Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

This week's letters

Let's make Sea to Sky the best place to live After an election that has been both historic and notably fuelled by political ideals at opposite ends of the spectrum, I would like to congratulate The Honourable Mr. (John) Weston (Conservative).

Let's make Sea to Sky the best place to live

After an election that has been both historic and notably fuelled by political ideals at opposite ends of the spectrum, I would like to congratulate The Honourable Mr. (John) Weston (Conservative).

At the same time, I would like to urge our Member of Parliament to listen to each of his constituents, and to not only toe the party line, but also act in the best interest of his financially and socially diverse populous.

We are a benevolent people who are kind, caring, generous, diverse, socially liberal, as well as fiscally responsible.

We make our living in many different ways, yet embrace a mutual love of life. Regardless of our political ideology, I beg of everyone to be vocal, and share your opinions with our newly re-elected representative.

The responsibility is on each and every one of us. Let's make our riding and country a better place to live, regardless of your political beliefs. We've shown the world before. Let's do it again.

Phil Chambers

Whistler

Funding is specific

Over the past several years the Government of Canada - specifically the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) - has been a generous funder of arts, culture, and heritage initiatives in Whistler including, among several other grants, the funds that accompanied Whistler's designation as a 2009 Cultural Capital of Canada.

Therefore, it was with interest that I read the letter to the editor from David Buzzard ("It's All Community Money"; April 21) in which Mr. Buzzard expresses concern that Municipal Hall espouses that money from government grants is somehow not community money and, more specifically, in which Mr. Buzzard suggests that the funds used to pay for A Tapestry of Place - Whistler's Cultural Tourism Development Strategy "could have been used to triple the recent grants to Dance Whistler, the Whistler Children's Chorus, the Whistler Forum for Dialogue, Whistler Secondary School Drama Club, Whistler Singers, Whistler Writers Group and still have money left over."

Mr. Buzzard raises an important point. When an application for a grant is successful - whether from a federal, provincial, corporate or private funder - funds are provided to the successful applicant and, in effect, those funds become, in our case, our money. Sort of.

Allow me to expand. There are five key considerations that control every situation in which a community (or an organization) is the recipient of money from a funding body:

1.Funding criteria are established by the funding body; not by applicants.

2. Funds are awarded on the strength of an application; more specifically, on how effectively an application aligns with funding criteria.

3.Applications are typically the result of a rigorous, often lengthy process. For example, the application to Cultural Capitals of Canada was a highly collaborative process involving several community groups all of which agreed that the application would include fifteen specific components, one of which was the development of a cultural plan.

4.When funds are awarded, the recipient is required to deploy the funds for the specific purpose for which those funds were granted; that is, the use of funds must match the program(s) identified in the application.

5.The recipients and the funding body are bound by a Contribution Agreement (CA), which specifies how the funds will be deployed. Many CAs include provisions where funds are provided only after costs are incurred, and most - or probably all - CAs include a provision for the holdback of a percentage of funds until a final report is approved by the funding body.

I hope this clarifies any concern or confusion regarding the use of money provided by funding partners.

Again, thank you for your ongoing coverage of the important discussion regarding cultural tourism.

John A. Rae

Manager, strategic alliances RMOW

 

Real cost of IPPs

Re: IPPs cost BC Hydro almost $1 billion annually by 2014 - 32 per cent rate increase will help BC Hydro pay for rising energy costs. (Pique, April 28)

The headlines on your recent article on energy costs imply that purchases from independent power producers are a primary cause of BC Hydro's current application for a 32 per cent rate increase when, in fact, the increase is all about renewing and expanding Hydro's existing public facilities.

Table 1-2 of BC Hydro's rate application to the BC Utilities Commission (www.bcuc.com) tells the story. It shows a cost increase from $3.30 billion in fiscal 2011 to $4.45 billion in fiscal 2014, with 92 per cent of that related to upgrading the BC Hydro system.

Of the $1.15 billion increase, almost half, $522 million will pay for charges related to the capital costs of new BC Hydro assets coming into service.

These include interest payments, amortization charges and payments to B.C. taxpayers. The second largest component is the $242 million increase proposed for operating costs. The biggest single component is staffing costs as BC Hydro's work force has increased from about 4,000 to over 6,000 in recent years.

The third largest component is $148 million allocated for the cost of energy. Of that, $94 million is for purchases from IPPs - only 8 per cent of the total $1.15 billion requested for the three-year period. Which means that only 2.6 per cent of the total 32 per cent rate increase could be attributed to IPP costs.

An associated argument from those opposed to IPPs is that their prices are hugely inflated by comparison with BC Hydro's production and that Hydro can buy cheaper power on the "spot" market (primarily GHG-producing, coal-fired power). The figure cited is $124 per megawatt hour (MWh), which is the average price BC Hydro is paying for Firm Energy.

But Non-Firm Energy is much cheaper and IPP power also is further discounted when delivered in the low demand period of May-July. And, BC Hydro also can earn Renewable Energy Credits from those purchases. When all these factors are considered, the price is likely to be more in the range of $55 to $75, and these prices are "locked in" under IPP contracts that run for 30 to 40 years!

It must be emphasized that while BC Hydro is spending billions renewing its generation, transmission and distribution assets, none of these will produce significant new amounts of energy or sales revenues. If these capital costs are to be covered by existing energy sales, then these costs must be borne by BC Hydro ratepayers and rates must go up.

It also is hard to understand those who criticize B.C.'s mandatory requirement to be self-sufficient in electricity.

There is nothing new about "self-sufficiency" which is a planning standard that BC Hydro and its predecessors have used for decades and which now is established in law. B.C. is almost 100 per cent reliant on renewable hydro generation and we must have enough electricity from domestic sources to make it through the inevitable droughts. It obviously is prudent to have B.C. control its electricity destiny rather than depend on the "spot" market. Consider the impact on California in 2001 when power blackouts increased the wholesale price of electricity by 800 per cent. Consider Japan today as it faces shortages resulting from the recent earthquake. Consider the impact on B.C. in the event of severe water shortages in the Peace and Columbia reservoir watersheds - as has occurred in the past.

Paul Kariya

Executive director Clean Energy BC

 

Staying at home the only option?

I would like to put some thoughts into the three statements you used to introduce your opening remarks, and the statement with which Max ended his column. "One [who votes] has no right to complain" about the conflict in our government.

We get the government that represents who we are, a society divided and we vote accordingly.

"Decisions are made by the majority of those who make themselves heard," but changing the size of the majority won't eliminate conflict until the majority who make themselves heard deliver a common message.

"Bad officials get elected" because bad officials run for office not because "good citizens" don't vote.

"Bad" citizens vote because they have self-interests. "Good citizens" have a common interest in the unity of humanity.

If there were a majority of "good citizens" we wouldn't need to vote. When the next three million dollar political fight is called in 12 months or so, "Staying at home is the [only] option..." if we want change.

Perpetually voting for political conflict and expecting different results is a paraphrase of Einstein's definition of insanity. A majority of "good citizens" refusing to vote would have the same effect as a critical mass of soldiers refusing to fight.

We would be united by peace. We should hope those in the Middle East who are trying to redefine their lives will become "good citizens" and honour the many who have died and will die in the continuing struggle, by rising above democratic self-destruction.

Doug Barr

Whistler

Democracy requires engagement

Re: "All Candidates Meeting Draws Hecklers (April 28, edition)." OK Mr. O'Mara, I am going to "fess-up" and acknowledge that I am very likely one of the people you are encompassing with the term "heckler".

First, the Liberal candidate set the tone of the meeting to which you refer. Second, as is typical for most politicians, his initial response to my question was deflective - my "heckling" consisted of simply interrupting him and asking him to answer the question. Third, the respondent clearly had no idea of the unsustainability of the growth of healthcare expenditure in this country.

Lively debate is not heckling. There is a wealth of information in the public domain regarding these issues and I would suggest that rather than cry foul about process, you do a little homework about the issue and the candidate.

True democracy requires lively engagement.

Tranquil passivity and blind acceptance of electioneering rhetoric regardless of political stripe equates to naïve guile through which history has dealt us some cruel blows from time to time.

Christopher Shackleton

Whistler

 

Asphalt woes

It's with real anger and wrath that I write yet another letter about the Cheakamus Crossing asphalt plant.

The RMOW is proposing awarding a $967,000 asphalt-paving contract to Alpine Paving, which is more than three times the size of the contract that was to be awarded at the April 5th council meeting.

Despite a council resolution that all paving contracts be put to tender, the new proposed contract includes $230,000 for the paving of Lot 5 (that's more than half the projected first year revenue from making Lots 4 and 5 user pay parking), $40,000 for repaving Blackcomb Way (one lane of which was excavated Tuesday afternoon, notwithstanding that no contract to repave it has been awarded.  If there is any legal action between the RMOW and Alpine Paving, that road might not be repaved for a long time), despite the fact that it was repaved just before the Olympics, and $154,000 for "Resort Experience", which has no explanation at all.

None of these items were included in the original paving tender posted on the municipal web page, nor were they included in the April 5 contract that council rejected. Taken together, they more than double the scope of the required paving for 2011.

Most egregious of all, there is a $233,000, 30 per cent surcharge, to cover the cost of trucking the asphalt from Alpine Paving's Squamish Plant. That Alpine Paving has an interest in the Twin River gravel pit, a site that actually has a legal permit for asphalt production, and when measured from Lot 5 in the village, is just two kilometres farther away than their current plant's location in Cheakamus Crossing, doesn't seem to have been taken into account. The fact is; fees like this have no business in a competitively bid contract.

What I see is an attempt to defeat a council resolution by only listing half the required work, and then spreading the work out over seven months, making it impossible for an out of town contractor to successfully bid on the contract.

If it weren't for the ham-handed attempt to pressure dissenting council members and public opposition by putting on an unprecedented and unnecessary surcharge on the contract, we probably never would have discovered the additional paving contracts until after they had been completed.

It's apparent that the RMOW is giving a private company special preference by refusing to enforce zoning by-laws on both their asphalt and quarrying operations (Whistler Aggregates has quarried over three hectares of RR1 zoned public lands, in violation of their Ministry of Lands license of occupation, with full knowledge of the RMOW; but that's another letter), and by giving them preferential treatment in their contract tendering, despite the actions of that company being to the detriment of the Whistler community.

David Buzzard

Whistler

 

 

Help those who need it

Imagine how you take for granted the little things in life.

Things you do without thinking. Standing up, sitting down, walking, climbing stairs. Simple things that you don't take the time to realize how easy they make life, things you can do without help.

One month ago I was forced to rethink such simple everyday tasks having endured a ski accident that has temporarily taken away my ability to walk unaided.

Living in a ski town I thought that adapting would be easy, and people would be empathetic.

After all, how many of you have hurt yourselves on the mountain?

What I wasn't prepared for was the lack of consideration displayed by the local community. Come on Whistler, are you really so ignorant you refuse to help people who are clearly struggling with tasks you can perform easily?

You know, simple things, like opening doors or surrendering your seat on the bus. Things that you don't think about, because they are easy for you.

I am talking to all of you who avoid eye contact on buses, look the other way in the street, or walk by faster when you see a person struggling to do something you know you can help with.

I am sure you would like to think if you were injured and unable to conduct your life as easily people would help you. Next time you see an injured person put yourself in their shoes and help...it's not difficult, and won't take any extra time out of your day.

Sophie Rivers

Whistler

 

Let's create less waste

I was disappointed to see incineration of waste once again being pushed as a solution to the waste that results from the way we use materials. Instead of actually addressing the problem of the volume of waste we create, incineration (and by this I mean any technology that uses high temperatures to turn materials into toxic ash and air pollution) locks us in to a system that promotes wasting.

Incinerators not only use up valuable resources (taxpayer dollars, staff time and recyclable materials), but also require a continual stream of waste, which often pits incineration companies against real waste reduction strategies or encourages waste imports.

While incinerator sales pitches try to claim green house gas reductions, energy savings and jobs, in fact, they are weak on all three claims when compared to recycling and composting which provides eight to ten times the energy savings and nine to fifteen times the number of jobs while also being far stronger in terms of GHG reductions.

Claims of no toxic emissions and the safe use of ash go against basic science. Atoms are not destroyed nor created so an atom of mercury, cadmium, or lead going into the incinerator will have to come out in either the stack emissions or the ash.

In addition, the emissions include the new molecules that are formed such as dioxins, furans, NOx, SOx, etc.  Historically, the number of incinerators have been declining as environmental standards increase, for example, all B.C. hospital incinerators shut down in the mid-90s due to high dioxin and furan emissions. Similar concerns exist today for these and other compounds that are getting more attention like nano-particles.

Whistler has built its brand on clean and green, and after the asphalt plant debate, what we do not need is a waste incinerator as the first thing that visitors see on their way in with its emissions blowing into town.

The materials in waste that provide the energy are plastics (the same as burning the fossil fuels from which they are made), paper (which we can recycle) and organics (which we can compost). The estimated composition of waste from Whistler as shown in the SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan show 25 per cent compostables, 11 per cent plastic, 17 per cent paper, 8 per cent metal, 27 per cent construction and demolition waste and 1 per cent glass. If we did a better job of reusing, sorting and recycling those materials, we would only have the last 12 per cent of the waste stream for which to find better alternatives. Then we would really be saving money and resources!

Combine that with the province's commitment to the Canada Wide Action Plan for expanding producer take back programs, both the SLRD's and RMOW's commitment to working on zero waste solutions and a globally diminishing supply of materials and the incineration proposals seem incredibly short-sighted, environmentally harmful and expensive.

While landfilling waste is not great either, at least it provides us a bridge until we can significantly reduce our waste and one that we are not locked into.

The GHG's associated with the transportation to the landfill are not as significant as for the waste itself and as Whistler increases its composting, there will be less methane from organic materials in the landfill.

I fully support Council's decision not to pursue waste incineration as it clearly a step away from sustainability and hope that the updated OCP will empower staff to nip such unsuitable proposals in the bud while encouraging more meaningful work on zero waste solutions. I also hope that we citizens as well as businesses will be inspired to take actions to reduce our waste.

Sue Maxwell

Whistler

 

Wrist guards should be mandatory

Why aren't wrist guards compulsory for new snowboarders in Whistler?

I ask this simple, direct question after my 12-year-old daughter broke her wrist in the first hour of her first snowboarding lesson on her first day in Whistler earlier this month.

She spent all but that hour of our eight-day holiday in Whistler nursing her cast and watching movies, while her two older brothers (both good boarders) enjoyed the exceptional late season conditions.

When my daughter was taken to the Whistler (Health Care) Centre, not only did I have the shock of the $1,000 bill for the broken wrist, I was stunned to hear the attending doctor say that broken wrists are now the most common injury on the mountain, and all the patients are novice snowboarders.

Hers was not a major break: in fact, the doctor said that if my daughter had been wearing a wrist guard, she would not have suffered a fracture at all.

But the break was just serious enough to warrant a cast and keep her off the slopes, ruining her holiday.

I'm told that wrist guards are mandatory for all snowboarders taking lessons in both Australia and New Zealand. Given Whistler's wise encouragement of helmets, why not wrist guards for this category of boarders too?

As a middle-aged skier who's never tried boarding, I had no idea that when I kissed my daughter goodbye before leaving her in the care of the Whistler ski school, it was quite likely she'd have a broken wrist when I saw her next.

If anyone had warned me - the company we hired gear from, the attendant who sold me the lesson pass, the instructor with whom I left my daughter at Whistler Kids, anyone at all! - I would have immediately hired wrist guards for her.

But it was only after the event that I found out how likely, and how preventable, a facture was...

...I appeal to all organizations on the mountain, from gear hirers to instructors to Intrawest authorities, to consider making wrist guards mandatory for new snowboarders. Failing that, at least give parents even odds of a successful holiday by strongly recommending wrist guards for their novice snowboarding offspring.

Megan James

Sydney, Australia

(Editor's note: wrist guards are not mandatory according to Whistler Blackcomb but it says snowboarders are supposed to be offered the option if they rent equipment.)

 

Free shuttle bus cost?

When asked if some of the additional hotel tax would be used to offset part of the transit shortfall, the mayor replied that it had to be "tourist related."

Perhaps the mayor could answer one simple question? What portion of the transit budget covers Routes 5 and 6 (FREE shuttle within the village) and how much does the hotel tax contributes toward this?

Jim Kennedy

Whistler

 

The big picture

We would like to thank Village of Pemberton Councillor (Susie) Gimse and (Ted) Councillor Craddock for seeing the big picture when voting against the application by Cedar View Estate.

The application was a request for a Temporary Commercial Use Permit to legitimize the illegal wedding event business carried out last summer on this rural property - a property (that) is part of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).

As clearly outlined in the FAQ on www.pemberton.ca, Cedar View Estate requires Agriculture Land Commission (ALC) approval for non-farm use as a condition of zoning approval, but has not applied for it and does not appear to be eligible.

Couples choose to come to Pemberton to wed because of the beautiful scenery and the lovely rural atmosphere ... as do tourists.

Allowing commercial enterprises on land that has been set aside as Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) threatens to reduce access to the beautiful landscape - and hinder the very reason the wedding and tourism industry is attracted to the valley.

Why bother with all the work on the Official Community Plan, which designates the property as Residential/Agricultural, if spot zoning is going to be the practice?

If this property is allowed to rezone and hold large outdoor events in a residential neighbourhood, what is to stop it from happening beside you? There are exceptional wedding event venues on commercially zoned property around Pemberton, where the owners are supporting the community by paying commercial property taxes rather than the lower residential taxes Cedar View Estate enjoys.

They also conform to the Vancouver Coastal Heath regulations regarding food safety and sewage disposal.

They can handle weddings of up to 250-300 people (the upper limit advertised by Cedar View) without negatively impacting residents.

The owners of Cedar View Estate showed complete disregard for neighbours and there was excessive noise during multiple weekends in summer 2010.

It truly is a shame that the owners of Cedar View Estate weren't upfront with the couples whose weddings they booked this summer. Although their problem was identified in April of 2010, they continued to take bookings and operate without legal zoning, operating permits or food premises approvals, adequate provision for sewage disposal, and without seeking permission from the ALC, all of which suggests their business practices are questionable - and definitely inconsistent with the culture of our community.

Thanks, Councillors Ted and Susie!

You are completely supported by the facts. We encourage everyone to review the FAQ and reports posted on the home page of www.Pemberton.ca.

Randy Lincks, Karen Goodwin, Jack and Jenifer Reynolds and Lonnie and Susie Wray

Pemberton, BC

 

Idle Free Whistler Is Nothing New

After reading Zbigniew Ciura's letter (April 21st edition) highlighting that the "RMOW has launched an Idle Free campaign to solve another non-existent problem," I briefly wanted to offer the following as a response.

The Idle Free Campaign is in fact not a new campaign but dates back to 2006 and was started after residents wanted to take action to protect local air quality.

The campaign has been repeatedly discussed during the community driven Whistler 2020 sustainability visioning process.

Past work on the ground has included having an Idle Free Officer educating drivers of the impacts of idling, distribution of key chains and car stickers and the posting of anti-idling signage, which can still be seen today. However, in our transient community, education needs to be ongoing and vehicle idling continues to be one of the top three issues that AWARE (Whistler's local non-profit environmental group) receives member comments on each year (along with litter and shop doors left open during winter).

The thing that is set to change, and rightfully so, is that the time for which you can idle your vehicle without infringing a Whistler bylaw is hopefully being reduced from three minutes to one minute.

The start-up efficiency of a modern car means idling for more than 10 seconds now creates greater emissions (and costs you more) than shutting it off and starting up again.

Within the boundaries of Whistler vehicle transportation accounts for around 50 per cent of our community energy consumption.

Therefore if we as a community are to meet our targets for reducing emissions, the targets we endorsed through Whistler 2020, we will need to make behavioural changes small and large.

The Idle Free Campaign has always been (and still is) under resourced, especially considering the impacts of vehicle emissions on health (links to child asthma have long been proven).

So while emissions from idling may not be comparable to an asphalt plant, surely everything we can do to keep our air clean is important.

We have all seen situations where vehicles are left idling unnecessarily, whether it's parents waiting to collect school kids, taxi's at the ranks or the guy spending five minutes grabbing a coffee.

Without the ongoing work of the Idle Free Campaign we would be accepting the status quo when there is actually great opportunity to reduce our emissions without negatively impacting perceived quality of life. Surely that is worth a little investment.
Sara Jennings

Current AWARE Vice President

A new letters to the editor submission has been made.

From rags to riches and back again

It's been a couple of weeks since Michel Beaudry's Alta States storytelling about me. The response from everyone has been phenomenal, overwhelming, awesome!!!!

I have been basking in newfound popularity amongst my friends, neighbors, colleagues and peers with very positive feedback from everyone who read the article online or in print.

I was amazed at how many people contacted me to say they were holding their breath waiting for the second submission.

Pique Newsmagazine, and Michel..you RAWK..namaste, peace and light. Jan Simpson

Whistler

 

Fox North?

So... after the game I flip the channel and hit the wrong button (channel 1 instead of 3) and instantly I am confronted with some freak-show talking head with a bad military / business man haircut and an evangelical earnestness and meanness that only Tim Burton could dream up.

ACKKKK!!!!! I had stumbled upon FOX NORTH! It really exists! Permanently emblazoned under the buffoon are the words "Should Government be in the business of SUPPORTING HEROIN ADDICTS?"

The freak in the suit rants at length about how immoral it is to let junkies break the law at the Insight Injection site in the (Vancouver) Downtown Eastside, then brings on a guest liberal for the requisite "fair and balanced" part, who then excoriates, folds, spindles and mutilates, then flippantly discards with a sarcastic last word.

It was like Sean Hannity produced with all the intelligence and skill of your local drug gang.

Before I turned it off there was no less than two back to back (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper promos portraying him as the ultimate stalwart patriotic hero-guarding fortress Canada against all those who no doubt are enemies of moms, kids and hockey.

I strongly urge everyone to check this out, especially anyone who still doubts the true nature of the beast.

It is stunning how bold and transparent the message is. They are transporting the whole U.S. republican machine into our country lock, stock and barrel and SUN MEDIA is their ultimate expression.

John Weston, you should be ashamed to be even remotely associated with this drivel.

Bruce Kay

Squamish