Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

How our municipal council envisions our community as a sustainable entity, based completely on tourism, is beyond my capacity to understand.

How our municipal council envisions our community as a sustainable entity, based completely on tourism, is beyond my capacity to understand. Our province is littered with the remains of once successful towns that focused solely on the development of only one industry. As long as I have lived in Whistler we have paid at least lip service to some diversification of our economy. Yet we now appear to be going against this important goal.

Since our basic employment and space resources are limited there is no doubt that there will only be a few non-tourism businesses willing to locate in Whistler. Rent conscious, or businesses with great employment needs, who could locate elsewhere would be unwise to settle here. But those companies who feel they can prosper based on promoting the "Whistler lifestyle" should be encouraged. Such companies, marketing outside our local economy, could give Whistler exactly the flexibility required to maintain our community through an economic downturn. Imagine the consequences of not having diversified our income sources if we one day found ourselves facing a U.S. dollar at par.

In addition, as we continue to debate the affordability issue for Whistler residents we must look not at just the costs of living here but also at the possibilities of earning greater incomes. Since many of these non-traditional employers require skilled people and have cheaper location requirements they can often justify higher wages than most tourism-based businesses. The availability of higher wages would mean more of our community could afford to remain in Whistler.

I have to conclude that once again we find our council and municipal staff confused over the difference between problems and opportunities. Perhaps we should all admit that we don’t have many of the answers for dealing with "buildout" and start asking for some professional and objective, outside advice. Seems to me that this would be a far less dangerous pursuit than the ongoing offering of ill-conceived and misguided notions.

Dave Davenport

Whistler

 

Once again the industrial tourism enterprise in Whistler is looking to increase the volume of discharge from their sewage treatment plant into the Cheakamus River. In spite of having a 52,000 bed unit limit for development in their official community plan, to date they have not agreed to our requests to have that limit built into their sewage treatment facilities.

Those involved with the original development plans for Whistler made a decision to pump the sewage over the summit to a plant on the Cheakamus River. This meant effluent would go out the back door of the community and the Whistler drainage area would never suffer the effects of pollution.

In a public process concluding in 1993 concerns were raised recognizing the polluting effects on the Cheakamus and Squamish Rivers along with questions as what size city Whistler would eventually grow to be. As a result of the 1993 process we were assured that if only one treatment facility on the Cheakamus was to service all of Whistler that the Waste Water Management Plan would include a 52,000 bed unit limit to development and an emergency holding lagoon would be built at the treatment plant. The lagoon was to avoid discharges of untreated or poorly treated sewage, which had occurred in the past during plant overload or malfunction.

A pipeline has been constructed from Emerald Estates at the north end of Green Lake to the Cheakamus plant eliminating the possibility of the once proposed second treatment plant. The Cheakamus plant has been built over capacity by 75 per cent and in some areas by 300 per cent. One has to question the logic of spending millions of dollars on building treatment capacity over the 52,000 bed unit volume if it is not intended for use.

Having the infrastructure in place to exceed the OCP growth limit, Whistler has now started a new process in order to get permission from the Ministry of Environment for changes to the plan agreed to in 1993. This includes eliminating the requirements for an emergency lagoon.

In spite of claiming to have the best sewage treatment it seems it is still not adequate for Whistler to do what other communities do and discharge in the same drainage area where the water originated. The Squamish River Watershed Society maintains all safeguards must be built into the treatment plant and any volumes in excess of 52,000 bed units must be discharged in the Whistler drainage area where they originated. This is the best assurance we have that the highest level of treatment will be maintained.

This request amounts to Whistler giving the same respect to the Cheakamus and Squamish area as they do their own.

Lyle Fenton

Squamish River Watershed Society

 

 

In response to Steve Antil's letter in the July 6 Pique (and then I promise I will shut up on this subject for ever!)

Steve clearly did not read my letter closely if he thinks I have a problem with organized religion, or that this was the reason for my vehement response to the "God's people…" article. Not only do I not have, and have never had, a problem with organized religion, but on the contrary I am a believing and practising Christian and have been an enthusiastic member of a local church for some years.

Or perhaps that peculiar and impenetrable myopia that seems to cling to so many conservative Christians prompts Steve to believe that the words "organised religion" apply only to his own church, other churches and religious groups seemingly holding no validity or even existence for them.

I'm not surprised Steve found the article "benign" or that he quite fails to understand my vehement response. After all it was not his chosen church, or belief system, that was insulted.

My whole bone of contention with the original article was this same clear implication that attendees at the Community Church can alone claim to be "God's people" in Whistler based solely on numbers. Yes of course it is valid to mention numbers as part of an article on religion, but to base the entire article on this alone and to use it to justify a one-sided paean of praise for only one group was ridiculous.

I'm glad to see that Steve agrees with me when he says that "the number of attendees is not necessarily indicative of the health of a church," although I note that at the end of his letter he just can't resist throwing in an "our church is bigger than yours, so there!" reference.

My intention was certainly not to denigrate the efforts of the Community Church clergy and leaders either; I feel only great respect for anyone who tries to deliver God's message and will personally always defend their right to try even if I disagree passionately with their methods. The problem I have is when one group or individual, through the medium of a newspaper article, attempts to dismiss the validity of other religious groups in Whistler based on numbers alone. To me this smacks of a religious intolerance that I find chilling. The Catholic Church, Whistler Village Church and the Jewish community may well all operate with smaller groups but this fact says nothing whatsoever about the depth of their faith or the value of their presence in Whistler.

Our beautiful town is too small for intolerance Steve, let's leave that to the big bad world out there. I respect your right to worship God however you please. Alas, I'm just not sure you, or the article's author, respect mine in return.

Linda McGaw

Whistler

Sunday’s Art on the lake hosts, Whistler Outdoor Experience, are to be commended for their generous support of local artists. The gleaming white tent on the lawn by Green Lake was magnificent. The displays by artisans and artists delighted the eye. The sunshine, blue sky and happy people made this a perfect day in Whistler. Thank you Tim, Vincent and Grant.

Janet Rough Young

Participating artist

Whistler