Letter to the Editor
Most people promoting Measure G may not be aware of these details, but voters should understand them before making a decision.
Back in 2000, when Measure S was introduced in South Lake Tahoe, it was presented as a temporary measure that would sunset after the planned projects were completed within a thirty-year timeframe. That was the original pitch. In reality, these types of taxes rarely disappear — they often just get rolled into the next version or extended under a new measure, like Measure G.
Measure S began as an $18.00 per single-family parcel tax. At first, I did not think much about it — until it started appearing on my non-residential property tax bills.
From my own review and sample size, there appears to be a 4x to 20x multiplier applied to commercial and multi-family properties. Apartment properties are charged approximately $14.40 per unit, which is roughly 80% of what an entire single-family parcel pays. Apartments are one of the main sources of affordable housing and often provide the transition point toward homeownership, so these added costs deserve consideration.
In many cases, these costs are ultimately passed on to renters and end users, affecting housing affordability over time.
If Measure G gets approved, this same structure would remain in place along with the 2% annual inflator. Over thirty years, an $18 assessment compounded annually at 2% grows to approximately $32.60, with about $14.60 of that increase coming from the inflator alone.
Perhaps Measure G should be sent back for a clearer, more balanced explanation so the community fully understands what is being proposed and how it affects different property types over time.
Mike Phillips
Tahoe Cannot Afford More Forest Service Management Instability
Recent reporting on the Forest Service reorganization revealed something Californians should pay close attention to: even the agency itself cannot yet clearly explain how key oversight and coordination functions will work under its new structure.
That uncertainty is especially troubling in Lake Tahoe.
Tahoe is one interconnected watershed, one fire landscape, and one fragile ecosystem split across two states. Yet the Forest Service is shifting from a regional model to a state-based structure without clearly identifying how management of the basin itself will function.
And this restructuring has occurred alongside countless other threats, from a 9% loss of staff across California in a single year to massive proposed budget cuts.
At the same time, Tahoe residents are being asked to trust proposals for large-scale herbicide use across forest landscapes while the very systems and people responsible for research, coordination, and long-term ecological management are under strain and, in some cases, facing closure.
And the impacts are already visible on the ground where crowds of visitors want to be out on the land.
Over Mother’s Day weekend, trailheads in Desolation Wilderness — one of our country’s most heavily visited wilderness areas — had little-to-no available parking. Bathrooms at Horsetail Falls had clearly gone unattended. Trails themselves still needed clearing from fallen trees.
USFS staff are doing their best. But effective forest management depends on enough staff, science, institutional knowledge, watershed expertise, and coordination across jurisdictions.
Those systems are much harder to rebuild once lost.
At a time of increasing wildfire risk and ecological stress, forests in Tahoe need solid staffing and more stability and transparency in management — not less.
– Hilary Stamper works at CalWild, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting California’s wild public lands and waterways
