Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

Whistler’s new self-fulfilling prophecy? The pieces of the puzzle are coming together for me now. At first I could not make sense of what had happened to our municipal council.

Whistler’s new self-fulfilling prophecy?

The pieces of the puzzle are coming together for me now. At first I could not make sense of what had happened to our municipal council. A few years ago the majority of their decisions made sense to me, unlike those of recent months. After weeks of trying to figure out what’s going on, I think I’ve come up with a theory for their radical change in direction.

Simply put, Whistler’s lawmakers have completely forgotten the value of our money. While most governments and businesses are doing more with less, Whistler is on a spending frenzy.

This point is illustrated by the following recent examples:

• $40,000 spent for a public consultation process that is immediately disregarded (choosing the consulting team for Whistler’s CSP);

• $143,000 for an e-commerce Web portal plan , note this is not for the portal but only for a plan;

• $750,000 increase in conference center contribution;

• Some hundreds of thousands, if not millions for the 2010 Olympics.

It wasn’t until I sat for lunch with one of the execs from the Whistler Chamber of Commerce that it hit me. You see, this gentleman was adamant about Whistler’s requirement for growth. After all, Whistler’s development is going to dry up, as will the municipal revenue stream from this development. I argued that perhaps the municipal budgets could be reduced by the amount of the lost development revenues. He argued that’s not possible, the muni needs the revenue to look after our town. Well, with spending like the examples given above, I’d have to agree.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You see, right now we don’t have a plan and we have lots of cash. What happens is we throw money at whatever cause comes along in the hopes that somehow we will drive future revenues. All these numbers then go into the budgets. Once these larger numbers get in the budgets they get a small percentage increase each year and then we have the budget for next year. This process goes on and on. Anyone who has worked for the government knows that you’d better spend your entire budget each year, for if you don’t, you’ll lose that budget for next year.

The result of this process is a continuous requirement for more cash. It goes like this… we need more cash, we need more growth, we need more cash, we need more growth, we need more cash… you get the idea. At some point we need to stop. Whistler’s local population and previous politicians all agreed that we would stop when we hit the bed cap. Now, apparently, a community of that size can’t support the municipal coffers. What gives?

I liken this to a teenager with a new Visa card. The naïve young person will find all kinds of "required" spending without really paying any attention to how close they’re getting to the credit limit, nor how hard it will be to make the payments later. In the name of the Natural Step, let’s also throw in the fact that the extra spending leads to lots of extra (and unnecessary) consumption and waste from an environmental standpoint.

Our Whistler teenager has decided that we need the 2010 Olympics. It seems that we’ve still got some room on our new Visa card. What the heck, the payments won’t be due until later. For the benefit of those who are not aware of the Olympic ground rules, here’s rule #1: the host of the Olympic Games is responsible for the costs of all venues, transportation and facilities expansion, as well as security.

Here’s what has been announced so far:

• 5000 seat arena going in between the medical clinic and the Brew House;

• 12,000 seat bobsleigh and luge track near Base II on Blackcomb;

• 15,000 seat Nordic centre in the Callaghan Valley;

• expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway;

• $200 million budget for security.

Now I know you could argue that Vancouver is the host city so they’ll have to pay, but somehow I don’t believe that Whistler will be "gifted" with items #1 thru #5, above. You could also argue that the Olympic Legacies will cover the costs of maintaining the facilities after the Games, but legacies come from the profits… no profits, no legacies. Then who pays?

So, back to my original point. We need more growth, we need more cash, we need more growth, we need more cash… Whistler’s new self-fulfilling prophecy.

It’s all making sense now.

Troy Assaly

Whistler

 

Yes, well we all know it’s Whistler council’s nature to spend our tax dollars. Don't you just love that little booklet we all got. filled with all that useful information we knew about 20 years ago!

I fail to see how the average guest will notice that Whistler is a sustainable community. Perhaps through spending money to advertise that fact, or handing out leaflets to the 4 million odd visitors, the latter of which will end up in a land fill somewhere. This is a sure way the visitors will know that we are serious.

Inside the non-deinked, 100 per cent post-consumer waste, warm, fuzzy feel-good household toolkit there is a fact: paving a large area is a bad thing. Hmmm, perhaps the day skier lots will remain as they are.

Guillermo Bright

Whistler

 

Just thought I would write having returned last weekend from our first skiing holiday in Canada. We have skied for many years in Europe, but we thought we would give Canada a go before the knees give up! We were not disappointed.

We had a 10 day package via Thomsons, staying in the Nicklaus North area. We used the odd bus, but mainly taxis to get us to and from the village. On the whole the drivers were so helpful.

The skiing was marvellous. A big plus for us was the queueing at the lifts – so easy-going, polite, fair. All the lift staff were cheerful considering some of the mundane jobs they do.

The restaurants on the mountains were good – quality food, fair prices, and plenty of toilets. We enjoyed the post-ski drinks in the village. Again, bar staff were just great.

Just one huge draw-back, and it's the same in the UK – DOG DIRT. One day we decided to have a cross-country ski lesson, and after this ventured off. We were disgusted at the amount of dog dirt, some even in the ski tracks. When people are so particular about everything else, would they like to come out of their front door and slip on dog dirt? It is something that really needs to be addressed. I suppose to be fair, dirt is more noticable against a white background.

We did so much enjoy your country and will feel as if we will be "slumming it" if we return to Europe next year. I'm certain we will be back.

Jim and Ros Byres

U.K.

 

I just got my first car last summer, a Tercel. Every time I drive into the Marketplace I’m thankful I didn’t get a bigger vehicle, and wonder if those who drive oversized vehicles think it is worth it. I see them taking several tries to fit into the stalls, while those of us with smaller vehicles can whip right in. So for what it’s worth, our parking stalls have discouraged me from buying a larger vehicle.

However, even with my car, parking on some days isn’t easy because of the lack of spots. If the width of the parking stalls is increased it would take more area for the same amount of spots. This would mean that goal #6 of the transportation strategy (minimizing the amount of land required for new transportation facilities) would not be met. Showing how seriously our municipality takes it’s environmental goals, planner Kim Needham said: "we’re not into social engineering here."

True it may not be in the municipality’s mission statement to re-engineer society, but like I said our existing parking spaces discouraged me from wanting a larger vehicle. We all have to take responsibility for the society and world that we live in. If our municipal government doesn’t want anything to do with engineering society, I doubt our federal government does either. This leaves social engineering to the multinational companies. Is this a good idea?

There is one more point I would like to make. The CEO of BC Automobile Dealers Association argues that SUVs are efficient because if you were going to take a trip up to Whistler you could carry the same amount of people and luggage in one as in two or three Corollas.

This may be true but I often see SUVs with only one person in them. I’m sure it would be better for the environment to have to take three Corollas on the occasional trip up to Whistler than to commute to work, get groceries, and do other daily activities in an oversized vehicle.

Ehren Hess

Whistler

 

I worked in Whistler for 10 years and came to appreciate the dedication and spirit that has led to its success. As we all know the early residents of the municipality established a long-term plan and today’s success is a direct outcome of that plan. It is rare to find the degree of dedication in a community that would allow it to realize a plan over that long a period and the community deserves full marks and recognition for its success.

I certainly believe that other communities (including Squamish) could learn from Whistler’s example. As a Squamish resident I am often frustrated by the inability of the local government to develop any type of coherent commitment to the future of the community. There is a lack of both leadership and vision.

Whistler has been loudly touting its "Comprehensive Sustainability Plan" and its focus on the "Natural Step" as an integral element in that sustainability. I find it curious that Whistler didn’t place much importance on sustainability until it approached build-out.

Whistler is redeveloping the conference centre and according to the story in the Pique will spend between $9 million and $22 million to expand this facility and make it more environmentally sustainable. I am curious as to the environmental (and financial) cost of the plan and what the environmental payback period will be for the resources consumed in the "sustainable heating and cooling systems, building materials and energy conservation" proposed in the redevelopment.

I am also dumbfounded by the idea that Whistler chooses to portray itself as an environmental champion on the unquestioned assumption that tourism is more environmentally responsible than other human activities like cutting down trees (especially old growth trees). The people of Whistler use these type of assumptions to buttress their belief that they are somehow superior to the residents of other communities.

Have they never wondered where the huge logs come from for their 5,000 square foot homes that are only occupied by two people for two weeks of the year? Have they never wondered about the tremendous resources required for the second homeowners to have multiple homes and travel back and forth in their SUVs (or by plane as they travel to and from Vancouver) as they enjoy their "environmentally friendly" lifestyle?

I also wonder how they rationalize the marketing of the resort to national and international markets when these visitors fly hundreds (or thousands) of miles to ski for a few days and then fly home. Has the community considered the resource consumption this requires in its environmental sustainability equation?

As noted, I admire Whistler’s success. We’ve had far too few success stories in this province (or this country) over the last 30 years. At the same time, I am offended by the belief that Whistler is superior to other communities that make their living in more traditional ways. In reality, Whistler is a community that depends on and could not exist without conspicuous consumption.

I fully support Whistler’s desire to be more environmentally responsible in its use of resources but there is a huge gulf between that and environmental sustainability; particularly considering Whistler’s markets and the type of lifestyle those markets represent.

"Me thinks the emperor has no clothes"

Al McCabe

Squamish

 

I was going to write a letter commenting on the silly proposal to spend $1 million on a new Web site but the residents of Whistler have already spoken eloquently on this matter.

However, what I found most interesting was that in perusing last week’s two Whistler newspapers, I found 10 references suggesting that our leaders are not listening or communicating with the citizens. Although citizens don’t necessarily have all the correct answers, they do deserve to be heard and their point of view considered; not dismissed because our leaders supposedly know best.

Based on my own experience, letters, faxes and e-mails to council seem to fall into a big black hole. You may receive an acknowledgement letter, but you never receive a meaningful response to the issues raised. In contrast, I recently sent two e-mails to corporate CEOs questioning something that their organization had done. In each case, I received a timely and informed response. One agreed with my concern and the other disagreed, which is fine, but they each responded in a meaningful manner to the issue that I had raised.

This is a plea to our mayor, council and staff: if you don’t start communicating and listening to the issues raised by residents, you may be facing the equivalent of a Meech Lake uprising. Wise leaders are those who encourage debate, listen and consider the views of those whose views may differ from their own.

Gary McDonnell

North Vancouver/Whistler

 

At the time of writing there is one detached home listed in Whistler under $800,000. I doubt there are many people living in the valley that could afford to buy their homes at current market values. At a meeting I recently attended a well know local mortgage broker stated that 50 per cent of the applications he receives are from Americans. The cheap Canadian dollar makes Whistler an extremely attractive world class resort to invest in. International pressure on our housing stock and an artificially imposed cap on development have already made Whistler unaffordable to the vast majority of locals. The possibility of the Olympics only intensifies the pressure on the housing stock.

Maintaining the cap in its present state is an unrealistic goal if held up under the light of sustainability. What sustains Whistler as a world class resort are its people. People need to be stake holders in Whistler to create a truly strong community. This is the main premise that employee housing is founded on. Whistler is NOT affordable for locals and therefore not sustainable. The community will suffer if we don’t make changes now.

Why not develop the Callaghan or Soo Valleys with subdivisions of detached single family employee restricted homes and town homes? The Callaghan Valley appears to have been completely logged if you look at it from the Creekside Gondola. New areas to develop will give people who have lived in the valley for years an opportunity to stay and not be forced out due to escalating property taxes. It will provide room for a senior’s development and lands for the locals to own there own home. It will keep our highly skilled construction industry intact for many more years. Why are we relying on the possibility of getting the Olympic Games to begin this discussion with the provincial government and First Nation representatives?

Do we really need the Olympics? There is no question that the Games will disrupt a good part of our winter season and displace a huge number of regular visitors and local businesses.

Can we take another look at tracks of land within municipal boundaries? Perhaps there is a win-win between a few 5,000 square foot buildable lots and employee restricted lots. As far as I know there are no plans in the works for employee restricted detached single family homes. Why? The family unit is the heart and sole of a community. Stakeholders are powerful ambassadors.

The municipality and the Whistler Housing Authority have made huge gains in employee housing in the last years and need to be acknowledged for their efforts. My thanks go to Hugh O’Reilly, Kristi Wells, Steve Bayly, Rick Staehli, Tim Wake and others too numerous to mention who have put in countless hours to making employee housing a reality.

Whistler will maintain its success if our guests and locals continue to have a positive experience. Our business is the resort experience business. We are the best in the world at it! I vote to keep it that way.

Let’s not drop the affordable housing ball halfway down the court.

Stuart Munro

Whistler

 

Re: Fairmont Chateau Whistler Loppet

This event has a come a long way – from the inaugural scoot around Lost Lake organized by the Alta Lake Sports Club 25 years ago, to the introduction of the Fairmont Chateau Whistler as a title sponsor 10 years ago. This year’s event was the most successful ever, with a record 262 skiers, 112 of whom were children!

Because many of you participate year after year, we thought we owed it to all of you to advise you of the changes for 2003.

The organizing committee has been at it for 10 years and many are stepping down after this season due to other commitments. There are several key positions available to be filled – no experience necessary, just keen bodies to pour their hearts and souls into this growing community event.

Because the committee will be changing substantially, we anticipate that there may be some distinct changes implemented. In fact, it may go back to its grassroots origin, with less pomp and ceremony, and more basic fun than we have experienced in the past 10 years. We always get feedback regarding the cost of the entry, and this may be the time to address that concern.

So for now, be aware that we are doing our best to hold a Loppet in Whistler for 2003. Watch the CCBC Web site for news in the spring ( http://ccbc.junction.net) , check out the CCBC magazine when you receive it next fall (if you are a member of CCBC), and watch for a mailout in the fall with an entry form, if a Loppet will be held.

It’s time for fresh faces to come to the table. If you are enthusiastic about X-C skiing, want to work with great people, are imaginative, keen and ready to give back to the sport of X-C skiing , please contact us. Planning for the 2003 Loppet starts now. We need to hear from you by April 1, 2002. Phone us at 604-932-3438 or fax 604-932-3418(fax) or e-mail Cheryl Morningstar at cmorningstar@telus.net

Thank you and happy trails!

Rita Rice, Secretary-Treasurer

Whistler Nordics

 

Recently there has been speculation regarding the rezoning of crown land for a seniors retirement complex, on land presently tagged as possible third site for an elementary school.

For the past several years the Whistler Concerned Citizens Group has lobbied council to encourage the creation of a natural park on this land. The area in question, as well as many acres north towards Emerald Estates, hosts a myriad of well used trails frequented by bikers, hikers and berry pickers. It is also a sledding area for children in the winter, as well as a fort building area. The loss of such habitat would also impact the local bear population.

Council could grant rezoning to some of the many privately held rural resource lands, thus saving this precious neighbourhood greenspace. The present two elementary schools could be expanded as is done in Vancouver. If council could in the past negotiate to save the Emerald Forest then they could again negotiate with BCAL to save our "Alpine Forest," thus creating a beautiful Legacy Park for the future generations to cherish and enjoy!

Is this not a time of Environmental Sustainability and the Natural Step?

Maureen Rickli

Whistler