Squaw Valley CEO Andy Wirth's Negative Letter About Incorporation

**FriendsofSV** · 04-10-2014, 12:19 AM

Unofficial Alpine reports on Squaw Valley CEO Andy Wirth's 5 page letter about the negative effects of the Incorporation of Olympic Valley.

SVSH Gives Their Input On The Olympic Valley Incorporation…And It’s Not Very Pretty

Here's the link of Andy Wirth's letter to LAFCO.

http://www.incorporateolympicvalley....ril-7-2014.pdf

**FriendsofSV** · 04-10-2014, 01:09 AM

More from Snowbrains

http://snowbrains.com/squaw-valley-c...-wirth-letter/

**FriendsofSV** · 04-10-2014, 10:49 AM

Tensions mount over possible new town at Squaw

http://www.kunr.org/news/tensions-mo...-town-at-squaw

**jed peters** · 04-10-2014, 10:52 AM

The only reason that the town wants to become "incorporated" is to fight progress and development at Squaw Valley. It's a myopic look at a larger problem.

I'm not here to say what side of the issue I'm on, but it's clear that without Squaw Valley ski area's revenue, the newly-formed "city" would be in trouble.

I'd be interested in seeing this anti-development "save olympic valley by incorporating" plan? As of right now I've not seen anything on my end--city governance, outsourcing emergency services to Placer County pre-contracts, other City positions such as planning, building, and the like. Will they increase property taxes or present some sort of an alternate tax to pay for these essential services (Such as Big Sky's 3% "resort" tax)?

Is there a plan for this yet?

And, seeing as Squaw is basically the ONLY game in town in that valley, I'm curious as to why these ~750 residents are so vehemently agains new development at the resort? I know the "nimby" argument, but--looking at the revised proposal that is in front of Placer County planning, wasn't most (if not all) of those concerns assuaged?

**splat** · 04-10-2014, 10:55 AM

Could we get a handwriting analysis of Andy's signature?

**enlosandes** · 04-10-2014, 11:50 AM

Jed, as an IOV Board Member, I can assure you that we aren't anti-development. We all realize that the current village is less than ideal and can be created into something very special. We just want to see smart, sustainable growth that includes the community's input.

Originally Posted by jed peters

The only reason that the town wants to become "incorporated" is to fight progress and development at Squaw Valley. It's a myopic look at a larger problem.

I'm not here to say what side of the issue I'm on, but it's clear that without Squaw Valley ski area's revenue, the newly-formed "city" would be in trouble.

I'd be interested in seeing this anti-development "save olympic valley by incorporating" plan? As of right now I've not seen anything on my end--city governance, outsourcing emergency services to Placer County pre-contracts, other City positions such as planning, building, and the like. Will they increase property taxes or present some sort of an alternate tax to pay for these essential services (Such as Big Sky's 3% "resort" tax)?

Is there a plan for this yet?

And, seeing as Squaw is basically the ONLY game in town in that valley, I'm curious as to why these ~750 residents are so vehemently agains new development at the resort? I know the "nimby" argument, but--looking at the revised proposal that is in front of Placer County planning, wasn't most (if not all) of those concerns assuaged?

**enlosandes** · 04-10-2014, 12:50 PM

A friend of mine just posted this on my Facebook page

"The letter from Mr. Wirth (to LAFCO) just made his intentions of disrupting the community's legal right crystal clear. After all his attempts to appear willing to listen and respond to concern, this cements his firm stance in support of a powerful corporation whose intentions are gaining power, and using that power to exert control on a small community. All done with manipulation, money, and threats that are commonly used by thugs. His true color have finally shown."

**TahoeJ** · 04-10-2014, 01:20 PM

I have no stake in this game other than I like to ski Squaw and I hate reading fucking bullshit. I'd like to clarify two points:

1. If created, the new city CANNOT RAISE TAXES without a vote of approval from the registered citizens.

2. The city cannot raise property taxes, either. Property taxes in the state of California are handled at the County level regardless of how many incorporated cities fall within that county and even the County can only raise them by a maximum of 1-2% (depending on various scenarios). Ever heard of prop 13? It's fairly restrictive.

"it's clear that without Squaw Valley ski area's revenue, the newly-formed "city" would be in trouble." - Yes, so what's your point? A big mountain and ski resort is there and it's going to be there in the future. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have the inherent right to control anything and everything they want. This is the same argument as those assholes in city council meetings who talk about how much they pay in property taxes like they have more rights as a citizen because of it.

**FriendsofSV** · 04-10-2014, 01:28 PM

Squaw Valley CEO Comes Out Against Olympic Valley

http://ski.curbed.com/archives/2014/...pic-valley.php

**FriendsofSV** · 04-10-2014, 06:47 PM

Squaw CEO questions Olympic Valley finances, viability

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/new...-incorporation

**LightRanger** · 04-10-2014, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I have no stake in this game other than I like to ski Squaw and I hate reading fucking bullshit. I'd like to clarify two points:

1. If created, the new city CANNOT RAISE TAXES without a vote of approval from the registered citizens.

2. The city cannot raise property taxes, either. Property taxes in the state of California are handled at the County level regardless of how many incorporated cities fall within that county and even the County can only raise them by a maximum of 1-2% (depending on various scenarios). Ever heard of prop 13? It's fairly restrictive.

"it's clear that without Squaw Valley ski area's revenue, the newly-formed "city" would be in trouble." - Yes, so what's your point? A big mountain and ski resort is there and it's going to be there in the future. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have the inherent right to control anything and everything they want. This is the same argument as those assholes in city council meetings who talk about how much they pay in property taxes like they have more rights as a citizen because of it.

Nail on head. Good post, J.

**TBS** · 04-11-2014, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have the inherent right to control anything and everything they want.

As opposed to the 538 registered voters who think they should call the shots for Squaw and everyone else in the valley?

**LightRanger** · 04-11-2014, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by telebobski

As opposed to the 538 registered voters who think they should call the shots for Squaw and everyone else in the valley?

Because they live there? Yes. That is how democracy works. Google "Telluride local control" for a history lesson on small ski communities asserting themselves to shape the future of their local environs.

But you're oversimplifying. A hypothetical Town of Olympic Valley can't say that Squaw can't expand and the town would still have to abide by CA law. But IOV is betting that the town will be better positioned/suited than Placer County to prevent a distantly-owned company from building an unsustainable monstrosity. Placer County is known for letting developers have they way with things. Not that the Board of Sups is corrupt or anything, but they've historically been very pro development in their politics.

**powdork** · 04-11-2014, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by jed peters

And, seeing as Squaw is basically the ONLY game in town in that valley, I'm curious as to why these ~750 residents are so vehemently agains new development at the resort?

Maybe it's exactly because Squaw is the only game in town. I can pretty much guarantee that KSL's goals and the homeowners goals are not in alignment.

**splat** · 04-11-2014, 12:28 PM

I believe the residents don't want a clusterfuck of eyesore development designed to be built and flipped for profit, local concerns and sustainability be damned. It'd be akin to some development company leveling your neighborhood, except for the part where you live, to construct apartments where single family homes once existed; and you having no input as to how the neighborhood will look and function once it's completed, not to mention the years of construction that will occur to achieve the corporate goal of building it out so they can move on to the next neighborhood, with little to no interest in the long term viability of what would be the everlasting effects. Other than profit. Hail the almighty corporate dollar and locals be damned.

**jed peters** · 04-11-2014, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I have no stake in this game other than I like to ski Squaw and I hate reading fucking bullshit. I'd like to clarify two points:

1. If created, the new city CANNOT RAISE TAXES without a vote of approval from the registered citizens.

2. The city cannot raise property taxes, either. Property taxes in the state of California are handled at the County level regardless of how many incorporated cities fall within that county and even the County can only raise them by a maximum of 1-2% (depending on various scenarios). Ever heard of prop 13? It's fairly restrictive.

"it's clear that without Squaw Valley ski area's revenue, the newly-formed "city" would be in trouble." - Yes, so what's your point? A big mountain and ski resort is there and it's going to be there in the future. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have the inherent right to control anything and everything they want. This is the same argument as those assholes in city council meetings who talk about how much they pay in property taxes like they have more rights as a citizen because of it.

1. The only registered "citizens" are those who have consistently demonstrated that they wish to be a closed demographic. Full-time, year round residents are the only ones who have a "say".

2. They cannot raise property taxes but can increase taxes by referendum vote as a type of "surtax"--or a tax upon a tax--that would go into City coffers.

You make my point for me when you state "Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have the inherent right to control anything and everything they want"; one might argue that just because they have their own little fiefdom due to their year round residency they should have all the power as well, should they?

**jahroy** · 04-11-2014, 06:43 PM

^^ so you're saying the people who DO live in olympic valley should NOT have more say than the people who do NOT live there?

**bushman** · 04-11-2014, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by enlosandes

A friend of mine just posted this on my Facebook page

All done with manipulation, money, and threats that are commonly used by thugs. His true color have finally shown."

Its not just thugs, this is pretty much how everything everywhere is done, Wellcome to life.

**jrf** · 04-11-2014, 07:24 PM

The community that lives in the valley full time should have as much influence in the development of the valley as any person or entity.

No one should have all the power. It's not black and white, one group or the other having all or no power, making all or none of the decisions. It's about compromises and intelligent long term planning.

**TBS** · 04-11-2014, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Because they live there? Yes. That is how democracy works. Google "Telluride local control" for a history lesson on small ski communities asserting themselves to shape the future of their local environs.

But you're oversimplifying. A hypothetical Town of Olympic Valley can't say that Squaw can't expand and the town would still have to abide by CA law. But IOV is betting that the town will be better positioned/suited than Placer County to prevent a distantly-owned company from building an unsustainable monstrosity. Placer County is known for letting developers have they way with things. Not that the Board of Sups is corrupt or anything, but they've historically been very pro development in their politics.

I get that the locals don't feel Placer county gubmnt represents their interests very well - most of the county's population lives around Sacto, so that's the prevailing view on life. As you say, that's how democracy works. I don't see any problem incorporating a town to set standards the locals find more suitable. I just take issue with the concept that KSL has zero say in whether they will be a part of this new city.

**jahroy** · 04-11-2014, 08:49 PM

i know almost nothing about politics, but i'm pretty sure it does NOT work like this:

if olympic valley becomes incorporated they will have a vote where only full time residents can vote. if the majority of votes are against developing squaw, the project will instantly be cancelled.

the development of squaw will happen no matter what. the residents of olympic valley just want a voice.

that doesn't seem to sinister to me...

**flyman683** · 04-11-2014, 10:47 PM

Would Squaw and it's land be in the new incorporated area?

If so, what keeps a local zoning/planning board from zoning everything R-2 or whatever "to protect the character of the town" and you can only build family housing, for example?

Happens all the time elsewhere; look at development restrictions in SF for example.

These type of things also typically happen to be good for greatly increasing the value of already owned/built property due to it being hard to do something new. Not saying that's the case here, but curious.

If the idea is to "have a say" presumably the plan is some sort of zoning/planning/whatever commission that will enact restrictions?

**splat** · 04-11-2014, 10:55 PM

Extend the purview of the TRPA. Problem solved.

**LightRanger** · 04-11-2014, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by jahroy

^^ so you're saying the people who DO live in olympic valley should NOT have more say than the people who do NOT live there?

That's what I got from it, when you simplify it down. It also makes little sense. Who else should have a say? If you own property in OV, register to vote there, and you too can have a say. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by telebobski

I just take issue with the concept that KSL has zero say in whether they will be a part of this new city.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the alternative. KSL is a business. A deep-pocketed one at that, comparatively. They can influence the political process in a number of ways other than voting. Businesses in, say, San Francisco--because it's close and has a number of high-profile companies located within its boundaries--can do the same thing. Salesforce, Twitter, Wells Fargo, AirBNB, etc. all lobby, throw their weight around, and work within the system. But they don't vote. They're corporations and, thankfully, despite all the bullshit with Citizens United and all the rest of the high-profile regulatory capture issues of the past few years, that is one of the few rights reserved for individuals. Sure, you can say that they can vote with their feet and move if the city doesn't treat them well, and Squaw can't, but I still don't see an alternative.

At the OV level, with such a small number of people, obviously individual voters would have comparatively greater power than voters in SF, but, tough shit. Again, that's the way the system works.

KSL still has the upper hand though, make no mistake. I just saw The Dad refer back to a post he made a while back on the other thread and it's worth looking at:

Assume that IOV is right about the sequence - and I have no basis to opine one way or the other - and that, if incorporation takes effect, the new municipality would have the right to approve or deny KSL's plans.

KSL would have a lot at stake. They are not terribly likely to simply fold their hand and walk. If I were their lawyer, I'd be looking for pressure points. A couple come to mind.

Fight Incorporation: Challenge the signatures. Challenge the funding division. Challenge anything that they can. Challenging would impose legal costs on IOV, while slowing down the incorporation process. IOV will need to fund its legal costs off contributions, monetary or in kind. KSL, by contrast, has a legal budget and will be well positioned to win a war of attrition.

Proceed in Placer County: While challenging, move forward with the plans in the County. Even assuming that incorporation is eventually effective, the further down the road the development is, the harder it will be to stop.

Plan for the First Election: If incorporation occurs, the people behind IOV won't become the municipality's governing body. Voter rolls change. KSL can try to convince friendly second homeowners to switch their registration, its execs can buy homes in the valley, etc.

KSL is not stupid, and circumstances will not be static. They will be playing chess, not checkers. They have deeper pockets, and a lot more skin in the game than any other individual stakeholder (with Troy and the Poulsens probably the only ones that come close).

The idea that petition timing is a checkmate is naive and foolish. It's an opening move. Even if it's as good an opening as IOV thinks, it's just an opening.

Hugh Conway · 04-11-2014, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by telebobski

I just take issue with the concept that KSL has zero say in whether they will be a part of this new city.

Reality is KSL will likely have a good bit of influence on what happens in the new city. Mammoth certainly has plenty of influence on Mammoth Lakes.

I think it's funny Wirth used "Sun Valley" and "Vail" as examples of existing towns lending names to resorts ("Unlike many ski areas that adopted the names of existing towns - Vail, Aspen, Telluride, Sun Valley to name but a few - Olympic Valley was effectively created through Squaw Valley's hosting of the 1960 Winter Olympics."). They invented the Sun Valley name to get people to go to a "new" resort for a "new" sport. And they invented Vail to go with the Resort.