Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

How’s this a good deal?

RE: Village parking deal great for VANOC, W-B and province, not so good for local taxpayers and regional visitors.

RE: Village parking deal great for VANOC, W-B and province, not so good for local taxpayers and regional visitors.

Despite asking lots of questions at the recent public open house regarding paving the Village Day Skier Lots, I can't figure out how this deal benefits the local and regional population. Whistler-Blackcomb gets released from their obligations under their ski area operating agreements with the province to maintain, snowclear and operate the village day skier parking lots. The province gets released from any liability for the Fitzsimmons slump on Crown land above the village. VANOC gets an improved paved surface for media and others to occupy during the Olympics without having to pay for it.

What to the citizens of Whistler get?

1) Responsibility for building a debris flow barrier to protect against the slump (estimated cost $7 million without any design completed).

2) The cost of paving and improving the lots and installing a pay and display parking system (estimate $4.5 million).

3) Ongoing responsibility to maintain and snow clear the lots.

4) The privilege of paying for parking that used to be free.

5) If the numbers work out, there might be a reduction in transit fares.

This looks like another case of the taxpayers of Whistler picking up everyone else's costs. Although the article in the Pique mentioned that other North American ski resorts have pay parking, they neglected to include the fact that pay parking typically goes hand in hand with free transit, there is almost always a free parking option connected by a free shuttle system, and many of these other ski areas have season pass rates of over $500 per year per person less than the early bird rates at Whistler-Blackcomb.

How can we spend thousands of dollars writing about affordability in the 2020 document and then implement something that goes right to the bottom line of local and regional families? A car is still the most practical and efficient way to transport a family from low density housing into our urban centres. Until a convenient and free transit system is in place to do this, we should not be talking about pay parking for high occupancy vehicles unless we really don't want local and regional families visiting our $14 million Celebration Plaza and $12 million library.

Jill Almond

Whistler

The Peter Pan school of sustainability?

I found Bill Barratt's comments about the conditions attached to the RMOW's share of the hotel tax very interesting. I probably wouldn't have bothered answering except for his gratuitous mention of sustainability. If he is implying that this situation has anything to do with sustainability, he must be from the Peter Pan school of sustainability — the same source as the idea that you can learn to fly using a combination of happy thoughts and fairy dust.

So we are getting about $7 million per year more from the hotel tax but it "cannot be used to offset taxes or for traditional municipal project spending." Fascinating! We do have a bigger pot to play with.

Since most of the amenities that exist in the village were built using traditional municipal spending — and were super-sized to accommodate the tourism impact — we local taxpayers must be on the hook for the maintenance and replacement of almost everything. That's going to allow council to spend a lot of money only on things that taxpayers never would have stood for and to mean that municipal taxes will keep increasing regardless of this additional source. Neat!

He mentioned that trail improvements are being done with the money. How can this be? Weren't the trails built with ratepayer taxes? Does the province know this? Who decides what can and can't be done with the money?

Let's be serious. In any rational world, an additional $7 million per year revenue source available to the municipality would have some impact on reducing the need for other sources, largely our taxes.

Jamie Pike

Whistler

Businesses stepped up

I would like to take a quick moment to acknowledge and thank the businesses in town who really stepped up to make our guests and locals feel appreciated during the recent road closure. While we all know that business levels were down it was also nice to interact with so many locals on a long weekend.

I know there is always a risk writing a letter such as this because I can’t mention every business that went above and beyond, and I apologize to those who I don’t mention.

While we were dining on a taste of B.C. at the top of Whistler Mountain Sunday evening (which had to be one of the best values offered of late) it was great interacting with smiling people recalling their weekend. Hearing of the “Rock Star” specials at the Fairmont! The great offerings at the Arnold Palmer golf course and other deals too numerous to mention. It was nice getting the reactions from people who really got a taste of the Whistler Spirit.

Thanks for making the best out of our few days of seclusion and I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the Ministry of Highways for going all out to reopen the shorter route to Vancouver.

Rick Clare

Whistler

Sustainability with that butt

It was a great Sunday with feasts of scrumptious quality and droves of people gathered to enjoy them. From delectable “pork and butt” to juicy beef brisket and the much-loved ribs, the BBQ championships were certainly a crowd pleaser. I was certainly among those leaving full, satisfied and impressed with the event, however I could not ignore the amount of rubbish that was being produced. The copious amount of plastic cups being thrown away was certainly not promoting the idea of sustainability in Whistler. For an event which is national, should Whistler not demonstrate its green step forward?

Perhaps next year we can come up with alternatives, such as one cup per person with a Taster Pass. This would also remove those people unwilling to spend $5 on the event, despite it being for charity.

Michaela Beattie

Whistler

Whistler’s civil war

Michel Beaudry has created quite a flame war between himself, letter writer Ken Achenbach, Whistler-Blackcomb leader Dave Brownlie and fellow Pique columnist G.D. Maxwell. I propose they settle their differences the old fashioned way, with a ski-off from Peak to Creek, but throw in a few handicaps to keep it interesting.

Beaudry will have to ride a snowboard goofy foot through a specially designed terrain park consisting mostly of rail slides and box jumps as well as have to sell three Intrawest time shares to tourists on his way down.

Achenbach will have to ride some big mountain twin tips switch all the way to the road as well as lecture a group of tourists on how he's been in Whistler since it all began and how Intrawest pretty much ruined the dirt bag ski bum lifestyle he had invented.

Poor Max will have to race the tightest slalom course ever set whilst racer parents and Weasel Workers pelt him with snow balls all the way down.

Brownlie will be too busy marketing the event as the second coming of Christ to participate in the ski off in his never ending quest to figure out new and different ways to overcharge wealthy tourists so his superiors at Fortress enjoy an ever increasing bottom line.

Hopefully in the end, they all mysteriously disappear somewhere down by Khyber Pass, stop for a quick safety meeting and then celebrate the real essence of living in Whistler: an epic pow run through the trees.

Toby Salin

Whistler

Sorry for Sam

I just listened to a national interview on CBC that Vancouver Mayor Sullivan gave about his trip to the Beijing Olympics. He managed to avoid saying the word Whistler, implying that all the 2010 events are taking place in Vancouver. VANOC must be cringing. I can't wait for our new mayor. I apologize for this one.

Val Hamilton

Vancouver

A less than level playing field

This letter was addressed to mayor and council. A copy was forwarded to Pique for publication.

I was surprised to find that, at the 11th hour, while reviewing my opportunity to purchase a home in the new Rainbow Development, that if I were to select the modest upgrade that was being offered on appliances, counter tops and laminate flooring, that the cost of this upgrade would not be included in the Base Price of my home, on which the appreciation formula is based (CCPI). This came as a surprise to me and other families looking forward to making a purchase at Rainbow. What rationale could you possibly offer for this last minute WHA decision not to allow the cost of this group of modest upgrades to be added to the base price of our homes? Surely it cannot be in defence of a smaller price point.

When a buyer has made the decision to purchase, they have already found comfort in the price that includes the upgrades they may have chosen. On what basis would the RMOW and the WHA seek to disqualify this expense from their base price? It appears on the surface to be a decision which offends the rights of any person that may wish to choose a modest upgrade to a “greener” product, such as laminate flooring over a chemical riddled carpet.

To say that because you have the ability to “afford these upgrades” you have no right to have them included in your base purchase price, on which all future appreciation is grown, is at the very least a highly socialist view, and at the worst, blatant discrimination. This type of last minute change to an option that has been agreed to in principle does nothing to honour the partnership between the RMOW and Rainbow, nor does it further the relationship between the WHA and the residents of Whistler who might hope to purchase a home in the Rainbow development or future resident housing efforts.

All this in the face of the RMOW project at Cheakamus Crossing, which appears to be offering a higher standard of finish than Rainbow, and yet these finishes are to be included in the base price of that offering. This inconsistent position, as well as other “unique conditions”, seem to favour the sale of the RMOW-backed offering over that of the RMOW partner, Rainbow Developments.

While I am sensitive to the fact that the RMOW and our community has borrowed over $100 million in order to finance the development of the athletes’ village, I am not quite sure that gives council the right or the moral high ground to create a less than level playing field.

These past months and years leading up to the sale of Rainbow have not exactly been a love-in between the RMOW and the developer of Rainbow. The Rainbow offering is being brought to the community by a group of long-time local residents who have shown patience and understanding towards the RMOW process when others would have fled the scene long ago. The development team, along with Vision Pacific and Glacier Creek Developments (the builders) are true citizens and have a great sense of community. They are doing all they can to bring to market a quality product, as quickly as they can, for the best possible price. A price which would have been much more affordable to Whistler residents if the green light had been given years ago by council. Blame who you like on that one.

The reality now is that this is likely to be the last developer partnership in resident housing that the RMOW will need to engage, as a result of the generous land bank we have been given by the province. Now is the time to remember who your partners are in housing. Not just developers, but every Whistler resident that owns or rents “employee housing”, whether existing or yet to be delivered. We are full partners in this effort and deserve to be treated with the same respect that the RMOW should be treating all of its business partners. This means listening to what these 4,000 residents have to say when it comes to developing and implementing policies and practices that affect their ownership.

We are now finding that the resident housing waitlist, that has been the principal flag waived by nearly all candidates in advance of the past three municipal elections, appears to contain an inordinate amount of replication, capitulation, consternation, vacillation, abdication and a certain lack of qualification. As a result there appears to be brewing some sort of competitive market twixt the two developments, both eager to supply housing to this shrinking list of qualified purchasers. The differences in these two projects are and should remain, location, delivery time and price.

And while it seems that the RMOW has had significant influence over the timeframe on the delivery of Rainbow, I would like to think that they would not bring a gun to a fist fight by adding to the imbalance of price (Cheakamus has no land cost) and creating a different set of rules as it relates to finishings and other base costs. Thank god for location...

While we always seem to look for someone to blame, truth be told, blame is in fact shame, shame that this product was not available sooner and shame that we have not managed this list in such a way that it could give us a true sense of the housing needs of our community. Could this all have been just an elaborate shell game designed to dovetail nicely with the Olympic bid book and provide the nice little retirement nest egg for those that would take this waitlist show on the road to other communities in Canada?

I encourage you to give this issue and all resident housing issues full consideration and review before we plough on into the future. This government has admitted to making mistakes in resident housing in the past and has suggested that it has been a learning experience. We can only be understanding and forgiving... if we make reparation for these mistakes, and if we don’t make the same mistakes again.

David Sharpe

Whistler