Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 10:20pm PT
|
I would have no real problem with a gondola if it didn't infringe on the parks. Goat Ridge from Britannia would be fine with me; the Britannia Creek drainage is totally screwed up as it is. The current proposal is not acceptable to me; I'm opposed to anything motorized that infringes on the parks.
I never knew the story of the gravel pit. Very disappointing.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 10:24pm PT
|
Just so that it's very clear, I'm not opposed to a tourist gondola at an appropriate location in the Squamish area. I am unalterably opposed to such developments in, beside or in the near vicinity of Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks. Neither is an appropriate location. That's regardless of whether or not a route to Goat Ridge is feasible.
In the interests of transparency, I ask anyone who posts to this thread who has a personal or business connection to Ground Effects [Sea to Sky Gondola Corp.] or its principals, or indeed any of the other parties, to state it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 11:45pm PT
|
Jim, I hope that you're right about the proposal fizzling, but wouldn't want to take any chances. It has been allowed to develop some momentum, and there may be agendas at work that we don't know about. It'd been nagging me for a while, and I finally decided to contribute to the debate. It's the least I could do. I don't know if I could face myself in the mirror if I didn't at least try.
Here's a photo of the gravel pit from the highway, taken early in 2005, after TLC acquired the land. Shannon Falls to the right, the Chief just off photo to the left.
I should be in Squamish tomorrow, and will try to get more photos.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 11:58pm PT
|
OK, here's more photos of the gravel pit, looking toward the Chief. also from early 2005. The edge of the campground, and the trail, are in the forest just back from the top of the berm, and to the right. The trail goes up Olesen Creek, the 'gash'.
I never did figure out why the Squamish Adventure Centre wasn't built there - it would have been a perfect location.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:04am PT
|
and there may be agendas at work that we don't know about.
Such as?
I can see someone wanting to build a tram up that hill, presumably with a restaurant/bar at the top, because they think tourists will swarm up the thing and make them rich. Probably a dumb idea and they'll go broke, but it's no stretch to think that someone would believe it was a great idea. But what kind of hidden agenda might they have that would be using the tram as a front?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:13am PT
|
Government agendas. Developers, for example from Whistler, have been known to be well-connected to the provincial government. Perhaps the government, which is looking rather shaky (election next spring) thinks it's "..be nice to our developer friends.." month.
There may be no shortage of developers who'd like to take more land out of Garibaldi Park, and would welcome a precedent at Squamish.
(Edited, at Jim's suggestion.)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:18am PT
|
Governments, especially local ones, are always friendly to developers. That's hardly a "hidden agenda". That's just politics as usual.
I thought you were going to go all Klimmer on us and start talking about some Black Ops listening post to pick up messages from aliens. Or that the Lizard People were getting concerned about their Overlord Of Earth going crazy and trying to have a heart installed in his body, and building a sanctuary to move him to. But all you've got is developers greasing a few palms. Lame.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
Thanks, Jim - a good point. IIRC, Squamish Council has voted in favour of the proposal, as has the chamber of commerce. I don't know what support the proposal has generally in Squamish - I guess we'll see. But it's an important piece of the puzzle.
I have no idea what Bruce and Ghost are talking about.
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 10:45am PT
|
Thanks MH. What ever happened with my vote for you for MEC?
|
|
ArmandoWyo
climber
Wyoming
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 11:40am PT
|
Anders,
What a tragic story - or dare I say, a monumental f**k up. Deja vu all over again for you folks in BC.
And for you personally, it must hit home and sting, not just geographically but psychologically and emotionally.
First, as access activists, you must mount another campaign to stop almost the same gondola, in same place, in fact, from the same piece of land that was bought following the awesome previous campaign. Recall that a decade ago, I told you that in a wry way a threatened gondola up the Chief was gift to BC climbers. I could not imagine anything better to unify locals and beat down the usual put down that organizing climbers was like herding cats. And you folks took full advantage and did a great job to stop the gondola - and seemingly stopped it for good by buying the land.
And as a lawyer, you need to do it again because of breathtakingly bad lawyering! Drafting a covenant, following a massive campaign and fundraising to prevent a gondola, and then limiting it to prohibit only a gondola that goes up face of the Chief or ends in the parks. Kind of invites a gondola that doesn’t go up face or end in parks doesn’t it? If the covenant had been written by a non-lawyer, don’t you think it was have just said, No Gondola! Then maybe a good lawyer would add, or any other aerial conveyance.
Of course, this isn’t just about you, but I share your pain brother.
Armando
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:01pm PT
|
I think they should grab ten percent of the flow from shannon falls and make the hydro needed to run the gondola. The pipe could be eight inch black plastic, so it wouldn't even be visible, and the power building at the base could be set up for the public to check out all the makings of electricity. It could be the first "green" gondola. That ten percent of the flow would enter back into the creek at the bottom, after spinning the generator, and all would be as normal.
During times of heavy (water) flow and low gondola use, the excess juice could be sold to B.C. Hydro. And then during times of extremely low flow, power can be bought back from Hydro to subsidise the operation. It will probably balance out and all those plastic cabins can climb up the mountain, happily knowing they're being propelled by the water falling down the same mountainside.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:08pm PT
|
I'm just playing devil's advocate for a moment so don't slay me too fiercely.
I'm a little confused as to why this opposition to the proposal is being brought up now, instead of a year ago when the proponent had multiple open-houses with the public and at least appeared interested in garnering public opinion as to it's suitability and exact route. Much to their surprise, the folks who turned up were far more concerned that it take the route of least visibility from the Chief Backside trail, but not concerned at all about it's visibility from the downtown and Nexan beach areas.
I admit, that while I was pretty neutral on the proposal before, I had no idea about the strip of land having to be removed from the park. This is not cool. I'm really not sure why this has to happen at all. Could the class designation of that strip of BC Parks land not just be changed? I think the proposal calls for one or two towers to be installed within the park land, plus the clearing of the strip of land for laying the tow cable. This area of the park sees very little public use due to the challenging topography. It therefore probably has significant wildlife value.
I personally am planning on looking deeper into the "removing of the strip of land from the park" before I join any sides. Thanks to those above for providing additional information on this proposal.
Kris
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 12:23pm PT
|
Ya, I'm with the Scrubber.... where were all you Moaners a year ago?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2012 - 11:55pm PT
|
Just back from a day's climbing - sorry for the delay.
I believe I read somewhere that they plan to build five (?) towers within what is now the Parks. More than two, anyway. Not sure about the rezoning issue - I suspect the developers would prefer as clean a break as they can get, maybe others too.
And yes, my apologies that I was not more proactive on this. I took it that those who ought to have provided the needed vision and leadership would do so, and was busy with all the usual things. And trusted that TLC had taken care of it. (Of course, this is more than just a climbers' access issue.) Well, better late than never - I've had several positive responses to what I said. Hopefully everyone had more sense than to be inside on a nice weekend reading forums and e-mails, and it'll be interesting to see what sort of response there is over the next few days.
Just eyeballing it today, it looks quite feasible to build a gondola from Britannia, starting perhaps from a shelf above and northeast of the town. A location about 2 km south of the Papoose also looks possible - on the "uphill" side of the power lines, a fairly large flattish area. Just north of where Gonzales Creek crosses the highway. Photos another time.
Somebody said there should be a FaceBook page for this, which may make sense, as long as discussion is kept rational. Does anyone have the time and skill needed to create and look after one?
Voting in the MEC election ends this coming Thursday. We won't know the results for several weeks, and the AGM is in late April.
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 02:09am PT
|
C.A.V.E.
Citizens Against Virtually Everything
Is the gondola proposal worse than all the hydro wires we look at every day?
Is it worse than the Ashlu power project and the chronic rash of IPPs afflicting the province?
How about annexing enough of Garibaldi Park to build the Blackcomb Ski Area or building a hut system in the Spearhead?
Then there's that pesky Highway 99.
Clear cuts? Most of the area around the Chief and the entire Squamish Valley has been clear cut at some time.
I'm not suggesting the gondola proposal is the best idea or necessarily a complete disaster. I live in Squamish and have been known to spend some time on the Chief and am not convinced the gondola is the nefarious contrivance some would make it out to be. Let's make sure we're not just choosing convenient targets.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 10:04am PT
|
I realize all the gov't contracts which come in over budget, and that's "all" of them, bleed the taxpayer for more funds to complete.
If this is a private venture, won't they have to come up with their own monies if they fall short? It'll be their shareholders going to the bank, won't it?
I'm with the Chief here. I think Anders photo really sums it up.
Massive power lines everywhere, gravel pits, cut-banks, endless vehicles doing mach-shnell, planes, trains, choppers, 37 full-size bus loads of tourists at shannon falls daily. I've never seen anyone doing anything in those old cut-blocks up top and I've yet to see any tourists picknicking in that gravel pit...
Just my opinion, that's all.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 02:00pm PT
|
Whether the proponents' business plan is economically realistic is an interesting question. No doubt what is presented publicly is rosy, of course - all developers' plans are. Assuming that the predictions are realistic, they can still be derailed by larger economic, resource or geopolitical developments. The upshot, though, is that if the thing fails during or after construction, it'll leave a mess, and the public will pick up the bill for doing what can be done to clean it up. I sure hope the public wouldn't pay to get the thing finished and operating - talk about adding insult to injury.
It seems a marginal location, and and a marginal plan. The gondola at Grouse, established for 50 years, and with a much larger market, is marginal - and they operate year round, with much more extensive activities.
Perry and Hamish are right - the Squamish Valley, and Squamish-Whistler area, is home of some poorly thought out developments. Piecemeal over the last century. Which suggests that maybe it's time to think and plan a bit more, before starting the next one.
And yes, the developers' object is to make money, and only that, if possible through the free or near-free use of public land. Sure, they'll dress up their plan in whatever makes it attractive - "green" operations, access for the disabled, etc etc. But their goal is to make money. All they're presenting at this point is a plan. What they'll actually do if they get started may be another matter.
Bruce also has a good point - the Jumbo resort development was approved by the provincial government last week. Not that it'll be starting any time soon, as no doubt the local First Nation will have them in court PDQ.
"C.A.V.E."? "Moaners"? Sorry, guys - let's keep it polite. I made it very clear I'm not against a gondola per se in the Squamish area, only against one being built in or near the Parks. And I clearly set out my reasons for that. Plus (with help from gf) made what seems a realistic proposal for an alternate, perhaps better, location.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 02:39pm PT
|
I'm sorry if anyone got offended by my "moaners" remark. That's not my intention at all. These people are my friends and it's perfectly fine not to agree on everything. I've come to the conclusion that many folks down in the city have only heard about this project recently. It is great to see how much everyone cares about this area and what developments take place. I know you can read the Squamish Chief newspaper on line every week and perhaps this would fit in well with time spent on supertopo. This thing has been in the paper for months and months.
Financially speaking, I'm not sure how they figure they'll make money at it; I just didn't really think that was our question to ask. I would never invest a penny in the idea but I love the possibility of opening up some more terrain around here.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 04:31pm PT
|
We'll probably never know the internal workings of the developers - business and financial plan, whether there are silent partners or other investors, whether they're proxies for someone else, and what they really plan to do in "phase 1", "phase 2", and any other phases they perhaps haven't mentioned. As Bruce says, if the thing is allowed to go ahead, the finances are their problem - except for the reasonable possibility that they'll create a mess. That is, by whatever they do not corresponding with what they say they'll do, for all the usual excuses, and so creating even larger impacts, or the development failing. There's a risk of loss in every investment, but in this one the public would bear the loss as much or more than the developers.
There is the broader question. As I've said, I'm opposed to development in provincial parks, perhaps with rare exceptions. In this case, whatever the exact noise, visual, clearcut and other impacts, the development is plain wrong. What's proposed would apparently require amendment of the Park Act. You'd think that BC Parks' role would be first to defend the parks. That is, to say to would be developers "No, you can't develop in parks. It's not permitted under the law." Then, if they persist, say "Talk to the politicians". And that B.C. Parks would then be tasked with an independent, transparent review and analysis of what is proposed, based on the status quo:
1. Development isn't permitted in parks.
2. Would-be developers have the onus of showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what they propose is to the clear benefit of the park(s) in question, and the public. With an independent, properly-resourced review by BC Parks.
3. If the developer can satisfy B.C. Parks on count #2, B.C. Parks running independent public open houses, and conducting on-line surveys, to determine what if any level of public support there is for what's proposed, from whom. All stakeholders should be actively consulted. In this case, you'd think that there'd be extensive information about the proposal on BC Parks' website, and that they would be holding public meetings in Squamish, Vancouver and even Whistler to gauge support.
As BC Parks apparently won't be doing these things, it seems reasonable to conclude that they've been gagged by their political masters, and prevented from performing their proper role under the Park Act. (As may also have happened in 2004.) The government, and perhaps others, may well prefer that this be handled as quietly as possible. As mentioned earlier, an FoI request might be quite revealing as to what's really happened behind the scenes.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 04:32pm PT
|
Here's a recent update from the "Sea to Sky Gondola" website:
An article in the March 15 edition of the Georgia Straight makes reference to “the proposed removal of parkland” from Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. We have been working very collaboratively with BC Parks for the last year to understand the social and environmental impacts and benefits of this project on the Parks. BC Parks has been advising us on the appropriate process to bring this amenity to Squamish. From the beginning, we have been clear that the Gondola will go through the Park and are now formalizing the applications BC Parks has asked us to complete to allow for the construction of the gondola towers. As outlined in the Georgia Straight article by South Coast regional manager for BC Parks Brandon Schultz, an application was submitted to reclassify a 20 -metre corridor from Class A parkland to a protected area that would allow for the construction of the gondola towers.
BC Parks will maintain managerial control over this area and the Sea to Sky Gondola will continue to be required to meet all of the management goals of the BC Parks and Stawamus Chief Provincial Park in this protected area.
The specific application noted above is part of a comprehensive regulatory approval process required under the BC Parks Assessment Policy and Impact Assessment process. Information on this process is available on the BC Parks website www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks. For those interested in viewing details of the current Sea to Sky Gondola application for a Boundary Line Adjustment, it is available by contacting us or via email. It is important to understand that this application is only part of the overall process with BC Parks. Further work and discussions are ongoing.
We have been collaborating extensively with the community of Squamish and specific stakeholders, such as the Climbers Access Society who were instrumental in the creation of the Park, to ensure that the project will bring a wide variety of benefits to locals and visitors alike. We are committed to bringing this project to fruition in accordance with the values of the community and our stakeholders, and are committed to continue this consultative process.
Judging from the BC Parks map available online, the gondola will be cutting across a section of the park which is roughly 1.1km wide. According to their plan drawings, it looks like their will be either two or three towers located within the park boundary. If they stick to the stated 20m wide cut for the path of the cable, given a 550m elevation gain to the park boundary, they will be clearing just shy of 2.5ha of land. (2.46ha) If you convert that to the wider estimates some folks think is more likely (80m) you'd be clearing slightly less than 10ha.
It's my understanding that if the proponents of this project are applying to have a 20m wide swath of land changed to protected area status, they won't be cutting beyond that without severe repercussions from BC Parks. It remains to be seen if they change the width of what they're asking for when the time comes to actually complete that stage of the process.
Food for thought.
K
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!