Guest Column: IVGID board must rescind Ordinance 7 changes
Ryan Summerlin May 5, 2014
Changes negatively impacting every Incline Village homeowner’s property, their enjoyment of recreation facilities and beaches, as well as the ambiance of Incline Village itself, were approved by the IVGID Board of Trustees at its March 26, 2014, meeting.
In short, the changes would at least double the number of people with access to the beaches and all other recreational facilities. These changes are in what is known as Ordinance No. 7, which is intended to implement Incline’s deed restrictions.
The big question is why were the changes adopted? What was broken?
With one ill-considered vote, the trustees placed in jeopardy the Incline deed restrictions that were successfully defended during the past 10 years through the United States Court system.
The culmination of that court battle, won at considerable expense to Incline property owners, was the 2009 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That opinion upheld Incline’s deed restrictions and made expressly clear that Incline Village was entitled to restrict access to its facilities.
Over 200 property owners filled the Chateau for the Board of Trustees’ April 30, 2014, meeting. Many others sent letters and emails to the board objecting to the changes. As a result, the Board directed IVGID staff not to enforce the new changes to Ordinance No. 7 until the Board’s June 11, 2014 meeting — but only until then.
Action by the board to rescind the March 26 changes will occur only if property owners insist en mass. Write to the board. Email the board.
Here is why I describe the changes enacted by the Board to Ordinance No. 7 as ill-considered:
1. The Board did a poor job of notifying property owners or seek their comment.
2. There was no consultation with the law firm that successfully defended Incline Village restrictions. The rationale for such consultation is to determine what impact the present changes have upon the defense of Incline restrictions so hard won four years ago.
3. No traffic studies were contracted to determine the impact of potentially doubling the number of people authorized to access Incline facilities.
4. No parking studies were contracted to determine the impact of twice as may cars in Incline.
5. No professional analysis of potential financial impact on homeowners was done.
6. No independent professional analysis was contracted to determine what number of additional employees IVGID will need to monitor a potential doubling of people using Incline facilities.
We urge all Incline property owners to attend the June 11 board meeting at the Chateau. Insist upon the rescission of the changes to Ordinance No. 7 which the board enacted in March.
Arthur Schmauder is an Incline Village resident.
Trending In: Opinion
- Opinion: Kudos to Placer supes for positive Martis Valley West vote
- Note from the editor: Sierra Sun-Bonanza election letters policy
- Jim Porter: Are pliers considered burglar’s tools? (opinion)
- Mental Health Matters: Is alcohol the most dangerous drug in America? (opinion)
- Opinion: Vote for Rick Stephens for Truckee Tahoe Airport District board
- Nevada duo arrested in Truckee on theft, heroin possession charges
- Truckee football ices Elko Indians, 39-0; marks 3rd straight shutout
- North Tahoe crime logs: Two rings stolen from jewelry store, valued at $15,000
- Truckee, a sanctuary for runners, to host first-ever marathon this weekend
- North Tahoe PUD to work exclusively with Bay Area developer