Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

This letter is in response to your article "Community grapples with criteria for sustainability" (Pique, Aug.

This letter is in response to your article "Community grapples with criteria for sustainability" (Pique, Aug. 2)

First off, I would like to state that I am strong supporter of achieving a sustainability plan; it’s the process I’m having difficulty with.

To start, the RMOW asked the community to select one of four consultant groups that made presentations… then council rejected our input and put together a concoction of individual consultants who had never even worked together.

The result, instead of the well thought out program from the group we selected, we have a very disjointed process that appears lacking in direction. We now seem to be pursuing the illusive sustainability vision without a clear methodology as to how to achieve the desired end result. This lack of guidance has seemingly left the consultants to wander somewhat aimlessly. For example:

"A vision for the resort community is commonly held by residents, business owners, ski area owners, the municipality and the province."

Or how about this gem:

"Everyone works in partnerships to achieve the vision, adapt to changing markets, create a better experience for the visitor, build a strong community and sustain success."

These are just the first two of 54 criteria… I’m amazed they left out "Pray for snow."

So now we end up with a top heavy, obviously expensive and annoyingly condescending process. When asked about the results to date, Tom Fletcher (from Vancouver), who is the project manager, quickly came to the consultant's defense stating that:

"With any consultant... it’s difficult to predict if they’re in tune with what the community really wants to hear."

Whoa Tom, we’re spending well over $700,000 on these consultants. I would like to think they are being given more direction than asking them to simply figure out what we want to hear.

I also find disturbing all the money we have paid to U.S.-based consultants when there are very capable people within our valley. I wonder if the outside consultants had a good chuckle when they wrote:

"Local buying networks and other mechanisms are created to encourage the purchase of local goods and services and keep money circulating in the community."

Speaking of which, has anyone else tried to send an e-mail to info@whistlerfuture.com? It goes directly to a public relations firm in Vancouver… is that the future we want?

Enough whining, we’ve paid them a ton of cash, so let’s do something positive and keep working towards the goal.

WORCA has organized its own workshop on Sept. 4, 7 p.m. at the ski club cabin. But instead of spending a lot of time on the 54 motherhood statements they are going to focus on the three or four issues that they believe to be more specific to Whistler's successful future: affordability, livability, quality of life and range of opportunity. Brent Harley & Associates, leaders in resort planning, locals, and WORCA members, will help facilitate the workshop. Wow, imagine the concept of using local "goods and services."

So for those that were unable to attend the other workshops, this is a great opportunity to exercise another one of the criteria:

"People have a shared vision of the community and take responsibility to help achieve that vision."

So if you care about the future of Whistler, WORCA has invited everyone to come to the workshop. Let’s see what we can accomplish as locals who know, live and care about Whistler.

See you on Sept. 4 th ! We can and we need to move ahead.

Bob Lorriman

Whistler

 

This letter was addressed to Transportation Minister Judith Reid

Last week I listened with great interest at the Listel Hotel in Whistler to your presentation about issues facing the Ministry of Transportation in the future. It seemed to me that there are a lot of questions and very few satisfying answers in regards to financing the pressing needs of transportation in this province in the future.

I fully support a user pay system and think that the toll roads might be one possible solution. But it is somehow so boring and ordinary and others have thought of this before.

Instead here is my vision for you and your ministry:

Years from now, people will still be talking about that innovative Minister of Transportation, the Hon. Judith Reid, who became a leader in North America by reducing car emissions, saving the environment (hence moving one step closer to sustainability) AND balancing her budget while upgrading all existing roads, ports and other arteries of transportation in the province.

How did she do it?

Well, for one she recognized the love affair that everyone here on this continent has with their car and that building more roads will just increase that love affair and do nothing to reduce the amount of traffic on the roads

Secondly, she realized that people in Europe have been living with gasoline prices that are almost double of those in Canada, albeit grudgingly (which is also the reason why you barely see any of those gasoline guzzling SUVs anywhere in those countries). So in spite of everyone here yelling murder when the gasoline prices go up by a cent, other countries have been bearing a much higher burden for years!

And thirdly, she realized that this love affair with the car can only be stopped if she hits the consumer where it hurts most, namely in the wallet.

So she implemented the following plan:

• Get a line of credit or loan to create an outstanding infrastructure of rail, ferries, busses and subsidized float plane services in the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan.

• Once the infrastructure is in place, educate consumers about the benefits to the environment if they car pool, take busses and trains and ferries (as millions of people do in Europe every day!).

• Increase gasoline price by 20 cents per litre in all areas of the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan – this translated into millions of dollars of additional revenue for the provincial government to pay back the loans AND upgrade existing arteries of transportation. And should any consumers have not seen the benefits to the environment through this system, they will surely see the benefit in their own wallets.

Hence, people will buy smaller cars, or cars that run much more fuel efficiently. They might even go for fuel cell cars or other alternatives. They will use the public infrastructure because it truly serves their needs. And they will even feel good, because they are doing something that is positive for the environment. Two things have to be considered:

1) A GREAT infrastructure of public transportation has to be in place.

2) Some subsidy for the transportation of goods has to be arranged, so that consumer prices don’t go through the roof. It should be arranged that local goods are supported more in order to further reduce the strain on roads. (For example, if there are potatoes available for sale in Pemberton, there is no need to bring them up from the US, etc.).

What do you think? Would this vision work?

Helene Steiner

Whistler

 

Okay, I’ve been waiting and waiting and closely following the highway debate and nobody but nobody has even come close to suggesting a viable alternative that would not close the present highway, would not go through the watersheds, would not necessitate a toll on the present road and would cause very little inconvenience during construction. A miracle? No! It’s already been done in Canada and was built by a private consortium, so there was no initial construction cost to the taxpayers.

"In Canada?" You ask in disbelief. Yes, and the same sort of road (only longer) was built in Florida, so we know it works.

Think, "Confederation Bridge." Think, the 100 mile highway to the Florida Keys. I’m talking about a road that is built across a section of the Pacific Ocean. Well, maybe across is the wrong term, but at least north along the coast from somewhere around Horseshoe Bay to Squamish.

It would probably have to come into the present highway just north of the ferry docks in Horseshoe Bay, or else the ferries would have to go under it, and then reconnect at Squamish. This would offer a lot of advantages:

• The old highway could be used, as is, by locals free of tolls unless they choose the new faster route;

• There would be no rockfalls on the new road so no interminable closures (just take the other highway);

• The road could easily be six, or more, lanes wide, allowing for greatly increased traffic flow during the Olympics or any other event;

• A straighter, higher speed, divided highway so many fewer accidents.

Where’s the downside?

The East Coast of Canada (which generally has less money than us) did it so; why can’t we?

There has already been some talk of a bridge link to some of our islands. Maybe the people who are planning this would be interested in incorporating their plans so the road serves more than one purpose. It could even connect the Sunshine Coast to the mainland. Who knows where this could go.

This could be the smartest and most practical solution to a number of dilemmas and as locals (I’m not yet but soon hope to be) we should make sure that the right people give this possibility the consideration it deserves.

Dan Morgan

Danco Tourism Management & Consultants

Vancouver