Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

The ‘new’ W/B Paradigm: Is a private club appropriate on public lands?

The e-mail solicitation was signed by David Brownlie.
1528alta
One For All

The e-mail solicitation was signed by David Brownlie. And it invited specially-chosen W/B guests to fill out a survey and offer their “opinions and preferences regarding a private members’ club that could provide privileged access to (on-mountain) amenities.”

I didn’t get a copy of the survey of course. Neither did the Pique’s esteemed editor, Bob Barnett. I guess we didn’t fit the desired economic profile. Fortunately, an Alta States reader who was incensed with the idea, made sure to send me her invitation. “I consider it an odious proposal,” she told me on the phone. “It goes against everything I believe in. Everything that Whistler stands for. I think this ‘private club’ thing needs to go public.”

So that’s what I’m doing. And between you and me, I trust and pray she’s not the only one to have rejected the idea out-of-hand.

Why? As many would argue, private clubs are nothing new on the mountain resort front. After all places like Vail’s Game Creek Lodge have been solid fixtures — and great income earners — for years. In Ontario, private ski clubs like Osler Bluff and Craigleith have thrived for decades. So what’s the problem with launching one at Whistler?

Lack of wealth certainly isn’t an issue. After all, there are enough wealthy patrons willing to segregate themselves from the hoi poloi — that’s the rest of us for those who don’t speak Greek — to probably support three or four private clubs at Whistler. So why not create yet another source of income for the folks at Intragreed, er I mean, Intrawest?

Alas, wealth is only one issue in this argument. And it’s not even the most important one.

What disturbs me most about this initiative is much more fundamental. Intrawest — and its parent company Fortress — conveniently keep forgetting that they are operating on public land here. Yes, that’s right, the people of B.C. own the mountain land on which you and I ski and ride and bike and hike year-round. In America it’s called Forest Service Land; in Canada, it’s called Crown Land. And it’s all OURS. The only thing Intrawest owns outright is the infrastructure on the slopes.

Indeed, we should never forget that a whole bucketful of B.C. taxpayers’ money went in to building — and sustaining — this place in its developmental years. And without that timely infusion of cash in the early 1980s, Joe Houssian and his urban developer colleagues would have never been attracted to this valley in the first place.

Sigh, maybe that would have been a good thing. But I’m getting sidetracked…

To me, this private-club argument is all about public land-use policy. To whit: how much leeway should be given to private companies in deciding who gets access to mountain amenities on public land. In the U.S., for example, private ski clubs are only allowed to exist on private land. To make sure of that, I contacted my resident “expert” on American mountain resorts, David Perry. The senior vice-president at Aspen Skiing Company confirmed what I already knew.

Aspen, as one might expect, does have a private club. But it’s built on private land.

“It is essentially one-quarter of the Sundeck building at the top of Aspen Mountain,” he explained. Perry then addressed the crux of the issue: “Most resorts in the U.S. are on Forest Service land where you can't have a private facility,” he explained. “Some ski areas have private land holdings (Aspen Mountain is mostly private land… due to the assembly of mining claims that formed the operation in the first place). Vail has some in-holdings of private land as well where they locate their clubs (like Beano's Cabin at Beaver Creek and Game Creek)…”

What’s important in this discussion is to remember who owns this mountain in the first place. We do. It should be a fundamental policy in this province that British Columbians’ right to play on the slopes of Whistler-Blackcomb cannot be restricted by such aberrations as private clubs, private access and/or private lifts.

Besides, do we really want to be like Aspen or Vail? Whistler’s story — Canada’s story — is about access to all. Conspicuous consumption — and bottom-line profits — shouldn’t be at the root of every decision we make in this valley. Whistler is changing, and changing fast. And as Myles Rademan put it so well a few weeks ago, “ It’s how you manage those changes — how you make them fit your story — that distinguishes a great community from a merely good one.”

Let’s not allow ourselves to be swayed by questionable economic arguments simply to allow Fortress to pocket extra income by segregating its clientele into the haves and have-nots. As Rick Kahl, the editor of Ski Area Management, mentioned only two weeks ago: “It's OK to encourage wealthy folks to visit the mountains, and for resorts to cater to them. But is it necessary to squeeze out everyone else to do so? I don't think so, especially since it’s chasing away some of the very people who give resorts cachet in the first place….”

It’s a scary future. But it’s one whose spectre needs to be confronted. Imagine the day when there will be one lift queue at W/B for members of “the club” and another for non-members. Imagine a big powder day at Whistler Mountain and standing in the lineup at the Peak Chair watching the “club folk” doing laps on the lift while you wait your turn with the rest of the great unwashed.

Is that really the future you want? Is that really where W/B should be heading? While the results of the survey have yet to be made public (if they ever will) feel free to contact David Brownlie with your opinions. Better yet, write a letter to the Pique!

On another note, those incessantly cawing marketing mavens at Intrawest are still doing all they can to harness Whistler’s global brand to sell even more high-end property…

In yet another e-mail communication I received a few weeks ago from Intrawest head office — this one touting new inventory for sale at Maui’s Honua Kai condominiums — the ad’s lead once again played fast and loose with the truth. “From the people who brought you Whistler-Blackcomb,” it stated in big bold type.

Now, to me it’s pretty strange that a real estate concern touting beachside properties in Kaanapali would use a snowy mountain destination to promote its product. But that’s not what bugs me the most. It’s the assumption among the clever, young kool-aid drinkers in the Intrawest marketing department that their company is solely responsible for building and developing this great mountain resort.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me remind Alta States readers that Intrawest didn’t start investing in this valley until 20 years — that’s a full generation folks — after Whistler Mountain was launched. Even Blackcomb itself was six years old by the time Joe Houssian came nosing around looking for cheap real estate to develop.

That’s not to say the company didn’t have a major role in exploiting everything there was to exploit in this place. In the intervening 20 years — that’s another generation — Whistler went from being a small, backcountry community with a big mountain setting to a huge industrial resort with pressing urban issues. Sadly, it’s this “bigger is better” philosophy — sold like a motherhood statement by the savvy promoters at Intrahog, er, I mean Intrawest — that is the company’s enduring legacy at Whistler.

I still shake my head at the short-sighted strategy behind the Peak-to-Peak abomination whose monster cables are about to pollute the skyline above our heads. At a time when a significant shift to a “less is more” philosophy is occurring across the board for most enterprises (seen the drop in SUV sales recently?), the poor dupes at W/B are moving ahead with the biggest energy-gobbling capital project ever conceived on the mountain. And with a very questionable ROI — unless, of course, they plan to bring in mountain-top gambling.

Or maybe I’m just naïve. Maybe bringing in mountain-top gambling was the true goal right from the very beginning. It would certainly fit in nicely with the private club idea.

But back to the Kaanapali property and the self-promotional claims its marketers are making.

More appropriate in my mind, would be a claim like: “From the people who industrialized the Whistler experience” . I also like “From the folks who think most people are still dumb enough to be impressed by ‘stuff’”.

And what about: “From the people who believe ‘sustainable’ means selling out before you go broke” ? That one is my favourite…