Talk:Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Opening comment

When I wrote the begining of this article (It is far from complete),I tried not to put too much bias in it. But now that this is the talk page: "The TRPA is the WORST goverment orginization in calfionia. they are RUINING Tahoe and don't give ***** ABOUT IT. All they care about is money, and harvesting bouy taxes.

I think that more people need to add more of their ludicrous laws to this article as well as sections on the very well justified protests agaisn't them. Tobyk777 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing about them is that they pass degrees based or unproven, or even disproven science. Tobyk777 03:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hot tubs

The article mentions that TRPA prohibits hot tubs. I was unable to find any such prohibition on the TRPA web site. A settlement agreement in FY 2004-2005 cited Scott Erickson for construction of an unauthorized hot tub. But the complaint seemed to concern the land coverage caused by the construction, rather than the hot tub itself. Additionally, I found listings for several business in the Lake Tahoe area that sell or install hot tubs. If hot tubs are indeed prohibited, please cite the relevant rule or regulation. --Ryanrs 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that when I read that the first time. I know for a fact that hot tubs arent prohibited - I know many people who have them (as I live in Tahoe). That doesn't make sense anyways. Also link for the above case here google cache of tarpa.org or original pdf. I've removed the mentioning of hot tub ban - but I'm abit worried about the rest of the critism section. It reads like someone with a real beef for the trpa wrote the entire thing. --ShakataGaNai 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is...unpolished. However, I know little of the TRPA and its associated politics. So I think I'll pass on this particular project. But the hot tub bit seemed especially easy to verify (if true). --Ryanrs 07:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased edits to this article

One user recently made major edits to this article. Some of what he did was good (like adding more information), however he made the article biased to make it sound like the TRPA is the greatest organization of all time. He completely deleted the criticsim section and chaged the text everywhere to make it sound like the TRPA is unilateraly loved and sucessful. I am hesitant to revert since his edits added information, however this could be considered POV warring and/or Spam, as he added tons of links to the TRPA website. Tobyk777 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I could use some help from you, and/or others, to reach consensus on this article. I understand your point, but I have difficulty validating negative viewpoints of TRPA. So much of the public's perception of the agency is based on rumor and lack of information. Development can truly hurt Lake Tahoe if it isn't regulated or balanced with mitigation. This is a big, difficult job in a nation where private property rights hold so much power. Not everyone agrees with what the agency does, but balancing economics with environmental protection is a very important goal in today's world.

Oddly, for every person who finds fault with TRPA thorough guidelines and mitigation measures, there are two who feel it doesn't go far enough. I truly respect what Wikipedia stands for and want to work with everyone interested in the TRPA to reach consensus. Ask yourself, was the text before my edits truly neutral?--Jwcowen 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and cooperation, I have left the NPOV tag on the page so that we can discuss. Perhaps you could read my parenthetical comments to your critique of the agency and we can begin discussion? Thanks--Jwcowen 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to politely disagree on alot of points. Although it's good to balance ecomnomics with the enviorment, that is only partialy what the organization is doing. I don't see how a tax on bouys helps the enviorment. Also, the TRPA passed a regulation retricting flag poles. How does flying flags hurt the enviorment. Some of their proposals do help the enviorment, but tonshave flaws. For example, their regulation requieing bouys to be taken in and out of the water every boating season, will acutaly hurt the enviorment. Not only that, there aren't enough resources around the lake to even put that into action. The article should give both sides of the issue. I know you love the TRPA, but I think they are corupt, and hypocritical. All viewpoints and the reasons for them should be given to give readers a balanced viewpoint. Tobyk777 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...OK, I am just concerned about the accuracy of some of what you are saying. The Shorezone rules you speak of haven't been adopted or enacted. They are a proposal nearly twenty years in the making. Regulations on such things may never make everyone happy, but the Shorezone--it's environmental health as well as what it looks and feels like to residents and visitors--is really what DEFINES Lake Tahoe. It is an area that deserves very high protection standards. Asking buoy owners to remove their buoy and chain every two years (most recent proposal) represents a way to responsibly manage their property--it's very similar to mandatory smog checks and emission controls on cars. Environmental impacts grow and grow if there aren't guidelines for people to follow.

Regulations on flagpoles and signs are only difficult to understand when you think of one flagpole or one sign. There are over 40,000 private parcels in the Basin. Who is to say that one day, everyone might want a flagpole or giant flashing sign? This place is famous across the nation and around the world largely for natural beauty. Multiply each action by the number of possible participants and you may see why, even in a free society, some limits must be set.

I have incorporated your points and nearly all of your text into the newly-titled "Controversy and Criticism" section. I have tried hard not argue point for point, but as you say, to give readers both viewpoints. Let me know what you think. I would really like the NPOV tag to be removed.--Jwcowen 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like what you have done and I think it's fine now. Remove the tag if you want to. However, I just want to point out that signs can be ugly, but the whole purpose of flagpoles is for decoration. I think Tahoe would look and feel better if lots moer people flew their flags. Also, I completely don't get your point on bouys. How does pointlessly having to spend 1000s of dollars removing your bouy, then putting it back in make someone a responsible land owner? Tobyk777 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Angora Fire

I changed some of the text about the Angora Fire. TRPA rules on 100% ground cover did in fact contribute to home ignitions. But, homeowners also did not do all they could do to create defensible space. I didn't put anything in about the 6" diameter limit. In Tahoe, a person should have a permit to keep a 6" DBH tree, but the limit has been raised to 14". So that is fixed. There is still the ground cover issue. I personally saw where surface fire ran up to several homes and ignited them in pine needles. So the area within 30 feet of the homes still needs work. Probably we are going to require homeowners to rake needles in the spring and let them fall in the fall. That would be a workable compromise. SierraSkier 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the edits and for adding important points to the article. I must be concerned about what is stated above, however, pertaining to ground cover rules contributing to home ignitions. TRPA guidelines do not require homeowners to pile pine needles anywhere on their property and certainly do not require pine needles to remain within five feet of structures. One option available to property owners is to maintain a one to two inch layer of pine needles--no piles. Other options to groundcover exist, but no organic mulch is required in the moat around structures. I wonder if the homes where surface fire ignited siding and decks were properly cared for. One thing that was realized during and after the fire was that there were many misunderstandings and misconceptions pertaining to these rules. The rules can and will change, but encouraging property owners to invest time, effort, and in some cases money, into managing their property was and still is the number one issue. Jwcowen 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Jeff, as of May of 2007 TRPA was directing TRCD and NTCD to tell homeowners that homeowners needed ground cover on the gable ends of the house and that gravel was not permissible even within 5 feet of the structure. Lawn was an option, so you are technically correct, but most folks up here do not want or are not here enough to maintain lawn. So operationally what happens is a homeowner does the right thing, installs their BMPs and rakes their needles. They call TRCD to get their BMP certificate and the inspector sees bare ground. The TRCD inspector tells the homeowner, cover the bare ground or you are in violation of the law and subject to penalty. The TRCD inspector then tells the homeowner that gravel is not permitted, and pine needles are the best way to cover the ground. And so we end up with the TRPA technically not requiring pine needles, but pine needles being the only way to get a BMP certificate. Even worse, my buddy is building a home. An El Dorado County building inspector shows up and tells him to get pine needles on the ground or he will fine him $5000/day for each day he is in violation. Typically lawns go in last, so they dont get trashed during construction. Gravel is not permitted beyond 5 feet, so pine needles get spread on the ground, in this case, right up to the wood siding because BMPs go in last as well or they get fouled during construction. So, yes technically you are correct, there is nothing in the code of ordinances. The entire issue is with operations in the field.
    • Pine needles 1/2 inch deep will carry fire. There is a reason PRC 4291 forbids both pine needles and wood chip as a contiuous layer within 30 feet of a structure. I also have a video of fire running on pine needles right up to a house. It was about a 1 inch layer, and it did ignite the house. Thankfully there was an engine crew on the scene or another house would have burned. Go do a simple experiment, grab some pine needles from your yard, do not disturn them, grab a layer, then put it in your driveway and throw a match in them. A Fire Chief and I did that with a 1/2 inch layer on a windless day. This is a hot topic right now. Those of us with firefighting backgrounds are being told by people who have never seen a fire in the wild that a one inch layer of needles wont carry fire. That is simply not true. Check it out for yourself. You have no reason to question if the decks that ignited from surface fuels were adequately maintained. The fact is that pine needles and wood chip make great kindling, and a wood deck, unless it is OC redwood will ignite from direct flame impingment. You can verify that my calling Dr. Quarles at Berkeley, and I dont think we want to recommend the cutting of old growth redwood for fire safety.
    • I am not trying to beat up on TRPA here. Your organization has been great to work with since the fire. But I think it is pretty clear that the implementation of the code of ordinances did contribute to home ignitions particulary in regard to surface fuels. I am not relying on the FS report, I am telling you what I saw when I was in the neighborhood during and immediately after the fire. The changes to the code are being made because of the operational problems in the field. SierraSkier (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)