The Tahoe Prosperity Center (TPC) is a non-profit or not for profit? They have claimed both, but it makes a difference which one. The Prosperity Center was self-appointed in 2010 as an entity to improve the prosperity of Lake Tahoe. It’s not clear who the prosperity is for and it appears they are after millions in public money.

A flawed Prosperity baseline study commissioned in 2010 supported the theory that investment in large scale development was the way to fix Tahoe’s problems. The 2012 TRPA Regional Plan allowing for more height, density and coverage incorporated the Prosperity Center premise, but it didn’t pan out. Tahoe’s problems are not fixed. Now there is more money being spent than ever on fixing things, more anacronyms, more traffic, more mansions, more affordable housing challenges, more fires, and invasive species, and the only thing there is less of is lake clarity, accountability, and objective measures on how the environment is doing. Unfortunately times up.

The Prosperity Center now has a 2022 study, Envision Tahoe Playbook, https://ntpac.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c2651ac4497b4fa0886fa6f7f&id=2882c43045&e=05ca50f483. The claim is it’s a data driven economic development initiative. The Playbook is disturbing on many levels. Not the least of which is that Placer County has now given the Prosperity Center $124k and charged them with implementing the Playbook, “IMPLEMENT THE ENVISION TAHOE PROSPERITY PLAYBOOK” for the Tahoe Basin. TRPA, Douglas and Washoe County ($40k) and the City of South Lake Tahoe have also given the Prosperity Center money.

Prosperity Center qualifications and Playbook procedures are not clear, yet they are obtaining public monies. It’s eye opening. Relationships are cloudy. Per their website, the group appears to have 3 employees and a 14 member board which is comprised of 12 members from south shore. I’m sure all are well meaning, but there appears to be no particular expertise in the monumental programs proposed.

None of it has received the level of public attention it deserves. There is a lack of evidence and measurable conclusions. Will the Prosperity Center go after $7m/year of public/private monies? How? Perhaps a new Placer TBID type tax again without a public referendum? It is amazing the Playbook got this far with so little scrutiny. Placer County claims the Prosperity Center was the sole source for this contracted out data so no bidding process was required. Placer also claims the Playbook requires no environmental review, yet population growth, additional coverage and lot splits are encouraged.

In the Prosperity Center’s “Playbook” the Prosperity Center is requesting a $40,000,000 investment that includes:

• A first-year investment of $677,000
• $250,000/yr for workforce housing programmatic costs
• $200,000 for marketing and branding (including creating an entity called “Tahoe Inc”)
• $150,000/yr for two part time employees
• Then $10m for workforce housing activities and programs
• $10m for business start ups
• $20m/yr. for mobility programs eventually increasing cumulatively to over $1b over 25 years

The true beneficiary of this giant proposal remains unclear. The efficacy of this self-appointed group remains unclear. It appears the Prosperity Center will self-monitor progress and report to County Officials.
The new Envision Playbook was created for the Prosperity Center by a Sacramento PR firm, Integrated Communications Strategies, LLC. They pulled useful, but as the document admits (pg. 9) outdated pre-Covid/Caldor fire data from the 2020 census and other internet data. Yet the Playbook is cited as the study justifying the significant changes to height, density and coverage in the Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan Amendments (TBAP) and the aligned Tahoe Regional Plan Amendments. A self-proclaimed “long term economic resilience and GROWTH strategy”.

Envision Playbook failings:

1.  Little to no mention of the Tahoe environmental thresholds or Lake Clarity. The Playbook plan requires environmental review immediately.
2.  No public process. The public is unaware that Tahoe’s future is being turned over to the Prosperity Center. The public must be informed before any additional agency collaboration with the Prosperity Center.
3. Global marketing, branding and a new narrative along with the proposal of shared governance (pg. 27) sounds like an area coup. The Prosperity Center refers to itself as an “agency” on pg. 78. “Envision Tahoe is an initiative of the Tahoe Prosperity Center which serves as the community and economic development agency coordinating regional action across the Basin”. Did the TRPA relinquish their area role to the Prosperity Center?
4.  The Playbook’s claim that Tahoe can accommodate 50-60k population and 15m visitors per year is incorrect. The area is already overwhelmed. Tahoe is within 4 hours of 12m people. The Playbook claims the area requires 14,068 new units (pg. 30). The Playbook then claims that so many units are impossible, then drops suggestion without further discussion. What is the Playbook solution?
5. Economic Analysis is old It was updated in 2017-18. Only pre-Covid data is cited that fails to reflect the population increase. 2020 saw 3267 new residents. (pg. 30)
6.  The Playbook wants to see coverage requirements reduced to allow more construction. (pg. 35). Also, the claim is made that Tahoe’s rural character makes most of Tahoe ineligible for necessary lot splits. With no explanation, the Playbook claims, with no rationale, that dated science is responsible for the proliferation of large homes.
7. The Playbook’s 777 plan suggests $7m from the Feds, $7m from the States and $7m from locals ANNUALLY. It’s the dangerous “Sustainable Funding Initiative”. I suppose the Prosperity Center will be in charge of these monies too?
8.  Can’t locate list of Playbook stakeholders, people on focus groups or 3 expert panels. Request for list from the Prosperity Center was not provided. Details/results of a 2022 online survey was not included.
9. BAE economic dated study was from 2020. Past is not a predictor of the future admitted on pg. 11.
10.  The Playbook only gives lip service to the reality that Tahoe has always been and will always be about tourism. Diversification to virtual office has already occurred. Economic diversification to climate change innovation is an unrealistic dream.
11. Housing has always been difficult at Tahoe. Playbook hardly mentions the significant role of short-term rental housing on the lack of affordable housing. Then discussion is dropped due to “lack of community appetite for control”.
12.  Comparing Tahoe to Coeur d’Alene, Bend Or, Durango Co and Ketchum Id is a flawed comparison on nearly every level. Tahoe includes 2 states, 5 counties and the Federal Government surrounding a lake. It’s unique.

Tahoe hasn’t gotten any bigger, only buildings and development have gotten bigger. Problems aren’t fixed by offering platitudes with no real solutions.