At the Lake: Quite a fight over blight

Revitalizing a large section of South Lake Tahoe from Herbert Avenue to the "Y" by declaring it a redevelopment zone hinges in large part on whether the area is determined to be "blighted." And some residents are concerned that the evaluation of the 1,750 acres in question already is skewed toward finding blight.

The fear among some is that a declaration of blight - and subsequent approval by the city of a redevelopment zone - is a strategy to lure a large, out-of-town developer who would turn South Lake Tahoe into a cookie-cutter community filled with chain stores.

"They basically want to rip this town apart. They call it redevelopment - I call it turning it into Anytown, USA," said Mick Clarke, one of the organizers of a movement called Fight the Blight. The effort is a project of the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Government, a group working to influence the decision-making of local government and agencies.

Clarke claims that a preliminary blight study presented to the city council in September includes outdated photos, and that sites portrayed as blighted have since improved.

For example, a building described by the consultant as vacant with overgrown weeds has since been refurbished and relandscaped, Clarke said. Other photos in the consultant's report are misleading or manipulated, he contends.

But South Tahoe Redevelopment Director Eugene Palazzo said that's not the case.

"The bottom line is that no photos were altered to make them look worse, the captions were not misleading, and certain details were not forgotten," Palazzo said in a letter to Clarke.

Of 31 photos in the consultant's report, 27 were taken in July, and five were taken in April 2005, Palazzo said. And the report was a preliminary document to help the city council decide if it wanted to move forward with a detailed blight study, he said.

Citizens Alliance President John Runnels said he also was dismayed by a statement allegedly made by Ernie Glover of GRC Redevelopment saying a large redevelopment area is necessary to attract a deep-pocket developer.

Glover's alleged comment came during an October meeting of the Planning Commission in response to a question on why the potential redevelopment area couldn't be broken down into smaller pieces, Runnels said.

"We don't want to see more corporations taking over and the Vail-ification of South Lake Tahoe," Runnels said last week.

Glover said he didn't recall making such a statement. He said that in general, redevelopment areas aren't financially feasible if they're too small.

Palazzo also said he didn't recall such a statement coming from Glover at the meeting. And he couldn't think of anything the consultant said that could have been interpreted that way.

A tape of the Planning Commission meeting was not available in time for this article.

The city council in September approved paying $186,000 to GRC Redevelopment Consultants to study the area and determine if it meets the requirements for establishing a redevelopment zone. A finding of blight is among the requirements, as is the determination that conditions can't be reversed by the city, the private sector or both working together.

Redevelopment is a way to help local governments pay for improving blighted areas. As the areas are revitalized, property values go up, and redevelopment law allows the agencies to keep most of the increased property tax revenue.

The city already has one redevelopment zone: the Stateline/Ski Run area adopted in 1988.

Any new redevelopment zone would have to fall within the boundaries of the area now being studied by the consultant but wouldn't necessarily include the full study area.

The study region includes the "Y" area at the intersection of highways 50 and 89. The "Y" area also has been under study through development of what's called the Tahoe Valley Community Plan. That plan also has generated some concern, particularly in regard to an option that calls for buildlings as tall as six stories.

The plan has not yet been finalized. An environmental review is being conducted of its various alternatives.

Another question that redevelopment skeptics are asking is why a is redevelopment zone necessary when there are several recent examples of property owners revitalizing their property without the help of redevelopment. Remodels of the Fox gas station and Safeway, along with the new Genasci and Stigers dental building, are examples.

Palazzo said a redevelopment zone would fund infrastructure projects such as storm drains, erosion control, street repairs and lighting.

Businesses, residents and property owners in the study area will be receiving brochures in the mail in coming weeks explaining what's happening in terms of the potential redevelopment area, Palazzo said. They'll also be invited to a meeting to discuss the proposal.