Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letter to the Editor

This letter was addressed to G.D.Maxwell Let me start by saying that I look forward to you column each week (except when you file from The Smiling Dog Resort). I am particularly enjoying the political coverage that you are providing.

This letter was addressed to G.D.Maxwell

Let me start by saying that I look forward to you column each week (except when you file from The Smiling Dog Resort).

I am particularly enjoying the political coverage that you are providing. I do feel I must address one misleading point in your last article (Pique, Nov. 8). In your writing you list three criteria for choosing a councillor for council. I agree with all the criteria you set out and the candidates you endorse, with the one glaring exception of Dave Kirk.

Your first criteria is "We can't afford to elect people who don't do their homework, don't read their materials before they come to meetings, don't come to meetings." Now I don't know if Dave Kirk does his all his homework, but I do know his attendance record. He has missed almost a full quarter of the council meetings. I have no idea why he has missed these meeting, I only know the his attendance record as provided to me by municipal hall. (I encourage all to check these public records to make sure their representatives are showing up.) By your own ruler I would say Dave Kirk is not invited on your hike and suggest Ralph Forsyth as a substitute. (Lots of energy and no campaign signs.)

Well Mr. Maxwell that is it. I hope all of Whistler shows up for the vote. Oh, one last point: I would invite Hugh O'Reilly over Dave Davenport. I would rather dance with the devil I know.

D. W. Buchanan

Whistler

 

We have been told much in recent weeks, not always succinctly, and I was glad therefore to read your editorial this week. I write to thank you sir for clarity, brevity and good sense. The new council will quickly be facing a decision between the Callaghan Valley and the alternatives you mention, and I hope and pray the alternatives will have the best of it, even at great expense.

David Jones

Whistler

 

Callaghan Estates?

The following are thoughts and questions regarding the two sites being considered as the 2010 Olympic Legacy Land, which need to be brought to the attention of Whistler taxpayers and decision makers.

I believe that the crown land grant was a well-chosen legacy in exchange for support of the Olympic bid. Also, the plan to develop employee zoned housing on it, fits best with Whistler’s needs now and for the future.

However, it seems that the decision for the Callaghan location is moving ahead in a somewhat fast tracked manner, and I am wondering why I have not heard about any of the normally required impact studies being carried out, or publicized if they were. Have the studies normally conducted by municipal planning staff and independent environmental consultants been done?

Both the Callaghan and the Cheakamus South site are south of the section of Whistler’s highway under the greatest traffic pressure. (Creekside to Village – as noted in the T.A.G. study).

Does it really make sense to locate such a substantial number of resident beds (1,500) in a location, which would generate increases in daily traffic on our busiest stretch of highway? Would it not make more sense to locate the future employee housing at or north of the village? How does this development proposal line up with the T.A.G. study? Is Whistler Transit going to service a satellite community 12 km south of Whistler with buses every half hour? What will the on-going cost of that be to the Whistler taxpayer?

What are the environmental impacts to the land and waters within the Callaghan Valley? What will the increase in vehicle emissions be if compared to situating the grant land along existing bus routes and closer to the village? How does the development of this site fit with environmental sustainability when it will obviously cause a greater negative impact than one at closer range to existing neighbourhoods and the village?

It has been stated that $30 million in Olympic legacy funds have been allocated towards servicing the legacy land site.

Will sewage be pumped uphill from the Callaghan Valley to Whistler’s sewage treatment plant or will a large portion of this money go towards creating another treatment plant? What will the future cost to taxpayers be for municipal staff to maintain this remote infrastructure?

Does it not make sense to locate the grant lands at a closer proximity to existing neighbourhoods, so that capital costs for connecting water, sewer and hydro could be lowered? Maybe we could save a good chunk of those funds, and apply it to other projects already underway, such as the convention centre renovation, which hasn’t received the funding expected.

Segregation of an employee only neighbourhood may or may not work. I believe that it may work if the dwellings are owned, but certainly not if they are all rentals. I wonder why the policy upheld in the past to blend employee housing into the community is being tossed out the window at this time. Not that I would ever agree with situating employee zoned rental apartments into existing neighbourhoods, but I do agree with blending employee zoned ownership properties into existing neighbourhoods.

Just why are the Callaghan and Cheakamus sites the only ones that have ever been mentioned as sites for consideration?

I suspect that the current fast tracking towards a decision is likely due to the need for solidifying the bid plan. Fair enough, but is this decision being made around an Olympic event that may or may not happen?

Are we locking ourselves into a location that suits the Games event or are we thinking of what is truly best for Whistler?

Aren’t there other sites which could be chosen which are at the village or north of it?

My understanding of the situation is that Whistler gets the land grant regardless of whether the Games go ahead or not. So why not decide on a location that will truly be best for the community.

After all, you (the decision makers) are trying to gain community support for the Games at this time, are you not?

I’ve one last question to throw out there. If the housing is built prior to the year 2010, as I’m sure everyone is expecting, and we do get to host the Games, will the resident employees in this housing development be moved out to make way for athletes? If so, how does that work?

Kevin Rea

Whistler

 

In your editorial, last week, you voice support for the development of employee housing on the Zen property, adjacent to the wetlands. Please note that there are significant environmental issues with the idea of building medium to high density housing in such close proximity of the wetland. I support AWARE's position that extremely little development should occur below the highway along that property.

There are much better places for employee housing development in our valley. If a proper inventory was done of where, we as a community, want to see development or re-development occur, the Zen property would be far down the list. I am encouraged to hear that some of our new council candidates are understanding that, and that we may see employee housing situated where it really makes sense, such as closer to the village and away from sensitive areas.

Stéphane Perron

Whistler

 

In a small town like Whistler, where only 2,300 voted in the last election, I find it extremely unfair and inappropriate that one widely read local paper would see fit to unabashedly endorse particular candidates, not to mention support campaigns. This is particularly disturbing at a time when there are so many candidates to choose from, and people are probably more open than ever to guidance and influence.

There are many qualified candidates running in this election, the majority for the first time. There is also a substantial cost associated with launching an election campaign, in terms of both time and money. Many candidates are paying most or all of their advertising and promotional expenses out of pocket, including a significant amount to the Pique.

I have always had great respect for the Pique, as well as for the editorial talents of both Bob Barnett and G.D Maxwell. Up until last Friday, the election coverage seemed fair and unbiased. However I was duly taken aback on Friday to see both writers come out in support of the same candidates, largely for reasons which failed to resonate. It was also curious that my letter to the editors of both papers last week was not included in the Pique. It will be interesting to see what happens with this one!

I feel strongly that it is irresponsible and an abuse of editorial influence to make such political endorsements, particularly in a town the size of Whistler. It effectively negates all previously unbiased coverage, not to mention rendering our individual ad campaigns somewhat futile. I trust that the people of Whistler are wise enough to make their own informed choices from the many qualified candidates, and to recognize that "dirty politics" does not belong in this town.

Shelley Phelan

Candidate for council

PS Many thanks to the Whistler Question for its unbiased coverage, and for leaving the decisions to the voters!

 

Leadership?

In the race for mayor of Whistler, "leadership" has been raised as a key issue by the challenger. Dave describes himself as "a strong, confident leader who cares about Whistler," and one who provides "qualified, experienced leadership." Given the opportunity earlier this year to demonstrate those leadership qualities relative to two major initiatives – WEF and the Olympic 2010 Bid, this community saw otherwise.

As Chairperson of One Whistler, Dave was informed and very knowledgeable about the WEF proposal to come to Whistler. At the public meeting last spring most of the our community leaders and many others spoke on the issue, and helped provide direction to our council. Dave was there, but conspicuous by his silence. Meanwhile, Mayor O’Reilly and members of council listened and responded in an appropriate manner.

As a government appointed member of the Board for the Bid 2010 Corporation, Dave was intimately involved and knowledgeable relative to the bid process, and particularly its benefits to Whistler and the province. At the recent council meeting that focussed solely on the bid, our community leaders, most candidates in the current election, and many others offered their comments and opinions. Dave was there, but once again he remained silent. Meanwhile Mayor Hugh O’Reilly continued to provide the strong, well-reasoned leadership that resulted in Whistler obtaining the lasting legacies and council’s endorsement of the bid.

Based on these observations and more, this is not the time for a change in our mayor. Better to support a proven leader who consistently takes a position and makes his views known.

Gord Leidal

Whistler

 

Last August we had a family reunion in your beautiful resort town. Being from Park City, Utah we were also interested in how Whistler would measure up as an Olympic venue site, we came away very impressed.

Being a skeptic at first when Salt Lake won the bid, I came away from the experience as one of the highlights of my life. Not only did I benefit from the "Olympic Glow" but the whole town did also.

The one thing that was instrumental in the success we had in Park City was the local government. Our mayor, Brad Olch, throughout the process had a vision and a plan that he stuck to and fought for, in return we had one of the most successful Games ever.

While in Whistler visiting the Olympic kiosk and other places around town the name Hugh O’Reilly kept popping up. In a recent article in The Park Record, "Whistler council endorses bid for Winter Olympics," I read that Hugh was still hard at it. From my experience I can’t tell you how important it is to have a leader like that at the helm. Whistler has come this far in the process, so why change horses in the middle of the stream? Your Mayor Hugh O’Reilly is on track and needs to be able to finish the job.

Jim Swenerton

Park City, Utah

 

I have written letters before, outlining my frustration with some members of our local government, and spelling out my hopes for the future of Whistler, so you can imagine my sense of optimism when, as election day drew closer, increasing numbers of candidates threw their hats into the ring in hope of being elected for mayor or council. This, I thought, is grass-roots democracy in action and the sheer number of candidates must surely send a clear message of disaffection to the incumbents. But what did I see from incumbents at the all-candidates meeting and the mayoral debate, and what remarks have I read from them, both in the media and in their own publicity material? Fear-mongering, plain and simple.

Since when has "change" become a dirty word, and why are several incumbents attempting to frighten Whistler voters away from it? If we never voted for change, none of our present mayor and council would be in office in the first place. The word "continuity" is being scattered around like confetti at a wedding and I ask, continuity of what? Of another three years of surveys, studies and consultants? Continuity of staggering misjudgement on fiscal responsibility? Whistler stands at a critical time in its history and after so many years of dithering, inaction and lost opportunities, change is precisely what we need. What has been missing from most of our incumbents are concrete answers; if I hear the words "Olympic bid" one more time as an answer to any question on affordability, I think I'll scream. I never thought I would see the day when those with the courage publicly to say simply "enough, we need change" would be victims of personal attacks. This is not about personalities, it's not about liking or not liking someone on a personal basis, it's about who has the ability and the courage to change our present collision course with disaster. Well in my case the fear-mongering has backfired, and on election day I will be voting for change.

Linda McGaw

Whistler

 

I will be voting for Hugh O'Reilly for mayor on Saturday. I'm not one to engage in negative campaigning so the following is a list of Hugh's attributes, from my perspective:

1. Experience, of course. My experience is that knowing the ropes counts particularly in the top job. Plus Hugh is a known quantity – we've seen him in action over the years and although I may not have agreed with him on every issue I know where he is coming from.

2. Hugh doesn't dodge bullets. He took one on the WEF debate. That speaks to leadership style.

3. The sustainability plan is the right way to go. The OCP is not just a land use plan and the bed unit cap is not simply a line in the sand. Both are reflections of a community vision. If that vision is to be revised, the only way to do it is through a detailed consideration of what had made us successful as a resort community and how that success can be carried forward to the future.

4. I have a disagreement with Hugh on the Olympics. That said, Hugh stood his ground and negotiated well with the province and the Bid Corporation for the benefit of the community.

5. Leadership style. Yes, Hugh seeks consensus rather than using a "my way or the highway" approach. I think that is a good thing.

6. Affordable housing. In the last six years, under Hugh's leadership there has been the creation of the Whistler Housing Authority, approval and build out of 19 Mile, Spruce Grove, Beaver Flats, employee housing down by Tapley's and in Spring Creek. I think it's fair to say that there has been more done in the last six years on this front than in the previous 20. There's more to do of course and Hugh is committed to doing that work.

Whistler needs leadership in these times that is careful yet positive. Hugh brings these characteristics to the job.

Nancy Wilhelm-Morden

Former municipal councillor

 

Is it time for Whistler to start its push to become a number one ski resort? What's missing you ask? A hospital.

Patients are being bussed, driven and flown to Squamish or North Vancouver for major treatment, at a cost of millions of dollars per year and potential danger to life.

Why should our young mothers have to travel hundreds of kilometres (miles) to give birth? Or why do others have to likewise for an MRI or CAT scan?

If you want to know who is number one in this department it is the ski resort at Aspen, Colorado. Their 49-bed hospital is a non-profit facility that includes all amenities of our Whistler Health Clinic, plus:

• Round the clock physician coverage;

• Level III trauma centre;

• CT scanning, MRI, dedicated mammography, nuclear medicine, state of the art ultrasound, and digital connection to major hospitals in Denver;

• Three birthing rooms, three-bed intensive care unit and full-supported surgery services.

For its pioneers and seniors, it offers Cardiopulmonary rehab programs.

And how about Aspen sustainability and job creation, (the much debated and do nothing agenda we face in Whistler).

The Aspen hospital has created jobs and generated millions in annual community income. Doctors, nurses and health specialists line up to enjoy the area's lifestyle.

Money to support Aspen's hospital is partially funded by a foundation, supported by a variety of donors and members. These consist largely of individuals who have benefited from development of the resort, not unlike Whistler-Blackcomb’s Chief Executive Officer whose annual salary of almost $1 million and his stock options worth $500 million were debated at the Intrawest annual general meeting in Vancouver this week.

Is it time to pick up the gauntlet, get some donations for the millions of dollars in crown land we have traded away, and become the "true" number one ski resort in North America?

Al Eaton

Whistler

 

Is the B.C. government putting our Olympic bid at risk? How safe is the backcountry on B.C. mountains? How about winter motorists on B.C. highways, visitors and residents alike?

The government has withdrawn $40,000 of funding from a B.C. avalanche centre. These funds came from three ministries, namely Parks, Highways and Solicitor General Provincial Emergency Program.

Travelling in the backcountry in the wintertime is an exercise in risk management. Avalanche risk is a major factor. Europeans take this risk very seriously, so why don't we?

How about Search and Rescue?

There are 93 search teams; approximately 4,700 heroes who perform anywhere from 800-1,000 searches per year. They donate their own time and fundraise for their own equipment.

In past years the Solicitor General has suggested that perhaps these needed search and rescues will have to be paid by the person rescued. This has been tried in some European countries with poor outcome. If a person is lost and rescued has to be paid for privately, family and friends tend to be slower in calling for help, or else start their own search. Either way the results can be disastrous. Delaying a search can result in a rescue becoming a recovery of a body, while having a private search can mean that the Search and Rescue Team are not only looking for the original person missing, but perhaps their friends/family as well.

Eco-tourism brings in $4.7 billion per year. It is my belief that the government will be introducing increased user fees for B.C. parks. It is my hope that part of these fees must go towards funding for our search and rescue teams, as well as respecting the hazards of our winter mountains, by fully funding an avalanche centre and a weather-reporting network.

Salt Lake City's winter bookings are up at east 200 per cent over last year's bookings.

Is B.C. ready if we are awarded the honour of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and will those seeking winter adventure in B.C. be at risk?

Richard Kinar

West Vancouver

 

I am writing in response to the increasingly frenzied speculation about B.C. Hydro. As your readers are likely aware, the government is currently finalizing a comprehensive energy policy. That policy will be public in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I can share two key facts:

Fact #1: B.C. Hydro will remain in public hands. All of the Crown corporation's existing generation, transmission and distribution assets – all the wires and dams – will continue to be owned by the people of British Columbia.

Fact #2: There will be no deregulation. After years of political interference, B.C. Hydro rates will be re-regulated and fairly set by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission.

These facts are not new. We have stated many times our plan to maintain public ownership of B.C. Hydro and committed as part of our New Era platform to re-establishing the B.C. Utilities Commission as an independent rate-setter. In fact, these facts are essential to the new energy policy, as you will see in the coming weeks.

Until then, I encourage your readers to be neither fooled nor frightened by rumours and wild speculation.

Richard Neufeld

Minister of Energy and Mines