Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters

A solution for all This letter was addressed to the mayor and council. A copy was forwarded to Pique for publication.

A solution for all

This letter was addressed to the mayor and council. A copy was forwarded to Pique for publication.

As recent articles in the local papers confirm, the municipality is currently in the throes of “clamping down on local homeowners” that have non - conforming space developed in their homes . In my review of these recent reports, it would appear as though the municipality has decided to allocate substantial resources to address this problematic situation. I certainly support bringing this matter to a successful resolution as I believe that the current situation presents a substantial safety issue within many Whistler properties. When development occurs without proper inspections via the building permit process, safety systems may get sidestepped, and once a property has work done without a permit, it will forever be off the municipal radar as further work typically avoids the permitting process due to fear of being found out. This only exacerbates the situation.

Unfortunately, the municipality of Whistler is faced with the unenviable position of playing police in a situation where success is almost certainly unattainable. I wonder what the dollar value is of all the resources dedicated thus far toward “closing those loopholes” over the years, with municipal inspections, bylaw enforcement, litigation, registering of covenants, and the countless hours of preparation for those proceedings.

One recent analysis of the current housing stock in Whistler peg s the percentage of properties with “non-conforming space” in the neighbourhood of 8 0 per cent ( c ourtesy of the Association of Whistler Realtors ) . While it’s typically the large luxury homes that carry the brunt of the negative publicity, the reality is that the vast majority of upstanding, law - abiding citizens in Whistler live in a property that is non-conforming. Think of the old timer in Emerald with the rental suite, and the property owners (long time locals) that rely on that rental income to meet their mortgage each month. This is also the reality of non-conforming space. Does the municipality relish taking that homeowner to task? Even if the resources were available, I would suggest the lawmakers would be remiss in their duty to the public if those resources were deployed in such a fashion as to address all of the non-conforming space in Whistler. Are we to turn a blind eye to some while confronting the one’s that make a good story?

The Sea to Sky Chapter of the Canadian Home Builder’s Association has been grappl ing with this situation for years and ha s over the last couple years, been working on a solution. Our members don’t want to be building non-compliant buildings any more than the municipality wants us to. This September we presented to the staff, a workable solution to this situation that would see our municipal resources redeployed to delivering services to the taxpayers of this town instead of taking taxpayers to task over non-conforming spaces. The draft bylaw proposal is available for viewing on our website at www.chbaseatosky.com .

The proposed bylaw change that we put forward would allow for a new method of measuring buildable space, from the current one that utilizes floor space, to one that measures overall volumetric space. The result would be a bylaw that is much easier to administer, with virtually no need to police, and certainly no need for litigation to enforce it.

Having been developed in consultation with and reviewed by representation from local a rchitects, designers, engineers, the Whistler Realtor Association, the l egal c ommunity as well as the local b uilding c ommunity, we feel this proposal has been appropriately vetted to a point that it warrants legitimate consideration from municipal hall. I t is time the municipality come to the realization this really is the solution the community has needed for some time. This offers a new approach to dealing with building in the community and a fresh, non-adversarial approach to dealing with one of the largest economic engines in the valley.

Diana Waltman n ’s quote in the Dec . 6 issue of the Pique that “it’s (our proposal) something that we’ll look at when we have the resources to do so , ” implies that the current staffing levels with in the municipality do not allow for the “additional work that needs to be done” to review the bylaw revision proposed. I would suggest the municipality has ample resources to make progress on this solution; all it takes is the political will to refocus our resources from one of penalizing the very citizens that it is intended to serve, to one of facilitating a solution within the resources available to it. Especially in light of recent calls for budget restraint I’ve heard of late, I can’t help but think the time is right to let this bylaw “close the loop holes” that previous approaches have not been able to accomplish. The right implementation of this solution could see the current inventory of non-compliant properties turned into additional taxable property value that is currently being missed. Additional building permit fees would also be a direct result of this new approach due to a much higher compliance rate with permitting. Please be reminded that over 80 per cent of the existing inventory is non-compliant.

To summarize, our proposal would see the municipality end up with a higher level of safety in our buildings, more revenue as a result of additional taxable space, and additional permitting fees, while expending less of our limited resources on litigation and enforcement. Not bad at a time when we’re looking for ways to minimize tax increases at city hall.

I encourage you to review our proposal and look forward to continuing to work with you toward an acceptable solution for all parties concerned.

David Girard, President

CHBA, Sea to Sky Chapter

Is our country really free?

A few weeks ago, as I entered the Village of Pemberton quite late in the evening, I was astonished to see a lit up stable with a manger in front of the elementary school. At first sight, it felt that I really belong to this town that I call home and whenever I passed the scene afterwards, a feeling of joy came over me.

A few days ago, when I found out that some people had an issue with the stable on school grounds and that the school board decided to have it removed, I was trying to understand where the origin of these issues lie? Why do people have a problem with the message of love and peace? What if someone would have put up a reindeer, a Santa, or an elf? I don’t think we would have had any comments, complaints or actions from any Christian groups, although none of the named above have anything to do with the “Christmas” story. While I consider myself a person of faith, as well as an individual that respects other people’s beliefs, I must admit that it is hard for me to understand that the sight of a stable could offend others. Perhaps a sign at the entrance of town stating the following could have saved it: CAUTION: 200 metres to the display of a Nativity scene on the left side of the road! If religiously offended look to your right.

If we claim to be a free country, I believe we have to allow others to express their beliefs, as long as they are not harming anyone. Anything else would offend freedom of speech and expression!

While some businesses and establishments are not even using the term “Merry Christmas” anymore and call it Happy Holidays or Season Greetings, I do not understand why we don’t say Merry Christmas when it is Christmas…. In the same way as I say Happy Hanukah to my Jewish friends when it is Hanukah. What is the big deal to name the festivals for what they truly are? No one should be forced to celebrate or say anything he doesn’t care for or believe in, but if we can’t express what we believe in, is our country really free?

Margit de Haan

Pemberton