Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

In regards to the tourist accommodation issue and Mr. Collins letter to the editor, Whistler residents have made their wishes very clear. They want the integrity of their neighbourhoods maintained.

In regards to the tourist accommodation issue and Mr. Collins letter to the editor, Whistler residents have made their wishes very clear. They want the integrity of their neighbourhoods maintained. Council listened to their constituents and directed municipal staff to vigorously enforce the zoning bylaws.

The municipality hopes that those who are illegally renting or advertising with an intent to rent their RS1 zoned properties as short-term accommodation will comply with the bylaw. Processes such as show-cause hearings and consent orders are far less costly than pursuing permanent injunctions and we would prefer to spend taxpayers’ dollars on other needed projects. However, the municipality will continue to enforce its zoning bylaws to the highest courts if necessary, not in an attempt to intimidate or push people around, but in an attempt to protect our neighbourhoods and the quality of life for our residents, as well as support the legally zoned tourist accommodation property owners.

Bill Barratt

General Manager of Community Services

Resort Municipality of Whistler

 

If pigs could be farmed…

I am writing in response to Mr. Art Collins’ letter in the Pique last week.

Art feels that any Whistler property owner (or perhaps a tenant) should be allowed to rent their property on a nightly basis regardless of the zoning.

Should the RMOW lose its enforcement rights with respect to the current bylaw terminology, as Art is suggesting if the TA zoning case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, then every property owner is at major risk.

If the RMOW and courts were to permit a commercial operation, such as a chalet offering nightly rentals in any and all of the subdivisions, what is to stop someone from running whatever type of commercial operation anywhere in Whistler?

As a resident of Whistler, I may find it inconvenient to drive to Nesters or the Alpine Market whenever I wish to purchase milk or bread. Perhaps I deem that other residents feel the same way. Should I be permitted to open a grocery store in my house?

Or perhaps there is a huge demand for wild mushrooms in Whistler and I have an under-utilized crawl space. Should I be permitted to open a mushroom farm in my crawl space? And a byproduct of mushroom farming is mushroom manure, an item I believe that I could sell to the several landscaping companies in Whistler.

And of course, pork is a demand item in Whistler restaurants so perhaps I should be allowed to raise a few pigs in my back yard.

As absurd as these concepts seem, it does illustrate the importance of municipal zoning.

I believe that if the illegal chalet operators in this valley see a need for more nightly rentals, they must be required to follow the municipal zoning bylaws and these bylaws must be upheld or the integrity of our neighbourhoods are seriously as risk.

Have we not already wasted a great deal of time and taxpayers money to review these zoning bylaws? This case has been to court twice. In the first instance the RMOW won the case so soundly that the RMOW was awarded costs. And in the second case, the three judges found in favour of the RMOW in the Appeal Courts after only 5 minutes of deliberation . There appears to be no question that an attempt to take this case to Supreme Court is only a sales and marketing ploy by some lawyers to generate more business.

Margi McGraw

Whistler

 

This letter was addressed to Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

I was appalled to learn last night (June 5, 2002) at a meeting of concerned citizens in Whistler that the final piece of land in the Flute Basin necessary for Intrawest’s chairlift plans had been given over without any public consultation.

This piece of land is very close to the Singing Pass Trail, which is the only free public access to this part of Garibaldi Park – the Musical Bumps-Singing Pass-Russet Hut areas. Development of new downhill ski runs will encourage vast increases in downhill traffic in this previously untouched, extremely scenic, and easily accessible park area. Development of ski runs always has an adverse effect on the plant and animal life in sensitive alpine areas, as can be seen in the Whistler Peak area, previously pristine wilderness ceded to Whistler resorts over 20 years, as was Blackcomb Peak, over our written objections.

Intrawest already has full use of the scenic Peak area and overflows onto the Musical Bumps and Singing Pass; further development on the avalanche-prone, corniced face of Flute seems incomprehensible. Perhaps that is why they want Flute Peak and a 100 metre strip of parkland added to the exclusion.

Our experience with downhill operators has not been good. They continually try to restrict, charge, and deny entry to the self-propelled backcountry user, and they inevitably affect the ecology of the area for the worse.

Why is the "Parks" ministry not standing up for the protection of our parks? Garibaldi Park is under attack on all sides, at Brohm Ridge and the Microwave Tower Road from illegal snowmobile incursions, and at Whistler and Blackcomb, and possibly in the future at Brohm Ridge, again from the Garibaldi at Squamish development as well. The parks are now our only refuge from the motorized invasion and we strongly resent their destruction and alienation.

We do not support chair-lift development on Flute. If any further destruction is allowed, we would expect in return: (1) a reopening of the road to the Singing Pass parking lot, which has been closed for the past few years owing to washouts; (2) a return of the entire Singing Pass Trail from Whistler Village to non-motorized, protected park status; (3) protection of the existing Musical Bumps Trail from the Roundhouse to Singing Pass; and (4) environmental review to consider and protect the goats, bears, and flora of this irreplaceable area.

It is time that the ministry lived up to the promises of the legacy program to protect the natural environment of our wonderful parks.

Lesley R. Bohm (Mrs.) President

Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.

 

Just wondering...

I am pretty sure that we live in a democratic society, but after the recently announced land swap between Intrawest and B.C. Parks, I'm just wondering if that is indeed the case. Apparently this whole land swap thing was simply a correction of a "mapping error." Administrative oversight?

Okay. But I am really hoping that the swap of publicly-owned land, and the corresponding lack of informing and consulting the public who own said land was also due to an administrative oversight. Or maybe the only staff the Liberal government has left working at B.C. Parks is the janitor and the guy who cuts the lawns.

Enough with the oversights, already – how did this happen with no public process along the way? How come everything was kept so darn quiet?

Cathy Conroy

Pemberton

 

This letter was addressed to Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

At a public meeting in Whistler last night, we were shocked to learn that a portion of Garibaldi Provincial Park (Flute Mountain) had been swapped with Intrawest last Thursday without any public review process.

We understand that a further land swap involving the top of Flute Mountain for a piece of land in the valley below is in order soon. The members of the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. request that no further land swaps occur without a full public review process. We are concerned that no environmental assessments have been done by Intrawest. The Musical Bumps ridge is a fragile alpine parkland area which surely may be negatively impacted with the increased access proposed. In addition to the wonderful wildflower displays in this area, this area is also habitat for black blear, mountain goat, and marmot. Has Intrawest done an Environmental Impact Assessment on this area?

Two weeks ago, we were advised that a land swap would entail only a snowcat trail to bring in visitors to ski downhill in the area. Now we understand that this area is being considered for a ski lift and loop service road through the alpine. With this expansion of Intrawest activities up past Flute Mountain, the buffer between the Village of Whistler and Garibaldi Provincial Park is reduced to almost nothing. There is talk of allowing ATV activity in the summer in this area. That surely would negatively impact this fragile alpine parkland.

As the Musical Bumps area is one of the most beautiful areas in the Whistler area, let's not destroy a fragile alpine area in our rush to commercialize the backcountry. At the very least, let's have a fair, open public review process (due process).

Pat Harrison

Executive Director

Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.

 

Re: Whistler/Blackcomb’s Expansion into Flute

If the recent change to Whistler Mountain’s tenure in the Flute Basin was meant to correct an error – albeit one not considered important enough to have been corrected 15 years ago, when the original agreement is alleged to have been made – or the change simply accommodates Whistler-Blackcomb’s recent developmental focus, the reason citizens are voicing their concerns now is because they feel left out of a process that affects something that they value greatly.

To Mr. Forseth and Whistler-Blackcomb, the concern may be about a simple "mapping error," but to many of us, the fact that a remarkable, complex, and already accessible portion of a public park could be reduced to a rhetorical tidbit and thereafter developed without demonstrating an environmentally responsible and sustainable plan shows a surprising lack of concern or recognition of citizens’ rights to be involved and informed about how their public parks are being managed.

There is ample evidence that today’s Canadian public wants input on decisions regarding crown or park lands and ski area development. Whether we consider proposals for new areas like Melvin Creek on the Hurley or Garibaldi at Brohm Ridge, or area expansions like Goat’s Eye at Sunshine, Kicking Horse at Golden, or Flute at Whistler, a process of consultation, evaluation, environmental assessment, and revision is the expected norm.

The issue at hand is not about whether we, as citizens, are being "fair" in seeking public consultation for the transfer and use of public land or whether Whistler-Blackcomb feels they must suffer double jeopardy (interesting choice of analogy, that). Our proposal is about members of the public, B.C. Parks (where is the closest office now?), and corporate representatives working together to ensure that decisions are not "done deals" but instead the best management decisions for the public trust we can create, balancing the various interests and values represented by and attached to that little "mapping error."

Rather than regarding the swap as "very close to being finished," we see the matter as just beginning. Perhaps, through consultation and participation, the public and the environment – and Whistler-Blackcomb’s – needs can be met by an ingenious plan. Until there has been a public process and an environmental assessment, there will be no way we can know the right choices have been made. As members of the public, residents of Whistler, and Whistler-Blackcomb season’s pass holders, any other option seems inadequate.

Mitch Sulkers (Sea-to-Sky Parkwatch)

Rita Rice

Whistler

 

Sour Note on Musical Bumps

On May 24 we read about the plans of Whistler-Blackcomb concerning development of the Flute Peak area immediately adjacent Garibaldi Provincial Park. The project appears to require a land swap between the Park and Whistler-Blackcomb. Subsequently, we were surprised and dismayed to learn that the swap had been legislated only days later by the provincial government.

Is Garibaldi Park not our park? As part owners, Whistler residents and frequent users of the park, would we not expect to be both advised and consulted by B.C. Parks? Also would common courtesy not move Whistler-Blackcomb to consult Whistler residents, a large number of whom are also the mountain company’s customers?

It appears there has been no open public process in all this – no information meeting, no request for feedback – only announcements of a "fait accompli"!

The concerns include such items as elimination of the park "buffer" at its boundary (a problem for many national and provincial parks), the effect upon wildlife and other natural ecologies close to our precious Singing Pass, and the negative effect upon enjoyment of the Musical Bumps trail to that pass. No mention has been made of an environmental impact statement for the project.

It is not too late to address these shortcomings and to re-evaluate this unfortunate decision.

Shirley and Michael Thompson

Whistler

 

RE: Property Taxes

There is understandable frustration with our current property tax situation. The problem, however, is not unique to Whistler. The gentrification of any neighbourhood forces many long-term residents to consider their geographic alternatives.

Admittedly, the vast majority of Whistler residents and retailers have little to complain about economically; however, this issue raises broader questions about our property tax system that correlates the cost of municipal services with the fluctuating price of real estate.

Under our present property tax system one-bed/one-bath bungalows sandwiched between five-bed/six-bath monstrosities pay virtually the same tax rates because real-estate prices do not adequately reflect the true consumption of municipal services and they do not "protect" long-term residents of the community. On any property tax notice, the land value easily outweighs any benefit from the depreciation of the building.

Property taxes should consider a combination of market value, land square footage, building square footage and longevity in the location. This would clearly separate the 5,000 square foot home with the five-car garage from the one-bed/one-bath bungalow with the moped-riding 80-year-old couple who cannot get a homeowners grant due to circumstances beyond their control.

Keith Kennedy

Vancouver

 

This letter is of particular importance to parents of students in Grades 9 to 12 at Whistler Secondary School.

Last fall, a number of us formed a committee at the invitation of Ken Davies, Whistler Secondary principal, to review the current timetable at the school. The idea was to survey parents, students and teachers about the issue with a view to perhaps making a change in that timetable at some point in the future, if warranted. Unfortunately, the teachers’ job action intervened and the committee work was delayed and, in fact, the committee has not met since February.

However, Ken Davies has nevertheless sent out a survey to parents on the timetable. The survey was approved by the committee. It was attached to a newsletter and the responses were requested by June 5, 2002. Of course that date has come and gone but I am advised by Mr. Davies that he is happy to continue to receive completed surveys. If you did not receive one, they are available at the school office.

If you are a parent of a student in Grades 9 to 12 at the local high school, I urge you to complete your survey and hand it in to the school. Since Whistler Secondary opened, it has operated under the quarter system as its timetable. I understand that currently there are only eight such schools in the province.

I make no secret of the fact that I am firmly opposed to this timetable. While it may assist the approximately 40 "elete athletes" at Whistler Secondary, in my view, it has many and significant drawbacks for the 290-odd remaining students at the school. It does not promote curriculum retention, prepare students for post-secondary education, promote good study habits, foster communication with parents, and the list goes on. For average or below average students, this timetable can be disastrous.

No doubt there are parents and students who disagree. However, to determine the issue it is critical that the surveys be completed.

Nancy Wilhelm-Morden

Whistler