land, can't you just drill to whatever you can pump?

post #32 of 54

Quote:
Would they really need to own (or even subscribe to) the water district?  I don't know too much about California water law, but what I've heard makes little sense.  If you own land, can't you just drill to whatever you can pump?

 

Nope,

 

Water rights, looks at Owens Valley for a California example

 

Or the current peripheral tunnel on the California Delta

 

Whats valuable in California is Owning The right to use the water

post #33 of 54

The story of Owens Valley is indeed sobering, but I don't think it paints the complete picture.  From Wikipedia, I read:

 

Quote:
Though California has laws governing surface water usage and quality, there exist no statewide groundwater management laws. Each groundwater basin is individually adjudicated to determine water rights.[4] Otherwise, for all practical purposes, land ownership implicitly carries the right to virtually unlimited groundwater pumping.
post #34 of 54

The adjudicating district is usually the local water district, city or county

 

They usually don't want anyone to pump the aquifer dry.

 

So depending on where the well is it's going to get regulated by an agency.

 

Such as this one

 

http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/GMP%20Files/OV_GMP_Final_rev1_06-01-07.pdf


Edited by near nyquist - 8/2/13 at 4:29pm
post #35 of 54

And fishing around some more yields this report

 

From the Alpine  Water District

 

Looks like a joint deal to provide water to squaw village at Buildout ???

 

http://98.129.89.114/tahoe/478/site/graphics/pdf/WaterServices.pdf

post #36 of 54
Thread Starter 
Last night at the Squaw Valley MAC meeting, KSL's Chevis Hosea revealed that the indoor water park has lowered its height from 125 feet to 108 feet.

 

 

You read this here first,  4 days ago: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/7543189-113/valley-olympic-incorporate-squaw

 

50% of the registered voters support moving forward on creating a town. But it looks to me like Stage 2 needs 95% of the 530 voters to get incorporation through.

 

The article also sort of confirms a theory  in another post.  the article says AM residents feared that SV would get their water and http://98.129.89.114/tahoe/478/site/graphics/pdf/WaterServices.pdf mentions SV could buy the Mutual Water and/or acquire the AM springs that Powdr Corp bought under the guy from my hill who's now GM of PCMR etc.

 

I sort of wondered why the current Village only has small bath tubs and a few communal hottubs, unlike other places with nice deep tubs for a soak.

 

 


Edited by veteran - 8/2/13 at 6:39pm
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xela View Post

The story of Owens Valley is indeed sobering, but I don't think it paints the complete picture.  From Wikipedia, I read:

 


Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  A brief summary of California water law and rights for various scenarios would take about 100 pages.

post #38 of 54
Thread Starter 

SV is seeking opinions on the new amusement park + hotel http://survey.rrcresearch.com/s3/SV-Grand-Camp

 

They ask if you go to Disneyland and water parks.

 

They want what seems to be 8+ storey hotel with an admission' package for a centre with 'waterfalls', wave pool, 'ski into the pool' pool, kayaking lessons, surfing lesons, pools, tubs, ziplines, slacklines, 3D theatre, poolside catering, organised horse and 4wd trips to the lake and elsewhere, etc.

*

 

I like the idea of horse riding  through the pool up to the bar.biggrin.gif

 

I can see some demand for a pool/hottub area in the village ...if there are change rooms nearby ....and its free (like these pictured events).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 75

*


Edited by veteran - 8/5/13 at 2:17pm
post #39 of 54
Thread Starter 

It's getting interesting in Tahoe.

 

Squaw may become a town. https://www.facebook.com/notes/incorporate-olympic-valley/squaw-valley-takes-first-step-towards-becoming-a-town/393709434084419

 

 

Locals are warning Al Gore he's 'window dressing' for proponents of 'the resort boom'.

 

From Tahoe News:

Publisher’s note: This letter was sent to Al Gore today and reprinted with permission.

Dear Vice President Gore,

It is with a great sense of urgency and concern that we collectively write this letter to you. It is relatively well understood in the Basin that the primary environmental and citizen-action nonprofit organizations are the Sierra Club, Friends of the West Shore, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, Friends of Lake Tahoe, and the North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance. The Sierra Club and the Friends of the West Shore are currently plaintiffs in a lawsuit, which we support, against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The League to Save Lake Tahoe, formerly a member of our group, is absent from the list because most of us no longer consider them an ally in terms of keeping Tahoe blue.

Our primary effort here to convince you that your selection as the keynote speaker at the Tahoe Summit is designed by its sponsors as additional “greenwashing” of their plans for the Tahoe basin. Contrary to their promises, the urbanization through densification of several centers in the Tahoe basin will exacerbate environmental degradation, especially with inadequate measures to reverse the current decline in water quality.

Your presence, essentially, is, we are very sad to report, environmental “window dressing” by the chamber of commerce type of organizations that support the TRPA’s Regional Plan update (RPU) that is currently being challenged in court. The association of your prestige would lend credence to their planned resort boom and further their relentless campaign. We know you are familiar with this type of politics and have witnessed it throughout your career. The best description of how the ski resort development industry operates is chronicled in the Hal Clifford’s critically acclaimed book “Downhill Slide”.

We hope that this cautionary note will prompt you to look more deeply at the whole truth regarding the environmental status of Lake Tahoe, the incorrect underlying assumptions of the RPU, and how their economic promises are replete with miscalculations. We believe it is important that your remarks may be properly tempered and include that those of us who value Lake Tahoe as one of the few “Outstanding National Resource Water” under the Clean Water Act, oppose the RPU since it will environmentally and economically degrade the region.

A very sustained public relations campaign by the TRPA, ski resort industry developers, chambers of commerce, gaming interests, local governments, and select federal and state agencies have focused on half-truths, significant omissions of “inconvenient truths,” and other ploys of deception to manipulate public opinion. Each stands to earn terrific revenues in the short term resulting from over-expansion cloaked with the pleasing environmental rhetoric of “smart growth.” Indeed, we, too, support “smart growth principles” but also understand that they don’t, can’t, and won’t work at Tahoe because the region lacks the requisite conditions for their success. Tourists and visitors do not enroll their children in local schools or behave as year-round residents in their shopping habits or work schedules. Since roadway and utility infrastructure is currently at capacity, increased densities carry excessive costs and environmental impacts.

The desire of your sponsors is, essentially, to have your speech writer(s) lace your comments with their talking points, slogans, myths, and stereotypes thereby endorsing their validity. Such terms have emotional appeal and have evolved due to the lure of federal dollars for metropolitan areas.

If your speech uses terms such as “environmental redevelopment,” “building sustainable communities,” “improved clarity,” “compact, hi-density development,” “culture of cooperation,” “livable, walkable villages,” and so on, then you will have endorsed false claims such as the notion that people will ride a bike in the middle of winter at Tahoe to buy groceries. These terms divert attention from the real causes and parties responsible for environmental damage to Lake Tahoe.

Few people are aware, for example, that throughout the basin heavily contaminated unfiltered stormwater runoff from roadways and parking lots is dumped directly into the lake.

Sadly, here as elsewhere, while the scientific and environmental community knows the truth, the agencies and their consultants are locked into funding mechanisms based upon theories that require the perpetuation of an illusion replete with false claims that ultimately become perceived as reality. Again, we know that you are all too familiar with such phenomena.

Sophisticated propagandists in support of resort planning that delivers high profits to distant owners and destroys local businesses have already done a relatively good job at selling inapplicable planning principles to many of your colleagues. They are already on the wrong side of history politically, environmentally, and economically. Not unlike Gov. [Jerry] Brown’s comment at the summit two years ago about the problem at Tahoe being one of “squaring the circle,” while few readers will understand this analogy, need we mention Samantha Power’s analysis of an avoidable debacle that you are personally well aware of? You do not want to join those who have been duped with false claims and who will sadly acknowledge years from now that “they simply didn’t get it” at the time.

We would be delighted to meet with you or your staff to provide substantive evidence, which can also be found in the legal complaint, in support of our position.

Sincerely,

Roger Patching, president Friends of Lake Tahoe

David McClure, president North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance

Ann Nichols, president North Tahoe Preservation Alliance

post #40 of 54

For the record, Al Gore has taken quite an interest (for the good) in Lake Tahoe in the past, so I suspect he'll dig in further.  A bunch of the good stuff that happened during the Clinton era in this regard was specifically because of him.

post #41 of 54
Thread Starter 

Squaw's offering a fundraising prize to support the Tahoe Fund. I pass it on in case anyone is interested, or if the Squalpine part of the Gathering wants to bid say $100 per person x 20 people.

 

 

Experience Squaw Valley like a rockstar.  You and 19 of your friends will be the first on the mountain for Dawn Patrol with Jonny Moseley or another Squaw Olympic athlete.  After you are done ripping it up, enjoy a gourmet breakfast  at High Camp overlooking the blue waters of Lake Tahoe.  In addition, receive 4 VIP passes and gift bags to the US Alpine Championships held on the famous KT-22 run in March.

You have the opportunity to pre-bid on this incredible Squaw Valley experience that will be included in the silent auction at the Tahoe Fund’s 3rd Annual Summer Dinner on Sunday, August 18th.  You do not need to be present to win.  The highest bid will be posted until Sunday, August 18th at 4pm. That bid will then be entered into the silent auction during the event. This bidder will be notified if an event attendee outbids them and will be given the opportunity to rebid at a higher amount.

If you are interested in bidding, please send your bid to rlincoln@tahoefund.org.

 

The current highest bid is $1k.

 

I'd bid for Mancuso coz she loks better in lingerie than Moseley biggrin.gif

post #42 of 54
Thread Starter 

"The new town of Olympic Valley would have complete jurisdiction over both current and future development proposals. The jurisdiction would be retroactive. This applies to the current development proposal for the proposed Village Development, because the first petition was signed before any applications were submitted for a development agreement."

 

Sounds like the townsfolk slipped in under the radar and pulled the trigger first. If that's right, someone has go back to the drawboard, and go through the whole process all over again???

post #43 of 54
Not necessarily. But it certainly puts them in a better position strategically than they would otherwise have been.
post #44 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

Not necessarily. But it certainly puts them in a better position strategically than they would otherwise have been.


I'm sure there'll be a lot of other strategizing , except my idea of getting a Gold Mine Permit for a mine that uuum doubles as a car park.  I'm sure I was told there's rivers of gold in ski resortsbiggrin.gif

post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by veteran View Post


I'm sure there'll be a lot of other strategizing , except my idea of getting a Gold Mine Permit for a mine that uuum doubles as a car park.  I'm sure I was told there's rivers of gold in ski resortsbiggrin.gif

A friend did something similar; he took out a placer mining permit near a creek near Sun Peaks (then called Tod Mountain) and built a small geodesic dome to live in and then another friend built a second dome on the same mining claim. Squatting made easy.

post #46 of 54
Thread Starter 

I did the same for someone ....under the neighbour's house in a suburb akin to Beverly Hills for parking all those mining cars, like shovel-nosed Ferraris, I hope my car space under the new aquatic centre does'nt get wet though, and is big enough for:

 

 

 

*

post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by veteran View Post

"The new town of Olympic Valley would have complete jurisdiction over both current and future development proposals. The jurisdiction would be retroactive. This applies to the current development proposal for the proposed Village Development, because the first petition was signed before any applications were submitted for a development agreement."

 

Sounds like the townsfolk slipped in under the radar and pulled the trigger first. If that's right, someone has go back to the drawboard, and go through the whole process all over again???

 

Here is what I think will happen.

 

The petition will get challenged in court on grounds that the voters were not registered, the petition gatherer was not a registered voter, the petition gather misstated facts to the voter.

 

The challenge will be brought by Squaw.

 

The county will not defend it cause they want the money, forcing the people pushing it to pay for the lawyer and lawsuit to fight back.

 

That will scare them somewhat plus cost around $100,000 to defend the petition, meanwhile as the lawsuit drags on Squaw will get county approval of the proposal or at least give them a proposal.

 

If the Signatures get thrown out well ....

 

Squaw wins 

 

This is gonna be fun to watch popcorn.gif

post #48 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by near nyquist View Post

 

Here is what I think will happen.

 

The petition will get challenged in court on grounds that  the petition gather misstated facts to the voter.

 


This is gonna be fun to watch popcorn.gif

Ah, so an aspiring politician can't lie before the town is formed, just afterwards. Next you'll tell me that's why they invented Faux News wink.gif

 

Anyway there'll be a gabfest full of fullsome honest and frank debate soon

*


Edited by veteran - 8/11/13 at 6:03pm
post #49 of 54

That Grand Camp building stretches pretty far.  I think they should break it up so that it doesn't make it a pain to get to Far East Express from various points within the village.

post #50 of 54
Thread Starter 

*

 

If the high rises block the sun, that'll be bad for businesses and will drive destination visitors away imo. When that sun in pic vanished, it got very cold very quickly and the apres was over.

 

And buildings are heat wells that create microclimates, like rain.

post #51 of 54
Thread Starter 

The new town's budget - has nearly $700k of marketing for nth tahoe. Bwahaha. It gets farmed out to new grads with pretty useless marketing degrees to stand at an airport and hand fliers to passengers ...as they board planes to California. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz_KEGnXIRNEY3ViazItUU9fSlE/edit?usp=sharing

post #52 of 54

The sales tax figure seems low assuming a 7.5 %  tax rate and the 1% state pass back to the city meaning the gross taxable sales are $ 5,339,200 

 

Seems low for Squaw/Squaw Village/Squaw Creek

 

 

Tot is 10% and that goes directly to placer county, 2% of that is supposed to be allocated to North Tahoe for road/infrastructure improvements

so the county has to agree to share the remaining 8% with the new town. So not sure what the TOT sharing percentage is

 

And the planing budget is gonna get big if Squaw builds what they are proposing

 

So probably the first order of business would be to increase the TOT tax

 

cause otherwise they may run a deficit in the future.

post #53 of 54
Thread Starter 

Placer Co. says there's "a location for Off site parking".

 

 

 

"Those changes include a proposal
to perform wetlands enhancement and stream
restoration work on a portion of Squaw Creek
located within the project boundary, retention
of certain buildings previously proposed for
removal, identification of a location for off-site
parking
and employee housing, inclusion of
parks and recreation improvements, reduced
building heights and plan area density, and
identification of an emergency vehicle access
route between the project and Squaw Creek
Road."

 

*


Edited by veteran - 8/15/13 at 5:59am
post #54 of 54
Thread Starter 

It looks like a lot is happening in Tahoe, according to a newspaper, at a time KSL is talking about mass transit systems and the environment.

 

 

Now, those friendships will be tested again. Even as local, state and federal leaders prepare to convene Monday for the 17th annual Lake Tahoe Summit, Congress is contemplating a proposal to spend an additional $415 million on Tahoe-related projects. The notion could challenge some lawmakers, including the budget-cutting House member who represents the California side of the state-straddling lake.

The new federal funds would come on top of $1.6 billion in public and private spending since 1997, the year then-Vice President Al Gore attended the first Lake Tahoe Summit. Gore will be returning to deliver the keynote address Monday, in what’s certain to include a pitch for continued investment.

“Saving the lake hasn’t been cheap,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., acknowledged in an interview. “I think we’re doing the right thing, but this has cost money.”

Joined by three Senate colleagues, notably including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, which also shares the lake shore, Feinstein this month re-introduced the latest version of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. The package follows up on her original Lake Tahoe bill from 2000, which authorized $300 million in federal spending over 10 years.

Though many grand ideas capsize in the Senate, Feinstein’s bill has a strong crew. Its co-authors besides Feinstein and Reid, the top Senate Democrat, include the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, and a Republican, Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada.

“The reauthorization is extremely important to the restoration and preservation of the Tahoe basin,” Julie Regan, external affairs chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, said Friday. “We’ve been very fortunate in having a shared partnership.”

Richard Solbrig, the general manager of the South Tahoe Public Utility District, added Friday that the federal role is key as “almost 80 percent of the land in the Tahoe basin is owned by the federal government.”

Still, an earlier Senate effort to reauthorize Lake Tahoe programs that was introduced in March 2011 stalled after it passed through Boxer’s committee. A 2009 bill authored by Reid likewise sputtered out following committee approval.

One impediment has little to do with Lake Tahoe.

Traditionally, legislation like this gets added to a comprehensive, multi-state public lands package. The last such public lands omnibus bill included some 164 separate measures, including a Feinstein plan to authorize an ambitious San Joaquin River restoration program. The Senate passed it in early 2009.

But that would be only half the battle.

“The biggest challenge we face is in the House,” Feinstein said. “If the House wants to do something constructive, it will.”

The California congressman who represents Lake Tahoe, Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, co-sponsored a Lake Tahoe restoration bill in 2009 when it was introduced by Heller, then in the House. No House bill, though, has been introduced since.

Moving an expensive public lands bill through the Republican-controlled House would test anyone’s legislative skill. McClintock has gotten signal-sending measures through the House, like one that rolled back Feinstein’s San Joaquin River restoration program, but he has had less success in getting bills completed and signed into law. He is also a vocal critic of both environmental regulations and federal spending.

In a July 29 House subcommittee hearing, McClintock characteristically denounced a nationwide watershed protection program as the “fever dream of leftist environmental groups.” Speaking at last year’s Lake Tahoe Summit, he specifically denounced the boards of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Tahoe-area Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board as being overly bureaucratic and slow to approve projects.

“The Tahoe citizens who call my office complain of being thwarted in their attempts to protect their property from fire danger, or to make minor and harmless improvements to their homes, or of being assessed exorbitant fees, or of being denied simple permits by boards they can’t even elect,” McClintock said last year.

McClintock’s office did not respond to multiple queries over the past week. Feinstein and Regan indicated they were not sure if McClintock was going to be in attendance Monday, but Feinstein said “if he’s here, I’ll talk to him.”

More than half of the $415 million in Feinstein’s Lake Tahoe bill would go to stormwater management and watershed restoration projects intended to improve water quality. Another big chunk would pay for “hazardous fuels reduction” projects in the region’s forests to reduce the threat of wildfire. Money would also fund assorted projects, including inspection of watercraft to prevent the introduction of Quagga mussels and other invasive species into the lake.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › A survey from Friends of Squaw Valley