We would like to clarify the facts regarding the municipal debt to correct any misconceptions your readers may have after reading a letter to the editor in last week’s issue entitled Boom, Bust and Taxes. The statements made in that letter are not true.
All of the debt incurrd by the Whistler Housing Authority are mortgages secured by the buildings. The rental revenue generated by the housing covers the mortgage payments as well as the operating costs, administrative costs and building maintenance reserves. The properties owned by the municipality through the WHA are currently valued at $30 million and are a significant long-term benefit to the resort community.
The long-term debt of the municipality has been reduced by more than half to $4,500,934 in 2001 from $9,247,292 in 1997. This debt was incurred for construction of basic infrastructure, including water and sanitary sewer systems, most of it in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During the last 15 years, no significant new debt has been incurred by the municipality, except a loan for the renovations to the public safety building (RCMP/Fire), which was paid out in 2001.
These amounts do not include a loan for the residents’ portion of the Emerald Sewer Project, which will be repaid by the residents through a specified area tax, nor does it include the mortgages discussed above.
By the way, the proposed upgrade for the wastewater treatment plant is budgeted at $19 million, not $62 million as stated in the letter. And, the municipal commitment to Millennium Place is a $3.5 million loan guarantee to the Whistler Skiers Chapel Society, fully secured by a second mortgage on the $7.5 million building.
The five-year financial plan and the audited statements for 2001 are available on the municipal Web site, www.whistler.ca, as well as at the Whistler Public Library and municipal hall reception. The municipal finance department are pleased to answer residents’ questions. Questions should be directed to John Nelson, general manager of corporate services, at 604-935-8120 or findept@whistler.ca.
Diana Waltmann
Information Officer
Resort Municipality of Whistler
The Pique editorial of Oct. 25 th contains false and misleading information and the many volunteers and members of AWARE would like to set the record straight. The editor wrote that "…the Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment announced at the meeting it couldn’t support the bid…"
AWARE has never supported the bid, nor has AWARE come out against the Olympic bid or its supporters for very good reasons. What we have done is recognize that should the community end up hosting events for an Olympic event, our role is to do everything we can to influence the bid process in such a way that our environment will not end up being damaged in the process. We have further stated that there is no environmental legacy whatsoever, and considering that Whistler is seen as a environmental leader we are more than a little perplexed and confused that an environmental legacy has not been concluded or even considered. Because of that oversight AWARE will be proposing an environmental legacy if the bid is successful.
AWARE volunteers have spent hundreds of hours analyzing bid details and providing input to the bid committee. We have done this task out of the public eye, as we do not feel it is our role to sway opinion on whether or not to host the Games, but our role is to speak for the environment. Pique reporter Clare Ogilvie in her dispatch was able to quote AWARE’s statement verbatim – we cannot help but wonder why the editor of the Pique could get our position, or deliberate lack of a position, so wrong.
Eckhard Zeildler
on behalf of the AWARE Olympic Bid Committee
Whistler’s housing problem is a bit of an odd one. It’s not that we have a shortage of houses, it’s that we have a shortage of houses employees can live in. House prices have become so high that as homeowners/workers leave Whistler over the next many years, they will be replaced by someone that has made their money elsewhere, and won’t need to work in Whistler. They also probably won’t need the revenue of a rental suite.
As neighbourhoods like Alpine and Alta Vista transform themselves into non-employee housing, how will we achieve our goal of maintaining the majority of our employees living in Whistler?
Our next council will be the one considering this question. There will be a least three options for them to consider.
The first will be the community land bank. The Callaghan site will be able to accommodate up to 8,000 employee bed units. The Callaghan could easily take care all of our employee housing needs over the next 40 years. It could easily become the main place where Whistler’s next generation of employees and entrepreneurs will live.
The second option will be to keep making deals with Whistler land developers, creating employee bed in exchange for rezoning approvals.
The third option will be to create employee beds in our existing neighbourhoods. Ways to achieve this are being explored. One way is to densify properties on existing lots from single family to duplex or triplex, with at least one unit put under employee-restricted covenant. Ways of creating employee-restricted rental suites in existing homes or in "rebuilds" are also being explored.
Retaining employees living in our existing neighbourhoods has significant advantages from a social, environmental and economic standpoint.
Our next council will decide which direction is best for our community. What ever decision is made will have far reaching implications on what Whistler will feel like for the next generation of Whistlerites.
I hope there will be an opportunity during this election campaign to hear each candidate’s vision for employee housing in Whistler, and which of the above options they favour for our future.
Stéphane Perron
Whistler
Thank you to you and your staff for the articles presenting the candidates and the issues for the upcoming municipal elections.
We as a community owe a big vote of thanks to the incumbent mayor and members of council for the time and effort they expended on behalf of the community. We also need to thank all the candidates in the upcoming election for their efforts to present the issues and for volunteering to serve the community, be it for their own gains or that of the community.
Some in the community have railed against the mayor and council that they were not heard because we did not have a referendum on the 2010 bid. But they were heard and council decided not to hold one. I, and nearly everyone I have talked with approved of council's decision on that issue. We elect people so that we can go about our busy lives and hope that the council can immerse themselves in the issues and make the right decisions. Surely we do not need a referendum on every contentious issue, even one as important as the 2010 Olympic Games.
On evaluating the effectiveness and success of the current mayor and council I am struck by the fact that there were only five issues I was primarily concerned about three years ago and the current council has resolved none of them satisfactorily. They were and still are effective financial management, property school tax reduction, adequate employee housing, nightly rentals in residential areas and a set of development rules that are adhered to and not changed because of a gift or grant to the municipality. You and your readers probably have other issues. Were they resolved satisfactorily or were ineffective or draconian measures attempted there too? Yet, the mayor and current members of council all seek re-election. Isn't it time some of them stepped down and allowed a few others an opportunity to improve the well being of our community, or do they honestly believe that there is a paucity of capable people in Whistler? Now, I am not advocating a complete change, as others are, because changing the mayor and all members of council will probably result in a more ineffective council. Luckily, each of us can use our wisdom and the information available to select the next group at municipal hall.
In an attempt to help choose the people for mayor and council may I suggest an approach that gets around the catch-words and phrases mouthed by candidates to secure your vote and focus on the ability of candidates to do the job, which I see as the skills and ability to plan ahead, make decisions, resolve problems and personal integrity with sound, ethical behaviour in all their dealings. Yes, we all tend to vote for people we like or whom we think are nice people, but what we really need are people who will do an effective job. All too often we elect a candidate because of their response to our favourite issue at the time. That issue may be resolved in a few months or never, but we are left with the candidate making decisions for the rest of their term that may affect the municipality and us adversely.
How do we determine if a candidate has the skill and ability to do the job? A few of the traits or characteristics I look for are outlined below.
Planning/Time Frame — Does the person plan ahead in other areas of their life or is the person living in the here and now and cannot plan what to do tomorrow until it gets here. If a person cannot plan ahead in their own life how can they plan ahead for the entire municipality?
Perspective — Is the person a details oriented person or one with a global or big picture perspective? It is difficult to make a decision that affects the municipality, discuss ideas, and set out a course of action for the municipality, if the person is caught up in all the gritty little details that should be better left to municipal staff. In discussions with candidates become aware of their perspective.
Direction — Does the person move towards goals or away from problems? If they move away from problems our council will have difficulty identifying, setting and achieving community goals. What were the reasons for some of their decisions in the past?
Decision-Making — Does the candidate have a sound strategy for decision-making and problem resolution or is it one based on the weather, which way the wind is blowing, their mood, or the toss of a coin. How did the candidate make other decisions, including how and when to run for office?
In judging integrity and ethical behaviour one can ask around the municipality and find out if the person has been ethical in their dealings with others. Is it ethical for a candidate to knowingly flout a Whistler bylaw and then brag about it by advertising the fact in the local papers? If a candidate can boast about flouting a bylaw when not in council what will the person do if elected?
In dealings with the planning and building departments this year I found them to be very helpful, honest, hardworking and very clear about what was allowed and what was not. They had a well-defined set of rules and they adhered to them. Yet, one reads in the media of people being allowed to change the rules because of a grant or gift to the community. Is council changing the rules to suit the occasion? Will a developer who does not have deep pockets be granted the same licence or freedom? Are we opening ourselves to bribery even if council is of the opinion that the gift may benefit the community at large?
It is most important that each of us vote on Nov. 16 or earlier. Your vote counts. Every decision you make when you vote is the right one.
Keith Fernandes
Vancouver/Whistler
While the upcoming election has some big issues to deal with, there is one that perplexes me: "affordability." I am going to say a few things here that will piss a lot of people off, but Max does it all the time, and I am not looking for votes.
In the early ’70s those of us who wanted to live in Whistler for the ski season had to have a cabin (un-real estate agents now call them "chalets") by the end of September or you were out of luck. The rent was always seasonal and paid in advance. My first place was a dumpy A-frame by the railroad station and the rent was $3,000 for the season.
The trend to monthly rents began in the ’80s. By then a one-bedroom in White Gold was $6,000/season or we had the choice of monthly for $1,200/month.
At about that time interest rates went crazy and a lot of people lost their homes to the banks. My first home was a repo/fix ’er-up special that was a gamble during uncertain times, but my roommate, spouse and I saved for a down payment and now had a mortgage. Our peers of the time said we were nuts and chose to spend their money on expensive bikes, skis and travelling. We all make our own choices.
Back to the future. Flipping through the for-rent section of the classifieds the average rents look the same as 20 years ago, with more to choose from. One joker on last week’s T.V news had the gall to complain about paying $1,200/month split three ways. That's about $14 per day and he thinks it’s too much. Give your head a shake and put both feet back on the ground pal. I bet the same guy will sub-let his flat for two weeks at Christmas for whatever the market will bear.
Every year there is huge demand when the hill is about to open, but that news story is 30 years old. Intrawest has done a great job of supplying staff accommodation to the tune of 1,200 beds. The housing authority has done equally well to the tune of 3,500 beds. In a town of 10,000 just how much "employee" housing do we in fact need?
There are two obvious points here that seem to be overlooked. Whistler is a resort and not everyone is here to work. The earliest housing co-op I recall was the units along the ridge south of Boston Pizza. A number of my mates lived there way back when and funny thing was none of them actually worked for a paycheque.
And then we have the numerous free-hold lots for "locals" at reduced prices. Once again I recall helping a friend move in to his new home in Barnfield and mentioned what a great deal that he got. His response was "I’ve been here 15 years and paid my dues," as if time spent in Whistler was the same as wrongful imprisonment. Especially when the time spent was working for the mountains. and collecting pokey half the year. When these "locals’" homes do sell it’s for top dollar.
Now we hear that 300 acres of the Callaghan is to be allocated for more staff housing. And "affordability" is a big issue. To this I say "hands off the Callaghan."
Apparently Whistler now has the most expensive real estate in the country and people come here in search of affordability. Sorry, but I don't get it. Consider the demographics of skiers and snowboarders and they are, by and large, from affluent backgrounds. I don't think the next council should take on the burden of surrogate parents. Let employers take care of their employees, and those here to play can deal with market conditions. The Millennium rental situation is a good example, the greedy got burned. If history does repeat itself then they'll get burned again, in February 2010.
Steve Anderson
Whistler
This letter was addressed to the mayor and council
I'm writing you after having exhausted all reasonable efforts to deal with concerns I have about our town and the direction it is taking.
Firstly the noise issue, late at night in the village doesn’t seem to getting any better and with more liberal liquor laws coming I believe it will get worse before too long. This is not the kind of resort that families will want to come back too if they are woken up at all hours of the night with yelling and screaming and swearing. I know lots of visitors come here to party but there are reasonable limits.
I’m sure that if this kind of behaviour took place outside a residence, in a good downtown area or even a park setting in most towns in this world it would be dealt with in a professional manner so that residents may have quiet enjoyment of there property.
With real estate values climbing and taxes following suit one would think there could be put into place a budget to keep our streets safe and quiet. Ultimately the bar and nightclub owners are responsible for not allowing their patrons to get out of control and if they could see beyond the bottom line they would realize that if this keeps up people that make up the majority of Whistler's market will stop coming... after all you can get all the yelling and screaming you can handle in most towns, the only difference is it is dealt with in a timely manner if it gets out of control.
I agree that Whistler is different and has special problems but it seems to me that everyone has forgotten about this.
My next issue is the kennel for the great WAG organization (and I mean that sincerely). It is located on land that is not zoned for that kind of operation and it too is a noise problem.
I would invite any council member to stay in the village, at my expense, to experience the not-so-quiet enjoyment of a half-million dollar condominium in this sustainable mountain environment that we all think is the best in the world.
Needless to say I have tied to solve these problems with many of the municipal staff but after a year or so it gets a little frustrating.
Closer to home, in my neighbourhood I have noticed that a recently created park (The World Cup Forest) on Timing Flats, which was planted with nice seedlings a couple of years ago, has been wiped out with rip rap bolders and fill from the Nature's Door development.
Having volunteered and chaired the now defunct Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission I asked key staff members at the hall to look into this many months ago… still no response. This commission was instrumental in creating the Valley Trail and many of the fine parks and facilities we have today. Why were they convinced to disband?
I have great respect for the unselfish work the mayor and council do on a day to day basis. I certainly wouldn’t want the job.
But I as a 30-year citizen of this valley, I feel compelled to keep asking difficult questions. My only hope is that they will be answered and dealt with someday.
Bruce Watt
Whistler
As a person who has played a small part in the development of Whistler, since the 1970s, I would like to thank Mayor O’Reilly and the entire council for the great job they have done by representing our interests with respect to the Olympic Bid issue.
It took both wisdom and courage to hold off on providing Whistler’s official endorsement, until clear understandings were reached with the bid committee and the provincial government on matters that are vital to our community. Of course there is much more work to be done and, in my view, it is imperative that council continue to be vigilant in ensuring that outsiders, even with the best intentions, do not place their interests ahead of ours.
With this in mind, I now feel happy to be an unqualified supporter of the bid.
Dick Gibbons
Whistler
This letter was addressed to the mayor and council.
The end of your term prompts me to write you once more, much as I did the beginning November ’98 and also in between. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for all your work, and most certainly those efforts which produced positive results for the community.
But I must also tell you that I am saddened to see that propaganda has begun replacing factual information to the public. It appears there are too many catchphrases and feel good statements, sustainability comes to mind, which are just smoke and mirrors, as the smoke usually seems to hide some consultant’s bill or similar expenditure.
Three years ago I had hopes that you might be able to institute a more democratic way of running this town. More recently, my hopes actually rose when all of you resisted the temptation to simply go along as Councillor Wells tried to force an endorsement of the Olympic bid by ambush. I was encouraged to see you hanging tough, as you had not yet achieved what you had set out to get for this town.
Needless to say I was surprised that you just went ahead and endorsed the bid anyway without having your demands met. I think you blew it. You had a trump ace in your hand, and gave it away for nothing. Now that the bid is endorsed, there is no longer any incentive for governments or the bid corporation to deliver. When the conference centre contribution was cut to $3 million the writing was on the wall that those in power have no intention to play ball fairly. To locate employee housing in the Callaghan? I guess South Africa manages with its black townships which the labour force retreats to at the end of their working day. The thinking here must be that there is nothing wrong with a white township in the Callaghan. I am sure the spin-doctors will very efficiently pronounce that with the ghetto out of sight, the daily commutes are all sustainable.
As the citizens of Bern, Switzerland, voted on the simple matter of borrowing $8 million, to finalize their bid, we had a glimpse of true democracy. A democracy we can only dream of in this country.
Here we are talking much larger sums, yet not once during your term in office did you have the courage and courtesy to truly involve or consult your citizens. The very people who elected you. All we have seen is propaganda, no hard figures or which taxpayers’ pockets this will come from. Our money supply is not endless, and I have not even mentioned healthcare, education, never mind drought relief for the people who grow our food. In difficult economic times we are blowing money we do not have on frills.
These diversionary tactics are as old as the hills. In Roman days the slogan was "Let them have circus," in later times "Let them eat cake," and I suspect for us it will be "Let them watch Olympics on TV!" It is with some concern that I watch a community showing some signs of unravelling, as people vote with their feet, cash in their chips and move elsewhere. I wonder if they would stay if they truly had say in the affairs of their town.
As far as the upcoming election is concerned, I urge you to add an opinion poll question about the bid to the ballot since you do not have the stomach for a binding referendum. It would either re-confirm your decision as correct, or give guidance to the new council of where the citizens truly stand. After all, when you were elected, it was to represent all people, not just vested interests. I must commend Councillor Melamed for the courage he showed by voting No; it would have been so simple to run with the sheep.
I wish you all the best.
Hans Kögler
Whistler
By not offering a referendum on the topic during the upcoming municipal elections, it seems evident that our current council is uninterested in how we, as a community, feel about hosting part of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Unfortunately, given the big picture of the continental scheduling of the Games, it appears that it is, in fact, North America's turn in the winter of 2010.
Be that as it may, for those of you who do not support hosting this event in Whistler (Squamish makes much, much more sense), a recourse is open. The IOC's history is proof that it does respond to a certain form of influence, bribery. I don't condone or encourage this practice, but it makes sense that if we don't want the Olympics here, we should talk to the IOC in a language they understand. Perhaps, a collection should be initiated to bribe the IOC to hold the 2010 Olympics in Salzburg, or Toronto. Simple pledges should suffice to get the point across that we don’t want the Olympics here!
Maybe the IOC will listen, even if our governments won't.
Alex Nikolic
Whistler
After attending the Vancouver 2010 Whistler council meeting, I would like to make a few comments. First, I agree with AWARE’s position that the bid committee has failed to instil the concept of sustainable practices into their plans at the very top level and that the latest proposals for the "lasting legacies" do not contain any environmental legacy whatsoever.
I was discouraged that these issues obviously weren’t much of a concern to council and other supporters since the 6-1 vote to endorse the bid was met with approval. Maybe those who support the bid are counting on environmental groups and Councillor Melamed to make sure that the environment and sustainability will eventually get into the bid somewhere.
If you are indeed counting on environmental groups to keep an eye on the bid, you should know that volunteers at AWARE are currently the only voice for conservation for the entire Vancouver 2010 bid process. The David Suzuki Foundation is no longer involved and neither is The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). The new government has been making so many changes that impact our environment (e.g. the privatization of parks), that groups do not have the resources to fight every battle.
Maybe you didn’t realize how necessary your voice is if you are at all concerned about what the bid stands for regarding sustainability and the environment. I think a lot of locals are caught up in the hype and sold on the idea of hosting the Olympics without questioning things like why there is no environmental legacy, or what "showcasing environmental and sustainable practices" will actually mean. It reminds me a lot of how at one time, so many people were sold on the idea of bringing the Liberals to power. I hope we’ve learned that once we’ve agreed without receiving any guarantees, anything can happen.
Kristina Swerhun
Whistler
Olympic referendum?
After reading the Letters section in the Oct. 25 th issue, one particular letter has motivated me to respond with vigor. Polemics, that have voted for a government with an included agenda promising to try its best to secure the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, then later those same polemics cry referendum, referendum, referendum, seem to me to illustrate misguided, bonehead hypocrites, a mentality beyond my comprehension.
Having been involved with the very successful and wonderful 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics and later that same year the exotic and fascinating Seoul, Korea Summer Olympic Games, never will I forget the thrill and experience of being part of events of such sophistication and prestige. The creativity and passion of participating countries and their people having successfully accomplished their dream, and the camaraderie of the many thousands of enthusiastic volunteers to leave a lasting and cherished legacy never to be forgotten, especially for the younger generation of budding athletes with their hopes and dreams.
We all should be honoured and thankful that we even have the potential and the opportunity to bid for such a memorable event. The Olympic Games would be a wonderful accomplishment and example for our youth, to realize the coming together of people from all cultures around the world to participate in fellowship and competition in a fair and sporting way, and in the process producing new goals, records, and ultimately champions.
Even now I will drive to Calgary just to see that awesome remaining Olympic sculpture, the ski jump, and it brings back all those wonderful memories from the past.
Referendum? Get involved, volunteer!
Ken Wesman
West Vancouver
