Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

Re: The streamlining of the patrol phone or better yet call it what it is: the mainstreaming. Gone is the straight-to-the-facts weather observations – wind, visibility, temperature, snow – and a forecast that rivals the weather channel.

Re: The streamlining of the patrol phone or better yet call it what it is: the mainstreaming.

Gone is the straight-to-the-facts weather observations – wind, visibility, temperature, snow – and a forecast that rivals the weather channel. Stuff you could use.

It seems it was so popular that the patrollers that needed to use it always got a busy signal.

It would be nice to see the reports come back in some other form. Perhaps Whistler-Blackcomb/Olympic sponsor TELUS, could set up a proper phone line (without all the sugar coating as is the case with the current propaganda line) and have patrol continue the program with avalanche/backcountry information.

Guillermo Bright

Whistler

Members of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation have voted overwhelmingly to reject Christy Clark’s college of political appointees, and instead will pay into the BCTF Democratic Teachers’ Fund. Across the province, 89 per cent voted for this option, while locally, a staggering 96 per cent of Howe Sound Teachers’ Association members supported this plan.

These results show that teachers are outraged at the creation of an undemocratic, unrepresentative College of Teachers that will make our profession the only one in British Columbia that is not self-regulating or democratic. Every other professional group in B.C., including doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, dentists, and engineers, to name a few, controls its professional body.

Diminishing the status of teachers will only serve to undermine public education. The BCTF is the strongest voice for students and public education in our province. Regrettably, members of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association have, perhaps unwittingly, become pawns of the provincial government and have provided no educational leadership with respect to adequate education funding and support for teachers as they try to restore a democratic, self-regulating College of Teachers.

We are, however, grateful for the support of parents and other members of the public across the province who have written to their School Board, MLA and Christy Clark. This is especially important since Minister Clark refuses to discuss these and other matters with the BCTF. Members of the Howe Sound Teachers’ Association, the teachers of your children, would encourage all local parents to express publicly their concerns over these unwarranted changes. Your support can make a difference.

Carl E. Walker

President

Howe Sound Teachers’ Associationa

Spirit Pass lacks real spirit

Let’s take a look at the reality of the so called Spirit Pass.

The locals, many of whom don’t work for Intrawest, play a big role in making this resort community great. Many of us have been pass holders (of one form or another) for years. And how are we rewarded? The Grinches at Intrawest provide the Spirit Pass for $1,169, plus a $40 training/administration fee, plus GST, for a total of $1,293.63.

This meagre token provides the heart and soul of our community with a reduction of a whopping $128.40 over the early bird option at $1,422.03 (tax included) – less than 10 per cent off.

Of course another option is to take part in the Freeze Factor where 24 hours of standing in your gear may win you a season’s pass. How about giving a pass to all those who go the 24 hours?

Perhaps local loyalty can be rewarded by offering additional savings the longer you've been a pass holder, i.e. 5 per cent off the Spirit Pass for every year you've bought one (maybe to a maximum of 40 per cent).

Edson Palmer

Pemberton

I am writing to express some of the many concerns I have regarding proposed development in the Callaghan Valley. As we look into Whistler’s future we have many options and opportunities. I believe development in the Callaghan Valley has the potential to fly in the face of many of the values and standards we claim to hold dear.

I am particularly worried about creating a large housing development south of Whistler that would add more traffic to an already busy highway. This development would have more people commuting farther to work. I don’t see how this meshes with the good foundations we are laying regarding sustainability and environmental responsibility. The challenge of getting all these people to and from Whistler is daunting. Are we prepared to offer bus service every 20 minutes, all day, all year long? Would this be enough? Can we afford this energy consumption in the long run? Housing more people outside the existing boundaries of the municipality may overload an already strained highway.

The idea of placing employees outside the community they work in is also troubling. I think having workers segregated from the places and people they work with would do little to contribute to a true sense of community in this resort. I believe this separation will serve to emphasize social stratification. I worry the super rich will own second homes in Whistler and workers will travel up the highway to serve them. After service is rendered, the workers would return to their place – out of sight, down the highway. If we are to have any real community we must have the people who work here live here. We must have more people who live here all year round. They must live in all the neighbourhoods in and around Whistler.

I wonder about the cost of starting a new development from scratch: waste water treatment, bus service, snow clearing, power, lights, schools, churches and community groups. Are we to build all of these? I think it would be infinitely more practical to add to existing infrastructure. I think our sense of community would be fostered by using facilities already in place.

I have lived and worked in Whistler for the last five years and I am planning a future here. I can make these plans because of the Whistler Housing Authority and employee-restricted housing. I hope to see more of it, in the right places, in the existing community. The workers represent the future of this community, please don’t push us out.

Rob Miller

Pemberton

Re: Whistler. It’s Our Future

While I have duly filled out my questionnaire via the Internet on the five futures outlined in your document Create Whistler’s Future I would like to make just a few comments regarding the planning of our future.

A. Bed Cap

As many of you know, I was here to see the inauguration of the very first council in 1975 and participated in planning of the total valley at that time, for the then absolute maximum of 40,000 bed units. The goal posts were moved by dilution of the meaning of a bed unit first, and then later the cap reset at 45,000 to accommodate the Chateau Whistler and Nicklaus North Golf courses. The goal posts were moved yet again to 52,500 for community benefits which I can’t quite remember, and now there is a new number of 55,500. Past councils have raised the bed unit cap by 39 per cent and even further by diluting (or in fact increasing) the value of a bed unit by allowing more built space per bed unit. We think there’s about 1.3 pillows for every bed unit which means that with muni hall re-jigging the numbers, we’re probably approved in the order of 72,000 pillows valley-wide.

Rather than go through this really expensive and time- and energy-consuming process every five years, I would suggest that we simply create more bed units every year equal to 1 per cent of the existing stock. We have long used bed units as a "currency" in Whistler, but the trouble is that certain councils have increased the bed cap in large leaps and bounds. The futures listed in the workbook show that somehow we are already married to a 16 per cent increase to 55,500 and it shows four scenarios ranging from a 29 to 31 per cent increase.

I think that by creating 1 per cent new bed units each year, we will have slow, stable growth and let the councils of the day decide which projects merit development. While market-only or resident-only may not matter, we can at least look at new proposals on an on-going, annual basis so that projects can be evaluated and merited based upon their qualitative, environmental and economic benefits at the time.

Aspen has had a growth management plan for at least 20 years at a rate of 1.2 per cent and this to me provides a good guideline, and while it may take all of the fun or potentially all of the damage out of any one council’s hands it provides for a more sustainable and natural flow.

In the absence of controlled growth, I would support an absolute freeze to protect the areas of green space, the fresh air and the liveability we have achieved since we formed the resort municipality in 1975. I do not think we should approve another 30 per cent increase.

B. Land Capability and Use Issues

I propose that the RMOW prepare an inventory of all lands (public and private) within the boundaries of the municipality, not just Crown lands as has been done so far. We should then develop a land capability and desirability system to evaluate and prioritize these land parcels based upon transportation, the environment, and economic principles, and this may well establish a standard for the incremental infilling of highly suitable lands over time based upon the controlled 1 per cent growth per year.

I also believe that it is now time to develop a long-range and "iron clad" green and open space plan which protects our valuable wetlands, old-growth forests, and important visual landscapes. I know we have a start on this but it seems to be completely up to the administrator and council of the day to decide what is valuable and what is not valuable in environmental lands. Many of you may not remember, but Nicklaus North Golf Course was one of our most sensitive wetlands prior to draining the swamp and bringing in 60,000 truckloads of shot rock from the tunnel up the Soo Valley.

C. Employee Housing

Employee or resident housing I view in two different ways. To me there’s a big question between seasonal and resident employees. We taxpayers do not have an ultimate responsibility to subsidize the Whistler lifestyle for those "locals" who are transient, and only wish to ski and board in the winter, and paddle, fish and bike in the summer. However, the transients are a wonderful part of the Whistler fabric and quite frankly, most of us were transients at one time or another. I now call us "pioneer locals." However, I think it is the responsibility of employers to assist in providing accommodation for the transient workers who are the backbone of, especially, our winter ski economy.

It is these seasonal workers who are also by far the most in need, and it is the line between the seasonal employee and the subsidized lifestyle resident where I think the price break should be based when we consider future projects. I think the seasonal employees are perfect for the Olympic Village housing.

While there is a lot of talk about "leakage" of suites in the residential areas, I think we could still get a handle on this by having strong bylaws which "mandate" the installation of employee housing and at the same time, encourage employee suites through certain tax breaks to provide security for theft/fire/freezing, etc. Sun Peaks Resorts, for example, has a very successful program of encouraging the development of suites up to 75 sq. m in floor area and provides a tax break if those suites are rented to local employees.

D. Economic Sustainability

The first and foremost need to stabilize and sustain Whistler on an economic basis is to get a hold of our skyrocketing property taxes and user fees. We have been promised for more than 25 years that the additional growth would always pay for Whistler, but my property taxes have increased tenfold on the same property between 1975 and 2003. So much for the promise that growth will lower taxes.

In the new world of electronic communications, Whistler and other mountain resorts will be attractive for pre-retirees and retirees, and in my opinion, they are a very large part of Whistler’s future. While we don’t necessarily need any public policy to attract, protect or coddle these individuals, we must protect the desirability and the level of taxes.

From my experience working worldwide in more than 25 alpine countries on mountain resorts of all sizes, prices will rise irrespective of allowing more supply or not. Just look at what has happened here. We have raised the bed cap a number of times and it has made no dent at all on prices or the value of real estate. I think that perhaps some constraints may stop the boom, especially in monster single-family homes which we must stop at all costs. Otherwise, it will definitely be the billionaires moving out the pioneer locals who are now millionaires based upon their property values.

Another element we really need is a business park. As a local business owner with 15 employees with post-secondary educations, we have long had a need for a true business park as opposed to the light industrial "melange" that has been given to us at Function Junction. I would suggest this business park be located north, not south (like Function Junction) and would nominate the Rainbow or the Parkhurst lands at Soo Valley as good candidates of level, serviceable lands which would also help the transportation and traffic patterns within the valley.

E. Traffic and Transportation

As one of the primary authors of the Whistler Comprehensive Transportation Strategy I am fully aware of the impacts of development on our highways and the resulting noise, pollution and hassles. We need local services in the neighbourhoods, such as dry cleaner, groceries, liquor store, mail and fuel, to reduce the frequency and length of trips by locals. We need to have the business parks near the full-time residential housing, which means not in the village or Creekside areas.

F. The Callaghan and Lower Cheakamus Proposals

The proposals to create new down valley communities in the Callaghan or the Lower Cheakamus are absolutely anathema to the transportation future of this valley. The demand created by another 7,100 bed units which is circa 10,000 pillows in the Callaghan or Lower Cheakamus, means that for sure the entrance to Whistler will become a 4-6 lane highway and the traffic will be horrendous for the rest of our days in Whistler. We can manage with one-lane northbound and two lanes southbound within the current community plan. We may even allow some growth to the north but we cannot allow growth to the south.

Knowing that so many members of council have taken trips to Colorado and seen Aspen go down-valley to Basalt and finally Glenwood Springs, and Vail down to Avon with strip malls, trailer parks, resident housing, etc., how this council can possibly conceive of a new down-valley community is beyond my imagination. Please, we cannot develop south unless we accept to pay the consequences with a 4-6 lane highway as our grand entrance to Whistler.

I trust you will accept these comments along with those of other citizens. This is a special community and I have been fortunate to have grown and prosper in it during these last 30+ years.

Paul Mathews, President

Ecosign Mountain Resort Planners Ltd.

Win/win situation

I would like to add my support to Kristi Wells’s motion for an organizational review and to question the reasons put forward by the incumbent councillors against her motion.

I agree with Councillor Wells that this is the time to conduct a review. We are struggling with the CSP process, we know the Olympics are a certainty, and the administrator’s contract is up in six months. It only seems sensible to conduct an organizational review at this juncture.

Regular organizational reviews are a standard procedure and should only be viewed as a threat if there is a problem. As Councillor McKeever suggests, if everything is running as well as can be expected, a review will serve to confirm that.

There are a number of members of our community that have expressed concerns over the handling of many issues at the municipal level (one only needs to read the weekly letters to the editor). That doesn’t necessarily mean that these issues have been poorly handled, it could simply mean that the community hasn’t fully understood the complexities of the issues.

Too bad the last review (1996) was only done because the "municipality was in dire straits at that time". I’m quite confident that Mayor O’Reilly, Councillors Davies and Melamed don’t want to wait until we are in "dire straits" again. The reason for doing this is not because it’s been seven years since the last review or because there is a problem. The reason for doing a review is because it’s "good practice", demonstrates leadership, and shall I suggest supports a "sustainable" initiative.

Let’s be progressive, pro-active and sustainable (there’s that word again) and not only conduct an immediate organizational review, but let’s go further and introduce regular scheduled reviews. By creating a regular schedule of reviews (as we do municipal elections), no one should be offended by the process as suggested by Councillor Davies.

Reviews are a win/win. If everything is running smoothly, the community gets satisfaction knowing that an independent third party has confirmed that. If things need a little tweaking, those issues can be addressed and corrected.

Bob Lorriman

Whistler

They only went off the air early this morning, and I'm already lamenting the loss of Free Radio Whistler from the local broadcast spectrum. To the (former) proprietors:

Thanks for not having the same song playing every time I got into my truck.

Thanks for not programming to the lowest common denominator of music consumer's tastes.

Thanks for fighting against the corporate-imposed resort non-culture that our town is being buried under.

Most of all, thanks for being willing to sleep with an FM transmitter in close proximity to your head.

To the existing commercial stations that still broadcast their advertiser-pandering white-bread crap music in our town, you may continue to not count me among your listenership.

Zac Jacobson

Whistler

On behalf of the Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment board of directors and membership, I would like to thank all those who made Cornucopia 2003 such an enormous success. As this year's selected charity recipient for the event we have been humbled by the outward pouring of generosity from the local and surrounding community. Many people readily gave up their spare time to assist with the associated duties in running such a huge event. And a fantastic array of local businesses and the participating wineries came forward with donations to be used in the two silent auctions, both of which were hugely successful. A very special thanks goes out to Tourism Whistler for having selected us as this year's charity. Everyone was a delight to work with. The event couldn't have been better.

As the local environmental watchdog, AWARE’s work in the community benefits all who live and play here. Cornucopia was a fantastic opportunity for us and the results will allow us to continue our dedicated work towards keeping Whistler and the surrounding areas green in 2004.

We are extremely grateful for having been a part of this event. Thank you to everyone for having made it such a great time.

Wendy Horan

President

The Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment

I am just writing to congratulate Whistler on putting on a truly hard core metal Mondays at Garfinkel’s. I was visiting Whistler for a couple of days because I am thinking of moving up next season. I had never really experienced Whistler besides just snowboarding, so when I got to check out the bar scene I was not expecting to see a black metal band. It was the best, and besides all the really cool people I met and know up there and the sense of community I felt, having a scene that I was into was the absolute kicker and finalized my decision. So next season I am moving up and hopefully the punk/metal scene will be going at full force. Slayer!!!

Harley

Vancouver

It was really sad to see negative letters about the Whistler. It's Our Future consultation process in the paper Friday, Nov. 21st.

This summer, quite a few locals spent a good deal of time working on the scenarios that have been presented to the community. To complain about the process now is insulting to all those people and to the municipal staff who worked to roll it out.

The time has come to end the navel gazing and finger pointing; no one scenario is going to be a panacea for our town. Pick some items you like and drop the ones you don't and then get in the faces of your elected councillors and let them know exactly what you think. If we want to create a successful – i.e. sustainable – town it's going to take hard work, determination and participation. If you're not afraid of those things then we'll be on our way to creating a bright future for our town.

Ralph Forsyth

Whistler

I was disappointed that council had a tie 3:3 vote on an external operational review of city hall. I urge those councillors that did not feel a review was timely, to please reconsider their position. There is only an upside to having such a review completed in the spring of 2004.

I understand that council might be considering a committee to look at terms of reference for a possible external review. I would only ask that council please not end up having a watered-down review, as the impact and benefit will be watered down, and possibly create an illusory impression. The review should be thorough and comprehensive.

Here are my reasons why I feel a review is necessary:

• It is clear that those who voted in favour of the review either have some serious concerns from an "insider's" perspective and observation, no matter how diplomatically put, and/or rightly believe that it is a normal and healthy process for an objective review whenever greatly increased demands and expectations of the current bureaucracy can be anticipated.

• There are many people who have interacted with city hall over the years in various ways and in different capacities, who have concerns based on their observations and experiences. I am sure there are municipal staff who would like the opportunity to give their views on need for change confidentially and candidly to an objective third party consultant, who otherwise would feel it is a futile exercise, or feel their jobs could be at stake.

• To use the analogy of the business world, the "board of directors" (council) have an obligation to make sure that the "company" (city hall) is working correctly. This is a normal obligation and fiduciary duty of those who are "running" the company on behalf of its "investors" (property owners) and stakeholders (rest of local and extended community and those who interact with it). An operation such as Whistler is very much a business operation, with all the serious financial implications to all concerned.

• It has been seven years since the last objective organizational and operational review of city hall. Everyone knows the quantum leap of complexity that has occurred with the resort. We now have the Olympic preparation that is going to be intense and sustained and start early in the New Year. This will place enormous expectations of professionalism, performance, and accountability on the bureaucracy, by numerous stakeholders who have a vested interest in the quality and abilities of city hall. This includes the various Olympic committees, as well as the provincial government that generates about 15-20 per cent of its tourism revenue from Whistler, and is contributing a massive amount of financial resources, as well as the federal government.

• To conclude that "everything is fine the way it is", could harm Whistler's reputation. It would appear to be based on a view frozen at the last review of seven years ago. The demands on city hall have been anything but static over the past seven years. Whistler has to feel confident that it has a current review that is based on current realities and future projections. It has to be in a position to give assurance to those depending on it, that it has been proactive in its professional preparation. In other words, pre-empting problems by anticipating them. That can only come about through a third party professional audit and review of city hall. There is so much at stake.

• The external operational/administrative review process is the ideal solution. The consultants who perform these type of specialized services have insights and experience into how small communities and their bureaucracies should function. They know what to look for and what to look out for. They have comparative benchmarks that they can use. They can review and analyze what systems, operational procedures and policies are in place, and whether they are effective and if not, why not. They can identify dysfunctional dynamics within the bureaucracy. They can project the increased demands on the bureaucratic infrastructure and human resources, and make recommendations for change, and the basis for those recommendations.

Employees who may have been suitable for a different earlier stage in Whistler's growth, may not be now. Different skill-sets could be essential. Politicians, especially part-time ones, do not have the professional experience or objectivity to properly perform that function or make any current assessment. That would be an unfair role to place on them.

Whistler is not just a small community with small community challenges. It is unique from any other similar-sized community in Canada. It is a global community on the world stage. It is now in the public eye like it has never been before, with all those serious implications and expectations.

Would those members of council who initially felt a review was unnecessary, please reconsider their view? It will only take one more council member to ensure that Whistler is properly prepared for its next phase on the world stage, by having a comprehensive review. This will enhance the morale of city hall and benefit Whistler's reputation greatly.

Jack Dolsen

Langley

In response to your editorial last Friday preferring more infill to the Callaghan.

I don’t buy your argument that 6,000 new beds in the Callaghan will crowd or impact the Whistler we know as much as 6,000 infill beds.

Whistler is getting crowded. Trails, beaches and green spaces are already strained. The bed cap had great merit, we don’t want to over-develop and destroy the charms, the place that attracted us here in the first place. We don’t want to over-develop the place the tourists who support our livelihoods enjoy. No doubt, shutting the door tight on all future development would have some pretty big impacts on affordability and the community. The question quickly becomes how much new resident housing and where?

The WHA has in-filled most practical sites already. While there may be some smaller opportunities, surely not every piece of "close-in" land in a mountain resort community is a candidate for development!

Whistler has succeeded with warm tourist beds in a compact village surrounded by neighbourhoods where most of the residents live. These neighbourhoods, each with their own distinct features and amenities, are serviced by a good bus system using the existing highway. Most importantly, Whistler’s neighbourhoods are separated by wilds and undeveloped lands interrupted only by a few good trails. Whistler Village is and will remain the core for locals and visitors alike, Callaghan or infill.

Where is the wisdom in "filling in" all the undeveloped areas close in? If we infill undeveloped lands from Function Junction to Emerald Estates we will have continuous urban type sprawl and you can bet the development of the Callaghan will follow in the future in any event. We don’t and I doubt the tourists want the urban model where we have to leave and escape some fully developed area to recreate well outside it.

Don’t discount the Callaghan! Forget infilling the Whistler Golf Course! Not every last piece of land in a mountain resort community should be developed!

Surely a much less dense new neighbourhood separated by wilds and connected only by trails and serviced by the upgraded existing highway with good public transit is more our Whistler. This is especially so if this new neighbourhood has infastructure, housing and an Olympic Nordic centre all paid for by 2010.

Steve Bayly

Whistler