Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Fart smeller
Paid to post this crap.
Joined
·
19,859 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Ugly stuff.

This cracks me up- "...I'm afraid it's going to destroy the quaint feel this place has always had.''

Yo, beeyotch- what about the people who were there 20 years ago before you were there- how do you think they feel? Should building have stopped just after you bought in?

I know, I know...

I hope they don't plan on building houses on the Northstar DH course. Then again, it could make for some interesting stunts. :rolleyes:

From the SF Chronicle. Reprinted without permission.

Truckee (Nevada County) -- Word about the encroaching threat to one of the most pristine and popular areas in Lake Tahoe is starting to grow -- one truckload at a time.

The threat is visible in the steady stream of vehicles carrying dirt from one of the first big construction sites in a long-range development plan for the Martis Valley, a plan that envisions building more than 6,000 high-end luxury homes and condominiums in the bucolic recreational area between Truckee and Lake Tahoe's north shore.

The Northstar resort area at Tahoe is undergoing the reconstruction of its central village area, a project that is just a sliver in the redwood-scale building plans for the valley. But the giant dirt pit has created major road detours, eliminated parking areas and produced a steady convoy of dump trucks as well as a buzz among summer visitors concerned about what the future beckons.

"I had no idea that the expansion plans were this big,'' said Northstar vacationer Amanda Meyers. "We've been coming up here for 20 years and I'm afraid it's going to destroy the quaint feel this place has always had.''

The resort village's makeover is just the beginning. Northstar's new developer has plans to build over the next few years up to 1,800 luxury townhomes (priced from $1.2 million to $4 million) and a new five-star hotel above its current site, an undertaking that has property owners such as Meyers wondering if the resort village is about to transform into a small mountain city.

Small hardly describes the expansion plans approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors last year for a long-term project that is the subject of a lawsuit by a number of leading Sierra conservation groups. Even the Truckee City Council, which until recently was considered pro-development, felt compelled to appeal the approval of Siller Ranch, one of several exclusive, gated golf and ski resorts proposed for the area which borders the town but lies in the neighboring county.

Placer County officials, most of whom reside nearly 100 miles from Martis Valley, have ignored the rising opposition to the aggressive building blueprint by muzzling protest. In late June, the county planning commission approved two new subdivisions, including Siller Ranch, after refusing to allow public comment before the vote. If upheld, these plans would allow 1,200 new homes and two new golf courses covering 2,600 acres in the mountain valley.

Supervisors are expected to hear appeals in October but, based on past performance, projected tax revenues will hold more sway than environmental concerns in their decision. That almost certainly will mean another lawsuit, and then another, until all of the sprawling development plans are lined up in court like summer traffic in downtown Truckee.

So far, that has been the only way to slow down the rush from county officials to turn the High Sierra valley into a private playground for the super-rich, just another vacation stop for those people bored with Aspen and Vail. And, as in those communities, the inadequate affordable housing for workers catering to the jet-setters is an obvious flaw in the plan. But when speculative developers see gold in these hills, it's hard to beat back the momentum.

The push for new, resorts for the monied is fueled, in part, by the limited amount of available land around Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin's strict building regulations. Yet somehow the traffic and congestion created by a plan that envisions up to 20,000 additional residents in the picturesque 45, 000-acre valley just one range of hills over from the lake hasn't been factored into the approval process. The Martis Valley plan is based on a dusty, 30-year-old document that reads like an outline for a suburban housing tract; one that includes shopping areas and private golf courses instead of montane meadows and pine forests.

If conservationists aren't successful in either blocking or scaling back the development plans, the picturesque valley will be viewed by future generations from behind bars. The development projects would create nearly six square miles of gated communities from Truckee to Northstar and would restrict public access along Martis Creek and some surrounding meadows.

As one developer once told me, resorts are not just about skiing anymore. They're about accessories and accommodations and exclusivity. Each resort has to be better than the last -- or at least be packaged that way.

Otherwise, why would anyone who can afford a $3 million second home want one? It's not the great outdoors if it doesn't include a club membership.

--Ken Garcia

There's a word for you- Montane- Of, growing in, or inhabiting mountain areas.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,237 Posts
I call it the next in line syndrome. It is okay if I get my nice house, but the guy after me that wants his is destroying the enviroment. I worked on a case like this last year where homeowners on this street didn't want the city to approve my clients proposed new house, because "nobody should be allowed to destroy the tranquil nature of the ridgeline that it would sit on by putting up a house." The funny thing is that most of these people who were complaining lived on the same ridgeline, just not as high up. When I posed the question, well why was it okay to build your house then, I was told, "I didn't build it, it was there when I bought it." I responded simply, well that makes it okay now, doesn't it!!! We will of course ignore that by buying the house you supported ridgetop development.

Bottom line is that valley will be developed. The question is just how long it will take. The people up there should look at the bright side, at least they don't want to put the homes up on the ridgeline and destroy the views.
 

·
Jed Peters
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Finch Platte said:
Ugly stuff.
Why? what's wrong with growth in the Martis Valley? The Tahoe area has a TON of wilderness that will likely never be touched in any of our lifetimes that will be preserved. The Martis Valley isn't even TRPA watershed....

I for one, welcome the new development. I just hope I get to play the golf courses.

PS: This will not affect any mountain biking in or around the Northstar area.
 

·
Fart smeller
Paid to post this crap.
Joined
·
19,859 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
!?!?!

Zonic Man said:
The Tahoe area has a TON of wilderness that will likely never be touched in any of our lifetimes that will be preserved.
You are so full of sh!t.

There, you got me. Happy, pappy?

fp
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Developers...the root of evil.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Because they are unstoppable, in the end they always "win" and get to build what they want.

Because they buy and build on the property that encroaches on the forest and uses up mass quantities of resources.

Because they'll build houses around airports and then the residents will complain a few years down the road and get the airport shut down. This is despite any logic that suggests building around an airport may not be a good idea for the reason of noise, but they don't care, they build them anyway.

Yes, we create the demand by continually exponentialy procreating, but they are a seemingly unstoppable force, that will stop at nothing to develop all natural land. The most prevalent place I saw this was every day in northern california up the highway 50 corridor. Can we stop all of this before it's too late and it's just one big city from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe? I hope so, but there's a lot that has to change in peoples minds. Each of these new houses requires many raw materials, and as we just keep exponentially reproducing, we are choking ourselves.

In the end, the developers always win...unfortunatly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Why are you blaming the developers? They're just employing the wage laborers who swing hammers.

If people weren't going to buy those multi-million dollar second (and 3rd and 4th) homes, then the developers wouldn't build them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Jm. said:
Because they are unstoppable, in the end they always "win" and get to build what they want.

Because they buy and build on the property that encroaches on the forest and uses up mass quantities of resources.

Because they'll build houses around airports and then the residents will complain a few years down the road and get the airport shut down. This is despite any logic that suggests building around an airport may not be a good idea for the reason of noise, but they don't care, they build them anyway.

Yes, we create the demand by continually exponentialy procreating, but they are a seemingly unstoppable force, that will stop at nothing to develop all natural land. The most prevalent place I saw this was every day in northern california up the highway 50 corridor. Can we stop all of this before it's too late and it's just one big city from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe? I hope so, but there's a lot that has to change in peoples minds. Each of these new houses requires many raw materials, and as we just keep exponentially reproducing, we are choking ourselves.

In the end, the developers always win...unfortunatly.
We should all live in huts. But wait, huts take up land as well and then we would have to blame those "eveil hut developers." Maybe caves? Or we should all off ourselves so the land can revert?

There are many areas where the "evil developers" can't build...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
I didn't say we should live in huts, just stop exponentionally reproducing.

Yes, there are many places where developers can't build, but how much of that is truley "untouchable" in the future?
 

·
Jed Peters
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Jm. said:
I didn't say we should live in huts, just stop exponentionally reproducing.

Yes, there are many places where developers can't build, but how much of that is truley "untouchable" in the future?
Some of us have the option of reproducing, which is nice.

On the other hand, are you inferring that our country should somehow regulate reproduction as is happening in China?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Jm. said:
I didn't say we should live in huts, just stop exponentionally reproducing.
"exponentially reproducing"? Please.

Jm. said:
Yes, there are many places where developers can't build, but how much of that is truley "untouchable" in the future?
Wait, if there are places where developers can't build, how can they be unstoppable?

"Because they are unstoppable, in the end they always "win" and get to build what they want."

"
In the end, the developers always win...unfortunatly."

p.s. Yes, there are many places that are truly untouchable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Zonic Man said:
Some of us have the option of reproducing, which is nice.

On the other hand, are you inferring that our country should somehow regulate reproduction as is happening in China?
Many people don't think of it is an option, they think of it as their right and their reason for existance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Pete said:
"exponentially reproducing"? Please.
go look at how long it took our population to get to 200 million, then look at how long it's taking to get to 300 million. If you can understand the numbers, you'll see the definition of "exponential".

Wait, if there are places where developers can't build, how can they be unstoppable?
So you'll be happy when of the land up to the forest land is developed?, so just one massive city from San Francisco to Blue Canyon or Pollock Pines?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Zonic Man said:
Some of us have the option of reproducing, which is nice.

On the other hand, are you inferring that our country should somehow regulate reproduction as is happening in China?
I'll probably get crucified for this but, Abso-fulking-lutely. There should be some sort of constraint on reproduction. I have no idea how to go about changing it, but it certainly seems to me that, in general, the dumbest are reproducing the most, and over-population is the root of many of our social ills.... Some religions even teach that the purpose of our existence is to procreate. I can think of one perfect example of a sprawling suburb of a city that exemplifies this. Personally, I think that mentality is limited and short-sighted.

It's true that the developers are just providing supply for the demand. Sadly enough, many people are not aware enough to consider the full cost of their new second home (habitat destruction, resources used, ridgelines obscured, etc.). Or, maybe they just don't care.
There is no black and white in this argument. Of course, some development will happen. Of course, unrestricted development is not good. The goal (hopefully) is to guide and encourage development that does not disrupt the "feel" of an area or is not out of scale with the existing or intended size of the area. Unfortunately, it sounds like the project described above may be.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Jm. said:
So you'll be happy when of the land up to the forest land is developed?, so just one massive city from San Francisco to Blue Canyon or Pollock Pines?
If there is land where the developers can't build how can they be unstoppable?

Perhaps if you waited three or four posts before you started contradicting yourself you would be less likely to find yourself in these dilemas.

p.s. Your question, as well as the underlying assumptions, is inane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Our population growth is not from reproduction!

In the USA, most of the population growth is from immigration. I've read lots of studies and the stats vary widely depending on the bias of the study author, but about 40% of our population growth is due to immigration and another 20% is due to the higher fertitlity rate of first-generation immigrants. In other words, immigrants usually have more children that US-born residents, and since they arrive in the US at or near child-bearing age, they have the children sooner after they are added to the population rolls.

http://www.cis.org/topics/populationenvironment.html

CIS is a thinktank that has an anti-immigration bias; my understanding is that it is part of the anti-immigration environmentalists who left the Sierra Club in the 80s and 90s when the SIerra Club wouldn't take a position on immigration.

Its a pretty interesting topic... once you get into third and fourth generation Americans the fertility rate drops below the replacement rate.

Matthew
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top