Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Something fishy about arena If I were a paralytic athlete… or even if I were nothing more than a delegate attending a convention, would I prefer attending an event at Whistler or Squamish? I have nothing against Squamish, which already has an excelle

Something fishy about arena

If I were a paralytic athlete… or even if I were nothing more than a delegate attending a convention, would I prefer attending an event at Whistler or Squamish?

I have nothing against Squamish, which already has an excellent arena, swimming pool and recreation centre, but let's face reality. A sampling of Paralympic athletes and officials would vote 100 per cent for Whistler.

The Bid Book promised an arena for the Paralympic arena events, including curling.

Municipal staff just don't get it. How can Squamish support two arenas in a blue worker community while Whistler, with the richest postal code in Canada can not?

As stated in previous letters to the editor which I have written, I still feel there is something "fishy" about this whole Squamish/Pemberton arena thing. Some are asking whether Jack Poole, chairman of the Vancouver Olympic Committee, who just happens to control one of the largest construction companies in B.C., and a number of affiliates, has offered any input.

It baffles me to hear that Whistler would turn down a $20 million "freebie" toward an arena which would pay for itself. Anyone with a slightest knowledge of hockey, curling, and recreation knows the arena would be a success, especially if it were built at Meadow Park where there is sufficient refrigeration to support three hockey/curling surfaces, and zoning is already in place.

If the current council turns down this project, I am convinced they will pay for it at the upcoming civic election, and the final income will be the rolling of heads of bureaucrats throughout the village.

Allan Eaton

Whistler

 

 

Engaged or incompetent?

It was certainly encouraging to see the large turnout to hear staff’s presentation and recommendation to council on the Paralympic sledge hockey arena. Personally, I find a number of issues troubling, and as I search for a word to describe what’s happened – incompetence (The inability to distinguish right from wrong or to manage one's affairs) seems to fit.

There are numerous documents adopted by this council since being elected that clearly state an intention to engage in effective communication with the community.

• Council Strategic Planning Workshop – February 2003 – “Discussion at the workshop focused on effective communication as a cornerstone of open government…”

• Council Governance Manual – “Guiding Principles and Policies for Constituency Relations – IIc – Seek community input before significant planning or strategic decisions are made.

• Whistler 2020 – there are too many references to list them all – but here are a couple of gems – “Community members are engaged and have the capacity to support the vision” – “By increasing the level of engagement and dialogue with stakeholders, organizations may experience benefits such as access to a greater diversity of creative ideas and solutions…

I could go on… and on, but my point is we expected a significant level of community engagement. Unfortunately the sledge hockey arena process has had a complete lack of public engagement. And what’s even more unsettling is the response I got at the July 18 council meeting when I asked about the public input. The following is quoted directly from the approved minutes of that meeting:

Bob Lorriman questioned when the public would be able to be look at the options and provide input to the decision on the location of the sledge hockey arena.

Council members advised that it had not yet been determined whether the public would be engaged in the process.

“that it had not yet been determined whether the public would be engaged in the process.”

Fortunately, later in the meeting:

Moved by Councillor McKeever Seconded by Councillor Lamont

That Council commit to not make a final decision regarding the sledge hockey arena during the same meeting as the staff report on the topic is presented; and further

That Council commit to schedule a public open house in the week after the report is presented to solicit feedback from the public on the topic for presentation to Council before considering the question regarding the sledge hockey arena. CARRIED

Opposed: Councillors Wells and Melamed

So when I use the word incompetence to describe what’s happened — the inability to distinguish right from wrong or to manage one's affairs seems to fit. This is a $20 million plus decision!   VANOC needs a decision by Sept. 30, a borrowing referendum takes four to six months, council is already concerned that they have too much on their (and staff’s) agenda. We won the bid in July 2003, the consultants were retained in September 2002… and it was just proposed at the July 18 council meeting to schedule a public open house on Aug. 27 before council makes a final decision on Sept. 6?

“So, I want you to get up right now and go the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" – Howard Beale from the film “Network” (1976).

Bob Lorriman

Whistler

 

A sinking feeling

Finally someone other than myself has made a comment on the Eva Lake situation. Marilyn Kapchinsky's feedback (Pique letters Aug. 11) hit the nail on the head. For years the frustrated owners have felt isolated and helpless while lawyers and consultants "take care of things" at several hundred dollars an hour.

My experience in this town has proven that following a flood, fire or any natural disaster, the community has been very supportive. Unfortunately the shock value and media attention given to a building that is sinking slowly is minimal. The reality is a cm a year over 15 years has rendered the structures "uninhabitable."

I assume there are individuals who are sympathetic to our situation but don't know what to do our say. Writing a support letter would be a start. In addition I will be opening up an Eva Lake Trust Fund at RBC Whistler for those able to offer financial support. It would be very helpful to be able to pay the interest on our loans until the responsible parties own up to their mistakes.

Also, the proceeds from our annual garlic festival will be directed towards the cause. It's on Aug. 27 at Poole Creek, 25 km north of Pemberton Junction. This fun-filled family event, with live entertainment, is welcoming everyone by donation. If you would like to volunteer time, energy or ideas or would like more info please call me at 604-452-3354 or e-mail powerc@uniserve.com .

Mike Roger

Birken/Whistler

 

A neighbourly approach

Seems to me that too many people are shirking accountability and responsibility for the sad scenario at Eva Lake. Rather than point fingers at everyone (and we all know who they are) we should address this matter in the friendly, neighbourly manner that would most get results.

May I suggest that a bank loan be taken to rectify the problem and reimburse the owners and then every year at tax time the residents of Eva lake would be exempt of municipal and provincial taxes. They would, however, pay the exempt tax amount to the loan. This in time would pay down the loan.

I do not think the province would miss the tax amount, as I am not sure they know where it goes anyway. Whistler pays its way in taxes. So help us out here my Liberal friends. My heart really goes out to the good neigbours in Eva Lake and a solution would make us all feel proud. A little payback from the Lottery Corp. of B.C. would come in handy right about now.

Less talk, more action

Geoff Swan

Whistler

 

 

A community problem

As an Eva Lake Owner, I am angry and frustrated. I just paid $25,000 for a second special levy to fix my sinking condo. This brings the total to $54,000 that I have had to pay to fix this problem. There are 35 other owners at Eva Lake with the same problem. The fix has to be done now or two of the Eva Lake Buildings will be condemned as unsafe and uninhabitable this fall. Then where are we to live? I have paid for everything on my own, and I'm broke. I did not contract to have Eva Lake Village built, and I have paid my property tax every year since 1996 to the people who are responsible for this whole development, and still own the land, the RMOW.

I want to know what the council of Whistler thinks about our problem. Whistler Council: Please show some responsibility and decency, and communicate with us.

The Resort Municipality of Whistler is responsible for this development as it was one of the first employee housing endeavors completed, and still own the land. I want to know why the development company that negligently contracted Eva Lake Village is allowed to start a new development at the Rainbow lands before rectifying this gross misconduct at Eva Lake Village.

Who said O.K. to build Eva Lake Village on this land? Who is responsible for that? Again it is still owned by the RMOW and they contracted the developer, and they are responsible for the initial permit and building inspections during construction. Is this an indication of the type of support the people of Whistler can expect when it is their building that is sinking next?

This is a community problem. We know this must go to court so solve all the blame and deal with all the insurance companies involved, but why are we unable to get any support or comment from the municipality at all?

A responsible alternative is to offer a no-interest loan to the owners of Eva Lake through the Housing Authority until the court case is settled. I feel the RMOW is not going to do anything until our building falls down and someone is killed. Then again, maybe not even then.

S. Tanaka

Whistler

 

Do they ‘get it?’

Recent letters and articles in Pique Newsmagazine expressed challenges with Whistler’s economy, and when you compare today’s reality to the reality we experienced in the boom years of the late ’90s and 2000 these descriptions are accurate. So what? As Max stated, “let’s get on with it.”

While I completely agree with Max’s call to rework economic plans I have to question some of the comments made by others in recent weeks.

Council members, prospective candidates and the Pique editor have suggested that during our quest to maintain our amazing quality of life Whistler has spent a lot of time focusing on the social (human health) and environmental (ecological health) aspects of sustainability without paying attention to the economic leg of the stool which I always thought was a system to meet human health needs as opposed to a goal in itself, but anyway.

As I’ve understood their call to action they would like us to focus a significant amount of energy on improving Whistler’s economy. While this is a worthy cause, events in the past week have shown our economic health, and thus the market-based goods and services that contribute to our quality of life, clearly drive the health of the environment and our social and human fabric. The events have also shown us that the health of our environment and social health, and thus our quality of life, clearly drive the products and services used in our economy.

To illustrate these points one just needs to look the cause and effects of the recent train derailment and subsequent spill of caustic soda into the Cheakamus and downstream rivers systems. This unfortunate event has had a tremendous impact on the rafting and fish guiding businesses. It’s easy to blame CN Rail for the problem, however digging a little deeper reveals that the caustic soda was being transported to a pulp plant to create paper that we all use. Caustic soda is also one of the main ingredients in the kitchen degreaser likely used in the majority of Whistler’s restaurants.

Another example to illustrate these connections relates to energy. As prices for natural resources such as energy grow due to basic issues of supply and demand we are already seeing airlines and transport companies, Whistler’s lifeline, begin to raise prices. How will this low supply of natural resources impact Whistler’s economy and ability to meet our human needs?

My point is that things are connected, and if we take up the call to action to grow our economy with the same processes, energy and materials as we have in the past then the likelihood of these conflicting scenarios will rise. Without plans and actions like those described in the Whistler Future/Whistler 2020/CSP documents the likelihood of these scenarios will rise. Without leadership that considers the linkages between environmental, social and economic dimensions then likelihood of these scenarios will to rise.

So as you consider mayor and council candidates for the upcoming municipal election check to see if they “get it.” If they still think that you cannot improve the economy to the betterment of our quality of life while at the same time reducing our impact on our environment and other people then take a pass, because eventually their decisions will lead us down a path fraught with negative scenarios.

Adam Smith and E.O Wilson

Whistler

 

Ending on a sour note

So let me get this straight. The going gets tough and Hugh gets going... to work for Intrawest? How can an elected official who intimated that he was in for the long haul suddenly decide to jump ship while he is still mayor?

Hugh stated that council is divided and doesn’t work well together. Shouldn’t it be the mayor’s job to break the divide and use leadership skills to help council work together? Given that there is still a full three months before the next municipal election it would make more sense for Hugh to work towards completing some of the goals outlined in his platform rather that selling real estate in the U.S.

The people of Whistler should expect more from their elected leaders. Let’s make sure we vote wisely in the upcoming election and avoid conflict of interest pitfalls that can create situations where council can’t work together and the mayor becomes so frustrated he takes the first plane to Maui. This really puts a sour note on 17 years of service to our community.

Sean McDonald

Whistler

 

Shock and awe indeed

Shock and Awe, that would best describe a reaction to the thought of Nick Davies as mayor.

Let’s look at Mr. Davies’s rather shocking track record. He is chairman of the Whistler Housing Authority, not one employee-housing unit has been built and occupied in this term of council despite that being a key election platform issue.

He championed a developer rather than the will of the residents in the Nita Lake project. This developer has yet to start on his employee-housing obligation that was supposed to be occupied this summer.

He wanted to subdivide his own lot to produce a restricted price housing lot with significant financial gain to him but reconsidered this self-serving ploy when it raised eyes around the valley.

We have an employee housing expediter that Davies said would get things going, yet no new units.

He was defending a contractor in the Eva Lake fiasco while the municipality is also a defendant.

I am awed by the fact that someone who has done so little for the community and appears to be interested in only what’s in it for him thinks he is mayoral material. Send the mayor on trips with Tourism Whistler to sell the resort because it’s symbolic to have the mayor along? It’s hard to believe he actually said that let alone meant it.

Shock and Awe, that’s how his track record could be described. Shocked at how bad his track record is and Awed by the ridiculous things he continues to espouse.

Robin Brown

Whistler

 

Some details over Rainbow

I attended the recent public open house on the Rainbow rezoning. It raised more questions than it answered. Although there were maps and drawings, there was little of substance. There was nothing handed out for the public to review. I was told it was just at the early stages.

I am asking council to please postpone the application until there is a full public information meeting with all the parties describing the process and responding to questions. I am concerned about the secrecy of the process that is occurring. The public needs to know all the facts before it can decide to support the current proposal or not. There should be full public disclosure of what is planned before any commitments are made. The public can then give informed input.

I was told that there is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is “non-binding” between the RMOW, the developers, and the WHA, which is a subsidiary of RMOW. However, when I asked for a copy of it, I was told the public is not entitled to see it. It seems like everyone else has access to it but the public, and yet the public is being asked to be on the hook. I was told that the MOU includes a $7 million guarantee to the developer from taxpayers’ money, in case the restricted housing sales do not materialize as planned. When I asked a staff member for more information, I was told that they “didn’t know all the details.” This is disconcerting.

I was also told that the WHA is negotiating a costing with the developer for the restricted housing. In exchange, the developer would be able to build 26 (or 36, I can’t recall) market houses rather than six. So, the developer makes money every way, including having a taxpayer buy-back guarantee?

There should be a full package of information for the public, including the MOU, and a public information meeting before council goes any further. The MOU should be posted on the Internet, and made available at the public information meeting. The public needs to know in advance of the exact details of any proposed deal with the developer, and the terms of the restricted rental housing. Would council please authorize this process?

Jeff Sanca

Port Moody, B.C.

 

Jets in Pemberton?

About the idea for expanding the airport in Pemberton, let’s think about this for a minute… hmmm… No! Let’s think about it for a while longer… No! Let me ask anyone living in Pemberton if they would like to stop their conversation in mid-sentence while they wait for a jet/turbo prop to take off? I think not.

One of the qualities of life in Pemberton is the peacefulness. Would an airport expansion destroy this? Yes. Would this have a negative effect on small planes/gliders/hang gliders? Yes. Is this another example of Whistler (Intrawest) offloading “undesirable impacts” onto Pemberton? Yes. Are there huge problems with mountains in the way? Yes. Are there any overwhelming economic benefits that we should sacrifice our quality of life for? No.

If Whistler wants to bring international visitors by air, great! Then let Whistler plug that idea into their “sustainability objectives” formula and build their own airport, preferably south of Whistler.

Norm LeBlanc

Squamish

 

No sympathy

As a Whistler resident, there are very few things that cause me to lose my easy-going attitude and composure. That said, I feel I must respond to Shelley Arnusch's Pique ’n Your Interest column of Aug. 11. I have very little sympathy for anyone who gets caught performing the "Whistler Stop-tion" as I like to call it. It galls me to see people do it, but it burns me inside to see you use this forum to get paid to complain about it. You did it, you got caught, live with it.

There are no "relative" laws in society, but mitigating factors to the actions that people take. Your actions, clearly stated by you, were that you were inattentive. That inattention to detail also let your license expire. What would have happened if your lack of focus had caused something serious?

The law is the law, and should be enforced. Whether it be riding your bike or board in the village or rolling a stop sign, if you get caught then pay the penalty. If there were levels of relativity for actions like these, then there would be additional signs below the stop sign saying "Monday-Sunday 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.; Holidays exempt; Winter months yield only; Shelley's free rolling zone anytime."

Derek Maxheleau

Whistler

 

Zero tolerance?

I have lived beside the CN tracks at the Lillooet River crossing for 35 years. I have used the railway crossing for access to the Crown land fronting the river and beyond many hundreds of times, and will continue to do so as will the many fellow recreational users we see everyday are doing. The alternate route is to ride out to the highway and endure the truly terrifying experience of trying to stay on the one metre paved highway shoulder with logging or gravel trucks to suck you out into the road or blowing you into the bottomless ditches.

CN’s zero tolerance policy obviously has much more to do with the railway’s liability position than my personal safety. I would be interested to know more details on the 67 deaths in B.C. in the last 10 years. How many of these deaths were suicidal or alcohol related? As for the mentally challenged who would consider riding along the tracts, head down enclosed in heavy metal music. Darwin wrote volumes on such behaviors, the rest of us should not be penalized for their action.

It is time for these “zero tolerance” policies to be reviewed and brought into line with 21 st century realties. Because you own the land, should not mean that you can set your own land use policies in isolation from the needs of the communities through which your corridors pass, anymore than I can or should with the land I own.

Public education as to the risks of pedestrian travel on railway land, by all means, but banning all such use (except where legal crossings exist), is impractical and unenforceable, as is any bad law.

Establishing safe pedestrian crossings and use within the corridors, in other words trails, at locations determined through consultation with local land use planners is the logical solution.

Zero tolerance? How about a zero tolerance towards rail transport of hazardous materials until the railways can guarantee that their cars will not fall into the lakes and rivers as happened twice last week.

Hugh Naylor

Pemberton

 

Voters can make a difference

As I move around the community I sense much concern regarding the current state and future of Whistler, and the sub-par performance the mayor and council have done during the current term. November is your chance to vote but now is the time to begin assessing the candidates as they come out and declare their candidacy. Take the time to investigate each candidate, to see why he or she is running, determine if they have a hidden agenda or a conflict of interest. If an existing councilor is running, take the time to check their record on council, find out how they voted on the issues before them. Attend the all-candidates forums and ask questions; get a commitment from them regarding how they will tackle your concerns and those of the community.

But most of all get out and vote, because without voting you have no right to complain.

Craig Hollerin

Whistler