Greenwashing the RPU

By Dave McClure & Roger Patching (adapted from the original publication)

Is there anyone who wouldn't fine attractive an idyllic community plan that is livable, walkable, bikeable, and sustainable? No!

Unfortunately, this promise, which is at the core of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Regional Planning Update (RPU), is false. The plan is replete with references to the environmentally pleasing “smart growth” planning principles designed to “sell” the plan. In reality, it is a glowing example of carefully crafted words, framed by public relations experts, to sell an attractive illusion. It is what is known as “greenwashing.” In a very Orwellian fashion, the image-makers of TRPA’s RPU have exquisitely used the tactics of deception that would make an ad man proud. Indeed, in the judgment of many, the creators of the illusion have succumbed to the idyllic vision themselves. Truth and reality, along with science, having been found in conflict with the fantasy, have gone by the wayside. Disinformation and misinformation have become the themes du jour of the sales pitch. Smart growth planning principles, designed to curb urbanization across the nation, actually are being used in the Tahoe Basin to expand urbanization under the guise of the opposite. It is, actually, quite a clever ploy.

It is also quite a tragedy, especially when one considers that while Lake Tahoe may not be a National Park, it is one of only three lakes in America that is congressionally designated as an “Outstanding National Resource Water” under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Both California and Nevada approved Tier 3 status of "no degradation." The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was created to ensure the protection of Lake Tahoe and its environment. Having been captured by the special interests that it was established to control, it is now one of the greatest threats to the fragile ecosystem of Tahoe.

The original 1987 Regional Plan is currently being updated, or as some believe rewritten, using rhetoric of "smart growth" principles that will "restore Lake Tahoe" and create "sustainable communities." It all sounds too good to be true, and it is.

The doctrine of “smart growth” combines principles such as compact development, high-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented villages that promise to reduce vehicle use. Residents can “live, work, and play” in close proximity, choosing to walk or ride bicycles instead of driving. These concepts are woven into a general narrative supporting an alternative development pattern to growth pressures normally fed by “sprawl” development.

California offers funding for “smart growth” to incentivize and promote "sustainable communities" that will reduce sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions. State Senator Steinberg's SB375 is an example of such well-intended efforts. Sacramento area planners are struggling with the projected growth of 871,000 residents by 2035. The San Francisco Bay Area is planning how to accommodate 2.1 million new residents by 2035." (California Planning and Development Report, March and June 2012) Throughout California's metropolitan cities are legitimate full time resident population pressures. In such settings “smart growth” principles make sense.

Lake Tahoe is an entirely different kind of area. The small resident population actually declined from 62,800 in 2000 to 54,473 according to 2010 Census data. The TRPA projects the resident population will increase by about 1200 to 5900 people by 2035. So does "smart growth" even apply to Lake Tahoe? No, it does not meet the requisite characteristics.

Lake Tahoe is primarily a resort area with seasonal residents, visitors and tourists that can triple the resident population for four months of the year. About half of the 46,000 residences are only seasonally occupied. It lacks the resident population and concomitant urban problems that the theory of “smart growth” planning is designed to mitigate.

Given the attraction to pristine alpine water and breathless mountain vistas Lake Tahoe planners must come to terms with its limited size, sensitive environment, and increasing pressure of economic interests. Ski industry operators and resort developers have now consolidated into a few very large corporations with access to Wall Street funding and quarterly profit demands. They see Lake Tahoe as an untapped economic opportunity. The film "Resorting to Madness" and the book Downhill Slide by Hal Clifford chronicle the ski resort industry's takeover by Wall Street.

Their vision of resort development is marketed as "smart growth," but it is not the genuine concept. Multi-story buildings densify visitors for higher profits, unlike compact development for full time residents. The ground level commercial space is comprised of expensive boutique shops for visitors rather than meeting the practical needs of full time residents. By promising to build high-rise and high-density accommodations, where they don’t currently exist and are not needed, expands urban sprawl all around the lake.

These "village" resorts are not diverse communities of all ages, but are designed for temporary occupants usually on vacation. The single ownership resorts are more like Disneyland than a sustainable community. This distinction makes all the difference for the future of the Lake Tahoe Basin. It is neither smart planning nor smart growth. It is greenwashing with words.

The TRPA, under pressure from ski industry resort developers, Nevada gaming interests, local governments, and local Chambers of Commerce, is facilitating such large resort developments in their Regional Plan Update. This pressure intensified in 2005 and is evidenced by recently approved projects.

For example, the TRPA approved three developments based on "smart growth" principles. First was a reduction of State Highway 28 through Kings Beach (North shore) from four lanes down to two through lanes, which will actually cause traffic congestion similar to Tahoe City. Second was the approval of the massive Boulder Bay resort in Crystal Bay (next to Kings Beach). Third was the approval of a $500 million Homewood Mountain Resort, a classic ski industry real estate development at the base of the Homewood Ski Resort (West shore).

How do these projects meet the mandates of SB375? The answer is that SB375 counts only full time residents in its calculation of what defines population growth in metropolitan areas. Growth in hotel rooms, time shares and fractional condominiums is essentially "off the books." This has led to claims of "smart growth" and compliance with SB375, while actually increasing congestion and sprawl.

The TRPA spins these projects as "environmental redevelopment" that are necessary to "restore Lake Tahoe" to finance what they call "environmental gain." This term may sound new and smart but for Lake Tahoe’s water quality it means simply installing erosion control measures on the project site just as all projects have done since 1987. Only the spin is new.

A local group of scientists, the Tahoe Pipe Club (tahoepipeclub.com), has documented 35 urban pipes still dumping contaminated storm water directly in to Lake Tahoe. Not only is Lake Tahoe's deep water clarity in decline, the near shore clarity has degraded to alarming levels in the last ten years. Too many environmental improvement projects (EIP) are based on inadequate models rather than supported by the latest science and practical experience. But they are always greenwashed with false promises and untrue scientific claims.

The quality of Lake Tahoe’s environment is threatened on many fronts, while the rhetoric of "smart growth" and "environmental redevelopment" continues to be asserted by the TRPA, many State and Federal agencies, local governments, and the chambers of commerce. It is “greenwashing,” plain and simple. Not unlike the conditions decades ago that gave rise to the creation of the TRPA, the future quality of Lake Tahoe is at stake. And, the primary culprits are the governmental agencies that are supposed to protect the region from the resort developers’ greed.

Lastly, since the “National Main Street Model” of community planning actually fits best the circumstances for locally determined controlled growth in the interest of the environment and local economy at Tahoe, in contradistinction to the “Resort Model” sold with under the guise of “Smart Growth,” we can probably expect TRPA’s PR sales people to begin wrapping their resort planning with the rhetoric of that model also. Again, it isn’t truth that matters, only what sells.

About the authors: Roger Patching is a retired college professor, long term nonresident property owner at Tahoe, and the founder and President of Friends of Lake Tahoe. Dave McClure is a Tahoe resident and businessman of more than 30 years, and President of the North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance.