Letters to the editor

Staff and the Natural Step?

With respect to the recent article in the Pique regarding the wider stalls for SUVs being proposed by our local planning department I must say I’m somewhat bewildered. Quite simply, have we not committed ourselves, officially council and staff alike, to the effort of moving toward sustainability as defined by the Natural Step Framework? Is it not in the protocol of that effort to ask ourselves each time we consider a new policy if the proposed change works towards or away from sustainability as defined by the four system conditions?

Bigger stalls equal bigger parking lots which result in more impervious surfaces and therefore more degraded habitat. Doesn’t rule number three, have something to do with the supposition that we are not working towards sustainability if we are systematically impoverishing nature’s functions by physical displacement? Bigger parking areas and more pavement is physical displacement of the natural habitat and its function. So tested against condition 3 this seems to be a bad decision, simple.

Furthermore, condition 1 suggests that we are not moving in the direction of sustainability if nature’s function and diversity are systematically subjected to increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the earth’s crust. Fossil fuels come from the earth’s crust and the bigger vehicles intended to be accommodated by these proposed bigger stalls use a heck of a lot more of it. Therefore the move to bigger stalls facilitates the ease of use of these more polluting vehicles. With the stroke of the same pen this bylaw would purposefully and systematically move our community in the wrong direction with respect to conditions both 1 and 3.

It seems important to me that this is an attempt to change an existing bylaw into a new one that is less sustainable, i.e. in this case, the more sustainable course is to do nothing. It leads one to wonder what staff believes is to be gained by making this change? I have put forward arguments as to what the potential losses are, (degraded habitat, more pollution, and contradiction of the municipality’s commitment to the Natural Step) but what, if anything, would we as a community stand to gain? Would people not come to the resort for fear of the ever-too-narrow parking stalls? Are locals or visitors ringing the phone off the hook at the Hall reaming staff ears off about the difficulty they’re having parking their new Ford Expeditions? Really, what’s the point?

If staff are serious about the Natural Step and the transition to a more sustainable resort then claiming that because other communities have bigger parking stalls we should have them as well simply isn’t enough. If our rhetoric about sustainability, the Natural Step, or our transportation strategy is supposed to make real and measurable changes for the good of this community and its environs, and we are indeed the innovative leaders that we have been back-slapping ourselves about lately, then this one is a no-brainer.

Ted Battiston,

Whistler

Re: Wider Parking Stalls

As a member of Whistler’s majority non-motorist population, I’m disappointed to learn that the municipality has elected to enlarge parking places to accommodate SUV’s. I’m particularly disturbed by Kim Needham’s comment that failure to do so would constitute "social engineering," as if planning around cars rather than people is somehow on ethically neutral policy!

Submission to motor vehicles’ relentlessly escalating demands for space has severely degraded the air, the fabric, the charm, the liveability of towns and cities everywhere, and has had many negative environmental, social, medical and economical impacts. Rather than provide even more space for cars and trucks, local government should eliminate all free parking in the valley in order to reduce demand for more asphalt.

Tom DeMarco

Whistler

It seems the municipality of Whistler has some surplus cash flow, if they're looking (I say "They," not "We") to spend $1 million on a Web site. This will ultimately cut municipal jobs and minimize person-to-person interactions. I really don't mind taking 15 minutes off work to got get some fresh air, exchange hellos, and renew my dog’s licence.

In light of this, the LACK of funding to the CAA’s avalanche bulletin is even more frustrating. Why don't Whistler's leaders step up to the plate and save a service most of us value and use frequently? Consider it a chance to save face.

Situations such as these (which I consider extremely poor judgement and gross misallocation of funds) leave me feeling powerless and a little disillusioned with the democratic process. Maybe I was out riding the day they asked how I felt about using 143,000 community dollars towards such a superfluous project.

E-government? You can be guaranteed I won't be paying any parking tickets Saturday night over the Net.

North American society has reached a sad state when we're forced to relate in an electronic environment and encouraged to sit at home in front of out computers. Not only that, but aren't we supposed to be outdoor enthusiasts in the outdoor mecca that is Whistler? Or are we a second-homeowner's backyard and a weekend warrior's SUV haven?

I moved here to live life in the mountains... a little quieter, mellower pace than Montreal. But in the three years I've lived here, it has begun to feel as though Whistler is striving to become a big city. Expanding parking lot size to accommodate yuppy trucks? Billboards fit for a Vegas Strip? E-government for second homeowners? It's disturbing to see how thinly the municipality has veiled their priorities. Shouldn't loyalties lie with the people who support Whistler year-round?

I can feel the soul eke out of this place.

Alysia Dobie

Whistler

I read your article about the Web site with disbelief (RMOW's $1 million Web site praised and panned, Pique, Feb 15, 2002). I agree that the Web site should evolve, but it sounds as though the RMOW is attempting to be the municipal equivalent of an online retailer. It is insulting to read that "...there may even be the opportunity to pay property taxes online..." when the opportunity has existed for years through the bank and credit union Web sites – so what's the point!

There needs to be some measure of user necessity here and I'm not sure if Web "hits" would justify the $1 million budget. To compare the cost of this Web site to Calgary, Toronto and the Feds is preposterous and simply makes this looks like an arms race to build the most integrated, interactive interface (read expensive).

Most Web users access sites for information; therefore, we need to consider the actual size of this community and realize that with Intrawest, Tourism Whistler, RMOW, and www.piquenewsmagazine.com Web sites, our existing infrastructure for exchanging information is quite adequate.

Keith Kennedy

Vancouver

Two weeks ago I started a petition opposing the proposed capital expenditure of $1.04 million on a Web site for the municipality. The response has been exceptional and the dialogue that it inspired has left a distinct impression of the electorate’s opinion of this council’s performance to date. In short, this council has left a feeling of neglect, financial shortsightedness and breached trust.

From the refusal to offer a referendum on the Olympic issue to the self-serving invitation to the World Economic Forum, this council has shown a complete lack of responsibility to the people who live, work and make Whistler what it is. You have allowed emotions and special interest groups to cause you to chase pennies with dollars and segregate neighbourhoods.

The proposed expenditure on this Web site is without warrant and reeks of a job creation project for the municipal IT department. All of the professional Web designers I spoke with were in agreement that the budget was ludicrous.

The goal of this site is said to be an e-government site and therefore not a commercial venture. How in the hell do you justify spending a million dollars on a service which only duplicates what is already available within 10 minutes from anyone’s home in Whistler? I personally do not feel that just because I live in a world class resort that I have to be able to purchase my dog licenses on line.

Your information officer claims that the Web site will allow for second homeowners to do business without ever coming to Whistler. I thought the object of the resort was to bring people to the valley where they can spend money, which stimulates the economy etc. The rationalization of how much the city of Calgary and the federal government spend on their sites should dictate our expenditure is ludicrous. Just look at the population differences. If the aim of this is to impress the people who have "places" here then the philosophy of this council is truly suspect.

It is this philosophy that I, and many others are questioning.

The philosophy that believes that just because we live in Whistler we should spend more than twice as much on the construction of a fire hall as a town less than an hour from us did. The philosophy that believes that in order to gain favour with provincial and federal governments we should sell the rights and freedoms of our own village to a conference which will cause a security nightmare and virtual gridlock to traffic in the village itself.

How do you expect deliveries to take place when the place is locked up tighter than Fort Knox? We cannot even handle security on New Year’s Eve without violating the personal rights of our citizens and guests, let alone a multiple of days with some of the largest targets to protesters and terrorists in the world holed up in a small valley like wagon trains in a narrow pass. Personally, I do not relish the thought of a body cavity search every time I want to go in to open my store. I am not sure all of my local clientele will be willing to go through the same grief to visit my place. My coffee is great, but not that great. We are certainly not willing to go through that just so the mayor can get an "awesome" feeling sitting next to Nobel laureates and religious leaders.

The spin that these events and projects will lead to sustainability is a joke. The key to sustainability is to learn to live within our means and abilities with the resources we have. We cannot be all things to all people. The guest experience is already being negatively impacted by the excessive growth and flash of our resort. We see it very day in the shops. We need to preserve the uniqueness of our resort and the enthusiasm of our citizens if we are to remain a liveable town. Otherwise, we may as well make ourselves up like Vegas whores and start taking all bets.

Mayor and council, it is time to pull your heads out of the clouds and remember the reason you are in your jobs, and whom, exactly, it is that you work for. November is, after all, just around the corner.

Christopher Quinlan

Whistler

We had been Olympic bid supporters, but in recent days and weeks we have had a change of heart in our support.

After hearing many different rumours milling about in the valley we stopped at the Olympic bid office to look at some of the details We were horrified to find out that during the Games they will be shutting down access to the Creekside Gondola and the Redline, as well as the Wizard chair on Blackcomb. Shutting down for a minimum of six weeks.

We understand the Olympics will be compensating Intrawest for their business loss, but what about all the local businesses and residents who will lose business at the height of the season? Who will compensate them for their lost business and inconvenience?

All the details of the Games as to legacies need to be put forward. One day I had hoped we would see a safer highway. Now I worry, will we be able to afford these trips. Will this legacy require a toll to pay long after the Olympics are gone? I can’t remember when they opened the Coquihalla Highway, but I do know there is still a toll to be paid.

Please, let’s just get all the facts out. Not at round table meetings where a few locals show up. Put out something in print that we can look at and then we will decide is it really worth it or not.

Lisa Dykhuizen