EDITOR’S NOTE – NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AND OTHER COMMENTS LEFT BY MONTGOMERY SUPPORTERS

Mr. Kranz, It is a shame that you are quoting information that was mis-quoted at the July 25, 2008 TRPA meeting. If you had read the EIR as carefully as you say you did and educated yourself on the matter at hand, you would have learned that traffic projected to occur on the back streets of Kings Beach is actually less than half of the number of cars that you stated, and that is at maximum build-out, in twenty years, if all projects are completed. However, currently, and with your suggested four lane alternative, all pedestrians must cross four to five lanes of traffic to get to one of the world’s most beautiful beaches. We are an unincorporated area and you are our elected official. If you are so concerned for our safety, why is not the current speed limit of 30mph enforced today?
Sincerely,
Tahoe Vista Resident
Kings Beach Employee

Here is the link above.

EDITOR’S NOTE – THIS COMMENT IS PART OF THE MONTGORMERY CAMPAIGN EFFORT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOWqBGYA6A&fmt=6

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE PART OF THE MONTGOMERY CAMPAIGN EFFORT.

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE FROM THE MONTGOMERY FOR SUPERVISOR CAMPAIGN

Apparently, Bruce is in favor of a situation where residents and tourists experience Lake Tahoe from their air-conditioned cars. He manages to disregard the thousands of pedestrians trying to enjoy the businesses and scenery while separated from the beach by a four and soon to be five-lane freeway. The three-lane proposal best addresses the year-round needs of this community. Check out Bruce’s vision for this scenic beach town, more of the same:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOWqBGYA6A&fmt=6

THIS COMMENT IS FROM AN ANONYMOUS COMMENTER WITH AN UNVERIFIABLE E-MAIL ADDRESS -

Supervisor Kranz – Surely, it makes total sense, in fact it is blatantly obvious, that the route you are forging ahead with is one that DOES NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT of the residents that you are supposed to represent.

The kids from the local junior school could see this, why can’t you?

A 5 lane highway through a residential area, next to one of the worlds most beautiful alpine lakes? Come on – use your brain (if you have one).

A 3-lane street with good, wide sidewalks, bike paths and space will benefit EVERYONE – residents and the important tourism visitors. What is the hidden agenda? Why are you forcing your 5 lane monstrosity upon us?

If you fail to listen to the people, your legacy will be one that leaves you less than popular and infact viewed with contempt.

Roll on November…

EDITOR’S NOTE – THIS COMMENT IS LIKELY FROM MONTGOMERY CAMPAIGN – CAN NOT DETERMINE IF EMAIL ADDRESS IS VALID

Supervisor Kranz – As a Placer County voter I ask you for some clarification: Is not the County Supervisor position one of District representation? How many of the County and Community endorsed meetings Pathways 2007, Community Plan Updates, Mainstreet, did you attend along with 100’s of residents? How often have you visited Kings Beach (in all seasons) other than your monmthly coffees in Carnelian Bay with its 3 lanes? Are you aware that Hwy 28 is 2 lanes in Nevada and Tahoe City, along with MOST of the highways that join for a lovely 72 mile drive around the lake? When will you state your REAL resons for voting (& obviously encoraging others to also) against the TRPA & Placer County Planning Commissions, professional traffic planners, The League, the scientists concerned with lake clarity and in my observation the vast majority of Placer County tax payers (residential & cimmerical)?
I WALK the streets of Kings Beach most days, year-round. Therefore, I want the highway to be a 3 lane Mainstreet with sidewalks and bike paths and the County DPW to use their
“toolbox” to calm the traffic in the grid,,,,

EDITOR’S NOTE – SIMILAR TO THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR CAMPAIGN IN THE SIERRA SUN – THIS COMMENT HAS COMMON CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHERS

Mr. Kranz, you must NOT continually distort the truth in a vain attempt to bolster your (mis)fortune or to help your financial backers (Tom Turner et al – now there are two restaurants to stay out of too: Garwoods and Caliente).

You speak of 10,000 cars as if that is a fact, and as if extra cars will be an added burden every single day. That is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. The couple of thousand- repeat that word, COUPLE in case you cannot comprehend – are a theoretical improbability based on extrapolation 20 years from now. Even more so as you already know for a fact (you have your hand on the county, right?) that the project team had to count based upon the silly concept that every single lot in the area would be built out, yet you yourself took some of the credit for the fact that parts of Martis Valley will now NOT be built out!! But the team was not allowed to account for that. You are incredible!

You actually DO need to take credit for stealing our future by the way – I personally witnessed your bullying tactics at the TRPA meeting, forcing your weaker colleagues to bend to your will. You definitely WERE the ring master at that three-ring-circus formerly known as the TRPA Board meeting.

The community, by the way, is not nearly as divided as you make out. How can 80% of the people supporting three lanes and only 5% against (the rest being undecided) be a very divided community? I bet if you got even 51% of the vote in November – which you won’t of course – you would be declaring that as ‘the community is solidly behind me.’

Mr Kranz, get a life, and get out of ours. Your brand of cronyism is something we can do without in Kings Beach.

Lastly, I am glad you mentioned your November replacement, Jennifer Montgomery. People reading this blog should check out the person we will finally have who (thank God) will be doing something good for us at Lake Tahoe. You can read about her at www.montgomeryforsupervisor.org

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE GUEST LIST OF THE TRPA MEETING – THIS MUST BE A PSEUDONYM – NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AND OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS POST.

Mr. Kranz I attended the same T.R.P.A.meeting you observed on June 25th. The current number of cars passing through the Kings Beach grid is a Maximum of 2,400. Gordan Shaw(traffic expert hired by our county) estimated another 3,000 during a peak period in 20yrs.I wonder how the number 10,000 became available to you Is it possible you have exaggerated this number to mask the real reason for your vote against Kings Beach. I have also read your bio on the T.R.P.A. web page. Your goals during your tenure state: Keep Tahoe Blue and to ensure the economic vitality of the Tahoe basin. With your incredulous vote you have accomplished neither.You have voted against The League To Save Lake Tahoe. They have endorsed the three lane proposal. You have also voted against the Sierra Business Council, The North Tahoe Business Assoc. and the North Lake Tahoe Resort Assoc. I am a business owner on Hwy 28 and have been for 26yrs. Your vote against 3lanes in Kings Beach has set the business community back many years.

EDITOR’S NOTE – NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS COMMENT AND THAT OF THE OTHERS

Mr Kranz,

No one is more concerned about traffic and Tahoe gridlock than I am as a local real estate appraiser. Roundabouts and 3 lanes would slow traffic but keep it moving. A moving car is less likely to cut through the back streets than cars stopped by lights. I was once a 4 lane advocate, until I took the time to learn. I wish you and the majority of 4 lane supporters would have taken the time to attend the Sierra Business Council workshops.

I live and work in the heart of Kings Beach with my wife and 5 children and we care deeply about our town. The benefits of the 3 lane Hybrid option far out weight the possible negative impact of increased traffic during a very small percentage of time. A back street traffic mitigation plan would be welcome as it is currently dangerous, as it has been for the past 15 years we have lived here.

Benefits for the hybrid option include 1.Increased area for BMP’s and drainage to improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe (which was the primary focus of this project in the first place), 2. Less road sand due to less road surface which improves the health of Lake Tahoe, 3. Less stopped traffic and fewer idling cars. 4.Improved pedestrian saftey. 5. Improved vechile saftey, 6. Improved bicycle saftey, 7.Improved view corridor, 8. Beutification and revitilization of a community, 9.Development of a pedestrian village where people will want to drive to instead of through. 10. One less year of construction time. etc.

Your vote against the Hybrid option that was developed by your County and the Folks who live here, was a vote against the process as well as those like myself who participated in the process. Your vote was also a vote against the TRPA Advisory Committee, the Placer County Planning Commission and just about every other group who supports Lake Tahoe and/or Kings Beach.

I urge you to reconsider your vote on this very improtant issue to Kings Beach. You could even be a hero if you supported the Hybrid but only with a Traffic Mitigation Plan for the back streets.

Its time to put people ahead of cars. Don’t let traffic fears caused by possible worst case build-out senarios win your vote, but instead, vote for the best Kings Beach possible.

The reason developers and the majority of the folks in the Kings Beach Grid oppose the TRPA Governing Board Vote as well as yourself and Senator’s Cox & Leslie is simply because they recognize the beauty of Kings Beach. We see potential while you seem to only see 10,000??? cars in the back streets. They see a place where folks can walk & bike safely and soak in the beauty of the largest beach on the North Shore. A place where folks can cross the street from the beach to stores instead of having to cross a 4 or 5 lane freeway.

The current freeway in Kings Beach is part of a failed idea to put a freeway around Lake Tahoe including a bridge over Emerald Bay. Perhaps you should try and extend this freeway through Carnelian Bay, Tahoe City, Homewood & Tahoma if you feel it is best for Kings Beach.

There are currently 2 lanes at the east end of town. These are the same 2 lanes that seems to work very well in our much larger neighbor to the east Incline Village. Lets honor this beautiful place with the Hybrid option instead of sticking with the failed freeway visions of the past.

EDITOR’S NOTE – WE WILL NEED TO REVIEW THE GUEST LIST AT THAT TRPA MEETING

Dear Bruce, As a Republican who voted for you in the last election, I am sorry to say your editorial really distorts the facts. I was at the TRPA GB meeting on June 25th and was dismayed by your disrespectful behavior to your constituents. I saw Tom Turner motioning to you from the back of the room with a jerk of his thumb to join him in the corridor with his lawyers. You were frequently absent from the proceedings while you huddled with them for instructions and strategies of how to kill the issue.You were NOT just one of seven; you forced the vote with your persistence. Your motion only carried by one vote, and your pal Tim Leslie made an inappropriate and emotional speech about being asked to degrade traffic and how he just couldn’t do that. You were all supposed to consider just three goals of the TRPA, those being 1)Pedestrian safety and mobility 2) water quality 3) esthetics . Traffic concerns should have more properly been discussed at your own Board of Supervisors meeting the next month. It was very obviuos to everyone who wasn’t asleep ( which you frequently appeared to be whenever you were actually at your seat during the long public comment period), that you were anxious to get this off of the table . I’ll bet you either knew the other 4 supervisors wouldn’t be as derelict as you in your duties to so blatantly ignore the will of the people and the UNANIMOUS recommendations by every credible organization and staff involved to support the three lane hybrid proposal. Or you knew your stance on the issue would lose you the next election. It is entirely disengenous to those reading your blog to act like you were just one of the 7 who voted no, just going along with the majority. Clearly the request for reconsideration of the vote and the reaching out for more information and dialogue from those who were urged to make a hasty vote indicates some may want to change their vote on the next go-round.
Let’s look at your misinformation a little closer. You keep throwing out your figure of 10,000 cars, conveniently leaving out the facts. (read Richard Smith’s comments above). I remember a figure of 3,000. and that was ONLY IN 20 YEARS ASSUMING FULL BUILDOUT, which we all know isn’t going to happen(for which I give you a lot of credit. It is sad after the good you’ve done our area that this will be your leagacy here…). Your posturing about concern for little kids playing in the streets of the residential grid is either intentionally misleading(which would be despicable)or ill-informed. Ask ANY resident in the grid what their biggest traffic problem is, and they’ll admit it is locals, mostly our youth, speeding. We have a square block of beautiful playground, school, playing field, baseball field, and a multi-million dollar Boys and Girls Club in the middle of the grid. Parents discourage their kids from playing in the streets due to the speeding. Come up and take a drive through our back streets with me and I’ll show you. Unfortunately, when school is out, the preferred playgound for kids here is the beach. We need the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program whether we have three lanes or four, but, alas, we won’t get it with the four lane alternative. The funding for it isn’t included if we don’t have the three lanes.
You write that you prefer the 4 lanes because”it causes no additional harm to our traffic problems”. Of course it does! The four lanes is actually five lanes, because it includes turn lanes in the middle of the four lanes at the intersections, which will involve 60% of the roadway. So your action will actually make it even more dangerous to cross the street. The extra stoplight will make traffic back up more than the roundabouts would have. That means more idling motors polluting the air,more people stepping on the gas to make up for lost time until they stop at the NEXT light. We have had 4 lanes now since the early 60’s and clearly it hasn’t worked. You had a real chance to fix things here, and the best professional studies and advice from everyone involved who understood the issues after 12 years of studies and workshops, and you blew your opportunity over concern of losing the support of a few individuals who aren’t seving YOUR best interests.
You say you’re supposed to make decisions for the good of the community. I hope you’ve checked on the ongoing poll at sierrasun.com, which indicates that 75% of the community disagrees with your action. You are SUPPOSED to represent the will of the people who elected you to do so.
It is also unfair to characterize the developers in the community as “wanting gridlock”. Of course they don’t want gridlock;nobody does! They want a good return on their investment, and thank God they have been willing to put their money on the line. They want SLOWER TRAFFIC, so people will get out of their cars and dine and shop and enjoy the beach. They want a healthy, vibrant downtown. As chairman of the North Tahoe Redevelopment Project Area Committee for 7 years, I made a point of studying other redeveloped areas. Without fail, successful projects resulted in rising property values throughout the broader community, which translates into investment in infrastructure, recreation facilities, new construction and nicer looking communities, and economic health. If we keep worrying about moving traffic as fast as possible through our little 1.1 mile long downtown so that all those speeders can hurry up to wait at the single lane at every entrance to Kings Beach, we will have a hard time having a successful redevelopment. Your vote has already resulted in more than one flight of capital that have given up on proceeding with a CEP.
Bruce, it is not too late to do your job and represent the majority of the people you were elected to serve. You could admit you misread the will of the people, take credit for making sure there IS a Neighhborhood traffic Mitigation Project, and change your vote to keep the preferred alternative on the front burner. Do you really think, with the firestorm that has resulted from your stance, that Four lanes(remember that four lanes didn’t get enough votes either at the June 25th meeting) will happen here either without delays, more waste of funds, and more division in the community you profess to care for so sincerely? I am very disappointed in you, but I hope you give me a reason to forgive you … Bob McCormick, 36 year resident of KB

EDITOR’S NOTE – PLEASE NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AND OTHER MONTGOMERY SUPPORTERS’ COMMENTS.

Mr. Kranz,

With all due respect, where did you get your number of 10,000 cars? This is inaccurate. With total build-out (which is highly unlikely) 20 years from now, it could be a few thousand, but there will be time to mitigate that problem as it occurs. Besides, most of the residents in Kings Beach would prefer to see slightly heavier traffic on the back streets 30-45 days per year and have a safer downtown 365 days per year. There are scores of people who would like nothing more than to speed through our town to get to their destination- I suspect most of these folks are “friends” of yours.

Sincerely,
Concerned Kings Beach Resident

For the past couple weeks I’ve been reading newspaper articles and email exchanges and websites focused on the TRPA 3-lane alternative route. Reading the letters to the editor and the comments on this blog I’m convinced that Bruce Kranz is totally out of touch with his constituents and has committed politcal hari kari. I find comfort in knowing he will be voted out of office and will NOT be our supervisor in 2009.

For a friend, I’m

Rejoicing

Of course these people are Montgomery Campaign Supporters- you made sure of it by not supporting your constituants- Democrats and Republicans alike…..

Bob McCormick was at the TRPA meeting- I saw him.

Bruce, the 4 lane option will drive out atleast 1, if not all of our CEP developments. I’m sure you know they ALL supported 3 lanes. I know the CEP concept was created by the TRPA to bring development to our area that is so desperatly needed. How can you shoot yourselves in the foot like that? You are literally going to take millions of dollars out of Kings Beach by supporting a 4 lane highway. Our office manages over 150 homes in the “grid” of Kings Beach and I don’t know of a single tenant or owner that wants to deplete our Main street for the fact that additional vehicles may drive down their street during the Summer. We die the other 10 months of the year. What a shame.

The EDITOR NOTE in reference to my 7/9/08 comments states “NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS COMMENT AND THAT OF OTHERS”. This comment implies that I was coached or instructed what to say. I can assure you that those comments came straight from my head & heart.

The reason there is a common theme or “common construction” in the comments you have been getting, is because the message is so simple. We (the majority Kings Beach Residents and those who participated in the process), are doing everything possible to be heard by our represenative (you). What we are trying to say is that the benefits and possible risk of the 3 lane Hybrid (main street) option far out-weight the benefits or possible risks of the 5 lane (freeway) option.

The fact that your vote and that of the TRPA Governing Board was against the will of the majority locals, as well as against the TRPA Advisory Committee, the Placer County Planning Commission, The Leauge to Save Lake Tahoe and just about every other group who cares about the lake should tell you to at least try to listen objectively to your constituents.

Just for the record, I am a registered Republican and I have voted for you in the past, and myself as well as the folks in favor of the 3 lane Hybrid are not in developers pockets. All of the comments you are getting are coming directly from the hearts and minds of folks who care about our town and lake. To dismiss all of the comments as Montgomery campagin retoric will not help you, but it will help her.

After your vote and that of the TRPA Governing Board, Developers walk away from large deals that would have removed some of the worst slums in the Tahoe Basin. Developers walked away from investing in this prime spot because of what they consider bad faith and the fact that it is too risky to invest millions when some politicians can over ride the will of the people and nearly every other private and public agency.

This decision about the future of Kings Beach is far more important than an election for a county supervisor.

Please reconsider your vote on this very important issue, as I am sure most of the other TRPA Governing board members will.

Mr. Editor This is no pseudonym. Please note the e-mail address. I am for real. I did attend the June 25th T.R.P.A. meeting but did not sign any registration book. What are you afraid of? I am amazed that you find it necessary to add a comment to each response that has been made concerning Mr. Kranz’s commentary referencing gridlock in Kings Beach. I met with Mr. Kranz at my retail store about six months ago. At that time he expressed that he did not care how many lanes we had in Kings Beach. Since then he has really changed his tune. Obviously he was keeping closed mouthed about his true feelings. This was a tactic aimed at distancing himself from any real discussion.

Please note that I did not delete or Edit anyone’s comments.

There are a few notes – Anon Commenters will be pointed out. Anon Commenters have no accountability for what they are writing.

Also, there are common talking points in all of the comments on this post. These include phrases that repeat.

They boil down to calling Kranz a Liar, pawn of the developers, they are personal and they all espouse anti-growth sentiments.

If you guys are anti-growth say so, be honest about the motivations. If you were prompted to respond to this blog by the montgomery campaign say so…

You know I will find out soon enough if you are “seminar commenters”.

However, each of you are welcome and your comments will be displayed in their entirety and will only be edited for libel slander and foul language.

There – now do you have enough information to know I’m a real voter who is disappointed in my County Supervisor? I wrote on my own! You discredit my comments, without responding to any of the questions! Let’s talk FACTS. What information do you have that makes you certain the County Department of Public Works propsol is wrong? Where does the oft-quoted number of 10,ooo cars in the grid come from? thanks in advance for any FACTS you can share.

You are right, i did support montgomery. Buy only after seeing Bruce Kranz betray a community in need. Prior, i was open to supporting Bruce – but he has failed and is pursuing policy that would mandate highways through all our communities. The north tahoe community is rallying againt Bruce Kranz because of his policies. Highways and the Tahoe basin do not mix. Call it politics all you want, but there is a firestorm brewing against bruce, and i am part of the wave he created when he threw 11 years of work by hundreds of people under the bus for a highway.

Please, take a look at bruce’s vision for Tahoe (just copy and past into your browser):
youtube.com/watch?v=QfOWqBGYA6A&fmt=6

You’re right. The backstreets of Kings Beach “are residential neighborhoods where scores of children play in the streets every day. They have no sidewalks and are very narrow.”

I live on Coon Street. I know the situation well. My daughter is one of the children who plays in the backstreets of Kings Beach.

Today, there are no sidewalks and narrow streets. Cars and trucks speed through these narrow back streets on a daily basis creating safety and quality of life concerns.
If you care so much about the backstreets of Kings Beach, why have you not addressed this problem previously? Furthermore, if you truly care about the backstreets of Kings Beach, why would you vote for the 4-lane option that would leave much less money for the improvement of the back streets than the 3-lane option?

If you care so much about the safety of the residents and children of Kings Beach, why would you want to encourage a 5 lane highway that threatens the safety of pedestrians and sanctity of our town?

With some creative traffic management approaches (i.e. one way streets, bumps, sidewalks, etc.), we can easily manage the back streets of Kings Beach. This should have been addressed long ago.
With a pedestrian friendly town (achieved by the 3-lane option), we stand a chance at building a stronger and safer community. If you truly care about the future of Kings Beach, you’ll reconsider your position.

In response to the Editor (Aaron F. Park) most recent comments. Myself and the others responding are not “Anon Commentors”.

I agree that “Anon Commentors” have no accountability, just like all of the day laborers and children who were hired to come to the 6/25/2008 TRPA meeting to hold signs. Those would be the same HIRED 5 lane supporters who signed in without including their phone numbers.

Common talking points and repeating phrases should be expected when folk aren’t being listened to. We have yet to get a response to legitimate questions such as where did the 10,000 car figure that Bruce keeps talking about come from.

We are not prompted to respond by the Mountgomery campaign and we are not seminar commentors. It is obvious that we are not “anti-growth” and it is also obvious that Bruce is not in the pockets of developers here in Kings Beach. Are you reading the comments?

No one is saying Bruce is in the pockets of developers about Kings Beach, perhaps in the pockets of resturant and storage shed company owners, but not developers. We, the majority of the people in Kings Beach wish Bruce would listen to developers here, including the one who was born & raised in Kings Beach.

If Bruce is using the 5 lane stand to prove he is not in developers pockets and as a ploy to point his finger at Jennifer Mountgomery and say she is in developers pockets, (reversing the Donner Summit – Royal Gorge controversy, it will backfire.

There is one major difference between the Donner Summit developers and Kings Beach developers that Bruce should understand. Donner Summit developers want to replace beautiful forest lands with development, while Kings Beach developers want to replace slums, old trailer parks and older low quality commercial buildings with new excellent quality mixed use pedestrian village development.

Please reconsider your vote and support the Hybrid plan that was developed by those in the community who took the time to participate in the process.

I have lived in this area for ten years and was excited to have an updated commercial core area that was user friendly. How can the 4-5 lane option be user friendly? Obviously you have not spent much time in the KB area and understand how it operates. We are a very pedestrian orientated community. We need to have traffic slowed down. Do you know of anyone who sees four lanes and slows down? Most drivers when they see four lanes speed up and pass the next vehicle. Do you know what gridlock is? That is when vehicles can’t move! How often does it occur in KB? It does not occur enough to sacrifice the rest of the 54 or so weeks a year. Currently, the only time we have any gridlock is from the STOPLIGHT in Crystal Bay or perhaps if the basin is inundated with excessive rain. This rarely occurs.

Nine years ago when my wife had a day care on Brook Ave., she tried to get something done to decrease the speed of drivers. All her attempts were shot down. She got a petition signed from everyone on the street and sent it to the county traffic planners. She received no response. We would LOVE to put in seasonal speed bumps! Our recommendation was shot down immediately! After a summer of trying different alternatives, out of the blue comes a stop sign. It was great! But what a pain in the butt it was to get it done. It helped, but drivers still speed from one stop sign to the next! Unbeleiveable! This is what has happened in the past and what we have had to deal with in the grid.

I applaud the sheriff’s and highway patrol when they hang out in our neighborhood and monitor drivers. They can easily attest to speed of drivers in our community. These are most often young residents in our community and not the tourists. This is ongoing. It is not something that will occur if the 3-lane option is selected.

I emplore you to spend some time in our area to see what actually occurs. Stop by my house, have a beer and we can observe many of the issues that I and others have presented to you. It happens daily!

Three lanes are the only option you should be considering. There are no other SAFE options. Please reconsider your vote so that we may have a community that will grow and be safe for our families and friends.

I was a supporter of yours in the past, but it looks like you are not upholding the will of your constituents. It appears that the majority of them want 3-lanes. I hope that you will take note of this and other comments posted by unhappy citizens of KB when the vote comes up again. Good Luck!

In response to Mr. Editors comments, and Mr. Kranz, the insinuation that these postings are driven by an election campaign is false. We are all community members here asked for years now to participate, give feedback, vote, meet, donate time, invest, give back and be part of the process. Mr. Kranz demonstrated that in the face of the resulting majority support from key stakeholders he would make a purely political move and take away the community’s vision for the benefit of few.

EDITOR’S NOTE- PLEASE NOTE THAT NEITHER THESE OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS HAVE BEEN EDITED – ONLY MY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED.

I would like to clarify several points.

Get your numbers straight – there will never be 10,000 cars in the backstreets. Present numbers vary around 1000-3000 and this is projected, WORST CASE, 20 YEARS from now – to double WITH NO MITIGATION. I don’t think anyone can argue that if we don’t let them in to the grid, they won’t get there. That is where DPW needs to clarify their efforts.

There is a highway running through town now. The 4-lane proposal is called a 5-lane proposal because of the left turn pockets to be added. There are no physical barriers to protect pedestrians and this can only worsen existing conditions. The existing light, signage and sometimes striping is proven to be only marginally effective. Did you see the video?

The kids have no place to play? we have a mile long BEACH, and who knows how much public land in and around the grid. Are you insinuating that streets are the best playground Placer County can offer Kings Beach? Get a grip on vision.

Wanting Gridlock? C’mon, that is as shallow as your moves at TRPA. Enough said.

Consensus. You are and educated man who should have done his homework because last I check we had nearly unanimous agency support in addition to the persistent 2/3’rds to 3/4 majority. My count at the last meeting was roughly 2/3rds majority 3-lane support. We’re not nearly “split” as the critics like to say, plain and simple. I can’t speak to the busload standing in the back of the room but I have not seen them ever participate in my 4+ years of involvement. That is a typical move of the opposition to overwhelm the process at the 11th hour and cause undue intimidation. It is by no means representative.

We all acknowledge that 3-lanes is not perfect, however the 4-lane proposal does not meet what the community wants. The purpose and need statement for pedestrian/bicycle improvement, aesthetics, and water quality were the result of the decades long process. Traffic issues weren’t, and still aren’t, at the forefront of community concerns.

I was at the meeting. I did not see a sign-in sheet. I am a mom of two young children and I vote. We live in the grid. We fully support any measure that narrows the highway and slows traffic, as do the majority of Kings Beach grid residents. Moreover, those people who live locally know that there is rarely if ever enough traffic to stop cars, even in the two-lane portions of our highway on either side of town.

I truly hope this decision was based on merely the fear of getting blamed any future accidents in the grid after approving a plan that differs from the current lane configuration. If the decision was based on political favors to a few individuals, I will be crestfallen.

I understand that politicians need to make political decisions, but after reading the notes in this blog that try to discredit, discount and disregard honest commentary by individuals (who happen to share similar concerns) concerns me about the integrity of Bruce Krantz. After reading this blog, I now wonder if we have a better chance at representation from his political oponent, whoever that may be.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUESTION BRUCE KRANZ’ INTEGRITY – PLEASE SPELL HIS NAME CORRECTLY.

Hi,
I live in the grid on Dolly Varden, one of the streets supposedly to be affected by 3 lanes, I have lived on this st for 11 yrs and have 2 kids under 10 yrs. I used to walk to beach, downtown etc. but don’t anymore as it is too dangerous and horribly unpleasant. The town voted and 3 lanes are what we want. I am more concerned with getting around without using a car for safety, than worried about the occasional extra traffic on my st during peak times. Roundabouts work, have you ever been gridlocked at Truckee roundabouts? I know I haven’t
Danielle H. Kings Beach grid resident

Well,

I’ve been a KB resident for 13 years, and am the former assistant director of The League to Save Lake Tahoe. I, like most in Kings Beach who have been paying attention to the traffic problem, favor the 3 lane alternative that was on the verge of approval before being sideswiped by the Kranz/Leslie dog and pony show.

I’ve seen a lot of bad and barely defensible decisions by the TRPA lead to the continual erosion of their credibility over the years as they fail time and again to follow their mandate and be accountable to the communities around the lake. Was the bad decision to over-rule the choice in this case that was the result of proper public process just another step in the effort to undermine the TRPAs credibility in order for people to call for it to be disbanded?

Note to Mr. Editor—This comment is not part of any political effort, nor is it part of an organized campaign. The previous posts that you flagged for your comments all seemed to be individually written posts to me.

I’m seeing the Editors comments on how organized we are. We have been at it for years, we are educated and we have the common thread of COMMUNITY. Is that being held against us? We are friends and neighbors. To push us away as agents of Ms. Montgomery is shortsighted.

EDITOR’S NOTE – I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY TWO PEOPLE INDICATING THAT THE MONTGOMERY CAMPAIGN HAS DISTRIBUTED A LINK TO THIS BLOG TO GET COMMENTS GOING.

I personally know the man that made the video of pedestrians trying to cross traffic in Kings Beach. He is NOT part of the Montgomery Campaign, though I’m guessing he will be voting for her this fall. Regardless, the video is real footage-these are not actors. This is what we deal with on a daily basis. And YOU want to vote to WIDEN the highway?

DANA – I DON’T LIVE IN KING’S BEACH, HOWEVER, I WANT TO KNOW THE REAL MOTIVATIONS OF THOSE COMMENTING. I SEE ANTI-GROWTH COALITIONS ALL THE TIME. ANTI-GROWTH STANCES ARE WHAT HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF THE URBAN PROBLEMS DOWN IN THE FLATLANDS…

I was not contacted by any campaign and I DO support smart growth. I DO support 3 lanes. Editor – why smear a bunch of individuals who care about their town? We are truly just neighbors in a small town- republicans, democrats, independents, developers, moms, small business owners, skiers, car drivers and pedestrians. It makes Mr. Krantz look bad. Why not politely thank people for their opinions while continuing to digest new information and adjust your boss’s stance if necessary?
Let’s face it. Every other town and access highway around us has either two or three lanes. There is no gridlock there and there won’t be in our town either. Please don’t hold us back.

Mr. Kranz has hurt Kings Beach and Placer County in a way that will resonate for decades to come. Would Mr. Kranz be open to looking at the increase in sales tax, property tax and hotel taxes that the have followed in other cities that have employed lane reduction? If so please let me know as I am prepared to meet with him. Examples of other cities that have demonstrated these surplus gains are:

1. Orlando Florida – Edgewater Drive
2. Helena, Montana – US 12
3. San Leandro, CA – East 14th Street
4. Duluth, MN – 21st Ave. East
5. Toronto, Canada – St.George Street
6. Kirkland, WA – Lake Washington, Blvd.
7. Seattle, WA – North 45th Street
8. East Lansing, MI – Grand River Blvd.
9. Santa Monica, CA – Main Street
10. San Francisco, CA – Valencia Street
11. Oakland, CA – High Street
12. Seattle, WA – Madison Street
13. Portland, OR – Will provide street names
14. University Place, WA – 67th Ave.
15. University Place, WA – Cirque Ave.
16. East Lansing, MI – Abbott Road
17. Covington, WA – SR 516
18. El Cajon, CA – Downtown corridor
19. Lewistown, PA – Will provide street names
20. East Lansing, MI – Burcham Road

Additionally every Department of Transportation report on the issue concludes that this will increase safety along Highway 28 where people have been killed. Will Mr. Kranz meet with me to also review these reports?

Respectfully,

Rick Marshall

NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT – ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT ACCOMMODATING INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW WILL LEAD TO TAX INCREASES?

Let me be very clear as you are trying to switch the discussion. (Which by the way I am pleased to discuss if ‘we’ are intersted in;) Please read the following study from El Cajon, California that details the benefits from lane reduction.

El Cajon, California
Problem
Suburban development and increased traffic diminished Main Street’s appeal to pedestrians, leading to empty storefronts and a failing historic downtown.
Background
Downtown El Cajon is the historic heart of east San Diego County. It blends unique architecture and character, yet it struggles with a problem afflicting the urban core of many American cities: competition from suburban shopping areas. By the 1980s Main Street was lackluster and quiet. When shoppers came, they found many empty storefronts and few reasons to return. El Cajon also lacked a pedestrian-oriented district where people could stroll, shop, and dine. Traffic had increased on the four-lane main street, making the area more of a pass-through place than a destination. Main Street’s decline meant lost sales tax revenue for the city.
Solution
In 1971 the Redevelopment Agency was formed. In 1999 El Cajon passed a new implementation plan for a downtown revitalization effort, and has been actively pursuing new projects since. The city approached revitalization with a variety of strategies. One of these has been a “road diet” of East Main Street for a four-block area. This section previously had four travel lanes and on-street parking. The city reduced the street to two travel lanes and added angled parking. This reconfiguration slowed traffic and widened sidewalks to make walking safe and inviting and create public space for outdoor dining, landscaping, street furniture, and bulb-outs at intersections.
Results
Times are better in downtown El Cajon. The road diet is one factor that has contributed to the economic vitality demonstrated in the following statistics.
• Since 1996,
o property values have increased by 181 percent compared to 75 percent in the city at large
o taxable sales in downtown have increased by 66 percent compared to 45 percent in the city at large
o revenue from the Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax) has increased by 36 percent
o lease rates have increased by 56 percent
o crime has decreased by 16 percent.
• Since 1998, the private sector has invested $43,175,000 in downtown.
• Since 2001, 179 new businesses have opened and 746 new jobs have been created.
• Today, 91 percent more customers shop and dine in downtown than did in 2002.
As the downtown revitalization effort continues, El Cajon looks forward to a cycle of more investment, more business openings, and more tax revenue. All this will continue to transform downtown El Cajon into a lively pedestrian environment where people work, shop, dine, entertain, and attend cultural events.
Web sites and resources
A fact sheet on “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities” is available here:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/factsheets/walk_to_money.html
El Cajon Redevelopment Agency’s Web site:
http://www.ci.el-cajon.ca.us/dept/redev
Contact
David D. Cooksy
Director of Redevelopment and Housing
City of El Cajon Redevelopment Agency
200 East Main Street
El Cajon, California 92020
(619) 441-1710
dcooksy@ci.el-cajon.ca.us

THE PROBLEM IS MAIN STREET IN DOWNTOWN EL CAJON IS NOT A MAJOR ARTERY FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC! HIGHWAY 28 IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAKE – PEOPLE DON’T DRIVE THROUGH DOWNTOWN EL CAJON IF THEIR DESTINATION IS SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Dear Editor,
I’m not sure what you are asking me in regards to the anti-growth comments. I don’t know what others motivations are for their comments, but I know the motivation behind my comments -I am fed up with Kings Beach being treated like a stepchild to Placer County as well as Incline. Bruce Kranz has been neglecting this community for years and now he our own representative is voting against something that will bring revitalization, safety and peace to this community. I don’t want a freeway running through my town. Period. This is not an “urban” area nor is it the flatlands…..it’s a small, mountain town and we’d like to keep it that way.

EDITOR’S NOTE – THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY, OUTSIDERS GO HOME. DON’T COME HERE, DON’T TRAVEL HERE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT WIDENING THE ROADS.

Dear Editor,
Hello. My name is Jennifer Macaulay. I am not a Kings Beach resident; however, I have friends and family who live both in KB and various places around the lake. I am therefore a frequent visitor to KB and the Tahoe area. Being such, I have been following the KB highway issue, talking to people in the community, researching traffic-calming measures, and after doing so wrote a letter in support of the 3-lane hybrid option.

In regard to the following: EDITOR’S NOTE – I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY TWO PEOPLE INDICATING THAT THE MONTGOMERY CAMPAIGN HAS DISTRIBUTED A LINK TO THIS BLOG TO GET COMMENTS GOING. I don’t know where you got your information from. The “two people” (who you do not name) who contacted you (if indeed that happened) were probably two people who support the 4-lane highway. The truth is, I stumbled upon this blog in my research, and I sent it to one of my friends who lives in KB. She is a wife, a mother, and a concerned citizen but not part of any campaign. If she were to become involved in the Montgomery campaign, it would most likely be due to this issue, though I can’t speak for her. After sending her a link to this blog, she in turn sent it on to other concerned members of the community. Mystery solved! It was circulated by someone who doesn’t even live there, isn’t part of any campaign, and frankly doesn’t even know anything about Montgomery.

In regard to the following: EDITOR’S NOTE – NOTE THE COMMON CONSTRUCTION OF THIS COMMENT AND THAT OF THE OTHERS. I’ve seen this note from you on many of the posts, yet I have not really seen common construction. What I have seen are the same facts stated over and over. Hello…you can’t change the facts! I have indeed seen similar comments. Hello…these are concerned members of the community who want the same thing, who are working toward a common goal. Of course they will be similar!

I DO APPRECIATE YOU ASSISTING US WITH READERSHIP – I STAND 100% BEHIND MY COMMENTS. LIKE ANY NEWS SOURCE, IF A SOURCE ASKS ME NOT TO REVEAL THEIR NAME… ETHICS DICTATE THAT I CAN NOT UNLESS SUBPOENAED.

THANK YOU FOR READING AND FOR THE SUPPORT!

I didn’t say “outsiders-go home”. I just think they can get to and through our town without speeding.

STUCK IN TRAFFIC – GOTCHA. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT IDLING CARS MAKE 7 TIMES THE POLLUTION OF A MOVING CAR? DON’T TRAFFIC SIGNALS SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN, TOO?

Aaron, thank you for keeping this going. We appreciate the opportunity to educate you on these issues.

Problem

A pedestrian mall in downtown Santa Monica had become unsafe and lacked economic activity.

Background

The Third Street Promenade was a commercial district made into a pedestrian mall in the 1960s. Over the years it had become neglected and had fallen into disrepair. By the early 1980s, competition emerged from a new regional shopping center nearby. Twenty years after it was created, the Third Street Mall, or “The Old Mall,” as it was known, was unsafe, blighted, and considered an economic disaster. Efforts to restore economic health to the district and the greater “Bayside District” community surrounding it were badly needed.

Solution

The Third Street Promenade was developed in the late 1980s by the City of Santa Monica to revitalize the deteriorated downtown area and create a vibrant center for community life and retail activity. Financed through a citywide bond measure, the Third Street Development Corporation hired architectural firm Roma Design Group to plan the redesign the 25-year-old outdoor Santa Monica Mall. The renamed Third Street Promenade opened on September 16, 1989.

A three-block segment of Third Street was closed to vehicle traffic to enhance the pedestrian experience on the Promenade. Shop owners said that they initially felt that preventing cars from accessing their front doors was destroying their business. As a result, when the project was built, the City constructed a road through the Promenade, but placed removable bollards at the ends of each block. The bollards were put in place the first weekend to test it as a pedestrian mall, and the experiment was so successful that it was eventually closed for good. Now, Third Street competes with local shopping centers by providing a festive pedestrian space protected from auto traffic in the heart of downtown Santa Monica, which is a frequent destination for tourists visiting the Los Angeles area.

The Bayside District Corporation, established by the City to manage the Promenade, is a private/public partnership paid through an assessment on the properties in the Promenade. The District has become an award-winning downtown revitalization project.

The District has more than surpassed the City’s original objectives and has become one of the most successful award-winning downtown revitalization projects in the country. Not only has the Third Street Promenade been an economic boost to downtown businesses, its outstanding success has made Santa Monica a major Southern California destination. The Bayside District includes more than 70 restaurants, 17 movie screens in 4 cinemas, and more than 160 specialty shops, services, and entertainment venues open year round.

Local residents and tourists from around the country come to Santa Monica to enjoy the pedestrian experience on the Promenade. Weekend crowds are often very dense with a swarm of pedestrian activity radiating from the Promenade to other downtown establishments, Palisades Park, and the Santa Monica Pier. Parking in various City lots surrounding the Third Street Promenade is plentiful but can be difficult to find during peak hours.

Contact
Kathleen Rawson
Executive Director
Bayside District Corporation:
1351 Third Street Promenade,
Suite 301
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 393-8355
Fax: (310) 458-3921
E-mail: krawson@baysidedistrict.org
Web: http://www.downtownsm.com/

NOW ARE YOU SUGGESTING CLOSING SECTIONS OF HWY 28 OFF!?

ARE YOU ALSO SUGGESTING FLOATING A BOND MEASURE TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO KINGS BEACH?

Rick, thanks for the NHTSI information. It is quite ironic that Caltrans doesn’t see it this way at all. It appears to me through some other email’s that Caltrans also supports the 4-lane option. It still annoys me that traffic is the primary concern when in fact it was not suppose to be a consideration in the original areas of concern when this entire process began. I am a 3-lane supporter and was a Kranz supporter. The 4-lane supporters are not using this blog to voice their opinions but a few have sent support letters through the 5th Supervisorial District tag as noted at the end of the article. It is unfortunate that the 4-lane supporters did not feel a need to be involved in the informational seminars last summer. It appears to me that the business owners that support the 4-lane option completely disregard the information as presented last summer and noted by Rick in ealier comments. Our community could become a poster scenario for Lake Tahoe instead of a freeway. Our one mile stretch of Hwy 28 will not stop tourists from visiting Lake Tahoe. It will not stop north shore locals from passing through KB. It will assist in promoting local business’s. How can anyone say otherwise? Currently we have many weekends in the summer when the craft booths are set up to bring more people to our area (locals and tourists). The only safe area to cross is at the Coon St. stoplight, however, that does not prevent people from crossing at non-designated areas. I guess that if they get hit outside a cross-walk it is just an unforunate incident. I’m sure that they would be given a jay-walking ticket on their way to the hospital and the driver would be given an ‘atta-boy’ for teaching pedestrians a lesson the hard way. Get with the program and learn the benefits of the 3-lane option in a downtown setting. Our locals and tourists deserve to be safe from the highway/freeway of 4-lanes. I am one that has been caught by the 4-lanes and cussed at myself because I couldn’t see a pedestrian behind a stopped vehicle in the other lane. I’m sure it has happened to many of us. Even if you are aware of possible pedestrians crossing, they have very few areas to cross…..legal or not. In the 4-lane option, the sidewalks are significantly narrower, thus limiting and not promoting pedestrian traffic. The information I noted was that with 4-lanes, the sidewalks would be narrow and may even infringe on property owners buildings. That would be more costly for the owners and the development. This is not what we need in the one mile KB business corridor. With the best beach in the area, we should promote it more by making it a pedestrian friendly area. I plan on living here for the rest of my life and want an area that will thrive on its own. We started with three basic criteria 1) Water Clarity, 2) Walkable Community, and 3) Safety for Pedestrians and Bicycles. We did not consider traffic to be one of the major concerns. Traffic will be there no matter what is decided. It should not be a concern for the two weeks a year (at the most) when traffic may cause congestion. Let’s work together with the FACTS, not opinions. We are all here because we love it here. Let’s limit the freeways to other areas where pedestrians don’t need to have access….not KB.

Thanks agin Aaron/ Bruce for opening this forma and allowing us the opportunity to help educate you where you facts are not correct. I would like to respectfully start with your mistatement to Dana Ash regarding increaded emissions. Please see the facts below from the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute..

Roundabouts

Benefits:

1) Injuries and crashes reduced 90%

2) 30% more traffic capacity

3) Gateway entry

4) Pedestrian-friendly

5)reduced noise

*6) Reduced emissions

7) Reduced maintenance

8) Business-friendly

RICK – UPON WHAT DO THEY BASE THE REDUCED EMMISSIONS ASSERTION. MY ASSERTION WAS THAT IDLING CARS (EG STUCK IN TRAFFIC) PRODUCE 7 TIMES THE EMMISSIONS OF A CAR TRAVELING 55.

30% MORE TRAFFIC CAPACITY? IS THAT ADEQUATE FOR ANTICIPATED DEMAND?

GATEWAY ENTRY / BUSINESS FRIENDLY – SOUNDS LIKE 4 LANES WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT AS WELL…

As the editor points out in his feedback, idling cars pollute, however signal lights stop cars while roundabouts keep them moving so they pollute 7 times less. Lights do slow traffic but they also stop it. We are trying to provide a great place for “outsiders” to come and enjoy not keep them out. To insinuate hybrid supports are advocating to keep “keep out outsiders” is just wrong. Stuck in traffic is what we will be with lights as well as roundabouts but only for a very small fraction of the time. It would sure be nice to see some comments opposing the Hybrid, in this forum. Those of us who support the Hybrid would like to understand how they feel the Pros outweigh the cons. It would also be nice to have a response recoginzing the numerous valid points that we have been trying to convey.

I would like to inform some of the 3-lane proponents that the link, as noted below has some comments from some 4-lane supporters. This may be another connection to get some dialogue going between the two groups. The only thing I really noted was the use of opinions and incorrect information. It would help out the 4-lane supporters to get the correct facts. http://blog.placer-cra.org/past/tags/5thSupervisorialDistrict