Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

On July 1, 2003, I interviewed Stuart Smith, the River Impacts Co-ordinator for the Whitewater Kayaking Association of B.C.

On July 1, 2003, I interviewed Stuart Smith, the River Impacts Co-ordinator for the Whitewater Kayaking Association of B.C. Smith has been representing paddlers on IPP issues, and was intimately involved with the Rutherford microhydro project and IPP proposals on the Ashlu and Ryan.

In discussing his concerns about the surge in interest in developing run of the river in this region, he said, "I don’t often have the opportunity to say it, but the local government is being very helpful. They recognize that some of what is being said by (IPP project) proponents is not true. Local government is listening, they are doing a fantastic job of dealing with this, trying to take into account locals’ concerns. They are breaking ground every day, with their decisions and policy development....

"Actually, it turns out to be a little frightening for local government. They’ve taken a stance on the Ryan and delayed the next reading on the Ashlu. They are walking on ice a little, and if the province gets enough pressure from the developers that the local government are holding them up, then the same thing will happen as with the fish farming industry – the provincial government will step in and say these projects no longer require local zoning. It is a real concern that if the SLRD pushes too hard to hear local input and concerns, then the province will just ram some legislation through that will prevent them having any say."

Well, Smith's crystal ball gazing was pretty spot on. On Nov. 4, the Minister for State Deregulation introduced Bill 75 into the house, The Significant Projects Streamlining Act. That's doublespeak for "B.C.'s Up For Sale."

The kinds of projects that could be deemed "significant" include: run of the river, mining developments, Olympic-related projects, nuclear reactors (and Atomic Energy Canada aims to build 20 new nuclear reactors across the country in the next two decades, according to an Oct 2 2003 article in the Ottawa Citizen), or nuclear waste dumping sites.

This means that the province will fast-track such projects, sign off on them, and enable them to bypass any of the typical mechanisms and processes. Any Minister can ORDER local government to treat the project as having complied with all their approvals, whether they have or not. Typically, the order will come because the proponent has not met local government requirements, and that's why they've gone to their pals in Victoria in the first place.

Granted, the established processes involve a lot of red tape, and can be cumbersome for the proponent. That's democracy. Public consultation can be inefficient. The most efficient type of government, after all, is a dictatorship. Then you don't have to worry about all that fiddly environmental review, public consultation, due process rubbish.

As R. Sultan said, when rising in support of the bill on its second reading, this law will effectively shut up "the NIMBYs who worry about the quality of the air, the quality of road traffic, the quality of life itself."

Oh, sorry for being a pain in the ass.

Democratic process is working at a local level. Our representatives on the SLRD have heard our concerns and reflected them in their motions regarding the Ashlu and Ryan IPPs and again last week opposing the bill. We need to make our voices loud enough to be heard at the provincial level. Tell our Ministers to leave these kind of planning decisions in the local jurisdiction, or they will find themselves out of a job.

Decisions about your back yard are going to be able to be made behind closed doors, with no public consultation, if this Bill is passed. Send an e-mail to your provincial reps and let them know what you think: Premier Gordon Campbell ( gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca , premier@gov.bc.ca ); Minister for State Deregulation, Kevin Falcon ( kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca ); our local MLA Ted Nebbeling ( ted.nebbeling.mla@leg.bc.ca ).

Lisa Richardson

Pemberton

I have taken the time recently to read all the information provided to the public regarding the five options presented in the Whistler. It's Our Future Community Sustainability Plan. I also attended the open house on Nov. 15th at Myrtle Phillip School.

I have several concerns in regards to the current phase of the process. I believe flaws exist which are of a serious nature.

The first is the fact that a mail out to all property owners has not taken place to notify them of the current process phase and the deadline of Nov. 24th to submit feedback. I think that local advertising of the process, Web site, open house and deadline date was thorough. However, due to the time of year, the vast majority of second homeowners and vacationing locals are completely unaware of what is going on.

I was informed by municipal staff that cost was the main reason that a mailout did not occur to property owners. Another reason offered was that it is believed by staff that many second homeowners visit the RMOW or local newspapers’ Web sites regularly and would find out about the process. There is no certainty of that or any factual Web site visitation analysis to back it up. An estimate of $15,000 for the mailout was given to me by staff. Although I appreciate their effort to save tax dollars, I think this expense cannot be spared.

The second issue is the short time span people have been given to respond. The three weeks between the unveiling of the five options and the deadline for input, is far too short for proper evaluation and debate to occur. Staff will not be able to deal any better with the large volumes of feedback pouring in within this timeframe, than if it were to trickle in over the next six weeks. The reason provided to me by staff for the short timeframe was that most people would respond close to the deadline, regardless of when it was set. That may be the case. However, everyone should be given ample time to make a well informed decision that is properly debated and thought out. I would suggest extending the deadline to Jan. 9.

The third issue is the fact that comparitive details, related to the impacts of the options, determined by the Quest analysis, are not included in the Comprehensive Backgrounder document, or on the Web site. These were available at the open house at the Quest booth, but nowhere else. An example of this is the impact analysis on travel time between Function Junction and the village. i.e. A 26-minute trip time between Function Junction and the village was noted as the result of building 6,900 bed units in the Callaghan (Option 3). The Quest analysis of the five options was presented in a very easy to understand graphical form. This made comparisons of the various impacts easy to review. Did we as taxpayers not pay for this analysis? Why then has it not been publicized? I believe we are making an uninformed decision without knowing all the details.

My final issue is related to the integrity of the collection and review of the public responses to the options presented. I asked Mr. Vance if this process was to be audited by an external party and his response was no. He agreed that it is entirely possible for individuals or perhaps groups of individuals to enter multiple responses on the Web site to sway the vote. There is no mechanism in place to prevent this. There is also no audit of the feedback planned to guarantee the validity of the announced favoured option. Although Mr. Vance assured me that there is no conspiracy at work here, it is clear that several members of the council including his Mayorship have very strong views on which direction is preferred. This may not necessarily be the direction that the majority of Whistler residents and property owners wish to take. The public must be able to trust the outcome of the process. Therefore, it is imperative that the announced preferred option be validated by a third party.

I believe that a lot of excellent work has been done to date on this project and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be involved. I only ask that the same diligence and time is applied to this and the final phases and that every stakeholder is allowed the chance to be involved.

After all, it's Whistler's future!

Kevin Rea

Whistler

Re: transit schedule

I would like to express my concerns regarding the Spring Creek bus schedule. Agreeably there has been a major improvement in the service to the Spring Creek area but only, it seems, if you are travelling north. I moved to the Spring Creek subdivision because of its close proximity to Function Junction where I work full-time. Originally I presumed that the bus service would be available to travel to and from Spring Creek because the transit station is located there. Not only is there no available bus stop to catch a southbound bus on the highway but also the new-heralded service for Spring Creek only services the village commute.

Having to walk to work every morning at 8 a.m. in my office clothes on the side of the highway is frustrating enough without watching the two buses that pass me by on there way to Function Junction. Why is there no service for the community of employees that work in this bustling subdivision? I am aware of at least two other employees that work full time in Function Junction and live in Spring Creek, who drive their cars the two kilometres to work every morning.

While WAVE and the municipality encourage us to commute on one hand, they deny us the availability of the plethora of buses that commute there every 20 minutes, all day long. The irony is whimsical.

Please help those of us that would rather ride transit than use their cars, it’s better for the environment and there can be no other costs associated with a bus system that already drives this consistent route.

Lena Martin

Whistler

Whistler: It's Their Future

Having taken the time to participate in the Whistler. It's Their (I misread, it says Our) Future process I find the lack of objectivity in the entire presentation frustrating and insulting. Could the description of the Five Futures be any more slanted to favour one over another? Perhaps the authors and their employers would like to fill out my response for me (then again, maybe they will).

There are many misconceptions presented. Under all options the dump will have to be closed and the wastewater plant will have to be upgraded; that is just a matter of time. Alpine North and Emerald West, two of the proposed development areas, do not have to impact existing neighbourhoods in the way that the artist/planners conception suggests. In Future 3, "the greatest number of employees live and work in Whistler," with the fewest number of commuting employees. Apparently the Callaghan will be moved as well as developed. And the sky will not fall, nor will the economy of Whistler implode if there is no new development.

The work that needs to be done lies in increasing the summer and shoulder season economies, not in providing more capacity for growth in the winter as Futures 2 through 5 promote. This just further stresses the overabundance of infrastructure in the non-winter months, making it harder and harder for businesses and employees to get by.

Let us remember that there are still projects scheduled to be built under the existing bed cap. What about the idea of getting those projects approved only after an inclusion of significant community benefits, in this case employee housing, as was done with the Nita Lake project? After that has been exhausted then use the remaining land bank to acquire areas to help infill housing as needed parcel by parcel, i.e. the Potential Development Areas above the highways yard, for instance. The Olympic village can be built using temporary housing in the Cheakamus North area, and then disassembled or kept if needed for more employee housing.

Of course, this does not sound much like Their Future, does it?

James MacKay

Whistler

Re: In-car parking meters and the tangent that this article sent me off on

There is an error in the addition of what it costs the smart card user to park 40 times. Instead of the $40 it would have cost, if the user did indeed not realize how long she would be away from her car every time and had, "plugged a Loonie into the machine" each time, with the smart card she would have spent $111.85. There are no savings here. It is a misrepresentation to not include the $90 cost of the machine. The municipality sees taking away a lot of the free parking as an incentive for people not to use their cars. Unfortunately, our bus service has not yet reached the point of being a totally viable alternative.

This leads to the tangent: could we please not send all our resident workers so far down the valley that they have no choice but to drive in to work and play. This is not sustainable.

Have the people that oppose restricted housing in their back yard ever driven through any of these communities? These are the communities that are lived in and looked after. Communities where you feel safe watching your child play at the playground from your window. You know the three other parents there because they are your neighbours all year round. Can we please explore more "affordable" housing options within our community.

Ergo, have more of our work force live in Whistler; beef up the bus system; we will not need as much parking.

The Gannon Family

Whistler

Extremely generous

I would like to say a huge thank you to Jill and Peter from Extremely Canadian Lodge. During the weekend of the flooding in October, six of my friends from out of town were stranded an extra night in Whistler while staying at the lodge. The Extremely Canadian team extended an extra night to our weekend stay at no charge. You guys are great, this was much appreciated and the lodge was a phenomenal place to stay… and, of course, no one really minded having to be there an extra night! Thanks for your incredible hospitality and generosity – you have a bunch of new fans to add to your already long list.

Michele Comeau and friends

Whistler

Is Whistler’s success stressing our local environment?

We are a group of Whistler Secondary students who are concerned about air and water quality, the amount of car emissions, and their impacts on human and environmental health.

One of the issues that concerns us is that so many people that work in Whistler cannot afford to live here because of the high cost of purchasing a house or because they cannot afford to pay the ransom rents being charged by many landlords. The result is a traffic jam from Squamish and Pemberton during the early morning and evening as people flock into the Whistler Village to work.

Recently workers from Whistler were killed during the floods as they tried to return home after a day working in Whistler. As one drives along the highway, in either direction, the lonely crosses pay testimony to the deaths of so many young and old workers killed on their journeys to work or as they returned home again. The human sacrifices are just unacceptable!

Council is talking about building a bedroom community out in the Callaghan for workers as an option for employee housing. Having lived in this area, I do not think of this as a solution – living out there was detrimental, environmentally speaking, not to mention costly and time consuming, as we had to drive everywhere. We were also cut off from the Whistler community, as public transport to areas like Black Tusk and Pinecrest is extremely inefficient.

As council looks at employee housing, we ask you please to think seriously about placing employee housing near our schools and sport centres so that we too can enjoy being a part of this community without the need to travel.

Every person in Canada has an obligation to the Kyoto Protocol. It is the little things that help make a big difference, whether it is walking, taking public transport or just not letting the engine of your car idle needlessly. Look at the use of power in your home. Consider getting new Christmas lights – replace your old lights with the new seasonal LEDs, they use 95 per cent less energy and last up to seven times longer.

We challenge each resident of the Sea to Sky corridor to make just one small contribution to lowering greenhouse gases. This change can help us achieve our 1 tonne/person reduction commitment.

Think green — think beyond the Olympics.

Sandi Barrett

Whistler Watch