Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

More questions than answers, and no time left

In the late 1970s, when the first Whistler councils were cobbling together the infrastructure to sustain a new municipality, a proposal call went out for concepts for the village to be built on the Whistler garbage dump.

In the late 1970s, when the first Whistler councils were cobbling together the infrastructure to sustain a new municipality, a proposal call went out for concepts for the village to be built on the Whistler garbage dump. Some of the drawings that were submitted look, in hindsight, hilarious for the architects’ lack of vision. There was one drawing that depicted a conventional grid of eight square blocks, with car parking allowed on all the streets. Another had an artificial lake at the foot of Whistler Mountain, about where the Westin now sits, that would have been drained in winter to provide parking.

None of these designs reflected the vision Mayor Pat Carleton and the other leaders of the day had for the village, so they rejected them all. The ideas presented just didn’t measure up to the potential Whistler’s first council members saw.

Reading the municipal staff report on the Paralympic arena, and listening to the discussion at Monday’s council meeting, one is left with the same feeling Carleton and others had in the 1970s: staff and consultants have been presented with a problem and have returned with several traditional answers, none of them satisfying. But unlike the 1970s, this council, with the exception Monday of Kristi Wells, seems to be willing to accept that.

The Paralympic arena has become the lightning rod for public frustrations this summer, but whether an arena would solve Whistler’s problems or not is now almost irrelevant. The issue is how we got to this point, where after months of closed-door meetings a staff report on a major municipal project becomes public just three weeks before council is to make its final decision.

Ever since word leaked out at a June SLRD meeting that Whistler was considering giving up the Paralympic arena to Squamish, the message from council members has been: "When you see the financial numbers you’ll understand. We can’t afford it." The numbers finally were made public with the staff report this week. They certainly support that conclusion and the staff recommendation that Squamish should build the Paralympic arena. And in exchange Whistler expects to get $8 million towards a $10 million practice rink.

But it’s a thin 10-page report – backed up by a three-year-old study and other consultants’ work that remains out of public view – to hang a $20 million decision on. The parameters for the study were so narrow they couldn’t help but lead to the conclusion Whistler can’t afford the Paralympic arena. The options looked at were entirely conventional and only addressed VANOC’s needs for a 3,500-5,000 seat ice arena. The staff report does not show any attempt to incorporate the municipally-owned Lot 9 commercial property in the project. Public-private partnerships are discussed in the abstract but there is no evidence a partnership was pursued. There was no consideration in the staff report of how the numbers would work if a long-term tenant for the building was found, as Squamish has apparently done. The medical community, for instance, has some ideas for expansion of the Whistler Health Care Centre. If the arena were next door to it, on Lots 1 and 9, the potential exists for a high-performance sports institute.

It’s not that Whistler is turning this thing down because it doesn’t work; the question hasn’t even been asked what it is we’re looking for or what we need.

And Monday we were left with sound bites for answers. Determining "the highest and best use" of Lots 1 and 9 was repeatedly presented as the opportunity that comes with rejecting the Paralympic arena. But in the two years since Whistler was awarded the Paralympics, not to mention the nine years since Whistler taxpayers purchased Lot 9, why haven’t we studied the highest and best use of that land?

Mayor Hugh O’Reilly closed the arena debate Monday by saying: "It’s all good news; there’s nothing bad here. There are lots of options.

"Every option is still open. We want to hear from the community."

With all due respect, that’s a crock.

The staff report states that in 2003 and 2004 concept plans and costing were examined, but: "Since February 2005, discussions have been underway regarding (the Squamish option)." The Squamish option only became public at a SLRD meeting in June, when a Pemberton area representative raised the issue. The resolution to have an open house on the arena only came up at a Whistler council meeting on July 18. The staff report and numbers were made public this past week. An open house will be held Aug. 27 and council will be making its decision on the arena at its Sept. 6 meeting – the same meeting they have to deal with four other major items. If council really wanted to hear from the community they would have involved them much sooner.

Council members and staff can wrap themselves in the argument that they are looking out for taxpayers’ best interests, and point to the numbers in the staff report for confirmation, but what they have done is paint Whistler into a corner. VANOC wanted Whistler’s decision by the end of July, but has extended the deadline to Sept. 30. There is virtually no time left to examine other options or for public input.