Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

Over the last couple of weeks I have read with interest the editorials and letters that have related to the Lamberts' challenge to the bylaws that the community and municipal council approved last October.

Over the last couple of weeks I have read with interest the editorials and letters that have related to the Lamberts' challenge to the bylaws that the community and municipal council approved last October. Bylaws that were to set in motion the creation of a train station, lodge and single family lots, while protecting wetlands and building needed employee housing.

I would like to take this opportunity to correct a few factual errors that have crept into writings on the issue of our project and the court's decision:

• The decision of the B.C. Supreme Court was not about the size or height or scale of our project, nor of the hotel building we propose to build. Nor was it about the wisdom or propriety of council's decision to support the creation of a hotel, a train station, employee housing and the protection of vital wetlands. Such decisions are wholly a matter for council, as the duly elected representative of the municipality's citizens, and the court did not suggest otherwise.

• What the court's decision was about was a technical matter of bylaw drafting. The bylaw established a number of scenarios, one of which was a "base density" scenario. The court held that the provisions for this scenario were in effect inconsistent. The court then held that the effect of its "base density" scenario finding was that the whole bylaw should be set aside. The court added that it was wholly open to council to enact a new bylaw if it wished.

• A number of interpretations were available other than the one the court arrived at. As an example, the base density scenario was not the one we were building under. Hence, one option open to us is an appeal. At the same time, there are other ways of dealing with the technical defect that the court concluded existed.

• Having spoken to Mr. Lambert and having heard him on several occasions, I am well aware of his desires respecting this project. While Mr. Lambert is certainly entitled to his opinion, and has expressed it at various public hearings, council's conclusion as to what is best for the municipality was different. Mr. Lambert appears to be attempting to use the court's ruling regarding a technical issue to suggest that is it not up to council to decide whether our project is good for the municipality's citizens, and that there should instead be a three way negotiation with him as a party. The court did not say any such thing.

• It is also important to note that the solutions Mr. Lambert has proposed in the past would make our project unviable – with or without community amenities.

• Finally, it has been suggested that there are approximately $20 million in community benefits that have blinded council in making this decision. This number is off by approximately an order of magnitude – the amenities being delivered to the RMOW are closer to a value of $2 million. This is in addition to shared benefits like employee housing and the train station that will be privately owned, but the operation of which is covenanted to ensure public benefit.

We continue to have open, honest and professional discussions with senior staff at the municipality regarding how to keep our projects moving forward. We appreciate the efforts of all involved. As at the time of writing this letter, we continue to take guidance to ensure that this will be a great project for the Whistler community and our investors.

We have had numerous discussions with community leaders that have been heartfelt and encouraging. We will not fail in living up to our commitments to make Nita Lake Lodge development a source of pride for our owners and all of Whistler.

John Haibeck

President,

Nita Lake Lodge Corporation

 

I am writing in response to your opening remarks of March 26. In this piece you state "a clear majority of Whistlerites found it (Nita Lake Lodge) acceptable". I don’t know how you came to this conclusion, but I suspect you are correct. This, I suspect, is precisely the reason for the Local Government Act prohibiting municipalities from shaking down developers in exchange for rezoning.

In politics if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul’s vote. Politicians find this axiom irresistible in circumstances where there are more Pauls than Peters. Such was the case in the Nita Lake Lodge example. Punish a few close neighbours for the benefit of the community at large.

Allan Jenner

Whistler

 

With reference to your lead article in last week's Pique:

Has it occurred to you that maybe you got it wrong and that all the people who were for the Nita Lake development were, as many people suggested at the time, either on the pay roll or had something to gain from it? I suspect they were all part of a cleverly orchestrated campaign by the developer and his buddies.

Shame on you for playing into the developer's hands and trying to incite a late letter writing paper revolt for this development – even though it is illegal.

I would have hoped our editor would have had a more professionally neutral stance. It makes me wonder whose pay roll are you on?

Kevin Johnson

Whistler

 

Since Whistler’s beginnings, development rights have been tied to the delivery of community benefits. Our success as a world-class all-season resort and a vibrant community is due in large part to the negotiations between landowners and government.

Initially, the ski mountain operators were enticed to construct new ski lifts by being granted development rights based on uphill capacity. In this way, Whistler Mountain’s ski area was expanded, and the new ski area of Blackcomb Mountain was created and expanded. In the 1980s, under Whistler’s Official Community Plan, development rights were granted for projects that provided for summer resort amenities. By the 1990s, our community sorely needed additional housing for local employees, and development rights were used to achieve restricted resident units. In recent history, only re-zonings that provide significant benefit to the community in terms of such things as resident housing or environmental protection were considered. The rezoning applications approved throughout the last decade have all contributed to the success of our resort community by providing amenities, resident housing, and/or preservation areas. Negotiation of community benefits with land developers has been much more a developer’s cost of doing business in Whistler than buying zoning and has contributed to Whistler’s success. So what is new with Nita Lake’s employee housing and wetland preserve?

The Nita Lake site has historically been used for a lodge and more recently for a commercial tennis club. The site is adjacent to a three-storey lodge and pub facility on a street that has been planned for commercial development since 1991.

The Lamberts purchased their "Chateau de Lac" overlooking Nita Lake for almost $10 million in January 2002. I believe the Lamberts’ real concern is not the legalities of rezoning process, rather the effect of the proposed Nita Lake Lodge on their own view. The real issue here is someone purchasing a house overlooking the lake and wanting the least impact on their own view. Fair enough, however, what I find troublesome is that, since buying their Chateau in January of 2002, the Lamberts have done nothing to mitigate the terrible visual impact of the tons and tons of blasted rock which were dumped down the hill below their Chateau down to the Valley Trail and lake. This huge, ugly rock pile is totally visible all around Nita Lake. It could easily have been planted at minimum cost and should have been. How, in good conscious, can the Lamberts be so aggressive about the impact of a lodge in their view across the lake without having the courtesy to fix the abomination of their own property? Anyone who cared about the impact on how others view their house would have taken the steps to landscape such a rock wasteland. It is incredibly ironic that those with a blatant disregard to the appearance of their own home to their neighbours would take such an effort to control the appearance of another property.

The amenities offered by Nita Lake support the continued success of our resort community. The Nita Lake development will provide for a passenger train station, will protect 25 acres of wetlands in perpetuity, will result in well-planned employee housing, and will provide for a number of other community amenities. The community spoke strongly in favour of this development. Don’t be bullied; fix the bylaws so they are legally enforceable.

Steve Bayly

Whistler

 

Mr. Lambert should not presume to speak for the community. One million dollars for our medical centre is a victory for the community. Additional employee housing is a victory for the community. The Humphries decision is not a "victory for the community".

Mr. Lambert’s persistence in this matter is self-centred, self-indulgent, spiteful and mean spirited, and it is very clear that his only motive is to preserve his view from Chateau Nita Lake. As stated by Brent Leigh, "it is very disappointing that individual interests can overcome the collective interests of the community." If Mr. Lambert truly cared about the community he claims to be a part of, he would not have pressed this issue to this extent, especially considering that, gauging from the open houses I have attended and the people I have spoken with regarding this issue, the majority of the community supports our council’s decision, and this project.

Scott Pass

Whistler

 

Re: Nita Lake Lodge Bylaw editorial of 19 March

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that "Taxpayers, the community and the developers deserve better" than the outcome of the court challenge brought by the Lamberts but I still remain optimistic that that the defect in the bylaw can be cured.

The central point in the court’s judgment was that the maximum size of the hotel permitted under the bylaw, without the provision of amenities, was 100 square metres (approximately 1,076 sq. ft.) and since the basic requirement in Whistler for hotel construction would exceed 100 square metres, even without any rooms, the bylaw did not therefore include a hotel as an outright permitted use. Thus, the hotel use became dependent on the amenities being provided and the bylaw was quite correctly held to be invalid.

This failure in the bylaw appears to have resulted from an unfortunate mistake in the drafting of the bylaw which could just as easily have set 1,000 square metres (107,640 sq. ft.), instead of 100 square metres, as an initial maximum size for the hotel use, thereby making the construction of a basic hotel practical as an outright use. Then additional density (as distinct from land use) could be legally allowed in exchange for amenities. The drafters of the bylaw just got the decimal place wrong.

Even the Lamberts had their own problems with misplaced decimal points.

Firstly: in alleging in a newspaper advertisement, and subsequently in a sworn statement in the court proceedings, that "the proposed hotel would be 15 times larger than any other structure on Nita Lake". This was refuted at the last public hearing by a professional architect’s calculations in a comparison with the adjacent Whistler Resort & Club and Hoz’s Restaurant building, proving that the hotel massing would be 1 decimal 5 (1.5) times greater, not 15 times greater.

Secondly: in Mr. Lambert’s press release issued from Australia on 16 March alleging that the zoning by the municipality was "in exchange for a package of amenities to be provided by the developer valued at close to $20 million." but not giving any indication where that value figure came from. What is known is that the developer paid $5 million for the Zen property containing the wetlands and one of the employee housing sites in exchange for the existing 242 bed units attributed to it being transferred to the hotel and market housing sites. At a conservative market value of at least $20,000 per bed unit this means the developer got full value for the $5 million and the wetlands and employee housing site came at no net cost. Even Councillor Melamed got this wrong when he referred in his interview with the Pique to "the community’s request for the $5 million for the wetlands".

As a cost to the developer for amenities, there was in fact only $1 million for the nine units of employee housing to be transferred to the municipality, plus;

$15,000 for fish habitat,

$10,000 for public trails enhancement plus additional costs to the developer for additional trails and bridges

$10,000 for recreation equipment at Alpha Creek Park

$25,000 minimum for public art

$10,000 for landscaping at the Valley Trail and Drew Drive plus a right of way allowance for a bus loop

All of these amenities together couldn’t possibly cost more than $2 million and certainly not $20 million. They got the decimal place wrong again! These errors amount to a serious distortion of the facts and prove to be very misleading.

This whole fandango deserves to be called "the dance of the decimals".

The significant point to remember is that, other than for the nine units to be transferred to the municipality, the remaining units of employee housing to be provided will be owned by the developer who can collect the rents and the proceeds of any sales in order to recover its costs, meaning there will be no net cost to the developer or to the municipality. This isn’t anything like the huge scale of the last major deal for amenities made with Decigon and Intrawest where the municipality had to kick in some 470 new bed units, over and above the cap, plus $1 million in cash, to acquire the Emerald Forest as an environmental land preserve.

The benefit of this increased supply of employee units will accrue to the community as a whole and specifically to some of the close to 400 employees who are currently on the Housing Authority’s waiting list and who have been pre-qualified to purchase units as they come available.

Getting back to my opening comment, I am optimistic that the defect in the bylaw can be cured in a new bylaw by the simple expediency of placing a realistic maximum of say 1,000 square metres on the basic density for the hotel so that it is practical as an outright use. Provision can then be made for an increase in density in exchange for the amenities.

The question of land use for a hotel on this site is really not in issue and never has been. Even Mr. Lambert supports this, so long as (in his own words) "it is a small boutique lodge with about 30 to 40 rooms" and "that he would like to see this development be approved but on a reduced scale," presumably by reducing its height to two or three storeys instead of the proposed four storeys so that there would, in his opinion, be less of an impact on his view from 500 metres away across the lake. That is his real issue but the law is clear that no one has the right to sue for the protection of his view.

The question of height and massing is of course a subjective one and equally dependant of the form and design of the building and landscaping, all of which will be subject to scrutiny in the mandatory development permit and design review process.

The Official Community Plan, which is the only official planning document imposing any legal constraint on council, clearly states under the Form and Character provisions applicable to the Whistler Creek Development Area that:

"A commercial character should be located along Lake Placid Road and anchored to the west by the B.C. Rail station and to the east by the Whistler Mountain Base facility.

"A pedestrian scale shall be maintained by limiting commercial, retail and mixed use facilities to three storeys, and restrict the larger building forms to designated anchor points ." (emphasis mine)

The development at the Whistler Mountain anchor point is between four and six storeys and it is entirely appropriate that, in keeping with these provisions of the Official Community Plan, the proposed hotel at the rail station anchor point be built to a comparable height.

It is entirely up to the municipal council to pass judgment on the appropriate use and density for this project and they have clearly done so on two separate occasions, thus declaring the will of the community, after hearing from individual citizens at two separate public hearings. For what it’s worth, by my count, after carefully reviewing the videotape of the last public hearing, 36 people spoke in favour of the project and 21 spoke against, but of these only eight were opposed to the size of the project, eight were concerned that more park and waterfront access should be provided and five had other concerns such as the process being followed and the transfer of bed units.

So, let’s just get on with it! Get back to reality and stop ranting on about greed, fettered judgment, enticements, urban sprawl, concrete jungles, falling real estate prices (read reduced unearned speculative profits), Wal-Marts and Sears. Hopefully, if the municipality finally gets it right this time, the opponents will be persuaded by their conscience and a realization of the damage they are inflicting, not to go to the courts again in yet another demonstration of a vested interest disguised as a moral principal, and attempt to place their personal self interest above the best interest and needs of the community.

Garry Watson

Whistler

 

This letter is in regards to the recent happenings between the Resort Municipality of Whistler and the Lamberts. I have only one issue to raise and that is the apparent hypocritical undertones existing in Keith's cause. In regards to development in his area, he is quoted as saying "Besides, whoever said we needed another hotel up there? Whoever said we needed 14 big houses for over $2 million each?" Is it just me or is there something flawed in this statement, especially when it is coming from an individual who is in possession of a hotel-sized house costing far more than $2 million? I have yet to see the Lambert residence but from all accounts that I have heard from locals and tourists alike, it is one of the largest, excessive, and elaborate homes in Whistler.

The Lamberts are taking great issue with development in their area and yet they seem not too concerned when they purchased their over-sized abode. Did they make any attempts to scale it down? Did they search out a smaller home or contract developers to construct one?

I am not pointing fingers or saying that either side is completely right or completely wrong. I also am not saying that accepting or declining "fringe benefits" from developers is a good or bad course of action. I would like to mention, however, that at present many employed in Whistler share a one bedroom townhouse with six other people to the tune of $600 each, on average, with no laundry facilities and the added cost of utilities. Opposition to development in Whistler is a relatively easy stance to take when you are fortunate to be a "Have" instead of a "Have Not". The situation is very much grey and not black and white.

I am a fortunate Whistler resident. I have a secure job and a great place to live with an excellent landlord and lady. While the events surrounding Nita Lake has no immediate impact on my life, they will. Anything that happens in a small community has a ripple effect, with the ramifications affecting a few individuals at first and everyone else eventually.

The Lamberts have made it clear that the extent of development at Nita Lake is not acceptable. Will they now be willing to assist the RMOW in finding solutions to the employee housing situation? Will they use their resources to assist in raising funds for the health care system? Will they take an active interest in helping the community or will they withdraw to the confines of their comfortable home and watch over Whistler from their uninterrupted view?

Jim Galvao

Whistler

 

Last week you printed a letter from Susie Goodall that I believe is not in character with the majority of the Whistler community. Mr. Lambert felt the process for the rezoning of the Nita Lake Lodge was flawed and exercised his right to challenge the process. Whether or not Madam Justice Humphries finding in his favour is good for the community remains to be seen. Aspen, Vail, Mammoth and most other U.S. established resorts spend millions of tax payer dollars every year fighting rezoning and development issues. It makes it almost impossible for these resorts to continue to develop for the betterment of all.

Ms. Goodall questions the head of the Chamber of Commerce. The President of the WCC is the representative for the business community at large. This ruling is going to negatively impact the building trades, landlords and local suppliers of all kinds. It may very well impact all future development and the benefits that the community may potentially receive from these developments. From the Chamber’s perspective this is not a good outcome.

Ms. Goodall suggests that our lawmakers are arrogant. I believe that the mayor, council and our municipal employees have only the best interests of the resort at heart. The Nita Lake Lodge went through the longest process of any project to date in Whistler and was supported overwhelmingly at two public hearings. This is not the process taken by arrogant people.

Ms. Goodall claims that development has gone unchecked in the five long years she’s been here. The zoning and bed units for this development were in place long before Ms. Goodall arrived at the resort and is for the most part within the existing OCP. Most of the development over the past five years has been infill projects with very little affect on green space.

Ms. Goodall suggests this development is the root cause of our current vacancy numbers. I would suggest that if you checked with Whistler-Blackcomb or Tourism Whistler that their surveys don’t find this to be the case. There are many factors that are affecting tourism, the least of which is construction.

Ms. Goodall suggests that the real estate market over $2 million is stone dead. Interestingly in a six month period from Oct. 1 st 2000 to March 28 th 2001, considered a very hot market here, we had 14 sales over $2 million. For the same period, Oct. 1 st 2003 to March 28 th 2004, we have had 17 sales over $2 million. The only properties stone dead are the ones that continue to be overpriced. Buyers aren’t stone stupid!

Finally, Ms. Goodall suggests that the RMOW should stop all development. We are already under tremendous pressure as we reach build out. We are going through a sustainability process and it is evident that housing plays a major roll in this sustainability. If we have any hope of our resort keeping some sense of community we need affordable housing. If we stop development the only impact will be for prices to go even higher. The result will be just another resort for people with multi-million dollar net worth.

The Nita Lake lodge project will be a valuable addition to our community. The train station will bring in new tourists who might not otherwise visit Whistler. The hotel will have a unique setting that is not offered anywhere else in Whistler. Whistler has a history of finding win-win solutions; let’s hope this is the case with this development.

Mike Wintemute

Whistler

 

Just the facts, Ma’am

I noticed that in last week’s paper one of your readers stated that the real estate market above $2 million is "stone dead".

Unfortunately, this statement contradicts the facts. According to our statistics there have been 19 sales of properties over $2 million in 2004. This is already better than levels of activity which occurred in 2003 and 2002.

Buyers in today’s marketplace are proceeding carefully to insure they get full value with their real estate decision in Whistler. In addition, there are many more properties for sale today (particularly in the higher price points) than there have been for three or four years, giving buyers plenty of time to make a decision. Consequently, the total number of real estate transactions has dropped but it has certainly not disappeared.

There are potential buyers at all price ranges for properties of good value.

As the old saying goes, there is a buyer for everything, at the buyer’s price.

Anyone interested in getting the accurate story of today’s real estate market is welcome to call myself or any of our sales associates and we will be happy to help.

Pat Kelly,

President

Whistler Real Estate Co. Ltd.

 

This letter was addressed to Whistler’s mayor and council.

Re: Delta Whistler Resort

I am writing to you in regard to your decision to authorize staff to continue processing the application of the Delta Whistler Resort to add more square footage to their existing development.

As I understand it, in a nutshell, the Delta wishes to add 40,000 square feet of commercial and residential space (for the dimensionally challenged such as myself, all of the commercial and residential floor space at Nesters Square amounts to 40,000 square feet). The bed unit count for the Delta would increase 70 to 100 bed units.

In my opinion, this is a wrong decision and should be rescinded immediately for the following reasons:

1. When the village was originally designed, extensive planning went into view corridors, sun and shade areas, pedestrian movement, gathering places, etc. The idea was to keep the scale of the village appropriate to the various intended uses and the natural environment. The land comprising the village then was "blanketed-zoned" with CCI zoning which allowed, amongst other things, buildings eight storeys in height. As each parcel was developed, they were regulated by restrictive covenants, village design guidelines, parcel envelopes, etc. keeping in mind the original village design. At no time was it the intention of anyone involved in the initial design or development that some day in the future, all parcels could eventually be built out to the full eight storeys or the equivalent gross floor area. To applaud this applicant by stating the Delta is not asking (now) for all of it is misleading and potentially dangerous;

2. The Village Enhancement Strategy was completed recently and the vision statement says in part:

"The Village has become a place that personifies the success of Whistler and the extent of what has been achieved. The design principles of the original Village – the gateways, views, pedestrian corridors, solar access, building scale and form – are a model for mountain resort village design and have been emulated by many other resorts… Whistler Village was originally designed for people’s comfort, convenience, interest and experience. It will continue to provide these features by maintaining and enhancing the original concepts."

Nowhere in that document is reference made to consideration of significant reworking of building massing, densities, etc. In fact, just the opposite. To consider this proposal effectively jettisons the work of a significant number of people and input by the community in coming up with the strategy;

3. A "moratorium" was placed on applications to do with CC1 zoning until some issues were worked out. I assume one of those issues was the enforceability of the design guidelines, restrictive covenants, etc. Simply because a wrong-headed application (or in this case probably two such applications – the Delta’s and the Crystal Lodge) was in the door of municipal hall does not justify continuing to deal with it. If there is a problem with the CC1 zone, fix it and in the meantime, just say no;

4. For every minute of staff time spent processing this application, another dollar will be spent by the Delta in support of it. The longer it takes, the more pressure there will be to approve the end result. Staff have come to you for direction; you have the opportunity right now to nip this one in the bud before anymore time and money is spent on it;

5. It’s a mug’s game to buy the argument that this particular hotel needs renovations, upgrading, or whatever and these enhancements can only be paid by way of increased floor space, bed units, etc. Any business will have set aside a replacement fund for capital improvements. Besides, if you go down that path, you will be faced with that submission by every commercial property owner in town. It’s called the something for nothing argument;

6. How does this application at all fit in with sustainability?

An enormous amount of time and energy has gone into the planning of the village, with an excellent result for the most part. This type of ad hoc approach puts all that at risk. How much alpine village ambience will there be in strolling through a village shadowed on all sides by the equivalent of eight storey complexes?

Nancy Wilhelm-Morden

Whistler

 

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the low skier visitor numbers this year, and the spectacle of Whistler topping out with its overpricing of everything in town. We are losing some of our foreign visitors due to the war on terrorism, and our American friends are not finding the dollar exchange as inviting as in previous years. In other words, we have been getting away with overpricing for years and now we are starting to pay for it. The visitors are disappearing, and the locals are suffering as our economy visibly erodes. The focus on sustainability has never had more relevance than now.

I realize that living in these mountains costs a little more, and that's OK with me. We live a great lifestyle, and most of us are willing to pay for that. I am not upset that I pay a bit more for groceries and gas, and home-ownership, even with the availability of affordable housing, is still far costlier than other towns in Canada. This is not my gripe, I am willing to pay a bit more for my chosen lifestyle.

No, what really bugs me is the cost of a season's pass. I have been forking over $1,200 for my pass for the past 10 years (that's a $12,000 cumulative investment), always bracing myself for the sting, always resentful that it costs so much. Oh sure, we get a "discount", but this only illustrates that the full price of a ski pass, which exceeds $1,500 with taxes, is absolutely outrageous. That's the price of a reasonable used car. For that you can buy a tricked-out mountain-bike that will last for years. The $200 early bird discount is insulting, and the Ambassador program needs some serious revising.

This year I fell on hard times and was unable to drum up the money for the ski pass, so I decided on a ski card instead. I usually ski 25-35 days a year, but not this year. I think I have eight days, and will probably end the season with less than 15. Gone are the days when I'll go up for "just a few runs". Gone are the days when I'll take a chance on the weather, or the conditions. No way, not at $60 a pop. Everything's gotta be perfect, and the whole day set aside before I'll reach for my wallet this year; those perfect days are scarce.

Earlier this month, I took a ski holiday at Silver Star, visiting my old ski buddy who couldn't afford to raise his expanding family in Whistler and so moved to Vernon. I am here to report that the snow at Silver Star was fantastic and the runs were deserted over the weekend – during spring break yet. And the cost of a ski pass is only $500.

No wonder my friend moved. Others are sure to follow.

Here's a suggestion for Intrawest. Why not offer a local's early-bird season's pass for, say, $750, and offer it to anybody living in the valley and the Lower Mainland? What the heck, if you live in Hope, you're a local. Here's what would happen: You would sell thousands of ski passes! The skier visitor numbers would jump back to reasonable levels; there would be hundreds of happy, unpaid ambassadors flooding into Whistler on weekends, staying in hotels and spending their cash at the shops and restaurants. We would still willingly pay 15 bucks for a burger and a coffee on the mountains at lunchtime. Of course, hundreds of the season pass purchasers will not use them enough to justify the investment, and Intrawest will again find themselves swimming in their profits.

C'mon, Intrawest, we all know your wealth is derived from real-estate development, so give us a break on the passes. And why not share the wealth a little and give the lifties a raise, so that they're not so crabby by the end of the season.

Tim Allix

Whistler

 

Congratulations Whistler Pee Wee "A" Hockey Team

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the Whistler Pee Wee A Hockey Team; their players, coaching staff and parents. From March 14 to 18, this team represented the Pacific Coast District at the BCAHA Provincial Championships in Mackenzie, B.C. The team placed third in a tournament of the seven best Pee Wee A teams from around the province, an admirable job in itself.

My congratulations is not for their finish in the tournament standings, although it was admirable, but for them capturing the 2010, British Columbia Amateur Hockey Association Fair Play Trophy. This trophy recognizes sportsmanship on the ice and the way the team represents their community while at Provincials. This includes behaviour and manners in hotels, restaurants and shops around town. No small part goes to the Head Coach Glenn Howe and Manager Barry Clemiss who groomed a team any Rep Hockey coaching staff would be proud of. The players played hard, never gave up, and were full of smiling faces. Many of the local business people commented to me personally, quite specifically on your well mannered team and their parents and how they would always be welcome.

After the team was presented with the Fair Play Trophy I explained to them that as a parent, I would be proud to have any of them as my own child. What I forget to mention was that I would be just as proud to have any of their parents as my own. The parents were always positive in cheering the team on and encouraging them. This truly demonstrated their respect for the players, the opposition, the referees and the game.

I hope the community is proud of this great group of players, coaches and parents. They were certainly superb ambassadors for Whistler.

Randy Henderson

North Central District -Director

BCAHA

 

Re: Balding for Dollars

In a society that places so much value on physical appearance, our hair is a big part of our identity. Losing it all instantly is liberating but can be devastating if it doesn’t feel like a choice. Having company through any difficult experience is comforting and heartening.

When I decided to do it last year it was about all that hair, a gift I wanted to share. After it was all gone, I realized that the gesture of becoming hairless means more than the money or even the hair itself. If I walk through the hospital and a girl sees my shorn head and thinks, "hey, she doesn’t look so bad…" it’s all worth it. So, I’m doing it again. If you didn’t get to contribute last year, here’s your chance.

It’s sad that anyone has to go through cancer treatment resulting in hair loss, not to mention organ failure. It is my goal that the money raised will help find a way to put an end to this destructive treatment. Let’s go beyond treatment to discover the true cause that unites the many triggers, and leads to the final cure.

Please come out and support one of the many events being held this spring to support cancer research. It may be your own life you save.

Leanne Lamour

Whistler

 

Through all of the negative news about irresponsible dog owners who let their dogs roam free and leave dog poo everywhere, it is nice to come across a story of wonderful dog owners. There are a lot out there, but it is always the negative stories that go around first.

A wonderful couple came into WAG and donated $500, which of course is incredible. What makes it even better is that they had a birthday party and instead of getting gifts, she asked for donations for WAG. I am so impressed at their kindness, their selflessness and their desire for the WAG animals to have a better life.

To Ian and Liz, WAG thanks you for being wonderful people. You are truly inspiring.

Joanne Russell for

The WAG dogs and cats

 

This letter was addressed to Nicole Sjogren, Manager, Creekside Kid’s Camp

I would like to thank you and your staff for the excellent Weekend Kid’s Club program our three-year-old son Elliot enjoyed this season. In just six weekends, instructors Alex Brown, Laura Willingdon, and Bex, along with (Crazy) Alex Fernandez as support staff, did a fantastic job taking a child so young that tourists stop his class to take his picture, from shuffling on the Magic Carpet to skiing blue runs from the Roundhouse. Elliot talks happily all week about his classmates, his skiing, and most of all, his instructors.

Canadians who do not enjoy winter are in for a miserable six months of the year (some would say 11 months of the year), and our main goal for enrolling our son in ski school was so that he would simply have some fun in the snow. Like many at Whistler, skiing is a large part of our lives, and my wife Melanie and I couldn’t be happier that Elliot now joins us, skiing enthusiastically, with control, all over the mountain. His progress has astounded us, and is a tribute to the Kid’s Club program in general, and his instructors specifically. We met Alex, Laura and Crazy Alex through the social nature of the ski school, and we can’t say enough about this great group of young international adults who are living the dream, taking a year or two to travel the world, ski, and work with kids.

If the future of skiing is engaging children in this wonderful life of ours, the Kid’s Club should be proud of the excellent work they are doing, and they should continue to receive the support and recognition of the public, and Intrawest, that they deserve. Thank you.

Frank Salter and Melanie Jones

Vancouver