Readers write | SierraSun.com

Readers write

Sierra Sun letters to the editor

The sights in Tahoe are no longer what they used to be. I am not talking of the trees and mountains, but rather the locals that are slowly dissolving from the shore. It seems as the years leave us, so do the once-prominent people of Tahoe.

I have lived at Tahoe for 16 years; I know of local trends, helped out on various community projects and have always been involved as much as I can. My family was also forced to leave this beautiful basin. I now live in Reno, studying at the University of Nevada, Reno.

It is very difficult to imagine how tough it is to live at Tahoe right now. I hear of people struggling or moving away due to low wages. Statistics show that more than 47 percent of Tahoe’s workers didn’t live at Lake Tahoe in 1999, imagine it now. It is time for locals to once again be seen, and not covered by the tourists.

Things at Tahoe need to change for the locals, not the tourists. If improvements are to be made, they should start by helping the locals, and not focusing on expensive projects. The small parks where children once played are now ignored to pay for new attractions. The business owners who once made a living in their shops are being kicked out by big corporations. It is now more than ever that the city council needs to realize that the citizens of Tahoe should come before any tourist attraction.

Rogelio Garcia

Sparks, Nev.(Former Tahoe resident)

– Topic: Communication

Grade: F

Last Board meeting, when confronted with the question of why the public was being informed of the Utah contract this late in the game, the response was “we told the Sierra Sun to get the word out in the beginning of the month.” This shows a TOTAL lack of understanding of the Board’s fiduciary responsibility to its customers to communicate actions that directly impact the public.This is YOUR job, not the Sierra Suns – your letter of November 17th is one year too late.

– Topic : Goal Setting for TDPUD staff

Grade: F

Clearly the Board has not been engaged in the details on the upcoming contract. You entered too late in the game. The staff was obviously told to get the cheapest power available for the longest period of time. They did that and now we have minimal detailed information on other options. For example, who has sat down with USFS and actually proposed usage of their land for renewable power generation. No one.

– Topic: Accuracy of info to public

Grade: F

Your letter states that the plant to be built in Utah will be the state-of-the-art. Slightly misleading. You did NOT state that this plant has no CO2 emission protection and there is no contractual obligation for this plant to be retrofitted to the “new standard.”

In addition you state that the contract can be sold to another party in your letter. A few details missing – in 30 years, this can be sold, and only then. Also the party has to buy our entire allotment. True??

You are omitting details that are salient to this purchase agreement which the public has a right-to-know.

– Topic: Contractual Negotiating Skills

Grade: F

A 50-year contract is ludicrous for anything. The public needs a specific table with year commitments (5-year, 10-year, 20-year) and the relative rates you have negotiated. The public also needs to understand how you have worked with other parties signed up for this plant in a consortium mode to obtain the best rates. My understanding is that you have not done any of the above.

The board should be taken to task for all the above. You have failed to do your duty.

Marilyn Disbrow

Truckee