Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 786
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,547
    your group can hook with the keep tahoe blue group, joining hands for a march across fanny bridge.
    b
    .

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Another potential wrinkle: Hey FoSV, how's the incorporation idea going? I saw the fundraiser on Sierra Nevada Alliance's website. I would imagine that any future town of Squalpine would review KSL's permit documents much more rigorously than Placer County--although at least Montgomery's on the Board now and Bruce Kranz isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,081
    Regarding the parking:
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    Incorrect. See bottom of 4 through middle of 6, and figure 10 (last page): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByR...FZoTV9EQVc0a2s

    Sounds like that may work for Phase One. But God knows what they're going to do later. Edit: Remember too that their EIR will necessarily be much more specific than the docs they've put out so far.
    Agreed-although we don't know how many places are being displaced by Phase 1, who will be able to use the new under ground spots (the plan implies not for day users) and as you say, only parking for phase one is addressed (and the off site lot will affect a wet land).

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,608
    Underground parking is... well... whatever so long as it's free. If you have to pay to park anywhere close that doesn't require a shuttle ride, fuck that.

    I also don't know how they really expect to pull this off. They (not KSL obviously) were lucky to get away with the first expansion back in the early 2000's after the EIR analysis. Some big palms are going to get greased, I'm sure.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,938
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    Another potential wrinkle: Hey FoSV, how's the incorporation idea going?
    i just can't see this realistically occurring.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    i just can't see this realistically occurring.
    That's my initial take on it too. But I don't live in Olympic Valley. Dunno what the weather's like. Stranger things have happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    Whaaaaaa! They're going to ruin Squaw by building something on the parking lot! In my entire history with Squaw -which goes back to 1976, I've found that there are a large group of "mellow" "open mined" individuals who are opposed to any change whatsoever. That's why Tahoe remains in a time-warp, where you can find the same 1970's orange shag carpet and faux wood paneled houses spread out from Incline Village, Kings's Beach, Tahoe City, and beyond. When the Resort at Squaw Creek and the Golf Course were built, all of the same arguments were made: They will destroy the environment! It will ruin the valley! Time marches on, folks. And at the end of the day, Squaw is a business that needs to make money to keep turning the lifts. The lifts don't turn just 'cause you're cool, dude.

    Since the 1980's, Squaw has gotten tracked-out pronto. The caliber of skier there is just so good, everything gets schralpped instantly, ya gotta get up early on a pow day! That being said, I don't see any of this supposed crowding people are whining about. Any skier worth his salt isn't going to see a logjam at dead tree, split tree, fingers, light tower, wherever. Same as it ever was. Mountain run has always been a cluster, but who the hell skiis that except for West Face laps?

    Squaw is going to evolve. It always has evolved, since the day Cushing and Poulson laid their eyes on it. The gondie begat the Tram which begat the funitel. How would you feel if High Camp and Gold coast were built today? Would they be ruining Squaw? The new Village won't, either. It's just a freakin' parking lot for chrissakes!

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    And at the end of the day, Squaw is a business that needs to make money to keep turning the lifts.
    Making enough money to turn lifts isn't an issue. Even if any and all future development were immediately banned, it's not like Squaw would just go bankrupt and cease to exist. Someone with an interest in running it as a ski area would buy it, keep running it, and still be able to make a decent return. They just wouldn't pay as much as KSL did.

    Just because KSL exists to make money doesn't mean they're entitled to it. They took a risk when they bought Squaw. If Placer County lets them have their way with the valley, they'll no doubt come out filthy stinking rich. If they get stuck with a pared-down version of the plan, they won't be losing money but won't see the sort of returns they'd like. And if by some miracle the county tells them to pound sand, they'll sell the place to someone else at loss and move on.

    If you support their plans, then fine. But this isn't about keeping the ski area operating. It's more like me overpaying for the lot next to your house and trying to open a dance club on it, and when the neighbors complain about pesky things like zoning, noise and parking, saying "but that's the only way I can make enough money to stay in business! Whaaaaaaa!"

    Edit: But we totally hear the community's concerns, so we're going to shrink our original plan for a 3 story building down to 2, and we'll close at 2AM instead of going all night. Happy now?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    It's just a freakin' parking lot for chrissakes!
    Much of the discussion has been in regards to parking disappearing in light of the inevitable traffic increases. Evolution would be mass transit solutions to accompany development, not more development and even more traffic dilemmas. Holiday traffic was also a clusterfuck in 1976, virtually dead stopped across the north and west shores from Incline and Homewood to Truckee. To just say 'that's the way it is' is all kinds of pathetic, leaning towards a mentality of 'yeah, the corporations are gonna run roughshod over all of us and we just need to get used to it.' I can't help but think Tahoe residents would love to see a traffic solution. Communities should have a say in development. And traffic impacts. Maybe it needs to go to ballot.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,938
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    Maybe it needs to go to ballot.
    doesn't tahoe area and truckee/tahoe-donner have the issue of many dwellings being second homes and transient/seasonal tenants, i.e. most homeowners or folks living in the area are not registered in the area?....

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    64
    I don't really see the problem there. Some of the second homeowners like to complain about not having a voice on new parcel fees, but that's the same as it ever was. Landlords in SF don't get a say on rent control just because they own buildings there, either.

    IMO, the real problem is the layout of California's counties. The Placer County supervisor district for Tahoe runs all the way to Auburn, so county-wide revenue (ie property tax) tends to trump local concerns. That's also why when the county starts ticketing for street parking when there's no snow on the ground, I can't even get our elected supervisor to email me back.

    Truckee's incorporation solves some of those problems on the Nevada County side, but they have zero say in all the nearby Placer developments (Northstar, Martis Camp, etc.) despite being right next door and absorbing most of the increased traffic.

    So yeah, maybe it should go to a ballot . . . but I don't know why the 4 placer county supervisors who live in Sacramento would want to turn this thing over to local control and risk losing millions in property tax revenue.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    I figured the Auburn county seat thing would come up. The county situations in the Sierra can indeed be weird in the ways one area supposedly governs another. There are three different counties that exert influence in Kirkwood due to the way the lines fall. They have what they call trilateral commissions or something in which some applications have to get approved by all three county boards.

  13. #63
    Hugh Conway Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    Whaaaaaa! They're going to ruin Squaw by building something on the parking lot! In my entire history with Squaw -which goes back to 1976, I've found that there are a large group of "mellow" "open mined" individuals who are opposed to any change whatsoever. That's why Tahoe remains in a time-warp, where you can find the same 1970's orange shag carpet and faux wood paneled houses spread out from Incline Village, Kings's Beach, Tahoe City, and beyond. When the Resort at Squaw Creek and the Golf Course were built, all of the same arguments were made: They will destroy the environment! It will ruin the valley! Time marches on, folks. And at the end of the day, Squaw is a business that needs to make money to keep turning the lifts. The lifts don't turn just 'cause you're cool, dude.

    Since the 1980's, Squaw has gotten tracked-out pronto. The caliber of skier there is just so good, everything gets schralpped instantly, ya gotta get up early on a pow day! That being said, I don't see any of this supposed crowding people are whining about. Any skier worth his salt isn't going to see a logjam at dead tree, split tree, fingers, light tower, wherever. Same as it ever was. Mountain run has always been a cluster, but who the hell skiis that except for West Face laps?

    Squaw is going to evolve. It always has evolved, since the day Cushing and Poulson laid their eyes on it. The gondie begat the Tram which begat the funitel. How would you feel if High Camp and Gold coast were built today? Would they be ruining Squaw? The new Village won't, either. It's just a freakin' parking lot for chrissakes!
    So what's your cut of the bullshit?

    The funny thing is the shitty shag carpet - and the people who hold it - is the reason development keeps expanding. If they could redevelop the shitty shag carpet (or expand on the towers at kirkwood, or demolish the shitty south lake eateries and motels, or turn the lots/shit in Tahoe City into nice spaces) they could fulfill needs in the same footprint. The problem is underutilization for most things. Whats the occupancy for Olympic Valley second homes as of now? The basin's empty rooms (or rooms where the operators don't get a cut).

    Meh, besides, you've got to be a tard to see most of the development in the last 15 years as anything other than a shinier version of 70s shag. But you live in Park Shitty.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Montgomery lives in Serene Lakes, and I know she's keenly interested in this development. As I understand it, she largely ran for the Board in opposition to the Royal Gorge project. She has a sore spot for overwrought development proposals.

    How would you take it to ballot anyway? Change the zoning rules, post-project approval? That'd be a county-wide vote, unless they were able to incorporate Squalpine in time. And even if they were able to incorporate in time, changing a zoning ordinance still likely wouldn't be legal under Lesher v. Walnut Creek
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Verdi NV
    Posts
    10,457
    If they would just do something with parking that made it easy for Day Skiers to get to the lifts I could forgive allot of the development. Its just so shitty to push a few thousand people further and further from the lifts., who really are the bread and butter Of Squaw Valley (The Ski area) Telling you you will have to park a 1/4 mile or better from the lifts walking in your boots carrying you skis is just a big FUCK YOU from KSL to 10's of thousands of people. I wonder where the breaking point is? I never went to Squaw or Alpine this past winter. I skied Home-wood and Mt. Rose.

    If KLS were to make a gesture? Like a multistory public parking lot where Reddog / Ice-rink area now exists And maybe some kind of Surface lift / converyance to move you from that area to The general area of the funi/ KT22. Hell life would be good for all.

    I first Skied squaw in 1966. Used to ride Shuttle from Incline in the 70's
    I remember being dropped of right in front of the Tram building.

    Shit is changing. But really why take the locals / Weekend warriors for granted.

    Even some small day lockers near the lifts would be nice. Back when i used to go to Heavenly there were lockers right by the Gondola so you could walk in street shoes to lifts and then stash them and some other junk in a locker right by this lift. Would it Kill Squaw to do the same?
    Last edited by MTT; 05-19-2013 at 02:28 AM.
    Own your fail. ~Jer~

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    ^^^ That's definitely a lot of it.

    Northstar, for example, totally fucked day skiers. Not that I ski Northstar regularly, but I'm even less likely to ski there because it's such a hike from the day parking. If I had to do it with kids, well...


    Edit: Granted, that still doesn't solve potential increases in traffic on the already overtaxed 89 Corridor, but it's still necessary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    lake level
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    ^^^ That's definitely a lot of it.

    Northstar, for example, totally fucked day skiers. Not that I ski Northstar regularly, but I'm even less likely to ski there because it's such a hike from the day parking. If I had to do it with kids, well...


    Edit: Granted, that still doesn't solve potential increases in traffic on the already overtaxed 89 Corridor, but it's still necessary.
    Very curious what the parking situation will be. As it is, it's pretty easy for locals to roll into the lot in the morning, ski for a couple hours, then bail and get to work or whatever it is they do. Factor in taking a shuttle from somewhere else, makes it a lot harder. And if they go all Vail on us and make us pay, that could end up costing more than a ski pass.
    “I really lack the words to compliment myself today.” - Alberto Tomba

  18. #68
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,608
    ^^ Exactly. I don't think many Squaw regulars really give a shit about the parking lot, but being able to park reasonably close to the lifts without paying $25. Skiing Northstar, by the time you finally make it up to mid mountain you're already fucking exhausted from the process. Vail is even worse.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    147
    I have seen many good reasons why KSL's plan has as many holes in it, but here is a big one. Water, there isn't enough damned water in that valley to support that many more condos or hotel rooms or whatever. There are already issues in the valley with water rights and the water table. You start drilling more wells and those problems only get worse, you start messing with people's water and that affects the price of their property and you start getting sued.

    I have had one KSL idiot tell me that that they own all the water in Squaw Creek, I about chocked on that one, there is nothing that could be further from the truth.

    There is a flow rate that has to be maintained down stream in the Truckee River, that flow rate comes from a variety of places. However you start draining Lake Tahoe earlier then normal, because Squaw is taking all the water out of Squaw Creek and you are messing with the most expensive land in the basin, the lake fronts on Tahoe. If it could be proved that this was having an impact on their property values because of lower then normal water levels, then KSL will get sued, and those people have the money to do it. This is a radical over simplification of a very complex issue, but the bottom line is that KSL is going to have a water issue. Now I'm sure they know that, these people aren't dumb for the most part, I believe that they are going for 1000 units in the hope that they get half or a third of that number.

    Also, is there really enough demand out there for 1000 condo units? I find that unlikely, what with California's tax the shit out of the rich mentality, not likely to get any better, and the ease of travel these days, there are a lot of options out there and Squaw may not be the best one for people.
    Last edited by GrumpyPilot; 05-22-2013 at 07:56 AM. Reason: Poor Spelling

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    2,675
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyPilot View Post
    Now I'm sure they know that, these people aren't dumb for the most part..........
    Don't be so sure about that.

    I was working up at Ice Lakes Lodge when the whole sale of that place and Royal Gorge was pending. One of the shareholders made an interesting point, that just because the buyers (Foster & Symes) had a lot of money, didn't mean they were smart. This kinda struck me as odd, I'd never really considered that these guys would be throwing around millions of dollars without having done their homework and knowing exactly what they were doing. They were experienced developers, they had to have done this sorta thing before.

    Well this guy turned out to be a prophet and the whole Royal Gorge development went belly up for a few reasons, but none more important than just the point you made, they didn't have any water rights. Good post!
    "The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size."

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    KSL has all of the water rights they need. And indeed, they do have water rights to Squaw Creek.

    Think about it: Cushing bought the whole valley. He obtained a huge amount of water rights, enough to make snow, service 1000 new condos, etc. Does anyone really think more condos at Squaw will cause Tahoe's level to decrease? Jeesh.

    The issue is water STORAGE. Efforts are underway to increase the storage.

    I agree with the parking issue. Hopefully it's not a cluster.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    Does anyone really think more condos at Squaw will cause Tahoe's level to decrease? Jeesh.
    Water flows downhill. Tahoe is upstream.
    Sewer, however, might be a whole other issue in regard to impacts.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    KSL has all of the water rights they need. And indeed, they do have water rights to Squaw Creek.

    Think about it: Cushing bought the whole valley. He obtained a huge amount of water rights, enough to make snow, service 1000 new condos, etc. Does anyone really think more condos at Squaw will cause Tahoe's level to decrease? Jeesh.

    The issue is water STORAGE. Efforts are underway to increase the storage.
    Surface rights are irrelevant. They're not going to divert from Squaw Creek. They're talking greywater for irrigation and pumping good water from one area and pumping it back down with injection well(s) to push out the poor quality GW for other consumptive uses (e.g. drinking, shitting and showering).

    It remains to be seen whether the groundwater storage options they're exploring are viable at all--let alone whether they're viable enough to support another 1,000 units or whatever. They have to look at the effects of pumping that much GW on other users with superior rights, like Squaw Valley Municipal Water Company and existing Squaw Valley Public Service District users. SVMWC is quite concerned about the issue: http://www.svmwc.com/assets/document...%2011-7-12.pdf SVPSD is hedging too: http://www.moonshineink.com/sections...aw-talks-water Here's what they're saying about supply increases to cope with the demand: http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/Winter...Newsletter.pdf

    Their Water Supply Assessment is supposedly due out soon. That'll say more. They've been talking a big game, but so far don't have the studies to back it up.

    Not quite as cut and dried as you're making it out to be, particularly because they have to factor in multiple dry year scenarios.

    Semi-sidenote: I find it interesting, and convenient for potential development proposals, that the Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan doesn't define a hard "safe yield" number for the aquifer (that I could see) and they use this vague "sustainable supply" term (see http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/GMP%20...1_06-01-07.pdf http://www.svpsd.org/pdffiles/GMP%20...2006-01-07.pdf). The fact is--probably since it's not an adjudicated basin and nobody really wants to know because then they'd have to do something about it--nobody actually knows how much water they can safely pump out of that aquifer. Given that the development is going to rely on GW for drinking water, I'd put some money on them having to defend that fact against significant criticism during the CEQA process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    5,190
    I don't live in Tahoe but Sugar Bowl sure does look sweet. Is it a lot quieter than Squaw and have comparable terrain? The older I get the less I would care to deal with the big resort bull shit. Sorry, this is off topic but these big resort developments make me always look at the smaller areas near by.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    lake level
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by RaisingArizona View Post
    I don't live in Tahoe but Sugar Bowl sure does look sweet. Is it a lot quieter than Squaw and have comparable terrain? The older I get the less I would care to deal with the big resort bull shit. Sorry, this is off topic but these big resort developments make me always look at the smaller areas near by.
    Sugar Bowl is legit, and definitely worth exploring, but probably won't keep you entertained for an entire season if you are putting in lots of days. It's just not that big, and doesn't have the vert. However, it is closer to the Bay and lifts can spin many days that Squaw and Alpine are shut down. Alpine used to be the "other resort", and still is in some ways, but those days deem to be coming to an end. For all the Squallywood hype and bullshit, there's a reason people want to ski there. Nowhere in the US besides possibly Jackson has that much gnar inbounds, and still plenty of terrain for the non-gnar types.
    “I really lack the words to compliment myself today.” - Alberto Tomba

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •