Snooty Lake Tahoe residents in uproar over plan to let local dishwashers access their private beaches
Incline Village, a gorgeous lakefront community on the Nevada side of the lake, declared last week that seasonal employees and full-time workers in the area, plus their families, can now access its sandy beaches, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Since 2023, Incline Village's beaches have been fully private and reserved for its roughly 7,800 homeowners and their guests.
But the five-member board that governs Incline Village ultimately decided access should be expanded to the workers who keep recreation and utility services running.
'To me, it's the right thing to do,' said David Noble, a trustee for the Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID), who introduced the Employee Pass Program to the board. 'It also serves as both a recruiting and retention tool.'
The proposal wasn't without its critics. Several community members and one IVGID trustee spoke out against the plan at a June 11 meeting.
Ray Tulloch, a trustee who's owned a property in Incline Village for 18 years, said he thought opening up the beach to employees would be unfair to homeowners, who each pay a $655 annual fee to maintain it.
'It puts the whole beach deed at risk,' Tulloch said. 'I'm not sure why owners should be paying that much money for a private facility that is then potentially opened up to the world.'
Another person, who identified himself as Frank Wright, spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting and raged about Incline Village beaches being opened up to 'people who don't belong here.'
'The exclusive beaches will become public,' Wright said. 'You're going to have a nightmare on your hands. The people in town are going to rebel.'
Wright lives in Crystal Bay, a nearby community that is also governed by IVGID. He has run for a trustee position on the board multiple times and lost his most recent bid in 2024.
While he was running last year, he gave a statement to the Tahoe Daily Tribune and argued that allowing employees on Incline Village beaches violated the town's beach deed.
Wright explained that while serving on a citizens group appointed to write rules and regulations for IVGID's recreational venues, he 'raised the issue of the irresponsibleness of the employees accessing the beach.'
'Employees who lived outside the district were accessing the beach (and their families), which was a violation of the beach deed,' Wright said.
Incline Village employees had beach access for decades until the trustees revoked it in January 2023.
The trustees sided with Wright at the time, pointing out that worker access could open them up to lawsuits or violate the deed authored in 1968, which only allows property owners, their tenants and guests to use the beach.
During the June 11 meeting, Noble said that after beach access was revoked from employees, even people who worked on the beach during the day had to leave during their breaks.
Noble said that there are about 500 staff members during peak season but added that many of them commute from outside Incline Village, which meant few of them used the beach in their free time anyway.
Employees and their families represented just 1.5 percent of the total beach visits in 2022, when they were last allowed to be there, according to documents shared at the meeting.
'It's still exclusive,' Noble said. 'Nobody will notice whether they're there or not there.'
The IVGID board voted to approve employee beach access, with the only dissenting vote coming from Tulloch.
Before anything changes, the board will send homeowners letters asking them if they'd be willing to sponsor employees as their guests on the beach.
That appears to be the way the board will comply with the beach deed. Noble said with enough buy-in from residents, employees will soon be allowed back in.
That will mean access to sand and swimming areas, as well as an outdoor pool with a waterslide, playgrounds, picnic and grilling areas, paddleboard and kayak rentals, a snack and drink bar and a boat launch.
Rob Watson, a property owner in Incline Village, told the board he'd be willing to sponsor employees.
'As any competent executive knows, the employees of a company are their most valuable assets,' he said. 'These are our employees.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
As a bombshell new book raises safety questions, have Elon Musk's dreams of a world full of driverless Teslas already run off the road?
Elon Musk was in typically combative mood when he declared on his own social media platform, X: 'There is a large graveyard filled with my enemies. I do not wish to add to it, but will if given no choice. Those who challenge me do so at their own peril.' That was in 2023, when Musk could still just about make such statements without triggering an avalanche of contempt. But we are now in 2025 and it's increasingly clear that Musk is going to need a bigger graveyard. The list of his enemies is growing exponentially. Since making that statement, the workaholic Musk has entered into, and fallen spectacularly out of, a political alliance with Donald Trump. This has made him persona non grata for large chunks of the global population, Left and Right, not to mention the man in the White House. Today, millions revel in his misfortune. And the bad news keeps flowing. This month, his artificial intelligence system, Grok, went rogue and started praising Hitler, just weeks after yet another of his spaceships blew up. Reports about his drug use and erratic behaviour proliferate. And various mothers of what he has called his 'legion' of children seem eager to condemn him. Worse, perhaps, his most precious business baby, Tesla, is experiencing deep problems. At the start of this month, the car company, once widely hailed the greatest force for an eco-friendly and sustainable future, reported a sharp plunge in its second quarter sales. Tesla stock has dropped by about 25 per cent this year, partly as result of Trump's international tariff agenda. Sales of the company's new flagship product, its Cybertruck, have tanked. And even Musk's own brother, Kimbal, has sold some $31million of Tesla shares. To make matters more dire, last week a sensational new book containing a multitude of shocking allegations against both Tesla and Musk was published. In The Tesla Files, Sonke Iwersen and Michael Verfurden, two reporters in Germany, have pulled together countless whistleblower testimonies, leaked internal company documents, as well as allegations of corporate malfeasance and terrifying claims of safety issues with Tesla vehicles. Tesla's salesmen like to boast about not spending too much on media messaging. Their amazingly futuristic products do the PR work for them, they say. But Iwersen and Verfurden's work might cause the company to rethink that approach. The authors of The Tesla Files speak to the widows of men who have died in Tesla accidents and never had the cause of the crash adequately explained. They reveal how Tesla's obsession with elegant design, including those sleek retractable handles on the doors of various models, can make it impossible for drivers to be pulled out of the wreckage of their much-loved cars. The most alarming material concerns Tesla's 'autopilot' mode, which is supposed to make cars ever more safe by removing the scope for human error. Leaked documents show thousands of customer complaints, many suggesting that – similar to some genius invention gone horribly wrong in a sci-fi horror film – the technology can cause crashes instead of stopping them. 'Unintentional acceleration', where the computer elects to speed up for no good reason, is one concern. Another is 'phantom braking', when a Tesla dangerously slows down or stops unexpectedly. Given that Teslas can accelerate from 0 to 62mph in 3.8 seconds, and decelerate just as quickly, these phenomena have inevitably led to some extremely dangerous situations. 'After dropping my son off in his school parking lot, as I go to make a right-hand exit it lurches forward suddenly,' said one complainant. 'My autopilot failed/malfunctioned this morning [car didn't brake] and I almost rear-ended somebody at 65mph,' said another. 'Today, while my wife was driving with our baby in the car, it suddenly accelerated out of nowhere,' added a third. Other customers report in the book that their vehicles 'jumped lanes unexpectedly', shoving them into oncoming traffic or concrete road barriers. One 'driver', a physician from California, claims her vehicle steered her directly into a concrete post. '[The post] toppled over but the car didn't stop. I hit the next post. The airbag deployed and I was in shock,' she said. The driverless revolution is well under way in America, and the UK isn't far behind. Here, autopiloted cars are required to have a human behind the wheel, but the Government has sanctioned trials of genuinely driverless cars, which taxi service Uber last month announced it will begin in London next spring. But those stepping into an empty cab only months from now might want to heed the words of tech entrepreneur Vivek Wadhwa. He called himself a 'Tesla fanboy' having bought one after meeting Musk in 2013, and recounts in The Tesla Files how he invited the news channel PBS to experience the wonders of his autopilot system in 2017. As the camera rolled, he found himself having to slam on the brakes as his car sped towards another. 'Elon keeps pushing a lie,' says Wadhwa. 'People are dying because of Tesla's faulty technology.' It's a claim currently being investigated in court as the firm's lawyers defend the role its autopilot system played in a crash that killed a young woman. In 2019, Tesla owner George McGee had the autopilot function of his Tesla Model S activated as he was driving in Key Largo, Florida. Documents filed with the Miami federal court state that he'd lost sight of the road as he bent down to pick up his phone. In that moment, McGee's car allegedly shot through a T-junction at 60mph and crashed into the side of a parked truck. Standing next to the truck was its owner Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured, and his girlfriend Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, who was flung into nearby trees and died. McGee alleges this was due to a fault with the car's autopilot. In its motion for a summary judgment last month, Tesla argued that the autopilot feature 'did not make the car 'self-driving' and that McGee was aware 'that it was still [his] responsibility to operate the vehicle safely even with autopilot activate'. The publication of Iwersen and Verfurden's book could hardly have come at a worse time for the firm. Tesla will no doubt point to steps it has taken to mitigate problems with unwanted acceration and braking impairing 'safe operation of the vehicle' that one of the car-maker's engineers listed in May 2018. Indeed, a fault-prone radar system was removed and now Tesla's camera-only technology appears to have decreased erroneous speeding episodes. But Iwersen and Verfurden claim that 'phantom braking' incidents have continued to rise. A German automotive technician, Jurgen Zimmermann, suggests that Tesla's video software mistakes shadows or other harmless objects for obstacles, thus triggering the brakes unnecessarily. Furthermore, earlier this year, a study from LendingTree insurance found that Tesla drivers are still involved in more accidents than drivers of any other brand. The rate of Tesla crashes has reportedly increased – to just under 27 accidents per 1,000 drivers, from almost 24 per 1,000 the year before. All car manufacturers have struggled to make autonomous vehicles work perfectly. But no CEO has been more publicly adamant than Elon Musk in insisting that the age of driverless cars is already upon us. 'I really consider autonomous driving a solved problem,' he said in 2016. In 2019, he added that buying anything other than a Tesla would be 'like owning a horse in three years'. But Tesla's head of autopilot software was recently forced to admit in another court case that, in testing, a human driver had to intervene repeatedly to prevent accidents. Since 2024, Tesla has felt compelled to label its autopilot system: 'Full self-driving (supervised)', which is something of a contradiction in terms. 'Do not become complacent,' the company now tells customers, which goes against Musk's vision that Tesla owners should be able to sleep while being whisked to their destination. In the case of Naibel Benavides Leon, Tesla may well cite an October 2024 judgment, in which a California court dismissed a lawsuit accusing Tesla of misleading investors about its autopilot system. 'Justice prevails,' tweeted Musk in triumph. But his company had to rely on what lawyers call the 'puffery defence', the argument that customers should not take marketing claims too literally. As Iwersen and Verfurden put it: 'Like a conductor guiding an orchestra, [Musk] plays with the fantasies of his fans and shareholders. His career is built on making promises about the future... Musk's product is the promise.' This is not to deny that Musk is a truly brilliant innovator or business creator. On the contrary, he is a true disruptor and in many ways a genius. Without him, great strides in electric transportation and space travel would not have been made. It's also worth noting that many of the testimonies in The Tesla Files come from disgruntled ex-employees who clearly resent Musk's 'ultra hardcore' work ethic. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Iwersen and Verfurden work for Handelsblatt, the newspaper of the German business elite, and Musk's Tesla has always been a threat to the leading German manufacturers such as Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen. But it's also the case that, in building a sort of cult of personality around himself, Musk has managed to distract from the failings of his businesses. The manufacturer has declined to comment on Iwersen and Verfurden's research, and is yet to respond to the Mail's inquiry. For his part, Musk appears to have a semi-messianic faith in himself. He believes that he is improving and protecting humanity for centuries to come, so any misery he may cause in the here and now will be worth the pain. According to this credo, Tesla deaths today can be justified by the future possibility of entirely safe human-error-free transportation. Try telling that to the grieving families of the Tesla drivers who have lost their lives.
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
State-by-State EV Savings: Slash Driving Costs by Up to 80%
View post: Why The 2025 Audi A6 e-tron Avant Is Exactly the Electric Wagon We Need In America Electric vehicles can slash your driving 'fuel' bill — but exactly how much you save depends on where you live, or rather where you charge. Here's a state-by-state look at per-mile EV costs using the latest electricity rates and gas prices. How Electricity Rates Shape EV Cost Your EV's operating cost comes down to two numbers: your local residential electricity rate and your vehicle's efficiency. According to the latest (2023) data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Louisiana averaged 13.46 ¢/kWh, Washington 13.03 ¢/kWh, Vermont 23.20 ¢/kWh, California 31.77 ¢/kWh, and Hawaii led the nation with 42.44 ¢/kWh (April 2025). Pairing these rates with an average EV efficiency of 3 mi/kWh yields per-mile 'fuel' costs ranging from just 4.49 ¢ in Louisiana to 14.15 ¢ in Hawaii. Meanwhile, AAA reports the national average for regular gasoline at $3.155/gal (July 18, 2025), which translates to about 10.52 ¢/mile at 30 mpg. State Rate (¢/kWh) EV Cost/mi (¢ at 3 mi/kWh) Gas Cost/mi (¢ at 30 mpg) Louisiana 13.46 4.49 10.52 Washington 13.03 4.34 10.52 Idaho 11.89 3.96 10.52 Georgia 14.84 4.95 10.52 Illinois 18.32 6.11 10.52 Florida 15.27 5.09 10.52 Vermont 23.20 7.73 10.52 California 31.77 10.59 10.52 Hawaii 42.44 14.15 10.52 EV operating cost hinges on your local electricity rate and your car's efficiency. With a representative 3 mi/kWh, charging in early 2025 cost roughly 4.49 ¢/mi in Louisiana (13.46 ¢/kWh), 4.34 ¢/mi in Washington (13.03 ¢/kWh), 7.73 ¢/mi in Vermont (23.20 ¢/kWh), 10.59 ¢/mi in California (31.77 ¢/kWh), and 14.15 ¢/mi in Hawaii (42.44 ¢/kWh) according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Meanwhile, at $3.16/gal for gas (≈ 10.5 ¢/mi at 30 mpg), fuel runs about 10.5 ¢/mi per AAA's national average. Beyond the Charger California's Clean Vehicle Rebate Project offers $2,000–4,500 rebates; Vermont provides up to $5,000 in state incentives plus utility rebates (e.g., Green Mountain Power's $3,200 cap) but still charges 6% sales tax; Washington utilities' off-peak TOU plans save about 20–30% on charging; and Entergy in Louisiana rebates $250–350 for home charger installs through its eTech Program. Total Cost Comparison Check your rate on your electric bill. Know your EV's efficiency (most average roughly 3 mi/kWh). Compute EV cost per mile: Rate ÷ Efficiency. Compare to gas: (Gas price ÷ Vehicle mpg). In low-rate states, EV 'fuel' runs 70–80% cheaper than gasoline. Even in California or Hawaii, incentives and off-peak plans keep EV costs on par, or slightly below, gas. Verdict: Plug In and Pocket the Difference Don't settle for $0.10–$0.14 per mile at the pump when you could be paying as little as $0.03 per mile on electricity. Crunch your own numbers now at the DOE's AFDC Vehicle Cost Calculator —enter your ZIP, your EV's efficiency and annual mileage, and watch your projected savings stack up. Whether you live where power is cheap or costly, this quick tool shows exactly how much you'll pocket by making the switch. Charge smarter, drive farther, and keep hundreds more dollars in your wallet each year. About the Author Brian Iselin View Profile
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump fossil-fuel push setting back green progress decades, critics warn
Ever since Donald Trump began his second presidency, he has used an 'invented' national energy emergency to help justify expanding oil, gas and coal while slashing green energy – despite years of scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels has contributed significantly to climate change, say scholars and watchdogs. It's an agenda that in only its first six months, has put back environmental progress by decades, they say. Trump's skewed and unscientific energy priorities have come even as climate-change related weather disasters from huge floods in Texas to giant California fires have increased, and as Trump regulators are clamping down on spending for alternative fuels and weather research. As the death toll from the Texas floods rose to over 100 on 7 July, Trump signed an executive order that added new treasury department restrictions on tax subsidies for wind and solar projects. That order came days after Trump signed his One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included provisions to gut big tax credits for green energy contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act legislation Congress passed during Joe Biden's presidency In another oddly timed move, underscoring the administration's war on science, its proposed budget for the coming fiscal year would shutter 10 labs that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration runs – specifically ones that conduct key research on ways weather changes are affected by a warming earth. Trump also signed four executive orders in April to help revive the beleaguered and polluting coal industry, which he and key cabinet members touted more at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh as they promoted plans by private companies to spend $92bn on AI projects and expand coal and natural gas in Pennsylvania. The blinkered focus that Trump and his key regulators place on their energy policies reflect the administration's denigration of science, while posing dangers to public health and scientific progress. And, critics say, this is all happening as university research and government labs face big cutbacks in funding and staff. Trump has pushed for more fossil-fuel production, rhapsodized about 'beautiful coal', dubbed climate change a 'hoax' and invoked his 'drill, baby, drill' mantra to promote more oil and gas projects after receiving $75m in campaign donations in 2024 from fossil-fuel interests. Scholars have hit out at the administration for firing hundreds of scientists and experts working on a major federal report detailing how climate change is impacting the country. The administration has also systematically deleted mentions of climate change from federal websites while cutting back funds for global warming research. 'Trump's actions are a patent attempt to roll back decades of environmental progress, not because it makes any sense, economically, but because it does two things that Trump wants,' Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian of science, told the Guardian 'First, it helps his cronies in the oil, gas and coal industries, who we know he met with a Mar-a-Lago before the election, and who gave substantial sums to his election campaign.' Oreskes said it's also 'part of a larger attempt to deny the credibility of environmental protection, tout court'. 'Look at Trump trying to force uneconomic coal fired power plants to stay open,' she continued. 'That makes no economic sense, and defies the principles of free market economics that Republicans claim to support. But like the guys who jack up their trucks to make more pollution, Trump is trying to deny the necessity and credibility of environmental concerns.' Oreskes stressed that much of the science Trump 'is in the process of destroying forms the basis for environmental and public health protection in this country: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Geological Survey and the EPA, plus all the federally funded science at universities across the country, including my home institution, Harvard. None of this makes economic sense.' Many scientists echo Oreskes's concerns as do Democratic attorneys general, who filed a lawsuit in May challenging the legality of the Trump administration's declaration of a national 'energy emergency' to justify its radical policies. Meanwhile, regulatory and spending shifts at the Environmental Protection Agency, including staff and research cuts, have revealed the administration's disregard for scientific evidence – particularly about climate change and its adverse economic effects. In response to the cuts and policy shifts, a total of 278 EPA employees signed a letter in July denouncing the agency's politicization and decrying policies that 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment'. The EPA then put 144 of the employees who signed their names to the letter on leave for two weeks while an 'administrative investigation' was conducted. 'This isn't quite at the level of the 17th-century church's persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth goes around the Sun, but it's in a similar spirit of ideology trying to squelch science,' Michael Gerrard, who heads the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the Guardian. 'Trump's use of an invented 'energy emergency' to justify more fossil-fuel production defies not only physics but arithmetic. The numbers show that the US is producing more oil and gas than any other country, and that Trump's actions in knifing the wind and solar industries will raise the energy prices paid by US consumers.' Gerrard stressed too that, on the Texas flooding, 'the lack of sufficient warnings highlight how short-sighted are Trump's drastic cuts to the National Weather Service and other federal scientific work'. He added it was 'especially so since climate change is intensifying extreme weather events, and Trump's attacks on green energy and support of fossil fuels will make those worse'. Such criticism has not seemed to faze Trump or top agency appointees like EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. Last month, 1,500 staffers who work in EPA's office of research and development (ORD) were told in a staff meeting that they would have to apply for about 400 new posts in other EPA offices. What will happen to employees who don't land new positions is unclear. 'Gutting the … [ORD] is a loss for health,' warned Laura Kate Bender, assistant vice-president of nationwide healthy air at the American Lung Association. Further experts and watchdogs have stressed that the health of millions of Americans was threatened by Zeldin's May announcement of plans to cut its budget by $300m in fiscal year 2026 – a move that's part of a makeover to reduce spending levels to those of the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. On Friday, the EPA doubled down on the cuts and say it would be reducing its entire workforce by at least 23% through voluntary retirements and layoffs. Gerrard noted that the administration's misguided energy moves and rejection of science are having enormous societal costs: 'Laboratories are being shut down around the country, experiments that might be on the cusp of great discoveries are being halted, and young aspiring scientists are rethinking their career paths. Other countries are recruiting US scientists and offering them friendlier environments.' Looking ahead, Oreskes, too, warns that the Trump administration's denigration of science will do long term damage to public health, the environment and scientific progress 'The scientific agencies that Trump is destroying, such as the National Weather Service, save the American people and American business billions of dollars in avoided property damage and health costs,' she said. 'But if you want to deny the true costs of climate change, then you may be motivated to destroy the agency that documents these costs [Noaa]. And if you want to deny the need for environmental and public health protection, then an effective way to do that is to destroy the scientific agencies and academic research that for decades have proven that need.'
