Main Menu
Rebuilding and Social Capital
Last Updated on Thursday, 15 September 2011 09:12
Thursday, 09 June 2011 15:01
|
|
Trust, shared norms and networks have been created and tested surrounding the Boulder Bay project. |
The queue for providing public comment about the Boulder Bay project at the April 27, 2011 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Board meeting was five hours long. People representing all walks-of-life came to speak. The public’s analysis ranged from personal to professional and was consistently conveyed with confidence and conviction. To hear hours of well considered and knowledgeable comment like this is an anomaly. This public comment revealed an evolution that had transpired in the community. Social capital—in the form of trust, shared norms and networks—grew during the multi-year course of dialogue about the Boulder Bay project. This social capital was evident in the confidence people exhibited about their community’s ability to solve shared problems.
Roger Wittenberg, CEO of the Boulder Bay Project, referred to the request before the Board not as a “project” approval but as a “process” approval. Clearly, in the course of the multi-year conversation many people participated in sharing perspective about values and in building social cohesion around a vision of the future. As Brian Helm, Boulder Bay Project Manager put it, “As a result of community input we stand before you today with a very different project than we first proposed: We removed 100% of timeshares, pulled 114 bedrooms, completely redesigned the architecture and removed a full floor from every building except one.” Ann Ingramson, a member of the public noted, “As an active and involved member of Incline since 1960, I cannot ever remember any project being subjected to more scrutiny than the Boulder Bay project. The Wittenberg family has acted with absolute decorum. Please approve this project.” Her comment reflected the sentiment of many. Years of proactive listening and problem-solving created new social capital in Kings Beach and Incline Village. Public comment made evident that this unexpected gift, social capital, is viewed by many project neighbors as a harbinger of good things to come.
Simultaneously the process involved in approving the Boulder Bay project revealed the need to rebuild social capital between the states of Nevada and California. Nevada Senator John Lee introduced Senate Bill 271 (SB 271), a bill to withdraw the State of Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact under certain circumstances, as a response to what appeared to some as the State of California’s manipulation of the TRPA Governing Board prior to the Boulder Bay project vote. “We are trying to make it equitable, so that when Nevada shows up the decisions have not already been made,” Senator Lee stated at the June 2, 2011 Nevada Assembly Government Affairs hearing. Ultimately the vote that approved the Boulder Bay project included a sufficient number of California members of the TRPA Governing Board.
While there was much support for the Boulder Bay project there was also staunch opposition to particular aspects of it, in particular to the requested height amendment to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency code and to the traffic study submitted with the project. A project neighbor, Steve Mayo made an observation consistent with those of the Sierra Club and others who support redeveloping the site but take issue with its size. His comment, “Boulder Bay seems to be a good project. It is simply too big. If it could be smaller to fit in with our community it would be awesome.” For the League to Save Lake Tahoe, Nicole Gergans stated, “Boulder Bay is of a size and scale that is incongruous with the community and fails to comply with either code or compact.” Mason Overstreet with the Friends of the West Shore argued, “The increased traffic and vehicle use will significantly impact the Basin. This project is too large for Tahoe.”
Ann Nichols, who organized the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance in opposition to the Boulder Bay project said, “This discussion is about whether high-rise development is appropriate on the North Shore. We are all for redevelopment but it is hard for the community to comprehend how big this is. We feel this will be a canyon of buildings. The project proposes three times the number of units of the existing Biltmore. I think the project is better than it was when first proposed. But Boulder Bay sets a dangerous precedent for high-rise development at North Lake Tahoe.” Additional parties stood forward with specific, targeted objections to calculations by the project about energy efficiency and traffic flow and quantity; but these critiques were conveyed with optimism about the community’s ability to work through disagreement with the Boulder Bay project team.
It is in large part because of the social capital that has been building around the Boulder Bay project that people are excited about it. But social capital increases with use and attention and diminishes without them. After all, trust, shared norms and networks are all products of relationship. And positive relationship requires time and attention. (How Nevada and California will address the issues raised by Nevada SB 271 remains to be seen.) Much of the perceived promise of Boulder Bay is in the way the community and project will interact. While the decision to build the project is now behind, the decisions about how it will manifest the aspirations and vision of the neighboring community lie in the days ahead. Gail High, whose family has lived “just downhill of the project for 90 years” expressed the optimism and uncertainty shared by many in her comment, “I think this sounds very exciting. However I am very concerned… I want so much to believe that this will be everything people have said it will be.”
