Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 1125 of total 1125 in this topic |
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
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 08:27pm PT
|
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
They may attempt to dress it up as they wish, but it's rather oxymoronic to describe a 20+ m clearcut swathe through a park as "protected". Probably much wider than 20 m - surely there are tree people around who can comment on that? If you're building a gondola (or transmission line, or..), what's the minimum width of swathe you cut? Say the towers are (conservatively) 30 m high, with 30 - 40 m trees to either side, and windthrow potential from the new 'edge'?
The developers seem well advised in terms of presentation and marketing. But you can't dress up a sow's ear as a silk purse, no matter how hard you try. 20 m or 80 m? Two, five, or more towers? Slight rerouting? Exactly how visible, from where? Class A park or "protected area"? Details! Important details, but details. It would still be land taken from the Parks, and the trees would still be removed.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 08:54pm PT
|
Hey Anders, I'm thinking it's pretty rocky ground, and many of the trees up there are small. The nightmare-looking swath you're referring to might not be too bad.
|
|
coastal_climber
Trad climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 09:11pm PT
|
This sh#t needs to stay out of the park.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 - 10:17pm PT
|
Here are some images from the website.
This is where they say the gondola and station will be, in relation to the Chief and Shannon Falls. However carefully you locate the route, a whole bunch of trees are going to come down. If there's any chance of trees falling on the gondola or towers, they'll be removed.
And a profile view. Pretty hard to miss it - although they might have used a more realistic colour to show the line, the towers and tree removal don't seem to be shown, plus the bottom is blocked.
There are more photos at http://www.seatoskygondola.com/?gallery=gallery Those depicting the gondola and its impacts may well understate matters. Overall, though, it's clear that the thing will be quite visible from many places. Again, in a sense a detail - the issue is whether it should be there at all, not whether it can be better designed and built.
Contact information for the developer:
info@seatoskygondola.com
Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation
201-1365 Pemberton Ave,
PO Box 1850
Squamish BC
V8B 0B3
For clarity, at some point the company behind the proposal became Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. It seems likely that the new company is related to Ground Effects, as the individuals involved seem to be the same. Earlier references to Ground Effects Developments Inc. should be taken to read Sea to Sky Gondola Corp., if it is material. The address for Sea to Sky is that of a law firm.
If you're writing letters, etc, refer to Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. The name of the company doesn't really matter - what it's proposing does. But best to be clear.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 01:48am PT
|
I think goat ridge/brittania would be cool, the mtn biking season would be longer than Whistler so there would be traffic on low visibility days (common), it could make $$.......for some of the year. If it was for sightseeing only- near the chief, there will be probably be a lot of days where people won't want to spend their $$ to go up into the clouds. People like that downhill biking around here & if there was a cheaper option than Whistler i'm sure a lot of visitors would find more value to the Squamish area, in Whistler there are entire families that are on day trips or on downhill bike vacations in summer just like they are on ski vacations in the winter, July & August are now some of the busiest months for the Whistler businesses. If it has to go thru the park then the gondola base should start downtown at the undeveloped waterfront! Bring some traffic into the local economy. Otherwise i don't see much benefit that the Squamish area & residents will receive from the current plan. I actually don't see much benefit for the developers either. I guess all we can do here is speculate, it seems like more information is still needed & a lot of work will probably have to be done to make an alternative like the Goat ridge proposal- even if sanctioned here- realistic.
Thanks for the links & numbers in the opening post, as well as the information & points of view from everyone. A lot of info here was recent to me & i have been trying to follow the development as far as what's been in the local media.
Premier Christy Clark: premier@gov.bc.ca or (604) 775-1003
Can you really just call the premier??!!
Yep, vague resemblance to the monorail.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:38am PT
|
Sorry guys but it looks great to me. Looks like about 4-6 hrs. of hiking that can be avoided with a seasons pass to the tram.
If I could ride up that capsule, with my bike hanging off it, and ride around up there for awhile before heading over to join a trail which lands you back down in Britannia, I'd feel pretty fortunate.
I'm not sure "stealing land from the park" is the best wording. It's more like an easement.
I know MH will be up there on the west facing deck, beer in hand, looking through the telescope to see if anyones on penny lane.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:59am PT
|
Should it be built at the proposed location, I would as a matter of principle never use it.
No one has suggested that the land would be "stolen". However it's presented, the land would be permanently taken from the parks for other uses. You can say it's an "easement", or a "rezoning", but the reality is that a swathe of land would be cut from the parks.
The number for the premier is from the government's website. Somehow I don't think that Ms. Clark answers it.
|
|
Cloudraker
Sport climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 12:19pm PT
|
Other than maybe some forest stands near the base and in the subalpine, Isn't it all second growth shite up there? What's the big deal? Let them build the damn thing.
Why does it seem like British Columbians stand in the way of EVERY proposed development?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
|
Well, it doesn't seem that anyone here is opposed to every development. Many are opposed to a gondola within provincial parks, some less so. No one has said that they're opposed to a gondola in a better location - Goat Ridge, or perhaps elsewhere in the Squamish area.
Had the gravel pit/land been properly protected in the first place, this wouldn't even be a subject for discussion. All those who united against the 2004 proposal wanted the possibility of inappropriate development there off the table, permanently, and money was found to buy the gravel pit to that end. Indeed, recreation and conservation interests in effect paid so that the land couldn't be developed.
With regard to a Goat Ridge location, the proponents and supporters may come up with one or more of the following responses/excuses, without necessarily doing a genuine examination of that option:
1. It's not in the District of Squamish proper, and therefore the District wouldn't directly benefit from taxes on it.
2. Most of the workers would probably live in Squamish, and so have a little farther to go to work.
3. The needed land isn't available at the base, for whatever reason. Although the area has been largely dormant for decades.
4. There's no suitable base location in Britannia - size, access, other developments, whatever.
5. There's no location along the highway north from Murrin Park that would work, due to topography, intervening power lines, whatever.
6. The developer would have to start again - or perhaps more accurately, start by doing what it ought to have done in the first place.
7. A Britannia - Goat Ridge route wouldn't work, for some technical reason. It may be somewhat longer. The top area is fairly close to and possibly could be at the far end of the overgrown logging roads in upper Shannon Creek - one fork went almost to the ridge.
The underlying motives, though, may be simpler:
1. We, and perhaps our friends in government, have made up our minds, and don't want to bother considering other options, even if they might be better.
2. We've already spent money developing our proposal, and acquiring the land. Not our problem.
3. Whether or not they admit it, they want as high a profile and as visible an operation as they can get, in the middle of as much other activity as possible.
We may never know exactly what happened, when. But it seems quite likely that the developers right from the start wanted a location in the middle of the Parks, and have been focused on that only. And as mentioned, the issue is whether there should be development in provincial parks generally, and those Parks in particular, especially given the history. It appears that a Goat Ridge gondola is a viable alternative - but as with the details of what might be built, how and where, that's secondary. Sure, if the public and governments are dumb enough to let the proposal go ahead, then it may be time to talk about the hows, whys and wherefores. That's not the question. The question is whether it should be allowed at all.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
Here is an excellent photo of the Chief and area, taken by Ed Cooper from the top of the Papoose. I believe the photo is from some years ago, but you can see clearly the gravel pit, and the area where the lower part of the proposed gondola would go.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 03:19pm PT
|
The gondola should go straight up the middle of the Chief.
They should build a McDonald's and a huge shopping mall at the top.
Then it would good.
If you're gonna do sumthin, do it right and grand!!!!!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 03:59pm PT
|
Thanks, Werner - you're right. The death of 1,000 cuts just prolongs the agony. Let's get it over with.
The gondolas will be from Yosemite Lodge to the north rim, from Happy Isles to Glacier Point, and (of course) from El Cap Meadow to El Capitan. All will feature restaurants, gift shops, mountain biking, native displays, hiking, circus rides for the kids, and other attractions which have great popular support, with all the right pacifiers. It may be necessary to change the National Parks Act to let it all happen, but hey, that's only paper from those easterners anyway. The Valley's pretty much all developed already, isn't it? There won't be any direct impact on climbers, as the Lodge gondola won't start right at Camp 4, it'll only pass overhead, and no climbing routes will be affected. So it's not really a climbers' problem, is it?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 04:14pm PT
|
lol .....
|
|
bmacd
Boulder climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 04:43pm PT
|
This sh#t show should be installed farther south and make use of the abandonded Woodfiber ferry complex
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 05:17pm PT
|
The easement they're seeking totals less than 0.4% of that park.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
|
The easement they're seeking totals less than 0.4% of that park.
Kind of a key 0.4%, I'd say, and probably rather more, once the dust settles. Like being a little bit pregnant. And calling it an easement instead of a deletion is unconvincing - trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. (Not that I have anything against pigs.)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 07:14pm PT
|
Well I had to try, as it sounded a little friendlier.
|
|
adrian korosec
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 08:18pm PT
|
Sounds like a gondola would be a great idea.
A nice hut on top serving gulasch, wine, and other treats would be fantastic.
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:02pm PT
|
What's wrong with gondolas? They have them all over Europe. The free of charge gondola between Telluride and the Mountain Village, CO saves tons of carbon emissions every year.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:22pm PT
|
Thanks, Adrian. Have you been to/climbed at Squamish, or do you live there?
Kalimon: Does everywhere need to be like Europe? The mountains of Europe seem rather over-developed, and people come here from Europe specifically to experience something less developed.
As some know from their in-boxes, I sent the message in the original post quite widely. In fact, to over 300 individuals and groups - essentially, every Squamish climber for whom I had an e-mail address, world-wide, every climbers' and conservation group that might be interested, and a lot of people in B.C. Parks and other government bodies. Including a lot living or based in Squamish, and a number known to be in favour of the proposal. Quite a number asked if they could forward the message, and I said sure. It appears it has gone quite widely, and some of the replies were from groups or individuals I hadn't heard of or met.
I've gotten about 30 replies. In my experience, a 10% reply rate to such a message is quite effective. (Most replies agreed with me, and opposed a gondola in or near the Parks.) I suspect the message has generated considerably more interest, though. I wonder how many messages the politicians are getting, how many hits forum discussions are generating, and so forth?
Don't forget to write, with your thoughts on the proposal:
• Premier Christy Clark: premier@gov.bc.ca or (604) 775-1003
• Terry Lake, Minister of Environment: env.minister@gov.bc.ca or (250) 387-1187
• Joan McIntyre, MLA: joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca or (604) 981-0045
• Chief Ian Campbell, Squamish Nation: chief_ian_campbell@squamish.net or (604) 982-8646
• Mayor Rob Kirkham: rkirkham@squamish.ca or (604) 892-5217
• Chair Susan Gimse, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District: sgimse@telus.net or (604) 894-6371
• Sea to Sky Gondola Corp.: info@seatoskygondola.com
State your views, the reasons you have them, why you’re interested in this issue, who you are, and where you live. Remind them that government’s job is to protect and manage parks, in the public interest.
You can also write to:
• Vancouver Sun: sunletters@vancouversun.com
• Squamish Chief (newspaper) dburke@squamishchief.com
• Globe & Mail letters@globeandmail.ca
• Georgia Straight letters@straight.com
• Vancouver Province provletters@theprovince.com
For those interested, there's some additional discussion at:
http://squamishclimbing.com/squamish_climbing_bb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3402
http://squamishclimbing.com/squamish_climbing_bb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3765
http://squamishclimbing.com/squamish_climbing_bb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3406
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:53pm PT
|
I'm not opposed to development, and I'm not opposed to gondolas (in the right areas). I'm opposed to this particular proposal, because it involves whittling away at a Class A Park. To quote the recent BC Parks Annual Report,
Class A parks are Crown lands dedicated to the preservation of their natural environment for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in Class A parks is limited to that which is necessary for the maintenance of its recreational values. Activities such as grazing, hay cutting and other uses (except commercial logging, mining or hydro electric development) that existed at the time the park was established may be allowed to continue in certain parks.
It seems clear that this proposal falls outside what's permitted in a Class A park. To those that say "they only want to take out 0.4% of the land area", I say that's happened all too often in the past. It's analogous to what happened with the Agricultural Land Reserve, where bit after bit of the prime farmland was taken out of the ALR, a bit at a time, so that we wind up with far less agricultural land and hundreds of acres after hundreds of acres of sprawling suburbs. I don't want that to happen here.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:58pm PT
|
I'm not intending any malice here at all but M.H. should probably start using the 2nd narrows bridge for all his Squamish trips. That 3 lane paved easement through the center of Stanley Park must've been a little controversial at the time.
If I remember correctly, that 3-lane bridge, the Lions Gate Bridge, was built by the Guinness company (the ones that make beer). Yes. A private company. And they built it because they owned a bunch of land across the inlet -- the British Properties -- that they thought would be a whole lot easier to sell if people could get to it without a boat.
I have no idea whose palms they had to grease to get a right-of-way through Stanley Park, or indeed if they had to grease any palms. But if there is a complaint about that bridge now, it's that it isn't wide enough. Not that it should never have been built.
So maybe there's a lesson here. Maybe Squamish should sell a bunch of land way up on that hill to... hmmm... New Belgium Brewing? And then they'll build the gondola so that people will be able to justify purchasing lots up there, and...
...and they'll also build a brew pub!
Which renders all other arguments moot.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:37pm PT
|
"Well, it doesn't seem that anyone here is opposed to every development." quote MH
But, there is a vocal enough opposition, that some leverage and advantage may be gained for the local climbing community. After a film crew chopped some bolts, on one of my non de script routes in the Bluffs( for filming convenience), the SAS managed to negotiate that a Certified Squamish guide must oversee any filming in future.
The question should now be, what advantage can we bargain into the Gondola Proposal. If the opponents to the gondola feel, that it infringes on their enjoyment/experience,what concessions do you want, so it enhances your wilderness experience?
This issue has been polarized, into perceived black and white positions, the outdoor/climbing community verses economic development . There must be some attainable middle ground.
The last opposition to a gondola was during a time of economic growth, now with an economic downturn, I doubt whether the average Squamish resident will oppose the development. That may be the crux of the whole issue, as climbers we see route, trail, climbing , DEVELOPMENT as acceptable in our community, but fail to see what is "acceptable development," to the general public.
I agree, alternate location proposals should be considered, but drawing a line in the sand , yes or no, will only get you drowned when the tide turns against you.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:44pm PT
|
Wouldn't Waddington have a much larger economic impact. Just trollin, but just sayin. It would create a lot of climber type jobs. Who's turning down $150k a year to harg up ther for a year or two?
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:47pm PT
|
What's with the the gravel pit in the "Class A" park?
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:48pm PT
|
Hey lets do Denali too!
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:53pm PT
|
Where else?
Half dome definately needs a second set of cables..... that moves.
Cerro Torre would be good.
Superpin with a really good zip line.
Grand Canyon with Grand Foam pit for base practice.
Not every dream needs to be realized.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:56pm PT
|
Bruce Kay, apperently they say it is kind of hard to get there and sometimes the weather isn't very good. Can we put a pipeline in with it too.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
You guys are definately thinking too small Waddington is really the ticket. How long would the cable need to be?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:17am PT
|
While the cat's away...
Bruce, Ghost: I've worked in the resource industries some, and know a bit about development. Plus a bit about economics. There's no need for red herrings on those scores. Yes, maybe we'd do things differently now than were done in the past. And yes, balanced development is important, and we all depend on a healthy economy. And the Chief and area has high natural values, but is not a wilderness. None of which makes what is proposed at Squamish right.
Kalimon: The history and development of the area is somewhat complex. It's probably simplest to say that the gravel pit was left an orphan in 1995, when the park was finally created. An inholding, identified as needed to protect the values of the parks.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:18am PT
|
when I first went to the 'Bugs in 1984 we were worried about being hit by a speeding logging truck on the way in... but once there it was a wonderful alpine experience...
returning in 1996 we found a better road, no logging trucks, but once in the incessant wop-wop-wop of helicopters taking hikers into the back country so they could hike on out...
I'm sure it was great for the local economy, and a convenience for those hikers who could afford the ride, but it wasn't the same place as in '84, something was truly lost in the interim due to "development."
I don't know about Canadian Parks, but certainly there should be wild places where people's every desire isn't catered to, places where people aren't the highest priority... there are few enough of those places left, certainly it is not a tragedy to preserve them for future generations.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:33am PT
|
A slippery slope Ed. I remember caving in North Vancouver island in the 70's and the local logging community had the same lament. "places where people aren't the highest priority" meaning us, the new spelunkers.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:42am PT
|
Not to condone the reclassification of Class A park land to protected area status, but here's an idea. What if it were part of a land swap? If the province could be persuaded to add an equal or greater parcel of land adjacent to the parks to them as Class A park land, would that be a palatable alternative? Would the park as a whole come out ahead by gaining more land?
Maybe the developer could be given the option to purchase some comparable parcel of adjacent land to donate to Shannon Falls or Stawamus Chief Provincial Park.
I know this probably sounds like: "Oh goody, as a developer I can just buy my way into a park by purchasing some crappy parcel of land in the back 40 and donating it to the park in exchange for this prime piece of road-front real estate".
There may be something to be gained by pressuring the powers that be in this direction. If the project does go ahead, we may as well fight to get everything we can for the parks out of the deal, such as more land, trail development, park infrastructure, maintenance, etc.
K
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 01:51am PT
|
Kris, there doesn't seem much evidence that that would work, mainly because the government seems to see its role as facilitator, rather than negotiator let alone gatekeeper or protector. The lack of any public role for B.C. Parks speaks for itself. They'd be best able to independently and publicly assess development and other proposals, in the public interest. Certainly better than the politicians, or the self-interested positions of the developers.
It's tempting to conclude that the lack of a public role for B.C. Parks in assessing the proposal (or for that matter the one in 2004), and conducting independent meetings to discuss it, amounts to a gag by the politicians. It certainly doesn't seem to conform with the proper role of a government agency managing public property, or the spirit if not letter of the Park Act and the Protected Areas of B.C. Act.
Again, an FoI request might reveal some interesting things about how this has been handled within governments, and their dealings with the developer. Perhaps they're working their shredders and delete buttons as we speak...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 10:22am PT
|
I'd like to think all the concerned citizens writing in do indeed have a current "wilderness" backside trail experience. I recall hiking up the chief in the 70's and it was quiet, very quiet.
I've also hiked up there over the last couple of years and I was blown away with the number of hikers. I think this is great for everyone, and eventually a whole lot better for our medical system, as people need to get their heart rates up. There are hundreds and hundreds of people, sometimes solid lines of 'em, hiking that trail on a daily basis (during busy times). Doesn't really seem to me to still be that "wilderness" experience it was in the old days.
This doesn't have much to do with the population of Squamish, it has everything to do with the two million people down the street half an hour to the south. Vancouver is one of the nicest cities in the world and is pushing outwards. People want to blast out of the anthill and breathe some fresh air.
The Gondola Guys don't want to build a casino or Wal-Mart up there, they're talking hiking trails and bike trails.
Perhaps, as a trade for the easement, Parks could require the Gondola Guys to build a new trail, off to the south a bit. This could take some of the heat off the backside trail and be an uber-workout for all those grouse-grinders.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:47am PT
|
It's interesting how all those hikers on the Chief manage to get up, and down - without a gondola. It suggests that the real issue is a lack of trails, not a lack of gondolas. Certainly it's helped that BC Parks has finally gotten some budget to work on the existing trails, although of course not everyone may agree with the results. But isn't the real need for more trails?
Times certainly have changed, though. I remember "helping" my father with The Vancouver Province public hikes on the Chief, in spring 1965 or 1966. (Before he broke his leg while on a search with the Mountain Rescue Group, in summer 1966.) There were four hikes every spring, sponsored by the Mountain Access Committee and The Province, including Hollyburn, The Chief, Diamond Head, and another. Widely publicized. For the Chief hikes, we strung handlines (probably MRG ropes...) at steep bits.
But then if it weren't for those darn people writing guidebooks and magazine articles, teaching others to climb, and stuff like that, maybe things would be different. Well, they aren't.
A plan for the Squamish, Shannon Creek, and Goat Ridge area something along the following lines makes sense:
 Finish rebuilding the existing hikers' trails on the Chief and Slhanay, using native materials where possible, and as little in the way of ladders, chains etc as possible.
A new parking area at the start of the Slhanay trails.
A new trail up the old mountaineers' route to the saddle between the Chief and Slhanay, connnecting into the existing trails, with perhaps a restored link back to the Shannon Creek road.
A new trail from the Slhanay parking area, paralleling the Stawamus River road back to the Apron.
A good wheelchair-accessible trail, close to either the current main tourist parking, or Shannon Falls. Accessible for free - no need to buy expensive gondola tickets, which are often beyond the means of the disabled and their caregivers.
Expanded parking in the gravel pit, once it is (finally) obtained by B.C. Parks, perhaps some RV type camping there, maybe some low-impact services and concessions.
Restoring the Shannon Creek road, with mountain bike access from it to the upper Shannon Creek basin, with a network of bike trails there, and hiker/mountaineer access thence to Habrich and Sky Pilot. (This could also provide access to an upper gondola terminal on Goat Ridge.)
If deemed appropriate after needed planning, a gondola on upper Goat Ridge.
Restoring the hiking trails on Goat Ridge, from Murrin Park to Petgill Lake to a gondola terminal, and up.
If they fit, mountain bike trails on Goat Ridge, below the gondola.
If geography allows (unclear), new hiking trails linking from the Chief through upper Shannon Creek to Goat Ridge.
Whatever trails make sense on the Britannia Creek side of the gondola.
Lastly, a foot/bicycle trail linking the Chief all the way to Murrin Park.
Maybe even consider whether a "via ferrata" ladder system ought to be built on the Chief, if so where, and to the accepted standards for such things. Perhaps there's some appropriate location, if it's done properly.
That's a plan that fits better with the area, and would prevent a mistake that would be regretted for a long time.
Horse trading with the developers seems a lose/win strategy. You'd be conceding from the outset the key issue, which is high-impact deletions from Class A parks. No matter what bells and whistles they throw in, and whatever deals they privately do, it's still a gondola in the middle of parks that are there for other reasons.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:57am PT
|
Those 13 items on M.H.'s list; ya, Parks will get right on that, as they're swimming in money these days...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:22pm PT
|
Slhanay is the (relatively) new name for the crag that was formerly known as the "Squaw". I don't know if it's an official CPCGN name, but the name Slhanay was given to it several years ago, by the Squamish Nation. IIRC, the Access Society first suggested the renaming about ten years ago.
bearbreeder is right - Jumbo Glacier may be a bigger issue. (http://www.keepitwild.ca/); Perhaps there's some linkage, though. That proposal seems likely to be tied up in the courts for years to come though, like the Enbridge pipeline. The First Nations have constitutional rights which governments can't easily override.
The "plan" I fleshed out above might take five or ten years to create, and is simply provided to show that there really are alternatives. You don't have to be a developer or government to have some vision for the area, and it seems realistic. Squamish and the Chief at one end, Britannia and a gondola at the other, appropriate recreation in between.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
|
I echo bearbreeders comments. I'm really quite mystified at the intransigent negativism.
Ditto. Climbing and hiking on the Chief is such a noisy, crowded, urban experience now that the addition of the gondola will make zero difference. It may even make things better, if it provides access to new crags and bike terrain up high.
It seems to me that the real issue is the "is it okay to allow land in the park to be used for commercial purposes" question. And on that question, there is a basic division here on ST between those who say "NEVER!!!" and those who say "It depends."
The former remind me of religious fanatics whose arguments take the form of "Because it says so in the Bible."
As a staunch supporter of the whole concept of public parks, I would hate to see the system become little more than a concession-granting, pocket-lining scheme for developers and politicians. On the other hand, to simply say "Because the Bible says so" is to lose all credibility in the discussion of individual cases -- both this current one and those that are sure to arise in the future.
Someone upthread brought up the subject of requiring compensation by the developer for access to park land. Others have pointed out that this particular gondola may offer benefits to current users of the park (i.e. us climbers). Local residents seem to be in favor.
If you want to have any chance of convincing these folks that they are mistaken, you will need to step down from the pulpit and act like you understand that you are not smarter then them, better than them, possessed of wisdom that they are denied...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:25pm PT
|
Whoever you are, Mr. Ghost, YOU are my hero, currently. I wish I could write like that.
Bruce Kay seems to be picking all the right words as well. Nicely written.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:29pm PT
|
Whoever you are, Mr. Ghost, YOU are my hero, currently. I wish I could write like that.
And I wish I could climb like you climb.
David Harris (former Vancouver resident and Squamish climber, now living in Seattle)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:53pm PT
|
Sorry, Dave - I don't quite follow. You seem to be saying that:
1. It's a matter of the rule of law, that is applying the Park Act, a provincial statute, to protect parks. A statute which on paper is black and white. A job for the provincial government, which has duties to consult, consider all the issues, interests and perspectives, etc.
2. It's a matter for local opinion to decide. The opinion of those live in a cave under a boulder at the Chief, i.e. "locals", is the deciding factor.
3. Other citizens shouldn't express their views, or suggest alternatives, and that it's somehow patronizing if they do.
I don't get it.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:56pm PT
|
I don't get it.
I know.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:58pm PT
|
Well I used to live in a cave but now I'm in a house, made outta 2 x 6s. Trees, actually. Probably even B.C. trees, god forbid.
I'm not saying it's up to the locals only, just happy to offer my opinion.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:06pm PT
|
Well, I've had a little experience, and even some success, helping to organize climbers and others for various worthwhile objects. So possibly I have some idea what I'm doing. Still, I'd welcome concrete suggestions on how to improve what I'm doing, bearing in mind real world constraints. Hopefully, in fact, the various organizations mentioned somewhere upthread will start to do their job and provide the needed leadership.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:15pm PT
|
It may even make things better, if it provides access to new crags and bike terrain up high.
So a gondola that opens up at 9am is going to allow you to ascend sky pilot?
Cypress and Seymour both provincial parks close their roads during non business hours to combat theft and vandalism, how do you think that will play out with the shannon creek road and our current access?
I am led to believe that these access roads will become non useable to the public, otherwise we could just drive up like we can pretty much do now.
Climbing and hiking on the Chief is such a noisy, crowded, urban experience now that the addition of the gondola will make zero difference.
So are many places, Joffre, Spearhead, Duffey, Skaha....if thats your argument where does it stop?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:28pm PT
|
I don't think you've been able to drive up there for years. Dirtbike, perhaps.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:35pm PT
|
You love your Tacoma; how many Toyota shares do you own?
Sorry Jim, not trying to be snappy.
I think it's really hard to start and successfully run a business in this province/country. Just cause I think someone has a good idea doesn't mean I'm handing over my $.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:41pm PT
|
I'm basically feeling neutral about this with both sides having good points to their arguments.
My feeling, too. I know Anders thinks I've gone over to the Dark Side, and am pro-development, but that is not the case. My point is that there truly are arguments to be made both in favor of this particular development and against it, but that anybody who says "Whoever disagrees with me is wrong and evil" is not really making a point, but rather making an enemy.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:43pm PT
|
Hamish you can drive to the boulder blockade for the last few years and intermittently depending on who moves what you can make it to the memorial look out. Then of course sometime in the last 5 they turned the road beyond that into a single track.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:54pm PT
|
For anyone without a decent 4WD, the Shannon Creek Road been largely undriveable for a long time. I believe that's intentional, plus of course it would require significant maintenance to keep open. As others have mentioned, even with a serious 4WD, you may not get all that far.
Few gondola/lift companies seems to allow private vehicles on "their" roads. Hikers and often bikers are OK, but that's all. In this case, perhaps there'd be driveable public access to a point somewhere behind the Chief, higher than is usually the case now, but only foot or bicycle traffic after that. No idea what they'd do about the all terrain vehicle and motorcycle crowd.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:54pm PT
|
You should send in a photo of the vehicle that you drive up to that drainage. Just so everyone realizes how great that old road is...
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 05:17pm PT
|
Are we talking about the same road to te memorial which is a few switch backs after the boulder blockade?
Its been fine for a long time, they log up there so the road just before the boulder blockade is 2wd. Then slightly rougher after and to the blockade.
Then after the blockade its pretty good till the memorial.
Here is what it looks like last year just after the boulder blockade
you dont need a 4x4 to make it to the blockade as of last summer.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 05:19pm PT
|
Well, I didn't have much luck trying to get my Matrix up there last summer. Not that I expected to. Stopped at the first steep/loose hill.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 05:24pm PT
|
I'm thinking we're comparing apples and oranges here. I meant vehicle, as in a heavy chunk of tin with 4 wheels. I see in your photo you're talking vehicle, as in, your bike. Sorry for the mis-communication.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 06:07pm PT
|
Hamish thats the road just after the boulder blockade, sometimes you can drive past it but this time the boulders were to big. Otherwise you can drive right to the blockade.
Bruce the memorial is at the lookout where the car full of teens went over the edge....presumably the whole reason for the boulder blockade in the first place.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 09:08pm PT
|
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District is meeting on Thursday April 19th, to discuss second reading of a rezoning bylaw for the proposed upper terminal. It’s at 7:00 PM at the Britannia Beach Community Centre, 70 Copper Drive. Proposed rezoning bylaws, or bylaws that would change the official community plan, go through three readings (at least), and I believe that at this one the public is permitted to speak. Could be interesting.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 10:34pm PT
|
A couple of posts have spoken in favour of the gondola and then stated being adverse to Investing in this project.
This seems a little hard to reconcile. Any comments ?
I stated that I was predominantly neutral on the proposal thus far, but that I wouldn't invest in it. What I meant was that, without seeing what their real plans and ideas are in their business plan, it's hard to believe that it could be viable. Therefore, my hard earned money/ retirement nest-egg would not be invested there. That's all.
These guys have more related development experience than probably all of us posting on this subject combined. They state that they had the opportunity, and were looking world wide for a location to develop this idea, but in the end chose this location. I can only presume they have some decent reasoning behind their plan.
I still don't like the removal of Class A park land, but I'm not sure I can sit entirely on one side of the fence or the other with what I know right now.
Kris
(kickin' the soapbox back to the center of the room now)
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:07pm PT
|
I am a survivor of the battle to protect the integrity of Strathcona Park (another "Class A" park). Here's an abbreviated history of what happened: after the "Parks Branch" was successfully lobbied by every cheap hustler in the mining business to open this area to development, the war began. I can't recall how many of my friends were arrested in the protests that erupted, but among the people who expressed their outrage at this desecration were more than a few second (and first) generation loggers and people who earned their living working in the mining industry, along with the "usual" environmentalists. They simply wanted their descendants to enjoy the same beauty that was available to them.
I feel that the core of the resistance to this (and the above)proposal is simple: Class "A" parks are expected to remain in the condition that existed when the boundaries were established, and remain that way in perpetuity. It is the responsibility of the Parks Branch to defend the integrity of such areas under their mandate. Period.
What's the crying need to add to the uglification of the Squamish Valley? Isn't it one of the core values of climbing to accept that great views are one of the many rewards of the effort required to reach them? I'm far too crappy a climber to haul myself up K2, but I have little doubt that the view from the top is magnificent. Maybe we should build a gondola over there as well, as I'm sure the locals could use the short-term employment, along with the minimum wage jobs generated from such a project.
Leave the place alone. If you're looking for a great view with no effort required and are among the lucky ones who can afford to pay for the ride, then perhaps you can drink in the view from Grouse Mountain or travel up to Whistler. Regardless, I am adamantly opposed to the rearrangement of Class "A" park boundaries to suit the needs of developers.
If the supporters of this project are so desperate to build a gondola, then build it somewhere else. There's not that much land under what passes for protection under the Parks Act.
Amen.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:54pm PT
|
They state that they had the opportunity, and were looking world wide for a location to develop this idea, but in the end chose this location.
It would be easy to say such a thing, perhaps in part to help market the idea. After all, if you say something is "world class" (one of the most overused adjectives on the planet), doesn't that puff it and everyone associated with it up?
What developers say, and what they have done and do, can be two different things. Sorry to be so skeptical, but I've met more than a few developers. It would be interesting to see what records they could produce of their alleged search - if any. It seems rather more likely that they knew of the 2004 proposal, often drove by Squamish and saw the site, and grabbed what they considered an opportunity. It's in Whistler's backyard. Why would they be looking elsewhere? And as they must have known that the site wasn't intended to be available for a gondola of any kind, you wonder what they knew about all that. You'd think that even the most determined developer, knowing that a) Squamish decisively rejected a similar project in 2004, b) the land was bought by an organization entrusted with ensuring it could never again pose a threat to the Parks, and c) that there was a restrictive covenant on the land to that end, wouldn't even bother.
Short of a court order, I doubt they'd disclose who their partners and investors (if any) are, whether they actually seriously considered other locations, how they came to acquire the gravel pit, their dealings with governments and The Land Conservancy, and related matters. (Although the governments might have to say, due to FoI, and TLC might want to.) If they ever claim they considered a Goat Ridge gondola but that it wasn't feasible, I'd ask for written proof, that is reports similar to those done for the location they now propose.
Developers = location + profit.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 12:33am PT
|
Someone explain the difference to me, Cypress Provincial Park issuing a permit for a private company to run a ski lift on the mountain and the Gondola proposal in Squamish.
Please let's not argue over the nuances, the underlying principle of Private Public Partnership is well established in Provincial Parks . Taking a "Not In My Back Yard 'approach to the proposal, portraits , to the general public, that climbers are elitists, as stated in a previous post.
The amount of development climbers have done over the last 50 years at the Chief would also become a major issue, and public outcry, if it was proposed over a one to two year period. Let's get a reality check, before we, the kettle, start calling the pot black. Cutting 50 trees a year over 10 years, is still a 500 tree clearcut, and that is just a small example of our climbing ecological footprint.
As stated previously, I probably wouldn't invest in the proposal, based on the limited info available, but last time I looked, BC is still a free enterprise society , not a socialist regime where entrepreneurs have to disclose their business plan to the general public.
Let's focus on the issue, a 20ft wide easement for the towers, not their business plan.
If the business model fails, a good contingency plan would be , for the developer to set aside funds for the removal of infrastructure on parks land.
I may not agree with the Mighty Hiker, but I respect him for consistently getting off his ass and actually doing something.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 12:46am PT
|
I couldn't agree with you more. Including the part about Anders working his butt off. Total respect.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 12:48am PT
|
Thanks, guys!
Perhaps this thankless do-gooder stuff is just a pretext for my lameness as a climber.
They claim it'll be a 20 m, not 20 foot, cut - but I rather doubt it'll be only 20 m. No one has so far refuted my belief that they're likely to cut anything that's of sufficient height that it might touch the gondola cable, wires, or cars if it fell. The cut, except perhaps in areas (if any) where the gondola would be high off the ground, seems more likely to be 60 - 80 m. I wonder also who'll police what's actually done?
Much of Cypress Bowl was clearcut in 1966 - 69, supposedly to build a ski area. The company essentially highgraded everything it could, then went bankrupt. It was known as the the Cypress Bowl scandal. It wasn't actually created a park until 1973. The government, left with a mess, didn't have much choice but to establish a province-run downhill and cross country area. In the mid 1980s it was privatized, creating more problems.
In other words, at Cypress, clearcut logging preceded it being made a park, such as it is. Only in B.C. In the current case, the parks are well established, and the area where the gondola would go is good second growth at the bottom and top, and virgin (bluffy) timber in the middle.
Rolf, you're a north shore boy, you should know this stuff.
http://www.hollyburnheritagesociety.ca/s_5.asp (Lots of good information.)
As for what climbers do at the Chief. Well, first, it goes back to long before the Chief became a park. That doesn't necessarily make it right, or appropriate, of course. Second, BC Parks knows about it, and it's managed through the master plan, the rock climbing strategy, and so on. Last, it's in small increments, even allowing for the foolish excesses of a few climbers, and generally not visible to the public. It would take climbers decades to cut as much as the clearcut for the gondola (say 80 m x 1 km) would create. Not in the same ice rink.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 01:18am PT
|
My favorite quote from the article
"In the gathering dark, skiers and partygoers would make their way from the ferry dock up the trail to the lodges and cabins of Hollyburn, lighting their way with bug lights and miner's carbide lamps. On Saturday , more folks would hike up the mountain for an afternoon of skiing before going to the lodge for the Saturday Night Dance."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 01:28am PT
|
interesting discussion...
isn't the idea of publicly held land to provide access and use to the public,
and of privately held land to control access to and use of that land by private entities?
Publicly held lands are managed by the government, and are accountable to the public.
Privately held lands are managed by some corporation and are accountable to the owners and shareholders of that corporation.
A place like Squamish is fortunately public lands, but it didn't have to be that way... other very popular climbing areas, like the 'Gunks are on private land and managed privately. When I climbed there we could go over to Sky Top, now there are restrictions limiting climbing there... I'm not sure how extensive the negotiation of that closure proceeded between the Mountain House and the climbers... I have my guesses.
Climbers are not the only stakeholders at Squamish, but now all stakeholders have input in the decision making because of the public holdings... climbers will not have any representation as the park becomes more and more privately held.
You can't have both a developer developing and the public management of the park... there are inherent conflicts. The whole idea of the development underscores these conflicts, the location is popular, has a great view that can be potentially exploited for commercial purposes.
The park could also provide access to the public for non-commercial motives, too, and of course, you can go and enjoy the view now without having to compensate a commercial entity to do so. You've been doing that for 40 years or so, watching the area develop all the time.
I certainly don't have a dog in this fight, and I'll probably still climb at Squamish the few times I have in the future to do so even if there is a Gondola. But you should think what this all means to your climbing area... it is harder to undo this (like the gravel pit) once it is done.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:23am PT
|
Good morning M.H.. I really do think you're doing a great job here and I'm just a cave-dwelling Squamite trying to offer a bright side. I suppose part of my problem is that I'm not offended when I see a gondola. It's not a Tim Hortons, it's not a pipeline full of oil, it's not a mine, it's not even a logging block, really.
I realize you've got a hate-on for these Gondola guys but I believe you're stretching it a bit when you write here that the easement will be 80 meters wide. That's 250 feet, in old guy measuring. I would bet there is no way they need that much width.
When you ride the creekside gondola at Whistler (i know you don't because they took land from the parks 6 times) you can look at the trees out both windows. And they're not far at all. I'm thinking that swath is more like 60 feet. Twenty meters for the younger crowd. The majority of the ski runs up there aren't even 250 feet wide...no where close.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 12:53pm PT
|
Ummm, no hate on for gondolas or developers, at all. Both have their place, and I've benefited from both. I simply don't agree that this proposal is in an appropriate place.
The exact width of swathe they'd cut, as with the noise and visual impacts, is interesting and important, but a detail. You can take it as a given that if they build it, it will have significant impacts, and isn't likely to be as promised. Nothing new there.
The issue is whether or not it should be built at all. Some seem to have lost sight of that. Residents, climbers and others to be divided and ruled - they in effect have been piecemeal lured into thinking 'Well, whether or not it's built isn't really our problem, and the developers are promising to throw us some treats, which sound pretty good'. Instead of thinking "Hold on. Does this make any sense at all, whatever bells and whistles it might have?" The developers seem to have learned from 2004.
Perhaps it would be only a 20 m swathe. I doubt it. Let's see the engineering report. There are lifts and transmissions lines of all kinds, and the swathe width seems to vary. It's common sense that as a preventive measure you'd cut down anything tall enough that it might fall on the lines or towers, especially given that the swathe creates more potential for windthrow. And the trees are higher than 10 m. Lastly, who'll police it?
My involvement with climbing management and conservation at Squamish goes back to the mid 1980s. Complicated stuff.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 04:10pm PT
|
Ya, I'm with the guy that climbed the grand wall last weekend. They did the same technique with the peak to peak gondola in (hold my breath) whistler.
I'm sorry, M.H., for suggesting you don't like the gondola guys. Just seems you are quick to exaggerate their statements and projections.
They say a 60 foot easement, you print a 250 foot swath.
That's all.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 09:24pm PT
|
I sent my letter (e-mail) to the premier's office, and other government people, on Tuesday evening. There were a few auto-replies. The only real reply, from premier@gov.bc.ca, came this morning:
Thank you very much for your message. Your comments about the proposed Squamish Gondola Project are appreciated and we note you have shared them with the Minister of Environment. We want to assure you they will also be shared with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, for inclusion in his ministry's related discussions as well.
As you know, we are encouraging public feedback on all provincial issues and, as such, it was good to hear from you. Which is about what you'd expect. The more people who write, the better. The project still needs several approvals - unless, of course, the politicians have done a back room deal. It's quite possible - the provincial government has been acting more as facilitator than steward. But the more letters they get, the better.
I wouldn't want to get too side-tracked in the details of what the developers claim they'd do, and what they'd actually do. I've simply been making the point, perhaps with a bit of rhetoric, that given everything the developer's claims sometimes seem doubtful. Whether the gondola would be lurid red or camouflage green, whether the cleared strip would be 20 m or 60, whether it'd for the full length or only part, exactly just how visible it'd be from where, what promises may have been made to various groups, what associated things may or may not be built, and just how much noise impact it'd have are all details. They presume that it should and will happen, and that the developer will actually perform. The real issue for now is whether or not it should proceed at all. The big picture, the vision for the area.
In 2004, the developers wanted everything to be handled very quietly - hardly surprising. Sunshine is always the best in these situations. The current developers seem a bit cleverer, with their divide and conquer strategy, but again the lack of independent public meetings run by B.C. Parks in Squamish, Vancouver and perhaps elsewhere, to present information on the proposal and get public input, speaks for itself.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 10:27am PT
|
I'm thinking the Proponents have been following this site and a few others quite closely. How dumb do you think they are? Not.
They were probably just tickled to see their 60' easement turned into a 250' swath of destruction.
Lawyers.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 10:37am PT
|
Sorry, M.H., but you did write in that all us Squamish folk live under a rock, or in a cave. You'll have to pay a small price for that.
Besides, I know you love to debate.
I still think you're doing great work here.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 12:34pm PT
|
MacBeth? No, whenever there's a guess about a Skakespeare quote you just say "Richard the Third." You say it sort of quietly and then go back to your book or whatever.
You won't always be right, But even if you're wrong, no one else is likely to know, so you score a lot of cool points.
Feh! I can't believe I'm back on this thread. That's what being stuck on the couch with a cold will do.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 04:24pm PT
|
Public opinion is only one factor in the decision, but there seems to be more latent concern about the location than you might think, judging by the messages I've received. Perhaps it just needed a catalyst. Anyway, we may never know - my experience in these situations is that even when you ask people to send you a copy of whatever they send to the politicians etc, they usually don't. It could be obtained through FoI, but that takes time.
FWIW, I'll be meeting some concerned residents of Squamish later today.
Someone named bearbreeder, advocating captive bears, such as were on Grouse? Hmmm. What about wolves? Sasquatches?
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 08:11pm PT
|
SAY - am I mistaken in assuming that the proposed gondola is within the established boundaries of a Class "A" park?
If not, what part of Class "A" status don't the supporters of this project understand?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 08:33pm PT
|
Hi Woz. Have a little flexibility.
They're not mining or drilling for oil up there.
Besides, looking down the road, that whole basin might be ripe for parkland. My guess is the futureoneons won't want to be looking at the yarder setting up and getting in the way of their view. And currently, that's how it's zoned up there.
Hope things are good in Courtenay.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2012 - 08:50pm PT
|
most of them hardly go out to squamish at all and theyre quite surprised when they find out there are powerlines/traffic noise/gravel pit right at the chief ...
Does that argument ever get tiring or what...yes I believe everyone is aware that at some point in time everything was logged and there was probably a logging road. That is not carte blanche for lets just trash it further. Its wait a second can we do this better....
We have a hut in sky pilot no one can get to cause the roads are locked and you need to be part of the BCMC to even get a key, we have roads and trails all over the place back there.
It would take a half a day to return shannon creek road back to drivable conditions and there would be all sorts of trails and bike descents for people to recreate in and head back to Squamish for a beer. Yet the best choice we have is a gondola and the prospect of being locked out even farther away from the Habrich trail head, fluffy kitten...
The whole thing is as ridiculous as the Whistler passenger train not running in Winter.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 12:49am PT
|
I had for gotten that last Spring the proponents of this project were invited to do a presentation to my wife's Tourism Product Development class at Capilano University. I asked her about the questions that she had her students prepare to grill those guys. (She does not go easy on anyone like that, trust me.)
Of course they're going to paint it through a bit of rose-colored view, But it did seem clear that they had done their homework. Here were some of the interesting points that seem relevant to things that have come up here:
1. The location is the only available one between Alice Lake, north of Squamish and Fury Creek that does not have any conflicts with high voltage power transmission lines. When BC Parks required them to explore other options within the area, they had already done so.
2.The Developers have been very open to speaking to anyone who has concerns, comments or suggestions regarding the project. Has anyone here who is 100% against the current location of this project, or the project in general, requested an audience with them? If so, what did you learn from the meeting?
In addition, it appears that the Developers now have First Nations support for the project. I don't know if this was an important step or a big hurdle. From other development proposals throughout BC in the past, it seems like having First Nations on your side is not a big bonus, however having them against you can be crippling.
Lastly, I have a slightly different understanding of the "support" by the Climber's Access Society of BC (CASBC) to this project. While it is quoted on the proponent's website that CASBC is behind the proposal, my understanding is that they only supported the development and maintenance of some new and old trail systems that the proponent agreed to help fund.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 08:36pm PT
|
An interesting meeting in Squamish last night. Sorry, Bruce - these things take a little time.)
En route, I stopped at Britannia and had as good a look around as I could. It seemed to me that there are sites there that would provide room for a gondola and related facilities. That is, reasonably flat areas with enough room, east of the major power lines. Whether a gondola would fit there (zoning, other users, access, traffic) would require planning, negotiation, maybe rezoning - all the usual things. What seemed to be the likelier sites are up to 1 km from Highway 99.
I also stopped at the pullout about 1 km south of the Papoose. There is a fairly flat area between that and the base of "Stony Creek Wall", which looked like it may allow enough room, and is just east of the powerlines. A gondola from there would go up quite steeply.
The location is the only available one between Alice Lake, north of Squamish and Fury Creek that does not have any conflicts with high voltage power transmission lines. When BC Parks required them to explore other options within the area, they had already done so.
I have little doubt that the proposed location is ideal for the developers, and suspect that they did not examine other options in any detail. It has all the physical attributes, and another location would require more effort - farther from the highway, not as flat, requiring more development work, etc etc. That is, possibly more investment of time and money. Although I'd still like to know the full restrictive covenant story.
Anyway, the issue isn't whether there are possible alternatives, or whether they were reasonably examined, or whether we can take the developer's word for it that they were. The issue is whether a gondola should be built in and through the parks, and land should be removed from Class A parks for that purpose, apparently without public review by BC Parks, independent public meetings for all who might reasonably be interested, or any real effort to involve anyone but local residents in the debate.
The developers have been very open to speaking to anyone who has concerns, comments or suggestions regarding the project. Has anyone here who is 100% against the current location of this project, or the project in general, requested an audience with them?
Why would they want to talk with me? I oppose the proposal, or removal of land from the parks. Their entire proposal, and indeed such process as there has been to date, is based on the presumption that somehow they can get land out of the parks, and that the needed approvals can be quietly obtained, without real scrutiny or process. What would we have to talk about?
If/when the proposal and deletion is approved, after a real public process involving all those interested in the area, might be time to talk about the bells and whistles, and effective enforcement mechanisms.
Somewhere upthread BK mentioned that in some places the proposed gondola might be well off the ground/away from cliffs, and so they might not clear the trees in that area. Which, of course, would make it more visible.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if the thing would be lit up at night? How would that look?
All of the messages I've received regarding this have been polite. Most opposed to a gondola, or at least in favour of a more public and thorough process. A few in favour, some undecided. Often simply thankful to get more information, which points up a problem. Only one negative/rude reply, a somewhat predictable one.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 09:16pm PT
|
Why would they want to talk with me?
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. But it does strike me as kind of odd that you've repeatedly impugned their motives and hinted that they have a "hidden agenda" without ever talking to them.
If you'd asked them your questions, and they'd refused answer you, or told you obvious lies, then I could see why you'd question their motives. But it sounds very much like you didn't want to talk to them because you'd already made up your mind that anything they said would be false -- because they are developers and therefore evil.
My best guess is that they are looking at an opportunity to make some money by putting a gondola in the location they've advertised, and they chose that location because they viewed it as the only one that would lead to a profit.
Whether or not they should be allowed to do this is a reasonable subject for debate, but your constant hinting that they are evil monsters is kind of tiresome.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 10:47pm PT
|
Good to hear from you, Hamish. Hope all is well with you.
Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea for anyone but the developer. Assuming that I am correct in my understanding that the area is within the confines of a Class "A" park, I see no reason for the need of a gondola within its boundaries. This proposal could very easily be seen as a precedent to justify further exploitation of the area.
These feelings have arisen from my involvement in the struggle to protect Strathcona Park. I (along with many others) spent countless hours attempting to defend the integrity of the boundaries of this area, and many law-abiding friends of mine walked away from that scrap with a criminal record as thanks for their efforts... we (sort of) won that scrap, but the battle continues to this very day with no end in sight. Feel free to check out the details for yourself - the history of the exploitation of Strathcona Park would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.
Class "A" status means that if I find a pretty rock within its boundaries, I am committing an offence if I decide to take it home with me. Furthermore, it is my understanding that I would also be committing an offence against the Park Act if I decide to set up a tent anywhere in the area of the Chief outside the designated camping sites. However, the developers feel that it should be OK to rip up Goat Ridge so that only those who can afford the trip can enjoy the view. No dice.
Here's the compromises that I could accept (through gritted teeth):
the ride is free.
the land involved is traded for an equal (and pristine) area nearby that is acceptable to both the Nature Conservatory of British Columbia or a similar organization and the BCMC.
an enforceable commitment from the B.C. government to retain the remaining land in an undeveloped state in perpetuity.
the developer posts a non-refundable bond to ensure that the area is properly maintained and cleaned up if the project is abandoned at any stage of completion. This would include littering by gondola patrons.
the developer will assume the costs of any additional search and rescue operations resulting from the influx of inexperienced visitors who would otherwise be unable to access the area.
the developer will pick up any increased policing costs incurred as a result of the additional car thieves attracted to easy pickings in Squamish.
a response plan for the admittedly unlikely prospects of an avalanche coming down the clearcut, or a fire caused by gondola operations.
ALL jobs created by the gondola development go to the locals, and at a decent wage.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that the attractions of Class "A" parks should be equally accessible to ALL Canadians regardless of their economic circumstances. The last I heard, they were still supposed to be considered citizens of this nation.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It's still unclear why I would privately consult with the developers, or vice versa, although I’m sure we’d have a nice chat. I oppose land being removed from Class A parks, to land being removed (directly or in effect) from these particular parks for the gondola, and to a gondola being built in or near those parks. If such removal is considered, it should only be after full and open process - public review by BC Parks, and public information/discussion/feedback meetings organized by BC Parks - by internet, and in Squamish, Vancouver and elsewhere. Which hasn't happened. The developers disagree with me, so what would be the purpose? They would say “We’re going to build this gondola, and let’s talk about the bells and whistles, and what we can do for you”. I’d say “No, I oppose a gondola being built there at all, or land being taken from Class A Parks, and to the process that's been followed.”
No doubt they're fine fellows (whoever might be behind the proposal), and we could talk about lots of fun stuff, like what's happening with the restrictive covenant, whether the swathe would be 20, 31 or 62 m wide, and continuous or discontinuous, whether they truly looked at alternatives, the noise and visual impacts, their various promises with regard to a variety of matters, how they'd live up to their promises, why I'm skeptical, why I oppose the proposal, and even what they'd in theory do to address my concerns. (You never really know what they'll do until after the fact, of course.) Perhaps I'd agree that I ought to have said something earlier, but had taken it that TLC and others were looking after it, and would apologize if in fact I'd said anything that was demonstrably incorrect. We could even discuss the pros and cons of locations outside the parks, or acceptable money-making activities that might be conducted within the gravel pit, if they wanted. I wouldn't mind such a meeting at all, and perhaps Bruce can introduce us.
That's not the point. Neither the developers, nor I, have the power to decide anything. It's up to the provincial government to fairly and publicly decide such issues, accordingly to the law and public interest, after proper public consultation. And that's not what's been happening. It is public land after all, in a provincial park. And somewhere in the fine print I read that it was for all the citizens of B.C., which I hope means we all have a right to be consulted by the decision-maker.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The process seems like the one we had in the US and the individual states until the early-1970s...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Wayno, don't be a hoser.
And aren't you home early from work?
ps Thanks for reading, and don't be shy about writing a letter. You've been to Squamish, and can put in your two cents if you want.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
To tell you the truth, Anders, after all that reading, I really don't have a strong enough opinion on the matter to write a letter. I see and have seen this kind of thing go down here in the states too many times. My life is complicated enough these days without having to get emotionally invested in a cause, but I wish you the best in your endeavor.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm thinking the trees are so thick in the campground, the happy campers won't even see any gondolas.
Do you get free lates when you're building those starbucks, Jim?
Seems wherever there's a starbucks going in, there's another one not too far away...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
You're gunna lose the circulation in your feet from sittin on the fence for too long.
I think we're all in agreement it's a crying shame the gondola has to travel over the park. We'd love it if they could slide the project south a few klicks.
Just seems part of life that you can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Life is full of compromises.
You'd probably way rather be building a coffee shop on Lonsdale, where you live, but you're making one in Calgary.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It will still be a park, just with a tram running over part of it. And if your whole push is the enjoyment of the park for Canadians and foriegn visitors, wouldn't you think more Canadians and more foriegn visitors will enjoy the park if the gondola proceeds? Call me crazy.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Much of this debate relates to the importance of keeping an open mind, critically assessing the process and if needed the proposal, involving all those who should in the debate, and coming to an informed decision.
As Dave and Jim say, it's not the developer's fault - they're simply being and doing what developers do. It's in their nature.
However, the provincial government in particular created a badly flawed process for assessing the proposal, which almost seems designed to ensure it would be approved. The lack of public review of the proposal by B.C. Parks, and a largely local and often private process, speak for themselves. You'd think that the provincial government, approached about a proposal like this, would say:
1. A similar one was soundly rejected in 2004.
2. It's not at all consistent with the master plan for either park, or the Park Act.
3. Concerned parties bought the gravel pit and put a restrictive covenant on it to prevent this happening. Whether or not the covenant can be avoided, it's morally if not legally binding.
4. They're high profile, heavily used parks, of international stature. This isn't just a local issue.
5. Given this, if you want us to consider this, the proposal will have to go through extensive, independent public review. It will have to be approved by all the local governments, after public debate. All those who have an interest in the parks will need to be actively informed of what you propose, with real opportunities for independent public debate.
6. If B.C. Parks recommends against your proposal, after full review, tough. Likewise if it's rejected by one or other level of government, or the public. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
The provincial government has been acting more as facilitator than as trustee of the parks and the public interest, and that's wrong.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
We'll never know what happened behind closed doors. In 2004, we heard of the proposal in the spring. The proponent wanted it to be kept low key, and so no issue was made of it at the time. In August, it was subject of a CBC radio program, at which point the Access Society went public with concerns about the proposal and the process. It generated some news media interest, and considerable public interest. The provincial government, again disregarding the spirit if not the letter of the Park Act, said that before the proposal could be considered, it would have to be approved by the District of Squamish, the Olympics people, the Squamish Nation, and IIRC the regional district. A lot of people held meetings, talked about, wrote letters, politicked etc - I'm sure I don't know the half of it. Keeping track of what was happening, staying involved, and getting accurate information out on a regular basis, was a challenge.
It came to a head at a Squamish council meeting in late September. We suggested that the meeting was of some interest, and should be moved from council chambers to the high school (edit: Brennan Park Recreation Centre), which it was. About 200 were there. It wasn't a public meeting - all we could do was listen, without saying anything. However, we did have cheerful red buttons, which in a sense spoke for us. (See below.) Council discussed it to some extent. The developers were there, as were representatives of the Squamish Nation. (They liked the buttons.) At one point the developers were asked how their meeting with the Squamish Nation that day had gone. They answered so as to suggest that those discussions were continuing, although it appeared that many in the audience knew otherwise. The proposal had been rejected by the Squamish Nation. Council then voted to reject the proposal, and that was that, apart from some grumbling by the developers about suing the provincial government for their investment - which makes you wonder what the government might have said to them.
Afterward, MEC arranged a meeting with TLC, and committed $100,000 to start, for addressing problems in the Squamish area. We said the highest priority was getting the gravel pit off the market, and making sure it could never again be threatened with inappropriate development, such as another gondola - to the Chief or elsewhere.
Shows what people can accomplish if they work together.
Given the geography, the Chief and area will be subjected to repeated development proposals as time goes on. (In 2004, I advised people to hang onto their buttons, as they were bound to be useful in future.) It's easy to say, as in the present case a climber might "Oh, it's not really a climber problem, it's not on the Chief itself, they've promised to make some little changes to address our concerns, plus we like some of the other bells and whistles they promise. We can live with it." The broader issue is the death of 1,000 cuts - next time, it will be something which does have significant impacts on climbers, or some other park in the area. The government will say that the present case shows that they don't have to go through full public review and consultations, and the developer will say that this provides a precedent for it. It's better to stand up for our principles now, especially given a flawed process.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Canada National Parks Act (S.C. 2000, c. 32)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/
4. (1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
8. (1) The Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of parks, including the administration of public lands in parks and, for that purpose, the Minister may use and occupy those lands.
Ecological integrity
(2) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.
Park communities
9. Powers in relation to land use planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.
Pollution clean-up
32. (1) Where a substance that is capable of degrading the natural environment, injuring fauna, flora or cultural resources or endangering human health is discharged or deposited in a park, any person who has charge, management or control of the substance shall take reasonable measures to prevent any degradation of the natural environment and any danger to the fauna, flora or cultural resources or to persons that may result from the discharge or deposit.
Powers of superintendent and Minister
(2) If the superintendent of a park is of the opinion that a person is not taking the measures required by subsection (1), the superintendent may direct the person to take those measures and, if the person fails to do so, the Minister may direct those measures to be taken on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
Expenses of clean-up
(3) A person who fails to comply with a direction given by a superintendent under subsection (2) is liable for the expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in taking the measures directed, and those expenses may be recovered from that person, with costs, in proceedings brought in the name of Her Majesty in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Preparation of community plan
Footnote *33. (1) A community plan for each park community shall be tabled in each House of Parliament as soon as possible after this section comes into force, accompanied in the case of the town of Banff by any zoning by-laws made under the agreement referred to in section 35.
*[Note: Section 33 in force February 19, 2001, see SI/2001-29.]
Contents of community plan
(2) A community plan for a park community must
(a) be consistent with the management plan for the park in which the park community is located;
(b) accord with any guidelines established by the Minister for appropriate activities within the park community;
(c) provide a strategy for the management of growth within the park community; and
(d) be consistent with principles of
(i) no net negative environmental impact, and
(ii) responsible environmental stewardship and heritage conservation.
Elements to be included
(3) A community plan, or the zoning by-laws referred to in subsection (1) and tabled with it, must include
(a) a description of the lands comprising the park community;
(b) a description of the lands comprising the commercial zones of the park community; and
(c) a measure of the maximum floor area permitted within the commercial zones of the park community.
Amendment of Schedule 4
(4) Subject to section 34, the Governor in Council may, by order, add the description of a park community, the description of its commercial zones and a measure of their maximum floor area referred to in subsection (3) to columns 2, 3 and 4, respectively, of Schedule 4, opposite the name of the community set out in column 1 of that Schedule, but any description or measure so added is not subject to amendment by the Governor in Council.
Leases, licences, etc.
(5) No lease or licence of occupation may be granted, and no permit, licence or other authorization may be issued, authorizing a commercial use of lands within a commercial zone of a park community if the maximum floor area for commercial zones specified for that park community in Schedule 4 would be exceeded as a result of that use.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
If I am not mistaken, the proposal regards a BC Provincial Park and not a national park...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-344/latest/rsbc-1996-c-344.html
Park Act, RSBC 1996, c 344
Restriction on alienation of interests
8 (1) An interest in land in a Class A or Class C park must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or obtained or made the subject of a licence except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(2) A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved.
(3) An interest in land in a Class B park must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or obtained except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(4) A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned.
(5) Crown land in a recreation area
(a) is reserved absolutely from sale, and title to that land is retained, in perpetuity, by the government, and
(b) is reserved from lease or other disposal under the Land Act, except as may be approved by the minister.
(6) An interest in land in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or made the subject of a licence except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
Natural resources protected
9 (1) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a Class A or Class C park must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(2) A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.
(3) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a Class B park must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(4) A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved.
(5) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a park of any class having an area of 2 023 ha or less or in a designated wildland area must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited.
(6) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a recreation area must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed or damaged, exploited, developed, improved or utilized under any Act except as may be approved by the minister.
(6.1) A natural resource, other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged, exploited, developed, improved or utilized except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(7) A natural resource in a park of any class must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged or exploited unless, in the opinion of the minister, the development, improvement and use of the park in accordance with section 12 (3) will not be hindered by it.
(8) [Repealed 2004-22-61.]
(9) A natural resource in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged or exploited unless, in the opinion of the minister, the development, improvement and use of the conservancy in accordance with section 5 (3.1) will not be hindered by it.
(10) A park use permit must not be issued to authorize the following activities in a conservancy:
(a) commercial logging;
(b) mining;
(c) hydro electric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects;
(d) any other activity unless, in the opinion of the minister, the activity will not restrict, prevent or inhibit the development, improvement or use of the conservancy in accordance with section 5 (3.1).
(11) In subsection (10):
"commercial logging" means harvesting timber for the primary purpose of selling or trading the timber;
"local run-of-the-river projects", in relation to a conservancy, means run-of-the-river projects supplying power for use only
(a) in the conservancy, or
(b) by communities, including first nation communities, that do not otherwise have access to hydro electric power.
Resort and tourism development
9.1 Nothing in section 8 (2) or 9 (2) prevents the issuance of a park use permit for an activity related to resort or tourism development if, in the minister's opinion, the activity and the development are consistent with or complementary to the recreational values of the park involved.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Thanks Ed.
It looks like there is a huge amount of discretionary power given to BC Parks and that citizen input is more likely to happen in the election process rather than the permit process...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There is another very important public policy aspect to this. Nature trusts and land conservancies, such as The Land Conservancy of B.C., do an enormous amount of useful work. They work with governments, landowners, citizens, donors and businesses to acquire and protect land that is important for conservation, heritage, and recreation values - for the public, and the long term. The public has benefited enormously from this.
The negotiations are often complex, but the conservancies' usual goal is to protect important land. They often do so by purchase or trade. Once they own the land, it is often transferred to a government, but with binding conditions (restrictive covenants) as to its future use. Sometimes the land ends up in a park, sometimes it's used for other things. Just like the Access Fund, they acquire the land, make sure it's protected, and eventually pass it on to someone able to manage it, usually a government. The conservancies' work is founded on restrictive covenants being ironclad - they count on government to enforce them.
The total budget of land conservancies in B.C. is in the tens of millions of dollars annually, and at any one time they probably own hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property. Climbers have benefited greatly from the work of TLC, at Skaha, the Malemute, and elsewhere, and Squamish generally has benefited from the work of land conservancies, not just on "climber" issues. The public of B.C. as a whole has benefited enormously from their work. Many climbers and members of the public made substantial donations to TLC to help with its work at Squamish, especially protecting the gravel pit.
The motto of TLC is "Special Places. Forever, For Everyone." Similarly to other conservancies, not just in B.C.
We're waiting for a copy of the restrictive covenant, to see what it actually says. However, it would be normal for it to name both TLC and BC Parks/the government. Both would have rights to enforce its terms. It apparently says something like: "You can't build a gondola from this site that goes through or ends in either of the Parks, or is on the Chief." If the reports are correct, the developer hopes to get around this by having a strip of land removed from the Parks, so that technically the gondola wouldn't contravene the covenant. Still, the intent of the covenant is very clear, and the government may be quite able to enforce it.
The message this all sends to developers is that if they can think of a way around the wording of a restrictive covenant, the provincial government may enable them to do so - instead of defending them. It's an appalling precedent. It sends a message to the public, and to land conservancies, that restrictive covenants may not be effective, and so is likely to negatively affect their work, and fundraising. After all, if conservancies can't guarantee that land really will be protected, and government won't fulfill its role as guarantor (whatever second thoughts some might later have), how can they do their work, and who will donate to them? That may in turn have serious implications, throughout B.C. And then there's the question as to why the provincial government, knowing how important restrictive covenants are to B.C. and its citizens, and to the work of land conservancies, seems to be creating a dangerous precedent by not doing all it can to enforce the spirit if not the letter of this one. It's nothing new for land protected by restrictive covenants to be under development pressure, and you have to stand up for your rights.
Bruce: You're right - the 2004 council meeting was at Brennan Park. I've been to so many high school functions there I get confused. But I'm certain that the public wasn't allowed to speak, as that's something I would remember.
(A reliable source advises that the article in the Georgia Straight was incomplete. TLC bought the gravel pit for $900,000, and nominally sold it for $2 million, but as part of a more complex transaction which didn't result in it actually pocketing $1.1 million.)
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
Hamish - thank you most sincerely for having the courtesy to respond to my concerns.
The bottom line of my objections centre upon the fact that there is absolutely no connection between the words "developer" and "philanthropist" or, for that matter, "environmentally responsible".
My concerns and comments regarding this proposal are, I feel, valid. I am also aware that there are many who feel that they are extreme, but they were stated with the desire to make these (and future) developments so difficult to proceed with that present and future politicians will be required to think long and hard before granting these kind of permits to one of their drinking buddies.
This is a political decision based upon the reality that this proposal arose because of the simple fact that this guy expects to make money out of ripping up a Class "A" park, and ALL Class "A" park boundaries will remain elastic for as long as politicians and government employees with their careers on the line continue to allow this kind of behaviour to continue. Each abuse of the sanctity of park boundaries establishes precedents to justify further development of land that is supposed to be protected for the enjoyment of future generations.
With respect, Hamish - where would you draw the line when it comes to the re-drawing of a park boundary? I could easily envision a scenario where this guy tears up Goat Ridge and either runs out of cash and/or decides it's not such a great idea after all and just walks away, leaving a godawful mess up there with nothing to show for it. I would be willing to bet that the developer would not be held personally (as in out of his own pocket) responsible for the cleanup costs.
Finally, I'm sorry, but WHY build the damn thing in the first place? As I stated in my first post, the beautiful scenery that can be viewed from up high has always been one of the unique rewards for the efforts (and often risks) of those who took the trouble to get up there on foot.
To quote Geoffrey (sp?) Winthrop Young, whose climbing career was submarined as a result of wounds received during World War I, "I hold the heights, I keep the dreams I won."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I got in a bit of trouble for my comment last week asking why the naysayers are joining the eight month old discussion so late in the game.
I know M.H. is no stranger to these differences of opinion and has always been actively involved in similiar discussions, to put it mildly.
Another "actively involved" group is the Climbers' Access Society of British Columbia. This group has been attending meetings with the Gondola Proponents for many months now, and making lots of progress.
Why does the former president, founder, and current member of the CASBC wait until the final hour to stomp his feet?
The very access society that you belong to, and founded, has been in discussions with these guys for months. And as an active member, are you still telling us you learned about this proposal last week?
Not trying to put you on the spot or anything; just wondering.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, HF.
1. I've been rather preoccupied by work, family matters and other things for some time - life. I won't say more.
2. Unless the provincial government has already made up its mind, which I hope it hasn't, citizens have a right to comment on the process and the proposal, and have that taken into consideration, right up until a decision is made. As there has been amongst other things inadequate (no) process to inform and involve people from outside the Squamish area, the governments can't complain if that input isn't at a time or in the form they might prefer.
I believe that I've raised some key issues, which need to be addressed. If no one else raised them earlier, that's unfortunate.
3. I wasn't aware of the restrictive covenant disaster until the Georgia Straight called me about it. (To judge from the article, neither was the executive director of TLC.) I took it that TLC had placed a binding restrictive covenant on the gravel pit to prevent any gondola being built, as agreed by all in 2004, and relied on them and the government to ensure it was enforced. I'm appalled that the government has not from the start carried out its responsibility to enforce the spirit and the letter of the covenant.
4. The Access Society has a focused mandate - it represents climbers regarding access issues. No doubt it's doing just fine at that, and I stay out of the way - I've done more than enough for climbers and access already. Still, they seem to have been haggling with the developer over details, when the bigger picture is the issue. This is about much more than climbers' interests.
Yes, in the best of all possible worlds I would have been aware of and involved earlier. If I've perturbed anyone by speaking out now, sorry about that - it wasn't intentional. Better late than never, I hope.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
To put the governments/restrictive covenant issue another way, consider this. The Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C., with support from many, bought key land in the middle of the Little Smoke Bluffs in the mid 1980s. It's now nominally worth millions, and managed as though it's part of the park, but still owned by the FMCBC. It greatly benefits all citizens of Squamish, and is much more than just for climbers. The FMCBC hasn't donated the land to the District of Squamish. It wants to be sure they have an enforceable restrictive covenant and zoning on the land, so that it's truly protected, and can only be used for park purposes. It won't transfer the land until there is, and there's no agreement. "Whether the FMCBC lands will be transferred to the District of Squamish will depend on how secure the climbing community feels with the park designation by-law." (http://mountainclubs.org/index.htm); Given what's happened with the gravel pit restrictive covenant, the FMCBC may not feel secure about this any time soon.
There's no risk that the land, while owned by the FMCBC, would be used for other purposes. But non-profits sometimes go broke. In which case the land would be sold to the highest bidder, which might be rather a problem.
Perhaps the governments have overlooked this possibility. The FMCBC might draw an adverse inference from what has happened, and retain title to its land, just to be on the safe side.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Hi Woz. You are a very good writer to which I'm no match.
Do keep in mind, however, the development you write about will be occuring way up top, well away from the park. That area up there is old cut-blocks, likely scheduled for more logging at some point. Also, the proponents aren't asking to re-draw the boundaries of the park, they're asking for a 20 meter easement.
I'm sorry but I'm out of time. I will answer all of your questions later, after work.
Cheers.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Personally I think we've pretty much thrashed this one to death.
Wanna bet? This is SuperTopia, after all.
Anyway good luck with it Anders and I'm sure we'll need your energy in the future, maybe with whatever happens with Crumpit Woods.
I only came out of retirement due to the importance of this issue. Otherwise this stuff goes in the SEP field.
|
|
doser
Mountain climber
Vancouver BC
|
|
A day ago, I stumbled upon a posting on cascadeclimbers.com about this issue, which forced me to think it through and crystalize my opinion. For what it's worth, here's my take:
The Stawamus Chief Park is primarily a recreational mecca, and the gondola offers a plethora of new recreational opportunities, not to mention the just plain 'touristy' benefit of riding into the alpine, which will appeal to those less fit, or with children, etc.
The gondola does not impinge upon the Chief itself, as is obvious from earlier posted photos. Yes, there will be a swath cut beneath the tram (as there is beneath the Grouse Mtn Skyride, for instance), but the line lies several hundred metres south of the climbers campground, and nearly half a kilometre from Shannon Falls. The Chief trail comes close to the tram-line only when it traverses south of the campground, then it quickly climbs away from it as it follows Oleson Creek. The traverse trail from Oleson Crk to Shannon Falls will pass thru the swath, for sure, but 20m (or even 50m) is hardly an eyesore in a non-wilderness setting. There is one small (but pleasant) climbing area left of the tramway, above Oleson Crk, but it's in the trees and faces north and I don't think there will be any intervisibility at all.
As for the positives, I think anything that gets people into 'the mountains' is good, even if it's just a 'resort' setting. Those sorts of people tend to be more sensitive to 'our' issues when it comes down to logging or mining vs. recreation. The tram will re-open easy access to the superb rock on Habrich and the wonderful introductory mountaineering on Sky Pilot, both of which have been nearly lost to us in the past decade with the deterioration and closure of logging roads. Mountain bikers will be ecstatic, and I can imagine several challenging new downhill runs being developed. Hiking (including loops) on Goat Ridge and across to Petgill Lake will be attractive. I can imagine backcountry skiing in the basins north of Sky Pilot and Goat Ridge. Heck, I can even imagine walking DOWN to climb 'A Scottish Tale' when it freezes, then riding the gondola back to civilization.
I respect what people say about the importance of protecting our parks, but they are cultural and social creations, and as society changes I have no problem with 'evolution' of purposes and boundaries. By far the most popular parks in the Vancouver area are Mount Seymour and Cypress Bowl, both of which are heavily 'industrialized' with downhill skiing facilities, yet both of which offer excellent hiking and wilderness skiing opportunities - and both of which are 'remote' enough to kill people now and again. I love the time I spend on Seymour, for instance - one of my very favorite places!
So, overall, I see far more potential for postive outcomes than for problems, and I hope the gondola proposal receives the support necessary to have it go ahead.
Regards,
Don Serl
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
Well said Don. I share many of those sentiments, but have not been able to bring them together so succinctly. Thanks for your views on the subject.
Kris
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Holy O'God Batman -- the end of the world is upon us! Serl has posted on Supertopo.
|
|
doser
Mountain climber
Vancouver BC
|
|
wow! thanks for all the greetings, old friends. too bad we aren't tucked in some bar somewhere, yelling our differences at each other like the drunken louts we used to do such good jobs of impersonating now and again, 'back in the day'.
and now, to return to silence... carry on...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
All posters here are authentic, core users, aren't they?
No doubt I'll be vilified if the gondola proposal is rejected or abandoned, or even if the government as a face-saver creates a somewhat more credible process that delays it. People like shooting messengers, apparently. When I stepped down from the Access Society four years ago, after 13+ years of effort, exactly one person (who sometimes posts here) took the trouble to send a message or call to thank me. Climbers are not the most graceful bunch at times.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm about 14 posts late but wanted to thank Don for taking the time to sculpt his letter.
Outstanding.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Endless amounts of respect for Anders.
even if I have to keep him in line a little.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
I've got a lot of respect for both Anders and Don, and I respect their opinions even when they don't agree with mine.
But, Don:
... As for the positives, I think anything that gets people into 'the mountains' is good, even if it's just a 'resort' setting.... Those sorts of people tend to be more sensitive to 'our' issues when it comes down to logging or mining vs. recreation.
By this logic, the now-going-ahead Icefield walkway (or whatever) in Jasper is good. And a road into the Black Tusk Meadows would be good because would certainly allow more people to see the beauty of that area, and we could educate them about the fragility of the alpine meadows, etc. etc.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you want to get more people into the Shannon Creek back areas, refurbish and pave the road up there, put in a huge restaurant, interpretive centre, trails, whatever. Charge $5 to drive up the road; people will come. Put some bears up there, too. People love seeing bears! But the road option isn't as sexy or spectacular as a gondola, so maybe they won't come in as large numbers. You see, the attraction isn't the scenery; it's the perceived scariness or thrill or novelty of the gondola itself.
I respect what people say about the importance of protecting our parks, but they are cultural and social creations, and as society changes I have no problem with 'evolution' of purposes and boundaries. By far the most popular parks in the Vancouver area are Mount Seymour and Cypress Bowl, both of which are heavily 'industrialized' with downhill skiing facilities, yet both of which offer excellent hiking and wilderness skiing opportunities - and both of which are 'remote' enough to kill people now and again. I love the time I spend on Seymour, for instance - one of my very favorite places!
Yes, I like Seymour, too, and I might even support the forthcoming (so I've heard) proposal for a lift to the top of Pump Peak. And in some cases there's a case to be made for rejigging park boundaries - many of them are artificial and arbitrary (who comes up with these boundaries?). But, Don, where do you stop? We can reopen, say, the Tatshenshini debate (and the mine), because that way more people could enjoy the mountains, and it would certainly be good for the economy. If the boundaries are to be fluid, why not reopen the debate about the gondola to the top of the Chief: that would be good for the economy and would draw more people than the present proposal. Just take land out of the park!
I'm not convinced that the present gondola plan is financially viable, and to my way of thinking it's in a poor location. Run it up Goat Ridge. Run it up to a shoulder on Mt. Harvey, or Brunswick. Run it up to the top of Unneccessary for a fabulous view and for the opportunity to hike back to Cypress. I'd proably support any of those options. The main argument that I've heard in favour of the present, low-grade location is that it avoids hassles with powerlines and has plenty of flat land for parking. Please! Look at Europe: they've got gondolas and such in far less promising, steeper places than Lions Bay.
The problem with taking land out of parks is that you can't put it back. When it's gone, it's gone. A bit at a time, the parks get whittled away, all in the name of the economy, or jobs, or changing cultures, or getting more people into the wild.
(an incoherent rant, I realize, and far from the polished prose of Don, but it's late and, like MH, I feel strongly about this issue. And the coffee pot is empty....)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Another thought: If the sanctity of park land is the point from which you start, and end, your argument, that doesn't necessarily mean you must oppose the removal of any given piece. You could look at the net total instead.
So, if the government wants to remove a piece of land from park status, why not make adding an equivalent piece a condition of your approval? Then, you can look at this particular case and say: "Okay, take a chunk out of this park, and allow a gondola to be built, but in return, add an equivalent or bigger chunk of land elsewhere. Either elsewhere in this park, or elsewhere entirely.
If the real reason for your opposition to a gondola does in the area between Oleson Creek and Shannon Falls is that you really don't think a gondola there is a good idea (bad business plan, eyesore, stupid, whatever), then you can oppose it on those grounds.
However, if you really don't mind the idea of a gondola there, but oppose it because it would require land to be removed from the park, then you can say: "Well, if you want the gondola here, then put some new land into a park elsewhere."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Ya, I'm with Casper.
The new Shannon Creek Basin Park, which Anders will procure.
Hi Jim. Must feel good to have the blood running back to your legs. Thank-you. If only I could write like the master (D.S.), I would've had you a week ago.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Let me make it clear, in case I haven't already, that I am neither for nor against this gondola.
It's been a decade now since I was a Squamish regular -- hell, I don't even live in Canada any more -- so my personal opinion wouldn't count for anything even if I had a personal opinion.
The only perspective I can add is that as an occasional visitor to Squamish now, I find it noisy, crowded, urban... Yeah, you can still probably get away from the noise if you climb something up in The Promised Land at 04:00, or in the Valley of Shaddai, but otherwise it's not exactly a wilderness experience any more, and a gondola wouldn't even be noticeable.
But that doesn't mean park land should just be given away without a care.
But, all that sh#t out of the way, we will be trying to get to Squamish a few times this summer, and it would be great to see some old acquaintances again.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
However, if you really don't mind the idea of a gondola there, but oppose it because it would require land to be removed from the park, then you can say: "Well, if you want the gondola here, then put some new land into a park elsewhere."
Well, I do mind the idea of a gondola there, and there are strong public policy reasons why it should not even be considered, including protecting hard-won parks, and the importance of conservation covenants being seen to be effective. Not to mention a process designed with one answer in mind.
The land swap idea may sometimes have some merit, but is often what philosophers call a false equivalency. Someone proposes a horse trade, and claims that proves they're being reasonable, but it turns out the horse they want won the Kentucky Derby, and the one they'll give you resembles Don Quixote's Rosinante.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
I'm sorry, I just don't see any net benefit to the community with this proposal. I see net potential loss if the thing fails and the community is left to clean up the resulting rotting towers, etc.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
It appears that there isn't an overwhelming opposition to the concept of the Gondola and increased public access to back country wilderness, or losing part of the Provincial Park to private interests. Most of us agree on that, including me.
But! I don't think that, is the real issue, I think Anders finally nailed the crux of the issue on his last post.
"The provincial government has been acting more as facilitator than as trustee of the parks and the public interest, and that's wrong."
As much as I support the overall development, the process is flawed. My concern is that if no opposition is mounted to the issue as it currently proposed( even though we support the convenience of the Gondola), a precedent will be in place, to justify future developments in BC, that we may actually all, unanimously oppose.
I'am changing my position and crossing the floor to the Ander's camp.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Not to mention a process designed with one answer in mind.
Well Anders, you live closer to the place than I do, and like I said, it doesn't bother me one way or the other, but be aware that what you are accusing them of (a process designed with one answer in mind) is exactly the approach you're taking, which can be summed up pretty much as "I've already made up my mind, so don't bother talking to me."
Why do you expect them to listen to you if you state in advance that you are not prepared to budge one millimeter from your position?
Maybe you don't care whether they (the govt) listen to you. Maybe you only want to influence some undecided folks to the point that they will raise their voices in support of yours, hoping that with enough voices the govt will be forced to change its position.
In that case, harangue on brother. But I doubt you'll achieve what you're hoping for.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Well, there's more than one way to advance an argument, depending on audience and other factors. Some prefer logical, rational debate, others rhetoric, others respond in other ways. There has to be a mix, certainly founded on facts, principles and reason, but with the issue presented in different ways. That's democracy.
As for the process. Well, I asked a colleague who's familiar with the Squamish area and the Chief, and the issues. He is a facilitator of public participation processes, including designing them to ensure they're inclusive. He thought this process is flawed.
Looking at it another way, when the park was created, the process was quite inclusive. Its management has also been inclusive. People who lived in Squamish seemed more than happy at the resources that others brought to the fight against the gondola in 2004. But now, when they're proposing major change to a park that many of us of have actively contributed to for years, we're not included?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So is that West Vancouver Bruce, Whistler Bruce, or Squamish Bruce who's talking?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Hmm. Well, I certainly live on the west side, but renting a modest apartment in a location suited for taking care of family responsibilities surely isn't a negative. After all, I've lived in Squamish, not to mention on The Drive.
Oh well, it could be worse. I could be from West Vancouver.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
Latest news from the Chief , an interview with one of the developers. .http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20120323/SQUAMISH0101/303239957/-1/squamish/gondola-proposal-defended
An interesting quote attributed to Trevor Dunn , one of the principals speaking for the development.
"He said the proponents would be happy to see B.C. Parks officials add two or more hectares to the park to compensate for the loss of the two hectares. "
I don't think that offer would even be on the table, if not for the organized opposition. A good step forward to an equitable solution.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It's no wonder you can't let go, Bruce. This is like interactive T.V., I mean.... " At least I don't live in West Vancouver".... ouchy.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Shannon Creek Basin Provincial Park: 379.6 hectares. Anders can pull it off. He needs a project to sink his teeth into.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Thank god i live under a rock
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Interesting news, Rolf.
I wonder what two hectares of land the company proposes adding to the park, where? I know the parks and their boundaries fairly well, and can't picture anything that would be anything near equivalent.
"He said the proponents would be happy to see B.C. Parks officials add two or more hectares to the park to compensate for the loss of the two hectares."
It's awful generous of the developers to offer to add land that isn't even theirs to the Parks, isn't it?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Thank god we don't have to listen to gf any more.
I just had a look into the BD Sabertooth crampons thread and learned that:
"GF is another pathetic troll."
That's what Scott Cosgrove said, and Scott's a famous hero climber, so he must be right. Right?
So whatever position gf is advocating here, it is obviously a sleazy sell-out to...
Uhhhmmm. I'm not sure who Greg is selling out to here, but whoever it is, we all now have to be against them.
Whew! That's this issue sorted out.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
"He said the proponents would be happy to see B.C. Parks officials add two or more hectares to the park to compensate for the loss of the two hectares. "
Ha! I take credit for this.
Although I expect Anders will try to tell us that those two hectares would be worthless even for grazing Don Quixote's horse.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I'm just doing what gf tells me to do.
And it's entirely untrue that the two hectares would be used by bmacd as a captive breeding facility for yetis.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
First. I'd like to thank you, Anders, for having the courage and leadership to take on this controversial issue, and commend you for having the integrity to stick to your principles.
Regarding your comment about ingratitude concerning your work with the Climbers Access Society, I offer you my sadly belated thanks for your efforts. If it eases the pain a little bit, I believe that many of us have been involved in rescue situations that sometimes have put our own lives at risk, and it has been my experience that any form of appreciation from the beneficiaries is often completely absent. The human race has to take a long hike before it approaches perfection.
I have made several posts detailing my objections to the gondola proposal, and I remain unmoved by the comments posted by the supporters of this project, however articulately stated.
Let me tell you a true story, and please forgive me if I'm a bit hazy on the specific details. If my memory serves me correctly, it happened about twenty years ago, and if you contact the North Shore Rescue Team (another often unappreciated group of selfless volunteers), they may be able to provide additional information. Here goes:
One day a man and his wife went for a hike in the North Shore Mountains and managed to get lost. Bad weather and darkness closed in and, although a search was started as soon as possible, the wife died but the husband survived. Ho hum. happens all the time. Unfortunately for me, I happened to catch the report on the local news: the somewhat pudgy guy showed the reporters a picture of the two of them in happier days, and the woman who died was a tiny, bespectacled little thing who was smiling and gazing with adoring eyes at her husband. The husband was beyond devastation - if it was possible for someone to die of grief, then this was the guy.
The point of this story that still brings tears to my eyes is that they had no business being up there: no survival gear, no wilderness experience.
As I said - it happens all the time, but this was the first time that I witnessed the aftermath of one of those tragedies, and it has affected ME to this day. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like for that poor fellow to lose such a loving companion, not to mention the relatives of that poor woman.
Many of us have lost friends and loved ones pursuing outdoor activities, but at the very least we can find some consolation in the knowledge that they knew (or should have known) what they were getting themselves into, and that they died doing something that they enjoyed.
Not so with tourists. If this gondola gets built, my other objections aside, these needless deaths will be upon your shoulders.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I believe this gets partially addressed in the first part of Don's fourth paragraph. Can you really hold back anyone wanting to see the view you have been so fortunate to have seen?
Besides, the modern version of Woz's woman will have her i-phone.
J.H. and the Chief will come grab her; quicker than you can blink.
The most dangerous part of the day will be driving the highway. Same as it ever was.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
Seriously I would pay at least $50 or $100US for a gondola from the Black Hills to Waddington. Everytime. Walking to someplace really hard to get to: priceless. Riding the gondola to the same place $99.99 plus tax no blisters necessary.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
This is B.C., we're swimming in places that are hard to get to. And I'm not talking about the backstroke.
Fill your boots.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
This is B.C., we're swimming in places that are hard to get to.
To the point that you have to swim to get to some of those places.
And even if you avoid the swim, your crampons are more important for walking slimy logs across raging rivers than they are for ice and snow.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Admit it, Dave - you love that kind of stuff. I have photos. And you want everyone to share, don't you?
Thanks, Stewart etc - I wasn't looking for sympathy when mentioning climbers' behaviour patterns. Climbers are adolescent males (of all ages and sexes), and behave accordingly. I was simply observing that you get lots of criticism for doing this sort of stuff. I predict that if the proposal is delayed, the developers will say that will prejudice their plans or financing. Then, or if the development is stopped, they'll say that Squamish is unfriendly to developers. (It's grown 50% in the last 20 years.) Plus I'll get grief from the usual suspects. SOP.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts here, though. It has helped focus the debate.
A Shackleton story might fit better on Big Mike's Squamish thread.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
Again with respect, Hamish: I don't have a cell phone, but it is my understanding that batteries can wear down on those things, and probably quickly in bad weather, or a bad, but probably survivable tumble could damage the damn thing, or separate its owner from access to it. Also, it is my understanding that there are blind spots that can interfere with reception; however I'll leave the downside of hi-tech gizmos to the experts.
As for sharing beautiful spots with rookies, I have spent much of my time in the outdoors leading beginners hither & yon, and not always because I couldn't think of any more glorious ways to spend my time - I did it for exactly the reasons you have stated, AND to ensure that they didn't do anything dumb like walk over the side of a cliff (where one of those things is pretty well useless unless speed dial works a lot better than I suspect). Here's some more: forest fires, unpleasant wildlife encounters, litter, pre-existing medical conditions like diabetes and heart disease, not to mention lost children - it is again my understanding that even yuppie toddlers don't pack cell phones.
Also, I had to get myself up to those magical places and seem to have managed pretty well without a goddamn gondola to get me there. Last, but not least and, again with respect, are people so pathetically lacking in imagination that they can't locate suitable recreational objectives without building a gondola to approach them?
One of the reasons I maintain my membership in MEC, for all of its warts, is because of the mission statement(edited for brevity and no other purpose) that goes thusly: to encourage self-propelled wilderness activities. I see nothing in there about an exemption for the construction of gondolas in Class "A" provincial parks, and many of us are shareholders in that outfit. This implies that us types agree with that philosophy. I sure do.
P.S. for Anders: I didn't think for a second that you were asking for sympathy, but if it makes you feel a bit better, the thanks I got for two years of effort trying to save the boundaries of Strathcona Park and all my other volunteer activities has been precisely zero.
There was a novel that I read about a society where the punishment for ingratitude was death. The method of execution involved being tossed off a high building, and the only way to escape this fate was to express thanks to one's benefactor. Everyone convicted chose death, including the guy whose last words on the way down were, "thanks a loooooot." There's a moral in there somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
If decisions about national and state parks in the US were left to the locals there would be none...
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The "middle territory" is where a sufficient process works. The question in this case appears to be the amount of discretion wielded by the Minister of Parks and whether that trumps what process exists.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
i don't think the developers are really in any sort of position to donate someone elses land to anyone.
Yes, that was my point. It may have been a casual remark, but was rather ironic.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
But Bruce, you're only at the stovelegs. Can't quit now.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
shouldn't we focus our outrage on the Jumbo resort proposal?
That's been around well before 1992, when I attended a "mountain resort design" conference up in Whistler. At the time Mr. Vance was the Planning Director for the Municipality of Whistler, then to be hired 10 years later by Mammoth when Intrawest moved into Town...and basically devastated our local economy.
During the week long conference, I came to understand that the Blackcomb, and the new portions of the Whistler Village, were largely subsidized by the B.C. Provincial Gov't, and built upon a former landfill site/clearcuts.
The socioeconomic differences between Whistler youth, and Squamish youth, are surprisingly similar to that between Mammoth/Bishop youth, BTW.
Based myself in a hospitality-based economy, I can understand how much this proposal could mean to Squamish, particularly after what I've learned later had been the decline of that logging industry, the local economic locomotive. But, my personal reaction is that certain "places" need to be earned, and not by purchase.
How would anyone feel about, say, a Glacier Point aerial tramway?
One August, I was skiing the Horstman Glacier; it was my "Endless Winter" - I'd already summit skied Mt. Hood, and from the Muir Hut on Rainier. I shared some time with some locals, who were planning a trip to The Valley soon. Imagine driving 1500 miles north, to skid 500' vert @ Blackcomb. But...that is, or was, how I would pick up leads, that would lead to work, which has allowed your correspondent to raise his family in the
Buttermilk Country of the eastside, Inyo County, California, U.S. of A.
"El Capitain," she remarked, "is their Grand Wall."
I've wondered, ever since, what they thought, when they saw The Captain for the 1st time.
This is really a 2-edged sword. My visit coincided with the opening of the Blackcomb Glacier, over the divide from Horstman - on the basis that this drainage was a de facto ski bowl already, since your could reenter the boundary below; "so, let's add a lift."
Down here in the States, proposed development of the Sherwin and San Joaquin ski area proposals took 35+ years to die at the hands of the U.S.D.A Forest Service, from whom a Special Use Permit must be acquired.
Right now, I've about $1.5M in capital improvements (for me to design and construct) delayed by 6 months, with more of the same expected. And this is just small fry.
I've always loved Squamish. I hope a mutually beneficial consensus can be reached.
And that reminds me of a potentially important case study:
I also love Moab, Utah. Some years BITD, some developers (and Chamber of Commerce types, I'd imagine) constructed 2 chairlifts just off the main drag. One, to the north and just over the Colorado River Bridge, ascended several hundreds of feet, to the top of the slickrock Mtn Biking area (for which they already impose an access fee...sort of a "cover charge").
The other is at the south end of town, at the Kane Ck Rd - this allows viewing, but not necessarily access, to the "Back of the Rocks" Wilderness Study Area (WSA means a Federal land grab and closure)
Architecturally, both are artifacts of CorTen beauty, although I've never seen a ski lift above dry sandstone, without snow beneath the line.
They are, as self oxidizing steel CorTen, also rusting in place; I've never seen them in operation to date. I think the developers failed to take into account that Mtn biking athletes happen to love the uphill climb to earn the downhill, and tend to be in very good CV fitness to boot.
My 1st view of the Back of the Rocks was from the summit of The Tombstone, Cirque of the Climbables, never mind where.
Looking down on Pritcher Cyn was a simulacra of a paradise that hopefully awaits the faith. It took a full day to top out, although it seemed like just a couple of hours.
And, on the hike out, under headlamps, some petroglyphs where shared with me, that eventually put some thought into this crystal head of mine.
"just sayin'"
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
Hamish: I was in the process of responding to one of your posts, which appears to have disappeared, unless my eyesight has failed me. If I am indeed correct, I appreciate it - friendship can be a fragile thing at times, and I commend you for your action.
I suspect that you may have been contacted by one of our mutual friends who has supplied you with additional information and the matter has been resolved. You are always welcome, (along with anyone that I still consider to be a friend) to phone me collect if you have the slightest doubt about my integrity - regardless of our disagreement concerning this gondola proposal.
I will be unavailable from Friday morning until Monday afternoon. Best wishes, Hamish, and I hope that fortune smiles upon you for your moral courage.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The road to Mt. Habrich is quite gentle if it got the modern treatment and would offer stunning views of what is an amazing landscape. Your hiking and biking at $30.00 bucks per, doesn't carry the freight.
An interesting thought. The Shannon Creek Road has essentially been undriveable for 20+ years, and has gradually gotten overgrown. Every few years the lower part is OK, although even then a 4WD is needed. IIRC, we talked about this in the master planning meetings. The District wanted the road to be difficult to impossible to drive, both because the lower part passes through part of one of its watersheds, and because three young people had driven off the road and died there not long before. Also, the Ministry of Forests wanted to deactivate the roads.
There's no need to build a gondola to provide access to upper Shannon Creek basin - simply fix up the road, and maintain it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There was decent road access to upper Shannon Creek 40+ years ago - it wouldn't be creating anything new.
It sounds like BK and I need to team up for a Nose attempt. Bruce, what are you doing in the last half of September? We could help out at the FaceLift, then totally crush or be crushed by the Big Schnozz.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Kabala Arch, i enjoyed reading your perspective as it was refreshing & think that the Squamish/Whistler to Bishop/Mammoth comparison is somewhat similar.
What would you or eastside locals think if they built a "passenger" gondola, not a ski/bike gondola but a "passenger" gondola in or near Bishop, something to say take people up over Paiute Pass or up the Whitney/Russell saddle from the portal during the better weather months when the conditions would be better for the "passengers"?
So they could look at stuff & point their cameras at it. Eat stuff.
Just a little chunk of the John Muir wilderness will have to be used but not much.
That is who this developer is targeting- "passengers", not climbers, not skiers, not bikers, not even hikers.
It appears that the developers are all for recreation within their statements but nothing has been proven by them as of yet except that they have been very clever in staying off of the radar of any groups who may be opposed. Only when all their cards are laid down should we trust their intentions, whatever they may be.
Some have mentioned how they will enjoy mountain biking & backcountry skiing up there but as of yet there has been nothing revealed by the developer that equipment will even be permitted on the "passenger" gondola. As of now it will only carry "passengers", this could still be ok for climbers i guess but..... definitely no ski or bike racks on the artists rendering! Looks like Blackcomb gondola without ski racks!
I have to say that i am not supportive of the gondola in this location at all & i hope it gets chopped by Mighty Hiker just like any bolts that would appear on top of penny lane would!
That's rad you live on Starlite Kabala Arch, a beautiful neighbourhood!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Ilove it... some of the opposed want the road fixed up and big parking lots up top so everyone can drive on up. Ya, that will work; let's get everyone burning gas up into the back there. Sounds green enough. At least that won't lead to anyone ever getting lost back there, what with the hundred vehicles parked. That's how it goes up at Diamond Head, no one ever gets lost or requires a rescue in that area.
Just so I have this straight. Leave the wilderness alone up there, as it's for the enjoyment of all Canadians and Foriegn visitors. The only thing that makes it God's country up in the back forty is the fact you have to hike for 5 hours to get there. Fix up the road so everyone can drive up there. Get everyone burning a non-renewable resourse to get their butts up there instead of sitting on a gondola powered by a renewable, clean energy. Keep all visitors and tourists out of that area, you have to be a kick-ass hiker or a rock climber to earn your big view. But don't forget to fix that road up so a kabillion people can start driving up.
It's all making sense to me now.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Condos up there? Seems a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
That's not far off M.H. calling a 60 foot easement a 250 foot swath.
If you ask for a road, you're asking for a parking lot. Same thing. That's why the three people died...they were trying to turn around.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
How much time, effort, and money were spent in developing the park as it currently exists?
Is the park underused?
How much money does BC spend on running the park?
What are the First Nations' positions?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Hey Bruce, i have no problem with "passengers", i've probably even been one myself at some point.
As well i am aware that my comparison to the sierra eastside is useless as are any comparisons of other similar locales, my intentions were to help others who are not currently in Squamish to consider how it would feel if something similar were proposed in their back yard. The eastside is in particular a poor comparison in retrospect because there is no way that the recreational community there would ever get behind something like this, you aren't even behind it & you live in BC!
I am just trying to expose a point that many people are looking at this gondola as some sort of new gateway to a recreational mecca which seems to be a big influence on their decision to support the development. So they could get up there and do all kinds of fun stuff! This is based on pure speculation conjured up by our own interests and fueled by rumours & promises by the developer that as of yet hold zero weight. It is not a ski lift, it is a passenger gondola- for sight seeing. In reality it & most of our opinions on here, with the exception of the few that have seemed to have read through the parks act & done some research (generally of the anti-gondola side i may add) on the subject, most everything else on this thread is personal opinion with our own personal theories thrown in so it sounds good, myself included. Some very interesting points & a good discussion overall but tangible information that has been produced on here is currently very limited.
respectfully,
Ryan
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
A Goat Ridge gondola seems physically possible. It might not take much extension from the far end of the old Shannon Creek roads to get to it, and then that road would be kept open and maintained, and perhaps open to the public part way. There could then be various trails in upper Shannon Creek, plus to Habrich, Sky Pilot, and Goat Ridge. Goat Ridge might not be quite as convenient/easily developed a site as the current proposal, but seems to have a lot of advantages. The Chief and Shannon Falls at one end, Britannia and a Goat Ridge gondola at the other end, appropriate stuff in between. Worth more than just a "brief review", I'd say.
Judging by the letters and other communications, the process needs to be amended and slowed down. There are a fair number of people who are interested in what's going on, didn't know about it, and would like their say. That speaks for itself, apart from their concerns about whether it should happen at all, or if so, the details. You'd have to ask the various governments about to who designed the process. What actually goes in inside any level of government, whether at the bureaucratic or political level, is usually a black box.
Bruce is right - follow the money. In this case, if the proposal goes ahead, all we can be sure of is a bottom station with tourist-oriented facilities and a connection to Shannon Falls, towers and a gondola, a cleared strip through at least some of the parks, and an upper station, again with tourist-oriented facilities. If things go wrong, e.g. another recession, or they run out of money, then we're left with another Brohm Ridge mess, but one that's far more visible. If things go right, there's no guarantee that the bells and whistles would be delivered, or when. But that's all details. Whether any agreement would contain binding terms about such things and be enforced is yet another matter.
Maybe the Squamish Nation would be interested in building a cultural centre and associated facilities at the gravel pit? If it included a restaurant and gift shop, and maybe an element from B.C. Parks, fine with me. If it included camping, that'd be fine too - although the darn RVs would have to turn off their generators at 9:00 PM, as it's close to the campground. It's really too bad that the Adventure Centre, perhaps with add-ons, wasn't built there. It'd have been a perfect fit.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
I do tend to think there's a little dutch desease going on with those one industry towns
Dear Bruce and Ryan-
My claim to "Squeemsh" fame was an onsight lead of Dream On, with a partner I'd trolled from a Whistler climbing shop. Although I've only climbed there a several few times, I just like knowing it's up there.
Have not read nor seen referenced literature, but "Downhill Slide" paints the modern corporate ski industry picture in technicolor.
I wouldn't know where to begin with the Mammoth Lakes economic picture, having only survived 3 real estate bubbles since 1982.
I guess a good backdrop starts with collateral land values. Let's say a major resort is located on federal land, under a use permit. After it's developed, all of the private holdings proximate enjoy inflated values, due to the resort (developed on public lands).
MMSA was founded by a visionary Dave McCoy. Dave had the 1960's foresight to purchase large land holdings both at the base, and deeper into our Village, soon after Chair 1 was erected in 1955 or so. The Village was gradually developed into subdivisions, and Dave made sure that a Gondola easement was established from the yet unannounced Warming (Swarming) Hut aka "Canyon Lodge" down several miles through the Slopes subdivision, to his land holdings in the commercial/lodge zone along Minaret/Canyon Blvds.
Fast forward to 1990 or so. I'd already known that Intrawest was a twinkle in his eye (another long story). And sure enough, they purchased the Mountain and land stakes for high nine figures. I never thought I'd see the village gondola in my natural lifetime, but it's running daily, now. Wind and weather permitting, of course.
Intrawest - Joe Hussain, I think - bulldozed all the funky ski shops and Mom and Pop's. 6 story condotels grew in their place - hundreds and hundreds of units. Which, naturally, encumbered the locals with enormous infrastructure expenses - water, sewer, storm drainage, roads...the works. And flooded that price point transient housing sector.
"A rising tide floats all boats," said Rusty Gregory, still a minority stakeholder. But he failed to mention that they could sink them as well.
...>Say! Wasn't it a Jew who sank the Titanic? "No! It was an iceberg!"
> Iceberg, Goldberg, Ruberg...they're all the same!
Sorry, majorly OT, and Off Color to boot ;0
But Real Estate speculators, of the breed always eager to profit from the hard labor of others, gainsaid the doubling of property prices (and not necessarily 'values'), before the first yard of concrete was poured, before the grass had sprouted on the new golf course.
Then, land costs doubled again.
Meantime, under land planner (Tremblant, Blackcomb, Crested Butted, et al) Eldon Beck's theorem of "Critical Mass" an instant "Village" was constructed. It had to be large enough, and at once, to be the main attraction in and of itself - in order to sell. What could have kept locals busy for a generation was constructed in 2 or 3 years, with imported design talent (who have and never shall see their work), and construction workers, who absorbed every rental in town, driving rents up 200%.
Quote from the Design Guidelines - "...the goal is to create an authentic mountain resort village which has evolved incrementally over many years..."
Now, if I were smart, I would have bought in on the ground floor, and I'd be a rich climber. I'm very intelligent - just not too bright, though. Plus, I just work here, alongside the many who hold down 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet.
In 2007, the bubble burst - here,as everywhere. And many people, betrayed by their greed, found themselves on the wrong end of a very jolly ride, as land values were cut in half, leaving many upside down their mortgages. You can buy a unit at The Westin, last to be constructed, for USD$150K: 1/2 original price. Tower 3 of a quaint monster called, ironically, 80/50, has been put on hold; the 1st 2 phases only cost about $1,000/sf to build (We built in Starlite for $37/sf). Ritz Carlton cancelled their construction plans, leaving scorched earth where 50 seasonal Mountain workers once lived and partied.
The construction of the World Trade Towers bankrupted NYC by undercutting competing landlords on the rent, creating a lot of see-thru buildings in the process. As the tumbleweeds blow across the plazas and "common area amenities" of Mammoth's "North Village," the Town itself shall be entering a Chapter 9 BK itself, on the losing end of a $42M lawsuit brought against them by the well named "Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition" trust, who sued on account of some double dealing down at our local airport.
This is now verging on more than you really wanted to know, so I'll try and keep it short. Other than the fact that I designed a Crash/Fire/Rescue - Snow Removal Equipment Maintenance Shop bld'g, in 1984, down there, I really don't give a fk. Beyond their failure to award a construction contract of a $600,000, FAA-approved 5,000 sf Terminal of my hand in 1988, only to spend $1.2M remodeling my CFR in 2009 w/o consulting me, I've no interest at all what goes on at the Airport. When my wife and I landed here in 1982 in a 9 passenger plane from SF, and didn't have $20 taxi fare into town, we just hiked over to 395, and hitch hiked in...not that I really care about the Airport that much. I mean, other than it's the most strategic link between the largest US ski area, and markets other than Southern Cali, who cares?
Let's say, for example, some guy who works in Chicago's Loop knows he can leave after work Friday, drive to O'Hare Field, and be making track off The Top Saturday morning, what might that be worth to him? Do you think he'd plunge for, say, $1.2M for an Intrawest condo within walking distance of the lifts?
(Actually, he should have moved out here in his 20's, instead of keeping his nose to the grindstone, under the mistaken belief that someday he'll be able to purchase the dream. That's neither easier, nor less expensive - just a lot more fun!)
Because > Ta Da! We've got Air Service! LAX, Burbank, John Wayne, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose (Reno and Portland last year, too). Heavily subsidized by the local taxpayers.
Only 1 problem with this profitable arrangement for the new ownership of MMSA. The FAA would not allow commercial air traffic under the development proposed by the MLLA group, so our Town voided the contract.
$42,000,000...~~;~~
I guess this is a bit wide of the proposed Shannon Falls aerial tramway. But, since you asked...well, simply buy private land at the base area, that's all. And you'll go bust, whether they build it, or not.
This, of course, ignores the aesthetic and ethical issues I started with.
So I'll close on that note. I soon if not easily learned that an approach to Squamish is a bit more of an adventure than a Yosemite approach.
Wishing to check out a Shannon Falls friction climb, my 1st challenge, steps away from the parking lot, was a simple matter of crossing the 100' stream. I was first drawn to the downed log, a good yard in diameter. It was also at least 10 feet above the rocky stream bed, and I couldn't quite convince myself that this was on route.
After dithering around for a half hour, I decided to boulder hop across, as is normally done in the Sierra. Unlike the Sierra, however, all of the boulders were like polished basketballs. But, I made it, without falling in to the white waters.
I then remember a bit were I was force to tunnel up a half of a steeply slanting rotten log, beneath a horizontal fallen log just above my head. Then, use that log above as a bridge to cross the "cave" log below. Must have taken an hour to cover, what? 1/4 mile? My Apron partner remarked that when going for a peak across Howe Sound, it took them 8 hours to rig a stream crossing at the inlet.
I guess, socioeconomics best left to those who shall benefit the most (it's none of my business), I just like to know the B.C. I'll always remember - big, raw, country - will be there, if only for my adult children. Who knows? Maybe I'll get to climb there again myself!
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
OK, here goes again. Some of the supporters of this proposal speak of flexibility in maintaining the boundaries in Class "A" parks, largely because of potential future resource requirements. Still no dice from my viewpoint, and for a simple reason: your word is your bond. For those of us who are married, for example, try informing your spouse that you have unilaterally decided to vary the terms of your wedded union. Assuming that you are not shot dead on the spot, I imagine that you will soon be getting a letter from a divorce lawyer, and your troubles are just beginning.
Further to this, here will be the most hilarious thing that I have ever written: politicians should be the most highly respected people on the planet. I'll allow you a few moments to compose yourselves and wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes before you continue.
You SHOULD agree with me, though, regardless of your political leanings. I repeat: should. Too long have we tolerated these creeps who make promises during an election campaign and after being elected do the exact opposite of what they promised. I am sure that we can all remember the name of the cheap hustler (and convicted criminal) who promised NOT to sell B.C. Rail, nor to introduce the HST and, upon election, proceeded to do the exact opposite. His punishment? A goddamn medal (the Order of B.C.) and a high level, high profile diplomatic posting in London (England - not Ontario, unfortunately for the citizens of the United Kingdom), courtesy of fat Stevie Harper - Canada's answer to George Duuuhbya Bush, without the winning charm but the same family ties to the oil industry. Or his defence minister, who gave his handshake to David Orchard and promised not to merge the Progressive Conservatives with the Reform Party, and we all know how that turned out. Now these pricks are running the country.
No wonder so few people vote, but it's not the fault of politicians - it's OURS for allowing these people to pollute our political environment. I am an unlikely candidate for sainthood, but I don't give my word lightly, and my friends gleefully hold me accountable if I fail to do so.
So do I trust politicians when they make promises? Not a damn bit, but it enrages me that I can't - yet I still vote and do my very best to make life miserable for elected official of any political stripe when they betray my trust. It is my duty, as is it yours - a deal is a deal. Leave the boundaries alone, and let this place become a shrine where future generations can gather to witness where the people of British Columbia finally forced politicians to act with integrity in return for their salaries, which incidentally can be raised any time they feel like it. Who's going to stop them? The electorate? Pffft.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
Blow into town, take over everything, Rape and pillage everything of value then, when the inevitable is on the horizon sell the hell right out of there.
Funny you should mention that! By a strange coincidence, that's exactly what Intrawest did - sold out to Starwood Capital, took the money, and ran like hell!
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bruce, could it be thought that the Ashlu project has had a failure of process?
Isn't the issue of the process also at play with the gondola proposal?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Kabala Arch! Wow, very interesting. A lot of info there i was unaware of! I believe the Joe Hussain you mention was also conveniently the owner of the dogsled company that killed most of its dogs @ the end of the 2010 winter, at least until it was exposed & quickly covered up before he had the chance to take any responsibility. Sounds like a great guy!
Onsight of Dream on......Proud send! Maybe you have a few things to chime in on the Squamish Photo's & stories thread??
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
Re the Gondola,
This is an interesting issue fraught with all manner of possibility, positive and maybe very negative.
Should we have our knickers in a self righteous twist? Maybe.
Like many others, I was vociferously opposed to the first version by another proponent suggesting a rig up Olsen Creek to the summit of the Chief. I thought it was a pretty bad idea that violated the very values for protecting the Chief with Class A designation.
Along comes a new proponent with a variation on the theme.
A best case scenario has a spectacular gondola ride giving access to the Shannon Creek basin. The old logging road would be rehabbed to build and service the gondola and be maintained for year round public access (the original road was built on the taxpayer's dime).
Habrich would become a subalpine crag and the Sky Pilot range an accessible alpine playground. Throw in some hiking trails, a bit of mountain biking and the possibility of some winter activity and we might have some meaningful and sustainable recreation based economic good news for Squamish. Add some much needed post harvest silviculture to the ravaged basin, some new age sensitive partial harvest and a wee run of river project and it could be a shining example of responsible and forward thinking integrated land use.
Worst case scenario, ugly gondola with garish and overcrowded base area, Shannon Creek road closed to public access and/or the project fails and the jungle grows back over a pathetic edifice.
I recall shrill cries of outrage over Whistler's Peak to Peak gondola and how it was going to shatter pristine viewscapes and forever diminish La La Land. Don't hear much about it now and having rode it a couple times find it hard to hate.
Re the Honorable Mighty's important questions;
1. Land should not be taken from provincial parks for private development, with rare exceptions.
Does this qualify as a rare exception.
Are there relevant precedents?
2. There is nothing in the master plan for either of the Parks that would allow such a development.
Were Blackcomb Ski Area or Whistler Heli Skiing in the Garibaldi Park Master Plan?
3. The impacts on the Parks and their users will be substantial, and greater than the developers claim. The benefits will likely be less.
How do we know this?
4. There is a superior location nearby. A gondola to Goat Ridge, a few km south, could be based either in the established tourist centre of Britannia, or perhaps off the highway a few km north of Murrin Park.
Superior for who?
5. If the project proceeds, and fails, who will clean up the mess? What financial guarantees would the developers provide?
The taxpayer will pick up the tab to subsidize the project or clean up the mess. We live in the age of private profit and public loss.
I'm in favor of the best case scenario but am not convinced the worst case won't be the result.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
What $$$ benefits do BC Parks get out of the proposal? Can BC Parks get some $$$ to pay for maintenance at nearby parks?
Who will develop and pay for the trails and bike routes suggested as possible outgrowths of the gondola project?
There appears no obligation on the part of the proponents to develop trails and winter opportumities beyond the narrow scope of their area at the top of the gondola?
Why do the proponents list 20-30 full time jobs directly related to the project in the FAQ section and 30-50 for the same jobs in the "Economic Benefits" section?
Since bikes are not factored into the plan, but rather considered a possible use, does the proposal actually stand to draw enough tourists through out an entire year to pay for itself? It's not like blue skies are the norm, and alpine views a regular feature in the area.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
RyanD- Actually his son Joey owns Outdoor Adventures aka TAG. They gave the dog business away to a non profit after the incident.
BK is right I.P.P's are currently the biggest threat to BC. Not only are the selling our rivers, but they will bankrupt BC Hydro with their contracted high rates. This is by design so that we pay the same rates as our southern neighbors. Accenture (An energy company from California) owns a large portion of BC Hydro.
Another Campbell legacy.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Actually his son Joey owns Outdoor Adventures aka TAG. They gave the dog business away to a non profit after the incident.
Thanks Mike, my bad.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
close enough. still his money i bet.
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
Great letter by Ed Cooper in this week's Squamish Chief paper.
He's definitely not in favor!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I have loads of respect for Ed Cooper, but in California, where he lives, they have highways at 10,000 feet. Now we're talking access!
Not that I even really care if they build the gondola or not; Anders, you can have your park back.
I just think we should be thankfull and welcome people that want to spend millions of dollars in our neighbourhood, and at least entertain the possible benefits to the outdoor community.
We could be so fortunate.
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
I'm not convinced this current proposal isn't a poorly planned disaster in the making.
Having said that, I'm not well enough informed or involved to make any pronouncements.
I do think that a well planned gondola that provided access to the Shannon creek Basin could be a real boon for the Squamish economy and the mountain recreation community in general.
Ideally the gondola would be situated further south and avoid conflict with the Parks and their users.
As to whether this is physically or economically feasible is beyond my comprehension.
Where I really struggle with this debate is on the issue of consistency and proportion in our stated values.
Our rivers are at risk of becoming constrained in pipes for questionable purpose and private profit.
BC's wild salmon and trout are at risk while the DFO actively promotes aquaculture using non native species and the Harper government dismantles the DFO's mandate to protect fish habitat.
As I said earlier, the concerns raised over the gondola run the risk of looking like attention on a convenient target that amounts to less than a sideshow in the real arena of environmental mismanagement and corporate malfeasance.
Are we being consistent in our position?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Well, here I am, sitting on the couch in Seattle, sucking a latte, thinking that Squamish is rather more to me than a toilet stop. It has a huge place in the very center of my being, and even as a non-resident I still care.
And I really like what Perry said. Opening up the country above would be wonderful, but the gondola proposal also has plenty of potential problems. Rather than just digging in and fighting against it, I think it would be better to work with it, trying to ensure that those problems are avoided.
D
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Don't all those Microbucks and Starsofties know we have lattes in Squamish too?
Way more than toilets up here.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The B.C. government policy on removing land from parks and protected areas, such as Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks, is at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/boundary_adj_guide.pdf
The "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines". In this case, removal also requires legislation.
Some pertinent quotes:
• Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values.
• The review and evaluation process will be timely and transparent.
• The proponent must establish the case to adjust a protected area boundary (including meeting the provisions of this Policy) and bear the associated costs.
• Suitable public consultation will be required, consistent with the significance of the proposed change.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
Onsight of Dream on......Proud send! Maybe you have a few things to chime in on the Squamish Photo's & stories thread??
Well, Ryan, I really have nothing but some old grainy photos lost somewhere. Back when the outcome was uncertain, I never much carried a camera - bad juju which guaranteed failure. Plus, too focused on the lead, and who wants another butt shot from the belayer (whom I'd trolled sight unseen from a Whislter climbing shop: "Escape Route."
A most memorable stretch lay between the top of the 1st and 2nd pitches, a ramp of mud upon which I crawled on hands and knees, to avoid getting my Fires wet (I was also in the habit of carrying a small section of a carpet remnant - "Sport Climber's Landing Pad")
Justin, a 20's something aspirant guide, offered to head further up the swampy ramp, to effect a TR pendulum. But, a couple of delicate traversing moves right offered 2 TCU flake placements, before a longish run to the 1st bolt, so I declined. After all, you climb better when you're going for it.
Dream On was my warm up to about a 4 day trip. On the last day, I checked out Little Smoke, a popular if bolted TR area. There I met Myron, self belayed on some kind of traxion device. Happier with a warm body holding the rope, he offered to show me around this bluff.
There, if memory serves a .10b somewhat to the right of a tree midway up a 5.7 was our 1st stop. Ignoring his beta about "moving left" partway up, I just hiked direct. It felt like 5.6 to me. In retrospect, I don't think Squamish has recalibrated their friction ratings to account for the new sticky rubber, at least, not at the time.
Plus, its granitediorite has this peculiar property - if you fall, just freeze into place - chances are your fall will come to a standstill within a few feet. As contrasted to the glacier polish of Tuolumne, or the water patina of GPA or MCR North Apron, where you'd better know how to land like a cat, 50 feet+ down.
As the sodium vapor lamps began to illuminate the Squamish Port, several noticed the California plates on my small PU truck. "What's the matter, Man! Are our climbs too easy for you!?"
Secretly pleased yet humbled, I quickly pretended that I thought that they were talking to someone else. I certainly didn't want to disillusion them by disclosing that my crack technique was and is so bad that the only way I can get up a 5.9 crack is by rappelling upside down!
Almost forgot about the Shannon adventure. On my way home, I decided to 'cess a friction route, right of the cascade. 1st obstacle, right up against the parking lot, involved the crossing of a 100 foot steam. A log, a full yard in diameter, offered portage. But, since it was about 10 feet above the rocky streambed, several false starts were enough to persuade me that this approach might be slightly offroute.
So, I opted for a boulderhop across. Unlike your typical Sierra creek crossing, though, these boulders where like polished basket balls...though I made it over and back without falling into the white waters.
After a bit of rainforest bushwhacking, I found myself climbing up a steeply slanting log, rotted halfway through, and ducking beneath another fallen log over my head. Which I then had to cross as a bridge, over the rotten log ramp below.
B.C. approaches are a little more complicated than your typical Yosemite approach hike - I'd say it took me about an hour to cover - what? - 1/4 mile.
Justin described an approach to a peak on the west side of Howe Sound. It took them about 8 hours to rig a river crossing across the Howe Sound inlet.
Anyway, the day following Little Smoke, I headed back south to Smith Rock, and got Spanked! Then later, by my mistress - but, of course, that's OT.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
^^^
Haha good stuff there, Kabala Arch! I definitely appreciate
The Sierra approaches after spending so much time bushwacking,
although bushwacking here is almost an end unto itself!
Speaking of the west side of Howe sound, a gondola that started
Downtown or near the waterfront & went up towards Mt Lapworth
Or touch & go towers Would be spectacular, & also would, unlike the current proposal actually
Benefit the businesses of downtown. I know, I know, there is power lines,
Not feasible, yada, yada. Just thinking aloud....
I keep forgetting that the point of the current proposal is to
Generate profit for private interests, my bad.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
More likely TMI.
The weird part was, everywhere we traveled together, we'd always get comped an upgrade. Renting a K-Car at the Vancouver International, we were given a red, convertible, sports car of some make and manufacture. Which, naturally caught the Royal Mountie's eye, who trailed us for many a long mile. And you practically have to keep your foot off of the gas to keep it under 80 (mph).
Once, when we flew into Chicago, the outside seat was occupied by I guess a 16 year old. Our plane was behind schedule; she had to make a connection, to her waiting father. Cell phones didn't exist at the time; and I'd had no counsel to help her out.
Anyway, MMP and I were were amusing ourselves, just chattering away, when the teenager states: "You're not married, are you
!?"
Stuck in the middle seat between these two, neither spoke to me for at least an hour.
On our flight from Portland to Vancouver, in what was a very small Alaska Airlines turboprop..maybe 20 seats...cruised at a one mile altitude, easily - if not even greater.
Thing is, I've always thought Canadian women attractive. They're not Southern Californian - they're like a cross between English and New Zealand?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Wow Bruce, what a great adventure! Right here in the heart of Sea to Sky country. Great to see such an active guy doing everything from the Grand Wall to skiing the Tantalus Range.
You're pretty connected, maybe you should get some American friends of yours to write a letter to the Squamish Chief stating their blessing for a local gondola. Just make sure you remind them it won't be going up the Chief.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Oh ya, I guess that's right. Well how 'bout California? Maybe you can get in touch with whoever did the first ascent of Mt. Habrich. That will impress the impressionable.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, Bruce - looks like you had a good day out, plus a visit to your father's memorial must have been special. I've been to Sedgwick and the Lovelywater area on foot and ski, and they're quite nice.
And yes, it is important to tell all those who care about the Chief and Squamish about what is proposed, and how they can learn about it and become involved. Time is short, but the international stature of the Chief indicates that all interested voices should be heard, wherever they may live.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
"On foot and ski"
I'm guessing that's code for "lightweights use choppers"
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
No, either they hadn't invented them or we couldn't afford them. I forget which. But we used boats.
Hopefully those who made the FA of Habrich, in 1912, won't be writing with regard to the proposed gondola, though. D. Munday and F. Smith have been dead for some time.
IIRC, Habrich was named for Jack Habrich, a sort of logger and handy man who had a cabin in what is now Valleycliffe, and was then called Skunk Hollow. (Hospital Hill seems originally to have been called South Ridge.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
If the "positives" of such a proposal depend on the economic success of the private enterprise making the proposal, shouldn't the business plan also be evaluated to see if the proposed plan is viable, economically, and what the conditions of sustainability are for such a business?
I'm not sure I've seen any details or references in the above thread.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
1912. Now that IS impressive...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
if I take the estimates for the number of employees from the corporation's proposal web site of 20, and the median income of Squamish of $30,000, and the multiplier rate of 2.5 I get an annual effort burden of $1,500,000
with the high estimate of 500,000 people visiting the area for recreation (also from the proposers web site), and the various taxes (local, province, federal: 17%, 10%, 15% respectively), charge $20 a ticket and capture 24% of those 500,000 people to break even in a year, that's 120,000 people a year using the gondola.
To recoup the capital investment in the gondola in 5 years... say it costs $10,000,000 to put up, then without any interest the break even for those 5 years at $20 per ride is 220,000 people using the gondola, or roughly 44% of the current annual visitors rate above.
But I'm not a business man... maybe someone else can do the math.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
$20.00 per ride.....now we're talking. Just need a big hook on the outside of the capsule to hold a bike and we're in.
I have a hard time envisioning an average of 220,000 riders/year. Seems like they'd have to average 600/day to hit those numbers. Sure sounds like a lot. Might need some cruise ships and a long gangplank. If they did manage those numbers, I'd say they'll be printing money.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I don't think they qualify for the "small business tax" but then I don't have access to all the definitions and numbers, there is a yearly income cutoff, not sure if that is "net" or "gross"...
my guess is also that they wouldn't be paying $30,000 a year for the employees...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Ed's point is helpful. Assuming that the thing should be considered at all, the business plan and finances should be fully disclosed, and critically reviewed. If you want something so valuable to the public, that's the price.
My friend Steve skied the big face on Sedgwick long ago. He said it was a good, long run, but the limitations (then) were that afterward, you had to climb most of the way back up. The lower part also wasn't very good skiing, as it's fairly low down, and often doesn't have a lot of or very good snow. Sounds like Bruce and friends scored yesterday.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I don't know how much "reviewing" you can do. It all depends on volume and these numbers will only ever be estimates. Might be easy to estimate the nice summer days but a little tougher to crunch the numbers of people showing up when it's socked in with horizontal rain.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Call me crazy but I'm almost sensing a little compromise between the lines of M.H.'s recent posts.
As far as the numbers of riders go, it's all about marketing and proximity to the masses. Ziptreck, for instance (Whistler,I know), runs 360 plus days/year and you don't want to know how many people they pump through that thing. At $100/head, I might add.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
but the estimates are important...
firstly, while the serious outdoor community may like the access, they are a minority of those 500,000 annual recreating visitors. Not likely that their needs or desires would have a high priority in planning the activities around the gondola. Any benefit to that community would be indirect.
A good business model would be based on getting the "normal" visitor interested in buying a ride.
Also, what would be the lifetime of such a facility? Both from the business standpoint (I assume the goal is to be bought out by some bigger concern, at a profit, and early) vs. the public interest in the alterations to the area, and the potential for having a failed commercial operation/facility to deal with...
...both the "success" scenario and the failure scenario are an important consideration to deciding how to manage public lands.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
You're right Tami, guess I was seeing things. He's probably staying with the "No Soup For You" attitude.
Which is why we all like him so much. Truly.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Bruce, I'm all for process, but the public's interest is in perpetuity where as the commercial concerns are necessarily short term... they want the place to succeed enough to make it worth selling off, at a profit to the investors, probably within 5 to 10 years.
Isn't that the balance that is being struck between land set aside in Provincial Parks and those lands that are left to be used commercially? The balance between short term goals and long term goals.
Once you have a gondola on that site, who is responsible for it through out its lifetime? Commercial interests will weigh the benefits of cutting their losses if that comes to pass... then the situation is not unlike the current gravel pit, only more extensive.
"And visible from the road" as the proposers' website states as a requirement.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:29am PT
|
Hi Bruce. What's that? Needs and wants of Squamish locals? Are you kidding me, that's a Class "A" Park little fellah.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
Anders stop pissing around. Build up your case and threaten to take parks branch to court if this doesn't go your way. I am sure you can use some good old fashioned court time to brush up on your lawyer skills.
Just do it bro
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
One things for sure, a locally born and bred process is more likely to be accountable than anything dreamt up by the Federal or provincial government.
Is it? That is, in comparison say with the highly accountable process that was used to create the park, which included a considerable 'local' element, but much more? It's hard to get land into parks, and should be even harder to get it out. And the current (flawed) process was 'dreamt up' by the provincial government, although we may never know how it really came to be.
Just back from a FOSC meeting in Squamish. I'm the token Vancouverite.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 09:58am PT
|
Praise the Lord they don't have Walmarts or Gondolas in West Vancouver.
Those things are just down the street, about a mile from West Van, in that shanty town of North Van.
Those poor residents, having to look at that Grouse gondola every day; it must be terrible...
I can be pretty snappy before my morning coffee. Sorry if I offended anyone.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 11:26am PT
|
Anders, just so you know I'm not at all loathe to hearing from those from far away, even Latte suckin' seattle-ites.
...
"You are NOT entitled to your opinion. However you are entitled to an informed opinion"
Well, just so you know, this latte-sucking seattle-ite agrees with you 100%
Does that mean you're going to have to change your opinion? In this case, no, because I acquired my latte addiction during the years I lived in North Van (and Kitsilano before that). And anyway, I mostly take my fix in the form of straight espresso, so I haven't gone totally over to the lite side.
But the "informed opinion" thing is important. And not always clear cut. It's easy to sit in your urban or suburban living room and feel bad about the plight of spotted owls, and vote to protect their habitat. Or, on the other side of the fence, it's pretty easy to sit in your small town living room and think about how cutting down trees is what makes your community a wonderful place to live and raise your kids.
Both of those groups include people who believe they have informed opinions. So who is to judge who's opinion is worth hearing?
Personally, I think the two key elements in this whole debate are:
a) will the gondola be designed to carry bikes, and
b) will there be a good pub at the top.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 11:30am PT
|
CLASSIC !!!!!!!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:13pm PT
|
good friggin point greg.
Plus ten on that. It is really easy to get caught up in "the issue", while never realizing the real issue is something else entirely. Perfect example is the tunnel that is going to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct here in Seattle. This is a multi-billion-dollar project, that generated conflict that makes the Squamish gondola fight look like two kids arguing in a sand box.
I won't go into the details, but everybody was focused on "the issue" of whether a tunnel, or a new viaduct, or some other alternative made the best sense. Nobody, as far as I ever read or heard, bothered to look behind these first-level questions and start asking about the 3.5 kilometers (over two miles) of Seattle waterfront that would suddenly be available for development if the Viaduct came down and its traffic was re-routed underground. I don't know exactly how much that land is worth. I don't even know if numbers that big exist. What I do know is that this will be some of the most expensive land in North America and a few billion dollars for a tunnel is peanuts by comparison.
But the kids in the sandbox just kept shouting about whether option A was better/cheaper than option B.
So, yeah, Greg's got a point. The idea of a gondola to take me up into that area between Oleson Creek and Shannon Falls seems pretty cool, but it might be worth looking behind the "Gondola Good/Gondola Bad" stuff to see what else might be at play.
Not in the sense of "Developers are EVIL!!!" that comes through in Anders' posts, but more as a matter of due diligence. Might be some good news there, or some bad. But worth a look.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:15pm PT
|
Yes, Knee Wrecker is rather interesting.
In a sense, none of our opinions about this may be informed. As an example, none of us really know the plans of the developers. While some may be better informed than others, and there are a variety of different perspectives to have on this, none is necessarily "right" or "wrong".
Opinion on a matter of principle, e.g. removing land from the centre of hard-won Class A parks, can also be more difficult, as they're about values, not facts.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:35pm PT
|
And that it's a provincial park, although one of international stature.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:51pm PT
|
A well balanced process give a more equal playing field when making decsisons like this. Business and government have many overlapping interests such as the tie between profits and taxes. Giving citizens a place at the negotiating table adds critical analysis that can stop some proposals and can vastly improve others.
The rush to get a proposal through the review process without full involvement of all stakeholders sometimes indicates a fragile financing mechanism...
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 06:41pm PT
|
Ive got a couple of what I consider to be simple questions concerning this issue, so let's just cut to the chase.
Do the supporters of this gondola proposal approve of industrial (or any other) development of "Class A" parks? If so, as I have asked earlier, where do YOU draw the line?
I would appreciate a response from the cheerleaders for this project.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 08:05pm PT
|
I'm not a cheerleader, I just find it frustrating when well intentioned citizens are so quick to say No.
Like I said before, I don't even care if there's a gondola or not. I love riding my bike uphill; I went to the Rob Cocqyet school of mtn. biking and therefore learned to earn my turns. I'm simply very willing to welcome and entertain any and all proposals in the corridor.
In my opinion, our society would benefit from people trading some breathtaking scenery for the usual sights seen at the mall.
Of course it would be better if they were all hiking up to shannon creek basin but currently there doesn't seem to be any trail building proposals out there. Baby steps.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 09:05pm PT
|
It's kind of weird, but what Bruce said above is almost word-for-word what I had been thinking about posting to this thread for several days now. That is, if you simply say "This is a Provincial Park, and therefore sacred" then there's no sense talking to you. It's just more "Because it says so in the Bible" close-mindedness.
But if you have even a single rational neuron in your brain, you'd be willing to agree that if the solution to world peace was to remove a bit of parkland and give it to a developer, you'd do it in a heartbeat. So the question, for all but the blindly religious, is: "Is removing park land justified in this case?"
I'm no cheerleader, but I'm kind of more pro than con. I think the Chief and the areas adjacent to it are so far from wilderness, or parkishness, that a gondola wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, and if it allowed access to the land above (and was set up for bike transport) then why not?
And on the "why not" side are questions about the sanity of the business plan, and whether or not there is some hidden agenda -- some kind of bait and switch deal that would leave everybody saying "Boy, were we suckered!"
Personally, I'd like to make the handing over of this land to the developer conditional on the Government adding an equivalent or greater amount of land to this or some other park, but other than that, I sort of like the idea.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 09:36pm PT
|
Ya, what Casper said.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 11:52pm PT
|
Jim is right. Land "swap" seems pretty weak.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012 - 01:08am PT
|
Hamish - I wasn't intending to offend you personally, but if I have done so, please accept my apologies.
I've asked my question at least once before my latest post, and none of the supporters of this proposal have responded to it, including now. I have also given my reasons for my opposition to this project, which include my intense distrust for both politicians and developers who continue to hack away at a Class "A" park boundary. Class "A" parks are supposed to be held in perpetuity for future generations.
This isn't the first time these elected clowns and their drinking buddies have chipped away at the borders of one of these places because someone figured he might be able to grab a few bucks by betraying the public trust, and it won't be the last if people don't draw the line somewhere.
That's the point that I'm trying to make.
Oops - I noticed I just annoyed you, too Perry. I'm also sorry that you feel offended, but to suggest that I'm that close-minded is just plain wrong. In reality, I'm usually the guy that is the first to suggest a compromise when there's a disagreement about something, but I've seen the results when politicians start screwing around with Class "A" parks.
I've made this point before differently, but just see how biblically close-minded your bank manager is when you decide to unilaterally change the terms of your mortgage.
Yet again - where do YOU draw the line?.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012 - 02:00am PT
|
But if you have even a single rational neuron in your brain, you'd be willing to agree that if the solution to world peace was to remove a bit of parkland and give it to a developer, you'd do it in a heartbeat. So the question, for all but the blindly religious, is: "Is removing park land justified in this case?"
These are the sorts of questions that philosophers and writers have been agonizing over since humans became self-aware. They're not likely to be answered here.
It's two sides of the same coin, isn't it? And no one is 'right', the compromisers or the uncompromising. Which is why we have government and laws, to allow informed, reasonably impartial decisions, in which all those with an interest in the outcome at least have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. And why maybe, just maybe, as part of the process someone ought to have at least posed the question, even if rhetorically: "Should we be considering removing land from parks, and from these parks in particular, at all?"
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012 - 10:19am PT
|
Easy there Woz, you're not offending me, or, I'm guessing, anyone. This is just a bunch of friends having a debate. Nothing more. I enjoy it, gets your brain in motion a bit. I don't have to agree with my friends about everything, in fact I think it's quite healthy to have some differences. Just imagine how boring it would be if we all thought the same way.
Most people speaking out against the tram live in cities much bigger than Squampton, with more traffic lights, more cars, more noise, etc.. I get it. They hold the Chief in a special place and cherish that area for relative peace, tranquility, and that sought after "wilderness" experience. I'm still getting it.
I went to Van yesterday and saw my good friend that deals with that ant hill every day. The big city is overwhelming for us cave dwellers... way to many people, all trying to get somewhere ten minutes ago. When I'm northbound, round that corner at Murrin, and Garibaldi and the Chief come into view, a wave of relief floods over me. It's a great feeling. Back to the little town with ten traffic lights. But even Squishmish is getting pretty busy. Of course I want the old Squamish back, we were all climbing here when there weren't any traffic lights at all. And no MacBarfuls, no Fatburger (yes, that's really their name), no Taco-Hell, no Neon sign by the Apron, no Casino. You think I like that crap? Nope.
But, as I laid out early on in this debate, there are a couple million people down the road and, like it or not, they're coming. And I can't blame them one bit. I'm from Victoria and I moved here.
To get a littlle better insight into the matter, I think people need to check out Shannon Falls and hike the Backside trail during the peak summer days. It's a zoo. I personally know many people who wont hike the chief because of those crowds. It's bumper to bumper on that trail.
The tram will pass over the Park and land people way the hell up there in that old logging slash (check out the map). The vast majority of users will never even set foot in the (sacred) Park. They will simply pass over it. And looking down the road, once more trails are built, the people setting foot in the Park will be hiking or biking. Is that not getting more use out of the Park?
Sometimes I wonder if people want the Chief Park to be used or changed to a Preserve.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012 - 10:13pm PT
|
Thanks, Bruce and Hamish. Hamish - I see your points. While I still lived over there I was saying to any of my friends who would listen at the time that Squish had the best real estate investment potential between Vancouver and Whistler - a no-brainer, admittedly, but it appears that I was correct.
A question for you regarding these mobs ascending the backside trail - did you observe a noticeable increase in tourist numbers after the Whistler oligarchs got an obscene amount of free money from the taxpayers of B.C., including road improvements and free employee housing to host the Olympics? The reason that I'm asking this is because it makes sense to me that a proportion of people who are looking for outdoor diversion will find it both cheaper and faster to go to Squamish than continue up the road to Fat City.
Regardless, I am aware that population pressure for recreation space isn't going to go away - Courtenay has similar problems, and the solution to these problems isn't easy. We can't shoot tourists, of course, but these pressures are global, and we've got to have the courage to elect politicians who actually have the integrity to address these issues and educate the public to accept that the party is over and things aren't going to improve unless we as individuals begin to seriously consider our impact on this planet as a species.
Sermon over.
I don't have all the answers to the above, but an alternate suggestion for a gondola site I've seen mooted was Britannia Beach. I don't know the area well but, for the moment, it seems to me that there's reasons that could make this an acceptable alternative: it seems to be already developed enough to be more easily capable of absorbing a large number of visitors; there's already a tourist attraction in existence; plus it should serve as a more convenient destination for at least some of the the Vancouver tourists (and car thieves).
I'm sure there's other areas that could be considered as alternate sites, but my adamant objection to the gondola is partially based upon the fact that it impacts a Class "A" park, and that a gondola will serve to attract MORE tourists to an area that is already heavily used.
As for what the local politicians think, I won't make the mistake of slandering the current crop, but it has not been unheard of for elected civic officials to be more concerned with lining their own pockets than representing the best interests of their constituents, which is particularly easy for them to do at this level, since the voter turnout in these elections is usually even more dismal than the turnout for provincial and federal polls.
Gotta go.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012 - 11:42pm PT
|
Since the trail up the Chief is as crowded as it is, why haven't other trails been built?
It seems there is huge demand for hiking trails that clearly fit within the Park's mission and would also be in spirit with the "outdoor recreation capitol" gig promoted in the advertising. The issue of maintaining road access to the high country should also be addressed in an area-wide recreation plan.
What's up with area-wide trail planning for hikes around the Chief and high country?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:00am PT
|
Bruce, I would imagine the commercial benefits from the trail up the Chief are not lost on Squamish.
Now a driving range from the top...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:24am PT
|
It seems there is huge demand for hiking trails that clearly fit within the Park's mission and would also be in spirit with the "outdoor recreation capitol" gig promoted in the advertising. The issue of maintaining road access to the high country should also be addressed in an area-wide recreation plan.
And my uncle in Nigeria is looking for some help in gaining access to 30.7 million dollars. If you just send him your bank information, he'll transfer that amount to your account and trust you to share it with him.
The words "outdoor recreation capital" and "Parks" don't belong in the same sentence. In strictly financial terms, there's no benefit to more trails, because the mass of people using the existing trail are more than happy to be part of the mass. The only people who want more (i.e. uncrowded) trails are the scummy climbers who don't spend much anyway. And the Parks branch (whatever its formal name), isn't involved in the commercial side of things at all.
And as for "maintaining road access", maybe after my uncle splits the $30.7 million with you, you can use your $15.35 million to maintain all the out-of-use logging roads in BC. I hope so, because no one else is going to. Well, other than the logging company that has the rights to whatever timber a given road leads to.
It's easy to get starry-eyed over stuff like this. "The government ought to..." "Roads to the back country should be maintained..." "More trails will give more people access to Nirvana..." Yeah, sure, and if pigs had wings, they could fly. The reality is that nobody is going to put up money to maintain logging roads, or build trails, or do anything else on that big laundry list of wonderful things we all wish could happen.
So there's no point in saying "Instead of the gondola, why don't they..." Because there is no "they." If you don't like the gondola project as proposed, then raise your voice against it. Or push for some conditions. But don't look for alternatives, because there aren't any.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:41am PT
|
Casper, you couldn't have hit the nail harder. Outstanding.
"They should do this, they should do that" please, give me a break.
I know we covered this stuff at length a couple weeks ago when M.H. outlined a 13 step program for Parks to get started on.
Ya, they have heaps of money and they'll get right on it. Ya.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:46am PT
|
Most of the existing hiking and biking trails are volunteer built, either decades ago or recent. That is a distinct option with this gondola thing, likely the prefered option.
I don't disagree at all. What I was saying in my last post was that expecting more trails to be built by some governmental sugar daddy was silly. On the other hand, if you and I and a few of our friends want to spend the next year of weekends building trails, well, that's something we can actually do. But I don't think it plays much of a part in this debate.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 01:21am PT
|
And more to the point, this would be dealing with the man, not sticking it to him,
Greg, you (and me, and Bruce, and Jim Brennan, and Hamish, and most of the other people chattering here) are the man. Look around you. Look in the mirror. Look at your tax return.
Once upon a time we were dirty hippies with no money and big stars in our eyes. We railed against "the man." Which, in our view, was anyone with money. Anyone who was part of the economic system which...
...which we're all a part of now.
Unless we all commit suicide, we're pretty much dealing with the man just by waking up and brushing our teeth.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 10:23am PT
|
What Greg is saying, Bruce, is that a: if he was in charge, there wouldn't be any easement running through any classs A park. Period. And he's adding that b: if he was out voted and he had to give up the easement, it wouldn't come cheap. He's got some fancy words in there to figure out how much extra that gravel pit would have cost, had it been sold with a "gondolas are o.k." sticker. He's taken that dollar figure and pounded it into some local ammenity, at x times the number. Then he's asked the developers to build a kick-ass trail which would equal the square footage of the easement. Now that would be an incredable trail. Greg is a very capable business man and we need a brain like his sitting at the bargaining table. No doubt we'd walk away with a few great "tradsies"
I suspect there could be a little bargaining going on at some level, but not here on the super-distraction site. Where could you start with your list of swap-n-shops? It's endless. How about fifty cents/rider gets earmarked for existing (backside) trail maintenance and new trail construction? Like I said, it's endless.
I would hope the gondola guys take it upon themselves, motivated by money of course, to develop hiking and biking trails up there. Politicians love to promise the world to earn your vote, but all too often don't deliver because their promise doesn't crunch out, financially. If the proponents see some good quality trails as a means to attract another market, those trails will appear. Take a look at the bike trails which have popped up on whistler mtn over the last bunch of years. They're not building those because they promised them to someone, they're building them so they can make more money from the infrastructure they already have in place.
But ya. Greg for Premier, his brain works three times as fast as the rest of us. It's easy to get behind sometimes.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:15pm PT
|
Hold on a second. Didn't someone tell us that the fate of this provincial park is a purely local matter, and that the rest of us aren't entitled to an opinion, whatever our connection with the place? Under that criteria, gf would be disqualified from being involved.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 12:34pm PT
|
What is the source of that?
In any case, FOSC has been clear about where the proposed gondola would go, including a link to the developer's website. We have no control over what others might say about it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 01:05pm PT
|
It's hardly a secret that I'm opposed to a gondola being built there, and that I believe that the process that has been used to consider the possibility is flawed. Others share my views.
Anyone who has written to the politicians about this has done so of their own free will. Information and discussion was sent to many people, including a link to the developer's website. (Including to Bruce, Hamish, and others here.) They were encouraged to learn more, and to write if they wished. It's entirely their choice.
I'm curious, though. Just what "nuggets" are you referring to?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 01:19pm PT
|
I posted this a day or two ago, to silence.
ghost: But if you have even a single rational neuron in your brain, you'd be willing to agree that if the solution to world peace was to remove a bit of parkland and give it to a developer, you'd do it in a heartbeat. So the question, for all but the blindly religious, is: "Is removing park land justified in this case?"
Me: These are the sorts of questions that philosophers and writers have been agonizing over since humans became self-aware. They're not likely to be answered here.
It's two sides of the same coin, isn't it? And no one is 'right', the compromisers or the uncompromising. Which is why we have government and laws, to allow informed, reasonably impartial decisions, in which all those with an interest in the outcome at least have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. And why maybe, just maybe, as part of the process someone ought to have at least posed the question, even if rhetorically: "Should we be considering removing land from parks, and from these parks in particular, at all?"
If you can show that there's some possibility of world peace, or a cure for cancer, being found under the Chief, let's talk about it. In the meantime, let's deal with the situation as it is.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
|
The only thing that may be 'found' under the Chief is a gondola development, not world peace.
If some principles may sometimes need to be compromised, the question is which ones, when, why and how? And, the observe face of the coin, what of those who are too willing to compromise their principles? They may end up with no principles at all. Neither is right.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 01:59pm PT
|
Doesn't being prepared to defend one's principles sometimes have a place in human behaviours and values? (What you suggest as 'being an ideologue'?) For example, when we defeated the last gondola proposal in 2004, no one said we were "ideologues" or "uncompromising". When we insisted on the Chief being made into a provincial park, it was OK. And so on, and on. It's too easy to say your opponents are uncompromising ideologues, or compromisers who lack real principles, and I won't do either. Sometimes one or the other may be true, but even if so, it may not add much to the debate.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 03:29pm PT
|
If the solution to global warming was discovered under the Chief, we'd mine it - right Anders?
I resisted this the first time, but Mother earth has her own solution to global warming. Ice Age.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 06:01pm PT
|
Please forward me the investors information kit for the project
tks
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 06:09pm PT
|
"If I were to present to you irrefutable proof coming from an expert of your choice that global warming was indeed happening and it was caused by man, and it is in our best interest to mitigate against it, would you change your mind?"
I learned a trick way back in my first-ever philosophy class that makes problems like this even simpler. If you want to test the logic of someone's position, you don't have to construct anything as complicated as you did with The Chief, calling in imaginary experts and such, just ask them what evidence would make them change their mind. If they say there is nothing that could make them do that, then they're talking religion, and you might as well terminate the conversation.
In the current case...
If: "There is nothing that would ever make me change my mind about removing land from Class A Parks"
Then: End of conversation. Logical argument is not possible.
Again, I'm not saying there should be a gondola, but I do note that every single one of those who has said something in favor of it has also made clear that their support is conditional and subject to change if they are presented with compelling evidence.
What I hear from those opposed is that there is no circumstance under which they would change their minds. Which, to me at least, really does sound like "Cuz it says so in the bible."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
|
Back to M.H.'s post at 9:15 this morning. (Sorry I'm a little behind; worked all day). I missed the part about this being a local's decision only. Where did that even come from? If you ask me, everyone is equal, doesn't matter what part of our Great province you live in.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 07:15pm PT
|
If they say there is nothing that could make them do that, then they're talking religion, and you might as well terminate the conversation.
David, I'm sure that there are issues on which you take an equally firm stance, for reasons of your own. Don't we all? And don't you want to try and understand why it is that people are opposed/concerned?
Moral relativism and values can be complicated things. If I'm opposed to the gondola, perhaps it's for good reasons - at least good to me. Not just 'dogma'. Perhaps opponents could better articulate their reasons, although you'd think that the intent and letter of statutory and procedural requirements in a country governed by the rule of law would be enough. Statutes and laws may be human-made, but are the agreed-on "bible" for our country. Dogmatically dismissing arguments because you believe that they're dogmatic doesn't advance the discussion.
Most of those who've spoken against a gondola say that they're opposed to one at that location - but not to one nearby. That also hardly makes them dogmatic or inflexible.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 09:42pm PT
|
Impressive; you guys are getting pretty deep. I might have to take a sabatical until the words get shorter again. Excellent stuff here.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 10:38pm PT
|
Yes, very grandiose words being used here.
Really cool pics a few pages back btw Bruce, looks
Amazing back there! Just clarify & echo Mighty's logic
I am against the gondola at the proposed location but am
not against gondolas in general, in fact I ride gondolas all
The time. My main problem isn't even the location although
I am not exactly an advocate of dividing public land for private
capitalist interests. My main concern & reason i am anti is that
it is not economically feasible or realistic for a "passenger" gondola
To survive & that it will go tits up leaving all of us to deal with it since
it since it has yet to be proven that the proponents will be
accountable should such a thing happen. We already have
enough "cool rides" in the sea to sky area & just because you build it does
not mean they will come. Look at the casino, they are barely
staying afloat. As i said before Who wants to pay $35 to go stare at a logged area with a
Lame loop trail & an overpriced concession when they could drive an extra 35 min pay $45 & ride A circuit of the best gondolas in the world & bask in post Olympic glory?
In comparison this gondola will not be world class & it will quickly become
No secret that that is the case.
I know that alternatives & suggestions are not an active
Contribution to this debate but I've been in this area for almost
15 yrs & Squam for the past 6 & it really bums me out that all the development
Ideas & $$ that gets tossed around never ends up in downtown Squam,
It is such a cool spot & has great potential to be a bustling spot in its
Own right but with the exception of condos the "big" proposals never seem
To have downtown on the radar.....
I wrote a letter(rant) voicing my concerns to the addresses that MH supplied & received a few auto Replies, I did however receive a reply from the local MLA thanking me for the
Feedback & telling me that feedback from constituents is very important
Right now, whatever side of the fence you are on I would reccomend you
Do the same as there is a much greater chance of your opinion having an impact
Than it will here. Sorry for the terseness I am writing this on my phone @ work.
Respect to all,
Ryan
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2012 - 11:11pm PT
|
Bruce K-
Those are really descriptive photos of a very beautiful place. We used to call these "a Walk in the Park."
You know, back in my Kindergarten years, near Atlanta, Georgia, my parents used to take me and my only sister, at the time, on Sunday drives around a formation called "Stone Mountain" - Google Earth it, and you'll find a deep south version of Fairview Dome, in The Meadows.
I guess it's kinda weird for a 6 year old lad to wonder why his Dad didn't lead us to the Summit of this 1,000 ft dome. I mean, it was obvious to me that the west slope would go at a casual 3rd Class, and that for only about the first 20 feet of cracks, features, and ledges.
And what did the local developers do with this excellent granite dome?
Well, they started with a huge (like 100's feet high) bas relief of "Stonewall"Jackson, with some other Civil War troop, on the cleanest and steepest aspect of the north face, nearly vertical. Then came the gondola, also up the N. Face. As a Base tourist trap developed, a loop road around the Dome was built, followed in short order by one of those cutesy minature scale railroad trains, also a loop trip. Ornamental gardens surrounded this small Base Lodge, with plenty of retail/sales, eateries, parking lots, and assorted trash; artificial lakes and "water elements."
I don't know when climbing was banned at Stone Mountain. But, I'd bet that a few have sent at least a few routes, in the '50s and 60's. I lived down there ages 3 -- 6. And, in those few young years, I witnessed the destruction of one of the nicest domes in the deep South, starting with Stonewall Jackson. Forget which side he fought on...must have been Union, since his likeness appears on the USD10 bill.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 02:24am PT
|
It's amazing to find out that believers in the sanctity of Class "A" parks are ideologues since they have principles.
Perhaps those who quote philosophers should also make it be known that philosophy isn't exactly a science, and that probably any human behaviour can be justified by quoting one's chosen champion. For example, I'm pretty sure that I can explain in a philosophically defensible manner an argument in support of always telling the truth which goes so far as to suggest that you should pursue this belief to the extent of truthfully answering the inquiries of a killer who is seeking the location of your best friend - who recently asked you to allow him to hide from this guy underneath your bed.
Without repeating my previous objections to this proposal (which, as far I've noticed don't get addressed anyway), it seems as though some of the supporters of this project counter with devastating logic that people who object to Class "A" park boundaries getting re-arranged to suit the FOR PROFIT schemes of the business community are somehow lacking a sense of fairness.
Integrity is not a character flaw, and I am capable of naming politicians of all stripes that I respect because they actually have principles. As a matter of fact, Winston Churchill (who was actually a bit of a jerk) is venerated largely because he was one of the few British politicians of his day who loudly objected to the compromises of his contemporaries (the "peace in our time crowd") as they meekly helped give away other people's countries to a guy named Hitler. Look it up - it's true.
Admittedly this isn't Europe of the 1930s, and I'm no Churchill, but I would find the arguments of the pro-gondola crowd more compelling if there was the slightest agreement from them that it is long past time that we demand our elected officials actually keep their campaign promises instead of displaying the kind of ethics that would make a sewer rat puke.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 02:55am PT
|
Stewart is right. Eroding class A parks is a slippery slope. What's to stop them from using it as a precedent the next time they want to rape and pillage some park land?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 03:05am PT
|
No Climbing allowed!!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 04:07am PT
|
No Bearbreeder that is a picture of the place that Kabala Arch mentioned upthread that he watched become continually desecrated & transformed from a natural thing of beauty into a total spectacle.
No Climbing is allowed there.
The place looks ridiculous.
The climbing looks like it would have been good.
edit: haha no i think Christy Clark would be a better carving choice for the grand, her pinnochio nose could be carved out of the pillar.
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 04:33am PT
|
Ryan...the N. Face looks pretty good, eh? Love to poach it someday, but I've already biz with the Banditos route on the Totem Pole, Navahoe lands in Monument Valley, AZ.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:07am PT
|
I've been working in the Capilano Watershed lately and therefore driving past the Grouse Gondola Base area several times. Nice big parking lot they have themselves. Someone on this super-time-eraser site with some computer skills should hit google earth for the gravel pit and lay it over the same for Grouse. That might be interesting, you know, as some light conversation.
Just wondering what they're going to do with all those busses and cars.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 11:33am PT
|
Haha Bruce Kay inc. this is getting hilarious!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 12:06pm PT
|
What is so funny about that?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
|
David, I'm sure that there are issues on which you take an equally firm stance, for reasons of your own. Don't we all? And don't you want to try and understand why it is that people are opposed/concerned?
I hope I don't take that kind of stance on anything. There are things I feel strongly about, but I hope that none of them fall into the "My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts" category.
As to the second question, of course I want to understand why people are opposed or concerned. I've said that repeatedly, and don't understand why you would even ask. In fact, as I said in the post you were replying to, all of the people taking part in this thread who have said anything in favor of building the gondola in that location have also said they are eager to gain more information and that they are prepared to change their minds.
It is you who seems not "to want to try and understand why it is that people" do not share your position.
You have repeatedly stated that you are unalterably opposed. Okay, I understand that. But why do you want people to listen to you if you are unwilling to listen to them?
And, for what feels like the thousandth time, I'm not a cheerleader for this project. I think there are plenty of potential positives and plenty of potential negatives. Why not consider the positives and negatives with an open mind? To take what amounts to a religious approach and say either "Development at any cost!" or "Parks are untouchable!" is to lose the respect of those you are trying to convince, and to ensure that they will not listen to you.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 12:14pm PT
|
Wow, still wish I could write like you.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 12:20pm PT
|
And I still wish I could climb like you.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 02:53pm PT
|
Oh I'm having lots of fun with it, no problem there. It's just that everyone and their dog is inc. these days.
Sign of the times, kinda like the gondola.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 02:55pm PT
|
Exactly Bruce inc.! The fact you are incorporated wasn't so much what I thought was hilarious as I did your previous comments as well as those of the many other silver-tongued wit-masters that have been posting on here lately. Good stuff & a very amicable debate so far as I can tell.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:29pm PT
|
Am I being naive assuming such good intent? Well judging from past experience with the Chief specifically, no and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, no again. If anyone can provide evidence that could change my mind, fire away. I agree that past history of Strathcona Park and Heliskiing in Garibaldi Park raise some valid red flags but I suggest that both had to do with interference from the Provincial government, not decision making within the bureaucracy of BC Parks.
Hi Bruce, yes, I think you are being a bit naive here. I agree about the Strathcona and Garibaldi heliskiing debacles being the results of Government interference. Personally I tend to trust the Parks people themselves. But the parks people work for the Government (and in theory, us). And that's the rub: to take land out of a Class A park requires legislation. Probably few people here trust the Government, as distinct from the public service, to do the right thing. So, the past history of Strathcona and Garibaldi suggests the same sort of thing will happen here.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:45pm PT
|
Are there not management plans for Class A Parks?
Without an effective management plan, every proposal like this gondola will require tons of citizen input, meetings, questioning of process, and be a total hassle for all but project proponents.
Why have a Class A Park?
What would the crew posting here do if there was an option for long-range planning?
Just south of the 49th, many of the options for non-officially planned trails for mountain biking are greatly reduced by concerns by government concerns over salmon habitat and water quality. (Added) Similar concerns over salmon and water quality are looked at in almost all proposals, thus management and development plans seem to help.
Good luck but look forward.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 09:52am PT
|
B.K., where are you? My morning coffee isn't as tasty without reading your latest finely scripted.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 09:55am PT
|
That was fast.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 10:15am PT
|
Seymour and Capillano Watersheds. No, haven't seen any photos; where should I look?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:09am PT
|
Hmmmm., Extra Foods?
Seriously drifting here, some flack should be arriving shortly.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:11am PT
|
now where would you look for eggs..... in squamish?
Under the chickens?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:29am PT
|
Too old and worn out to solve these riddles. Not too old to ride a mountain bike with 29 inch wheels though. You have to try it.... it's incredable! Very similar to graduating from E.B.s to Fires.
Continental drift here, sorry.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:45am PT
|
Hamish- hint, the thread you've been neglecting for this one ;)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:52am PT
|
I finally found your pictures. Nice tree (log). Where was that? Emerald Estates? That's the reason I'm old and worn out... climbing trees like that with chainsaws like that one.
That ice climbing looks terrifying! So glad I was too scared to take up that game. You guys are nuts.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:20pm PT
|
That was my introduction to the sport. Way too scary for me!
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 03:01pm PT
|
Seems like you are figuring out photoshop with your other hand cosmic :)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 05:40pm PT
|
I generally trust BC Parks, but it has limited resources, and the provincial government has proven all too ready to remove land from parks. The large deletions from Garibaldi and Strathcona Parks, and permitting heli-skiing in Garibaldi, speak for themselves. The decision a few years ago to not allow a transmission line through Pinecone-Burke Park was anomalous if not unique.
Government is always something of a black box in these situations, in terms of who told who to do what. Still, I remember the effort needed to get the Chief made a park. It took several years, reports on values and issues, innumerable meetings of a public planning team involving all stakeholders, and public meetings run by BC Parks. Likewise with the master plan. The current process seems to have been designed to (barely) meet the requirements of the Park Act and policy and the master plan. However, it's badly flawed, in that:
It's nothing like as thorough as the process required to create the Park in the first place;
It doesn't seem to have considered key questions, such as whether land should be taken out of the Park at all, let alone in the present circumstances, or whether governments should in effect facilitate the circumvention of a conservation covenant;
It doesn't provide BC Parks with the resources to properly review the proposal (self-marked exams don't really count), in context of the master plan, and Parks' goals for the region;
It addresses the various issues piecemeal, without a larger perspective; and
It doesn't provide for inclusive public meetings, where BC Parks can present information on the proposal to all interested parties and obtain their feedback, in person or via internet.
The many private meetings in Squamish that the developer has had may not be infomercials or sales pitches, as some describe them, but neither are they independent or inclusive. The removal of land from Garibaldi Park in 1990/91, and adoption of a new master plan, involved numerous public meetings held by BC Parks.
It appars that the government created a 'minimal' process for examining the current proposal, and told BC Parks what to do. BC Parks has neither the resources nor capacity to do otherwise. If the discussion is kept small picture, the proposal is an easier sell. The "only a little bit pregnant" routine - only removing a narrow strip of land from the Park, only cutting down a few trees, only having minor effects on natural environment, only having minor (and negotiable) effects on the human environment, etc. Promises v performance isn't much to go on.
Ultimately, I suspect that if the proposal is approved, it will fail. The proponents - or whoever's behind them - will get the permits, build it, and sell it within a year or two, before the glow wears off. The market simply doesn't seem to be there, and apart from access to Shannon Falls/Highway 99 traffic, the location is marginal. Tourists wanting this sort of experience can get it at Grouse, with many more attractions, or at Whistler. Most tourists visiting Squamish are en route to Whistler, and why would they stop for a second-rate gondola when they can do the peak-peak one at Whistler? The result being that the public is left with a mess.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 06:47pm PT
|
The noise from the thing is really going to be a buzz kill for the campground, trailhead and bullethead climbing routes. Shift the whole sh#t show down to or past Shannon falls. The present location reveals that this is a scam being promoted by fools.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 07:06pm PT
|
O.K., back on topic. M.H., I know you got the degrees and I didn't, but what makes you so sure about everything in your last paragraph? Maybe it will work? Also, I don't think you'll hear the thing from the bulletheads campground. It's electric, not diesel.
Squamish, B.C., Recreation Capital of Canada. Feel free to stand on the side of hwy. 99 and look up at it all.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 07:36pm PT
|
Three things:
1) Yes, I am opposed to commercial development of Class "A" parks.
2) Since the taxpayers are too spineless to support whistle blower legislation, senior (or for that matter, any level) government employees are understandably reluctant to destroy their careers by going toe-to-toe with the politicians over these issues.
3) This gondola (if approved) is either going to be either a success or a failure. If it fails, there is going to be a godawful mess up there. Should it succeed, it will do NOTHING to reduce congestion on the backside trail nor shall it reduce congestion on Highway 99 - not to mention a galaxy of other problems I outlined in earlier posts.
P. S.: I guess compromise only goes one way - I guess that's why nobody replied to my suggestion that this project gets moved to Britannia or somewhere else.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
|
I wasn't implying the gondola itself would ease the backside trail traffic. I'm referring to the "new" trail which would likely appear if there's a lift down. No lift, no new trail.
Like B.K. outlined last week, if it fails, someone will buy the whole lift and fly it out of there. You'll be left with a bunch of 3 x 3 concrete footings on the rocky outcrops. The easement will grow back in and we can all buy Anders beer. Not that bad.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 08:00pm PT
|
Stewart, I like the Britannia idea and wouldn't oppose a gondola there. My guess,and that's all it is, though, is that the land-ownership questions at B. are thorny and complex, so it's easier for the developers to just go to the government and get land out of the park.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 08:15pm PT
|
It seems likely that the developers did not more than briefly look at alternative locations. The gravel pit was the proposed site in 2004, and a site proposed in the 2009 Squamish Oceanfront Corp. study. Whatever happened with TLC and the developer, once they figured out a way around the intent of the conservation covenant, why would they look elsewhere?
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 08:27pm PT
|
The cables and cars clatter like hell at towers Einstein diesel or electric makes no difference
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 09:23pm PT
|
Have you seen where the first tower would go? It's way, way up there. You'll never hear a peep from that tower from the bulletheads. I imagine a brand new gondola base would be somewhat enclosed. Probably would've been louder in those years that Kiewet leased the yard. I don't remember hearing any moaning about that.
And the name's not Einstein, by the way, I'm just here to make sure people play fair. Although I'm sure half the continent thinks the tram will land on the summit of the Chief.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 09:57pm PT
|
More details. Although I'm skeptical that the provincial government would find the money to remove and clean the thing up if it goes broke - look what happened at Brohm Ridge.
Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia (LTABC) represents 32 land trust members across the province. ( http://ltabc.ca/); BC land trusts, with the help of generous donors and willing land owners [and governments], have now protected well over one million acres of significant land.
The full list, and map, is at http://registry.ltabc.ca/ One of the LTA's members is TLC. Considering the importance of effective conservation covenants and reliable government partners to land trusts, they must be watching this situation closely. See http://ltabc.ca/2011-11-10-09-15-27/ltabc-publications?start=8, and click on "covenants", for more.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:16pm PT
|
Now, Bruce. You're supposed to say "I suspect that it appears that...", followed by some claim or other. And you know that I don't smoke anything - although it is Saturday night.
With regard to discussions with and promises made by the developers, no one can say anything more than "It appears that they can/can't be trusted, will/won't do A, B, C, are/aren't reasonable, etc...." Plans, drawings and promises shouldn't be taken as more than that, and even in contractual form can be hard to enforce.
Perhaps I'm simply less trusting of government and developers. I don't take anything that they say at face value.
We'll probably never know the inner workings of government or the developers. However, the fact that the 'process' is so different from past BC Parks' processes in similar situations speaks for itself. It doesn't appear different - it is different.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:26pm PT
|
Anders, that's not an answer to Bruce's simple questions. Which were, in case you have forgotten:
Have you talked directly to BC Parks about your concerns? What did they tell you?
Have you talked directly to SLRD about your concerns? what did they tell you?
Have you talked directly to the Squamish Nation about your concerns? What did they tell you?
Have you talked directly to The Developers about your concerns? What did....
Edit to add: I haven't talked to anyone, and I'm not sure if Hamish has. But then again, I don't think either of us have tried to create guilt by innuendo the way you have.
I sure don't have any answers, and given that I'm now living 200 km away, I'm not likely to get any. But if you look back through the posts in this thread you'll find that there is one person who actually has taken the trouble to ask questions of the people involved, and that's Bruce.
I know you don't want a gondola there, and that's fair enough. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. But until you do the work of asking questions and analyzing the answers, it's just that -- your opinion. Carries the same weight as anyone else's opinion.
And no one here has ever said you shouldn't have that opinion. The thing that rubs me a bit the wrong way, and clearly rubs Bruce the wrong way, is your underlying implication that you have a secret direct line to some kind of cosmic databank of undeniable perfect knowledge, and therefore you know that these developers haven't done this or have done that, or will do or not do some other thing. That the project will fail. That the government bodies involved have sold out their honor.
You may well be right. God knows there are plenty of corrupt bureaucrats and sleazy developers. But until you present some evidence other than your opinion, you're just blowing smoke.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
I'm not sure what non-existent religious entities have to do with it.
Has either of you taken all the various actions that Bruce lists? If you haven't, perhaps I should criticize you for not having done so.
Didn't we give this rabbit a good run about 200 posts back? You're entitled to your views, I'm entitled to mine. We disagree. I believe it's a matter of both principle and process, you don't. You believe - excuse me, appear to believe - that it's a matter of meeting, negotiation, and compromise, and I don't agree. We could probably all know more about the proposal, parties and process.
The issue is a matter of public policy and legislative change, and it is quite legitimate for a citizen to oppose such a proposal on principle, whatever its details and implementation, and whatever he/she may know about it. FWIW, most matters of public policy, including elections, get decided imperfectly. That's democracy. It's ultimately going to be a political decision, and hopefully the government will do the right thing.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:42am PT
|
Well I was going to mention the hwy but I figured it was too obvious. I'm sure they'll sleep just fine.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 01:21am PT
|
One of the things which would make the place great is an electric gondola to get you up to the sub alpine so you wouldn't have to talk your redneck buddy into 4wheeling you up there in his gas guzzling monster truck.
Trying to maintain at least a bit of humour here. Remember, we're Canadian and known for our manners.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 01:47am PT
|
Based on documents on file with the Land Title Office and the Corporate Registry, as of early April:
1. The gravel pit (the "Lands") has parcel identifier 008-964-777.
2. On February 7th, 2012, 0930756 B.C. Ltd., or #43 - 40137 Government Road, Squamish, B.C. V9B 0N7 became registered owner of the Lands. TLC The Land Conservancy of British Columbia was the former owner.
3. The Lands are subject to conservation covenant CA2382718 (six pages) in favour of TLC. The material wording of the covenant says:
"1. a) that no infrastructure will be built on the Lands that would provide for an aerial tramway;
i) up the rock face known as the "Chief" in the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park; or
ii) having an end point within the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park or Shannon Falls Provincial Park."
There is an interesting question as to the interpretation and enforcement of this.
4. The Lands are also subject to restrictive covenant CA2407771 (21 pages) in favour of the District of Squamish. In summary, that covenant says that:
There is an attached geotechnical hazard assessment from an engineering firm, addressed to GroundEffects Developments Inc.
The District won't supply water, sewage, or storm water disposal.
The Land can't be subdivided, or developed in a way not consistent with the geotechnical report.
A gondola must be the principal use.
The maximum retail/food/beverage operation on the Lands is 416 sq m (= about 4,500 sq ft). The total operation can't be much more than twice that.
0930756 must instal water, sewage and storm water at its own expense.
No building can occur until 0930756 has met a number of conditions, including obtaining all required approvals; providing an acceptable design, water supply and sewage disposal, fire suppression, traffic flow, storm water, trails, a lighting plan, a servicing agreement, and a "locals" ticket discount.
0930756 has three, possibly five, years to complete construction, and if it doesn't, the District can step in and finish the project using a security deposit.
5. There is a new mortgage on the Lands, CA2408174, in favour of Fivestone Capital Corp., incorporation number BC0902677.
6. 0930756 B.C. Ltd. was incorporated on January 23rd, 2012. Its address is a law firm in Squamish. Its directors, and their stated towns of residence, are Trevor Dunn (North Vancouver), David Greenfield (Whistler) and Michael Hutchison (Squamish).
It appears that 0930756 B.C. Ltd. may be the same as GroundEffects Development Inc.
7. Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. (also 0920870) was incorporated on September 21st, 2011. Its address is the same law office in Squamish, and its sole director is Michael Hutchison.
8. Fivestone Capital Corp. (also 0902677) was incorporated on February 10th, 2011. Its address is the same law office in Squamish, and its sole director is Michael Hutchison.
That is what was on the public record regarding these things as of about ten days ago, and is enough for tonight.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 11:27am PT
|
I find it interesting that the gravel pit, which Anders is so convinced should never have anything to do with a gondola, has TWO covenants attached to it which pave the way for a gondola. One from TLC and one from the District of Squamish. Strange, but true.
The TLC is fine with it, the District of Squamish is fine with it, B.C. Parks looks to be fine with it. Hmmmmmm.
I suspect it seems to appear that, in a roundabout way, there could perhaps be the possibility that Anders has met his match.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 11:48am PT
|
One of the things which would make the place great is an electric gondola to get you up to the sub alpine so you wouldn't have to talk your redneck buddy into 4wheeling you up there in his gas guzzling monster truck.
its currently a twenty minute drive in a 2wd car to the same place you can get to with a gondola...except it doesnt cost 60$ for a pair and if your running late you still get to come home. Besides the gondola opens at 9am its useless for climbers.
But I get the arguments, there is a highway, there is a casino, neon signs and there are loads of grouse grinders looking for some alpine lattes...so why not just continue to sh#t on the place and put in a gondola.
Cant wait for these magical trails they build, only 30$ a day to use them..yay!
The TLC is fine with it,
IF you actually go to their site you will see that they clearly do not support any part of it
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 11:56am PT
|
I don't believe those covenants state anything related to "never". The two covenants dictate the only development allowed in the gravel pit is a gondola which has its terminus outside the park. It's actually pretty simple. Kind of like the powers that be have been on this for years. Call me crazy.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:07pm PT
|
O.K., Hoser. Perhaps they claim to be against the idea. Maybe you could explain to us why they (TLC) put a covenant on that land which paves the way for a gondola, as long as it doesn't run up the Chief or terminate in the Park. One would think that if they (TLC) were so "against" a gondola, their covenant would have stated something much more complicated like, "this parcel shall not be used in any way for a gondola". Oh yah, that would've been tough. You can keep calling me crazy, it just seems like it's all there in black and white, neatly delivered to us by the M.H..
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:26pm PT
|
Jim, put your glasses on Buddy. Don't just read the one line only; the next two lines are the important part.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:40pm PT
|
It's always a good idea to proof read the documents you pay lawyers to type up.
Just because they charge $497.00 an hour doesn't mean they're good at their job.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 12:45pm PT
|
Sorry Pal, didn't mean that as an Ouch. Glad you found your glasses. The covenants are attached to the fee simple chunk of land, not the B.C. Park.
Infrastructure, yes....terminus, not so much.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 01:15pm PT
|
Funny thing about these super-topo-time-eraser conversations is how the topics keep repeating themselves. We covered this tricky-wording covenant stuff a few weeks ago, in Ander's initial post.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 01:22pm PT
|
It's interesting how many different perceptions there are on the same documents that Mighty Hiker put together. It definitely does not seem to contradict his position on the gondola in any way & i do not fully comprehend how it paves the way for a gondola or is pro-gondola. I do agree though that whoever wrote the covenants needs a good cuff upside the cheek.
What do i find interesting is that it appears that ground effects.co or squamish gondola co. or whatever the hell they will be called next week appears to have a massive amount of planning & work ahead of them if they plan on building this thing by following the proper, legal processes outlined in the covenants. To have all this done in time to start constructing this fall seems next to impossible, an astronomical amount of work & $$, unless of course there is some sort of grey zone that allows them to bypass or sneak by some of these processes.
The District won't supply water, sewage, or storm water disposal.
0930756 must instal water, sewage and storm water at its own expense.
This will be quite a task on it's own & i'm sure that environmental assessments will be required among many other approvals, especially if they have to take water & process waste on site.
Maybe they will just have porta potties?
A gondola must be the principal use.
Not biking, skiing, or even hiking. Only the great sport of gondola riding will be the principal use. This pretty much answers the question of the developers building some sort of cool grouse grind type trail or bike park for everyone that seems to be assumed by many, after all why would they? The busiest park & trail system in BC is already in place on their doorstep as far as they are probably concerned.
No building can occur until 0930756 has met a number of conditions, including obtaining all required approvals; providing an acceptable design, water supply and sewage disposal, fire suppression, traffic flow, storm water, trails, a lighting plan, a servicing agreement, and a "locals" ticket discount.
Who will approve these plans? Again seems like a lot of work, $$, review, & approval will be required.
0930756 has three, possibly five, years to complete construction, and if it doesn't, the District can step in and finish the project using a security deposit.
This is the one that kind of scares me, and please, correct me if i'm wrong but does this statement basically say that if these guys bog down & can't or choose not to finish completion of the gondola that the district will finish it using a security deposit provided by the developer? Well who, what or how do they decide the amount of this deposit & what guarantee do we have that it will be enough to complete the project? If it's not enough who gets to foot the bill? It seems to be a fine exit strategy for the proponents should things go pear shaped. I would really like to see what the estimated cost of construction for this entire project is estimated at.
Bruce, i appreciate your "devil's advocate" position on this as well of that of others, it is good to see what others think & you bring some very good logic to the table, i really do appreciate the opinion of those who have been in Squamish for many years as it really puts some perspective on things. My opinion, which is just that, filled with assumptions & speculations of my own & essentially means nothing -is that if these guys are forced to do things by the book, as they should, that there is no way that this thing should be approved or even constructed. If it is i am very pessimistic towards the feasibility of it being a successful business venture. I do not agree with the whole park land removal thing, location, or the eyesore/overuse factor, but again the main concern should be if it is realistic & feasible for a corporate venture such as this to be built anywhere around here, the rest is as Ander's would say, just details & distractions. That is the big picture we should be focused on.
BTW there is no way that Anders case could be thrown out of the Grizzly or the OP as they are both out of business & shut down. If watering holes are having a hard time surviving in a climbing/logging town how is a gondy going to make it???!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
|
O.K., Ryan. The covenants pave the way in the following manner: #1- The gravel pit can house a gondola so long as it terminates outside the park. #2- The only permitted use for the gravel pit is for a gondola.
Hope this lets you fully comprehend the pro-gondola slant contained in the covenants.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
|
Agreed. If I miss mine in the morning, I get grumpy.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 10:16pm PT
|
Bruce - it is long past time that you offer Anders an apology. You're not the only one who has strong feelings about this business but, with the exception of you, no one else has directly insulted or sworn at anyone.
Some of the postings in support of this proposal imply that the government can be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. Perhaps in your dreams. The HST lie that our new bemedalled Consul-General in London (the latter award courtesy of fat Stevie Harper) told us is projected to cost B.C. taxpayers $1,000,000,000 (like all those zeroes?) the last time I noticed. No, we can't trust them until we as voters of all beliefs demand integrity as a prerequisite for election to public office.
As for the senior bureaucrats in the Parks Branch, since I don't know them personally, I can't speculate upon their motives. What I can tell you from over 15 years of employment with the B.C. government is that it is ludicrous to expect career bureaucrats, especially at the executive level, to risk their futures by confronting politicians over political decisions - especially in the absence of whistle-blower legislation.
Perhaps even I would feel differently about this proposal IF it was the first and only time that the boundaries of Class "A" parks were adjusted to suit the purposes of developers, AND that iron-clad guarantees were implemented to prevent similar recurrences in the future. We all know that this not going to happen until the electorate starts to demand a sense of honour from our politicians.
There is something in the world of labour relations that refers to a culminating incident as a fair reason for firing someone - essentially, it means that if an employee violates his terms of employment, he is given a warning to knock it off. Depending upon the severity of the transgression, an escalating series of sanctions are imposed until a relatively trivial incident results in termination. To me, this gondola proposal is a culminating incident. It upsets me big time to see friends of mine getting arrested for trying to hold the government to its word.
This is a large part of my resistance to this proposal. Class "A" parks are supposed to be preserved in their current state for future generations,
and if the politicians actually have the competence to foresee the kind of land use conflicts that may arise from this designation, then it is their responsibility to designate some other park status. This would preclude the kind of dust-up that we're having at the moment, and us opponents could gripe all we wanted, but we would be pretty well out of luck.
There is a book written by Sid Marty called "Men for the Mountains". It's a great read, and it also addresses many of the issues we are discussing - I particularly recommend it to the supporters of this project.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 11:19pm PT
|
Good sleuthing Anders but certainly there are odd inconsistencies in the covenant. What did the land sell for. We need to know if there was some sort of nefarious pricing.
We also need to know the proposed hours of operation and if the developers intend to restrict gondola users from accessing the backcountry up top because of liability reasons. That would be the deal breaker of the century.
Organise a list of questions regarding key constraints which will put backcountry users in a worse position than we are in now.
Attend the meeting on the 19th and demand from all stakeholders that this is not to be an access cockup like these goddam IPP's.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2012 - 11:23pm PT
|
Cute remarks about Special Kay aside, Stewart, "the Woz" , is rite.
Nope, he's wrong. Anders needed his ass kicked. Several of us had been trying to do it in a gentle, friendly fashion, and it hadn't worked.
But I think Bruce's boil-over got the message through.
In his post, Stewart said,
Some of the postings in support of this proposal imply
As far as I can tell, no one here is posting in support of the proposal. A few people have said they can see some positives in it, but no one has come out and said they are fully in support.
What Bruce was upset about, was that Anders was repeatedly implying that there was something crooked going on, but refusing to provide any evidence. Neither Bruce, nor Hamish, nor I, nor anyone else that I've seen posting here ever disagreed with the idea that their might be something crooked, or bad, or evil going on. But before we sign on with the "Evil Developers Will Destroy The Park" club, we'd like to see some evidence.
That was why Bruce got pissed. And if an apology is in order, it should be coming from Anders, not Bruce.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 12:11am PT
|
Has Anders upset some long held tradition of neutrality? Sitting on the fence seems kind of lame.
Are you for this deal or against it? Study time is up...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 12:12am PT
|
The word "compromise" just doesn't seem to be in some people's vocabulary.
Early on here someone was yarning on about how the Park is strictly for the enjoyment of all Canadians and tourists alike. Well that's exactly what will be in each gondola capsule... people. The tram won't be carrying livestock, oil, or fuel rods. Just people. The same people slated to enjoy the Park. What, exactly, is so terrible about that?
The more time passes, the more I'm convinced some people would like the Park changed from Park (for people to enjoy) to Preserve.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 12:28am PT
|
A compromise requires two distinct sides...
... fence sitting doesn't further compromise, though cheerleaders can motivate the players.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 01:08am PT
|
DING DONG PEOPLE :
My question is will it only serve the tourons and f*#k the backcountry users over for access in the process .
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 01:14am PT
|
No but I am overdone on the chossy limestone here today. Got a senior citizens discount pass with young Riley from superpower topos. He is a good guy. Solid climber too
Edit 2.0: All limestone is garbage!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 01:20am PT
|
Ya, that's it, that's what those evil developers' whole plan is.... to screw over the backcountry users. I can't believe I missed that all this time.
Jesus Crisis, you've got to stick to the limestone Buddy.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 01:30am PT
|
Hamish I am in favour of gondolas giving backcountry users access to the alpine and there is a risk that may not happen unless those terms and conditions are expressly written into the deal with no constraints due to liability concerns.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 09:45am PT
|
2:09 in the a.m.? Holy Mac, Jim, that's gotta make monday morning feel rough. You're right, Anders has asked some good questions and that's great. It just seems that he also often answers them as well. And his answers are pretty negative. I realize he's captaining the NIMPP (not in my park please) ship but he's a good lawyer and a good writer and sometimes it's difficult to tell the fact from the fiction.
It's too bad they didn't have super-topo-time-eraser back in the mid-sixties when the Garibaldi Lift company got rolling with the creekside Gondola. I'm betting there were some die hard skiers who strongly opposed everything to do with that. Now look at the scene up there; when it snowed six feet in the last week of March I don't recall seeing too many unhappy people. And they're all breathing fresh air and getting their heartrate up.
Not my scene as I'd rather be ripping through the forest on my 29" mtn bike, but I've seen the smiles and they're genuine. And they come from all over the world.
Why are some people so unwilling to share?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 10:29am PT
|
There are some real negatives. That some harsh words about the use of innuendo instead of facts in the argument against the gondola were spoken doesn't mean there are no facts.
F'rinstance: That the government will be required to complete the proj if the developer fails/bails shouldn't be looked at as a free pass. If the govt steps in, who do you think will be footing the bill? Is the business plan available for public view? If it is, it should be examined carefully. If it isn't, then pressure needs to be applied to bring it in to the open.
Another potential negative is the waste management/pollution issue. In order to ensure that enough people ride the thing to make it pay, there's going to have to be something at the top other than a nice view. Building a restaurant and a theater for dancing bears or whatever creates potential for significant environmental damage. Without some kind of enforceable guarantee that this will not happen, the permit should be withheld.
The slippery-slope issue of future Park development applications being easier because this one was allowed needs a look as well. I still believe that it is worth considering a requirement that any land removed from a park be compensated with an equal or greater amount of land added.
I'm sure there are other potential negatives, and I hope this thread has finally evolved to the point where they can be considered seriously. "It seems to me that developers appear to be evil and perhaps may..." is not a valid argument. And dismissing arguments in favor of the project by simply saying "That's irrelevant because Park Land Is Sacred" is both unhelpful and insulting.
So let the real debate begin...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 10:38am PT
|
Oh man, we're at 521 entries and just commencing with the debate now? I'd better get my butt down to the grocery store and stock up on coffee.
My favorite is coffee with Special Kay.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:11am PT
|
Oh man, we're at 521 entries and just commencing with the debate now?
Hamish, you're still new here, and probably don't appreciate that taking only 500 posts to get some kind of rational debate started on a contentious subject is an unbelievably short time. Go look at the big political thread. 17,000 posts in and they're still at the "I'm right and you're wrong." "No, you're wrong and I'm right." "F*#k you" "No, f*#k you" stage. And that's the third iteration of the thread. Total post count on it now is over 60,000.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:12am PT
|
O M G :(
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:24am PT
|
hey Anders, I don't quite understand the legality of some of the documents you refer to above, perhaps you can help educate me... in particular:
0930756 has three, possibly five, years to complete construction, and if it doesn't, the District can step in and finish the project using a security deposit.
seems to imply that "the District" will step in and finish the project, spending the security deposit. Presumably "the District" is some combination of "legislative" and "executive" bodies, constituted in a manner I'm not familiar with, especially vis-a-vis separation of powers.
my question is, how can the "executive" branch commit funds that are controlled by the "legislative" branch, and apparently not subject to the affirmation of the public, who ultimately provide the financing (through their taxes) to engage in a business enterprise which a commercial entity initiates?
it would sound like a political system which picks up obligations it did not initiate or plan for...
anyway, it is a mystery to me.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:28am PT
|
it would sound like a political system which picks up obligations it did not initiate or plan for...
anyway, it is a mystery to me.
No need for foolishness about "legislative branch" and "executive branch," because in Canada, the Queen's word is the law.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:44am PT
|
Bruce k- thank you for making this thread worth reading. Your humor is infectious!
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 02:40pm PT
|
5) Tourons look at squish and think it looks cool. go have dinner in squish.
They pass up the finest Squamish dining available, White spot, and head for dinner at a world class resort.
Actually, that Japanese place in the mall (forget the name) is excellent. And I recall a pretty good Italian place there, too. Most stuff in Whistler is overpriced.
[sorry for the thread drift - now back to your regularly scheduled back-biting]
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 04:14pm PT
|
Just so we're all on the same page, the million dollar views will be of Howe Sound and the mountains. I hate to be master-of-the-obvious but I believe we need to cover all the bases, as some readers probably still believe the gondola goes (potentially) up the Chief.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 04:45pm PT
|
Seems like you guys can waffle between the views are awesome to who cares about the gondola the views/experience is already wrecked with highways and transmission lines...
I am not in the tourism industry but, and as Hamish has pointed out in previous posts the Chief is ram packed these days...so is Shannon Falls so is Murrin...so where are the dollars then...
A gondola to attract the Whistler/Vancouver crowd to stay in Squamish...do you think that crowd is eating sushi in a Squamish mall...
Its a nice dream though.
Grouse is private property they can do whatever they want like close trails and imply rules on those who cross their property...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
|
The sushi joint in the higlands (squamish) is so popular you can barely squeeze into the place. I know for a fact Vancouverites make the 35 minute drive up just to eat there.
Soon enough they'll be serving the gondola roll, shaped like a sphere but still yummy and good for you.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 05:59pm PT
|
Raise your hands if you have ever had sex in a gondola.
Case closed, let the development proceed.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 06:24pm PT
|
Yes everyone who lives in Vancouver farts 100's
Of course if you say you live in Vancouver you cant actually be from Surrey...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 06:26pm PT
|
Since there is some debate about what the view from up there will be, I should tell you what I've seen. Although if word of this gets out, the construction will probably start tomorrow, so y'all have to swear yourselves to secrecy.
I hiked up to the area around the top of Shannon Falls a few years ago with a friend. As we approached the water, I was a far enough ahead of him that we weren't talking, and with the ground being soft and springy, I wasn't making any noise as I rounded a corner to a view of...
Well, I suppose she was in her early twenties. Sitting on a big flat rock at the waters edge. Completely naked. She was sitting with her knees apart, and was staring down at her beaver with a look of stunned surprise. The look on her face was priceless: "What on earth is this? How did this thing get here?"
A male voice diverted her attention from her crotch, and I faded quietly back down the trail as she started to reply.
No idea what the story behind that look was, but if there was a gondola I'd sure ride it up to the top to see if she was still there.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 09:40pm PT
|
The thing that many who are irked with Anders don't seem to realize is that specific and concrete objections to this plan require full access to information that is not accessible to the public, and that there are such things as libel laws out there. So, hypothetically, there could indeed be dark motives or lousy planning behind this idea, but who is going to demand effective freedom of information laws or payment for an army of forensic accountants, lawyers, etc. to investigate such a possibility? Occam's Razor is still an effective, albeit not infallible, tool to use in the absence of concrete evidence in these situations.
In the event that you are about to snicker about "conspiracy theories", I would appreciate a $1000 payment (each and in advance) for the names of cabinet ministers and/or premiers who have been forced from office for betrayal of the public trust in the last 50 years.
Maybe there is indeed something wrong with my opposition to this proposal but, with the projected 100-400K users of this gift to the tourists, and with the RIDICULOUS assumption that it runs non-stop for 365 days/year you are looking at 273 - almost 1100 riders/day, so double that number is probably a conservative guess for the operator to achieve his projected ridership. Also, if this plan succeeds, I would be happy to bet that this is only the beginning of development of the area.
Also, yes, I especially do object to the construction of for-profit facilities to help tourists get a good view from the high country - life isn't always fair. And for making the beauty of this area more accessible to children and 90 year-olds, gimme a break. What you are saying is make it accessible to people who can afford the price tag for the ride - and to make it easier for you guys to get at the areas around Mt. Habrich.
Here's a suggestion, although I confess that my apparently inadequate computer skills prevented me from locating a usable map of the park boundaries: why not pressure the current elected hacks to fix up the existing road to Habrich, and everyone's happy - except the developer.
If I still haven't made my point, I'll expect your full support for my plan to chisel holds and drill chicken bolts all over the Chief so that "average" climbers can get a great view on some of the finest rock climbs on the West Coast - the tourists will flock there in droves. And these "improvements" won't even be visible from the highway.
Finally, to give you an idea of what it's like for a nature-loving citizen of this nation to consider a visit to one of my (and your) parks AND who happens to be a bit lower down the feeding chain than many of you, it would cost me almost exactly the same rent that I'm paying for my apartment to spend an equivalent amount of time at the Ralph River campsite in Stratchcona Park - if I could snag a reservation and free transportation. I don't have the numbers at hand regarding the bite involved for parking myself at the base of the Chief, but a stay there plus the projected 30 bucks for a ride on the gondola wouldn't be an easy outlay either. Oddly enough, I don't live in a cardboard box - just one of the crappier areas of Courtenay.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 10:30pm PT
|
Hi Woz. Try not to let this hacking around get your blood pressure up; life's too short. I'm pretty sure it's a whopping $5.00/ night to camp at the bulletheads. You could "park" yourself there for $150/mo. Surely that's a deal, even by Courtenay standards. And you don't have to ride the tram if you don't want to. You can hike up , although it may take awhile. Probably like hiking the Chief a few times in a row....you'll love it.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 10:42pm PT
|
No, Ghost - Anders doesn't need his ass kicked any more than you do (but didn't) for a stunt that you pulled many years ago in a provincial park. Perhaps I'm mistaken, though, and it wasn't you - in which case I offer you my sincerest apologies.
I'm not aware of having done anything too reprehensible in a Provincial Park, but no need to apologize. Let me know what the evil deed was and if it is mine, I'll own up to it.
As to the ass-kicking, I disagree. Not that I've got any kind of hate on for Anders, just that he was continually implying that the people involved in the project were engaged in something nefarious without ever providing evidence. That kind of "evidence", if presented in favor of this proposal, would have had him steaming mad, so there's really no excuse for him presenting it against. If it took some harsh words to wake him up, so be it.
And if you read back through everything I've said here, you'll see that I don't disagree that it all might be a giant scam. Or epically stupid in economic terms. But if one is to argue against it, one ought to present real evidence, not innuendo.
As to your comment that such evidence is difficult to come by, well, if you want to win a high-stakes fight, you've got to work for your victory. The people who are proposing to build the thing have put in a lot of work and spent a lot of money. To expect to defeat them merely by hinting that they might be sleazy is to live in dreamland.
I don't have a dog of my own in this fight. Squamish is my home climbing area, and will always claim a huge place in my heart. But after climbing mostly elsewhere for the last twelve years, I find Squamish noisy, crowded, and almost the antithesis of Park-like. To the point that a gondola simply can not make it worse and may well make it better.
But I wish you all well in the fight
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2012 - 11:53pm PT
|
What if this results in even more cars parking in the Chief lots. It's nearly impossible to park there on the weekends as it is.
You guys make sure that they have a parking plan that jives with the projected ridership with out using the park.
I camped about ten days in the campground last summer and you cannot hear the highway.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 12:07am PT
|
O.K. Boss, we'll get right on that for you. You keep climbing. We'll keep making sure "they" do everything to your satisfaction.
I'm just jealous Bruce...wish I was heading to Black Velvet tomorrow. Rip it up.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 10:23am PT
|
Cooooooooool, what's that? Levitation 29? Wild Turkey?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 10:44am PT
|
Wow, zero outta three; do I get a prize for being close?
Where's the darkside?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 10:51am PT
|
If they install a gondola from the parking pullout to somewhere up in Pine Creek Canyon, I might give that last route a shot...
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 07:58pm PT
|
Back to the burden of proof for nefarious dealings, especially when it involves our elected representatives. Here's a hypothetical situation: You want to establish a high-end automobile dealership on park land and you approach me for re-zoning approval - the sleazoid politician. I tell you that it's going to cost you a Lexus. You point out that it's going to look pretty strange if I don't pay for it, so I, not being completely stupid, agree to do so, but point out that I expect to get the money back - in cash.
Since even I can see several holes in this scenario, at least some of them are deliberate, since I have no interest in teaching a course in corruption (I'll let the politicians do that), nor am I qualified to provide this kind of instruction, but I hope you get the idea.
Meanwhile, the people who are opposed to, forgive me, paving paradise to put up a parking lot are at my throat for approving the proposal while I make inspiring speeches about jobs and progress.
Those who smell a rat are looking at massive legal bills and the major expenditure of (thankless, unpaid, and certainly not tax-deductible) time and effort to rally opposition against this outrage, and their only hope to prove malfeasance is to get their hands on the dealer's books to see how he managed to cover up the disappearance of a Lexus from his inventory - provided they were observant enough to notice that the politician is now driving a new car from that dealership, which he has apparently paid for. To do so would require the assistance of the cops and forensic accountants who, understandably, might expect some evidence before spending their time and effort to investigate a pillar of the community. The opponents are now in a Catch 22 situation: They can't prove wrongdoing without evidence and they can't get the evidence without proof of wrondoing.
I hope the above hypothetical scenario makes sense, since it may explain why the opponents of this proposal are unable to provide solid evidence that this project MAY not be all that it appears to be on the surface. Government and big business are highly skilled at covering their asses, and they have access to powerful legal resources that are not available to mere mortals.
Meanwhile, what are your objections to fixing up the road to Habrich so that all of those widows and orphans can get a free look at the scenery while you guys (and gals) can hike, bike, climb and ski to your heart's content? Why not Britannia Beach, or somewhere closer to Van? Then, again, there's still Fat City up the road for those desperate for a gondola ride.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 08:37pm PT
|
Hi Woz. As Bruce wrote in a couple weeks ago, the Ministry of Stumps isn't in the business of fixing up old logging roads. Period. You want to talk precedents, how many British Columians would like to have their local logging roads fixed up and maintained?
Finacially speaking, fixing these roads up is no small deal. Some bright light wrote in a few weeks ago how it would only be a half day to fix up the Habrich road. Not so much. Besides, you're immediately into environmental concerns, liability issues, drainage, maintenance, the list goes on and on and on. M.O.F. just de-activates and will check back later on the viability of use for logging.
If you believe the Province is broke now, set aside some moola to fix up and maintain everyone's favorite logging road.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 08:55pm PT
|
Thanks Bearbreeder. That's a good read. I see the proponents acknowledge Anders but wonder where he's been for the last year and why they've never been contacted by him. Hmmmmm.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 10:53pm PT
|
I recognised cloud tower from the recent trip report here. Killer sends Bruce when were those shots taken?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 11:58pm PT
|
in Cape Town we have a Gondola. It's bloody marvelous!
Agreed. My favorite kind of transport. So quiet. Though we walked down.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 01:25pm PT
|
There's a pretty good rant in the Georgia Straight website regarding all this gondola stuff. In short, it says that no one is trying to take away anyone's climbs or hiking trails; they'll all still be there. But a special group is trying to make sure others don't get a chance to play in the back of the sandbox. Then it ends with a question asking if these peoples' mothers had taught them how to share properly.
Kinda goes with Rolf's entries from Mar. 27/28
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 01:44pm PT
|
Didn't find the rant you mentioned, but there is a fairly long article on the Straight website here: http://www.straight.com/article-634541/vancouver/gondola-split-chief-park?page=0%2C0
It provides more information than I've seen elsewhere, and doesn't take sides. It does quote a variety of people with a variety of viewpoints, and ends with a brief interview with ST's own Mighty Hiker (who appears to have moderated his views somewhat):
Anders Ourom sat on both the study team that recommended the creation of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park and the citizens’ advisory committee that helped draw up the park’s management plan in the 1990s. The former president of the Climbers’ Access Society of B.C. helped lead the opposition to the 2004 gondola proposal.
Ourom told the Straight that it’s “quite possible” the new gondola plan could compromise park values. Although he’s not “completely opposed” to the proposal, he said he doubts he’ll use the gondola if it’s built.
“It’s the sort of thing where it might make sense, but it deserves a really, really hard look,” Ourom said by phone from his Vancouver home office. “I think it’s up to the proponent to show that, yes, balancing all the factors, it’s a benefit to the park and the public.”
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 02:20pm PT
|
WOW, moderation of the nation. M.H. quoted as not being totally opposed the gondola? Now I think we just may be making a little progress here after all. Hats off to you, M.H., people like people who share.
Don't worry, I liked you even when you didn't want to share.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 02:20pm PT
|
Where is the parking for 130 cars and a tram station in the gravel pit. This is going to hose the Chief users if trammies park in the park.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 02:30pm PT
|
Call me cynical
No, not cynical, just lacking a view of the big picture. Here's the deal: You're right about the thing not attracting hundreds of riders per day in the winter, but that's only because you don't know about Phase II. Once they've got the ski runs carved through the trees, and all the snow making machinery in place, it'll pack in more people in the winter than in the summer.
Hundreds per day? Hell, there'll be thousands! Who would want to drive an extra half hour to Whistler when they can get their turns at Squamish? Sophisticated Euros and Asians will swarm, dropping a thick coating of dollars over everything in Squamish.
And not only that, but... What? Why are you laughing? You don't believe me? But... but...
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
|
Stewart- I think you have the wrong fellow if you are under the impression that ghost is Perry. Not to worry, happens all the time with all the pseudonyms. Chief is Perry. Ghost is David.
Who is that anders Ourom guy? He sounds quite reasonable. Too bad he doesn't post here. He could really provide some moderation to that MH guy.
The old internet axiom proves it self true once again ;)
hmm maybe we're going at this all wrong...
one-kilometre-long, 20-metre-wide corridor
This sounds like exactly what we need at the base of the Malemute!!! build a big fence, we could climb there legally!!!
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
|
So all the parking lots are packed full of hikers and the brilliant idea is to build a gondola...and this will be the magical tipping point that brings Squamish loads of tourist dollars?
Seems to me that a few more trails would be the answer...even just fixing up the connector trail from Slhaney to the Chief would help with the congestion. As is stands now I can hike to the backside on a weekend and not run into one single other person if I approach from the Slhaney trail head.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 09:22pm PT
|
Good idea, but that's a little like adding another merge lane at Park Royal to help with traffic approaching the Lion's Gate. It's all dreamy on the merge but you've still got to get over the bridge and through the causeway.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
|
No its about giving people what they want instead of telling people what they need.
People at this time of year and for the next couple months are after low elevation trails...right now they get the Chief and thats it!!!
Grind is CLOSED and so will any trail thats accessed from this gondola at this time of year.
So in a few months they get two trails...give them what they want not this silly gondola idea.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 10:18pm PT
|
Just recieved this link from someone in WB when i enquired about monthly sightseeing user numbers. Page 15 of the investor report has the stats, unfortunately they don't share monthly numbers with fools like me. I do find these numbers quite interesting however, as it's fair to say that a majority of their sightseeing biz is done between Dec-April & July-Sept. With about 4 months of nothing in the inbetween times.
http://www.whistlerblackcombholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240837&p=irol-presentations
100k - 400k / annum. Minimum number suggests about 270 /day.
It would appear that the Squamish gondola proponents plan on doing the same business as those up in "fat city", even though they will be nowhere's near the scale of operation to accomodate such numbers.
Considering that WB (the biggest resort in NA) is doing just over 300k sightseers per annum it is a bit of a stretch to say that even 33% of those who go sightseeing in Whistler per year (100,000)will ride the gondola in Squamish as well. No clue where they got that 400,000 number from!!??
They better have some serious plans for some massive innukshuks up by Habrich or they are doomed since it is obvious that the actual Squamish gondola operation will be "rinky dink" in every single area of comparison-except projected user numbers apparently :-)
If they can make a bigger innukshuk than WB they may just be able to survive......
Who's going to the meeting tomorrow night??
Bruce Kay's Soc's vs. Mighty Hikers Greasers
Or is it the other way around?
Should be a good one, sadly i have to work so my inner pony boy will have to be restrained.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 10:50pm PT
|
Yup, I got the wrong guy in all the confusion. I've sent Ghost my apology and here it is on the forum. I f*#ked up and apologize for any "collateral damage".
As for the rest of my comments about politicians, I truly believe that the best default position with these contentious issues is maximum cynicism - make these guys declare that there is no secret financial, social, family or political connection to the developer or their political career is over for good. Also it would be nice to expect that they resign from office if they break a campaign promise without a clearly defensible reason.
This might seem a bit extreme, but it would have saved us from Gordon Campbell, and perhaps it would have prevented the nation from having a constipated ideologue for PM - you may recall that our current Defence Minister betrayed David Orchard on national television to facilitate the creation of Canada's current ruling party.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 12:25am PT
|
I said this to Stewart in an email, but I'll repeat it here: No apology necessary. No mean-spirited words were spoken.
And that's true of this whole debate. By internet forum standards this has been intelligently conducted and very civilized. Pig-headedness and name-calling have been largely absent, and participants have (gasp...) actually taken notice of other people's thoughts.
Rock on.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 12:49am PT
|
Does BC use anything like this to guide development proposals? This is Washington State's initial process for projects:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/ecy05045.pdf
This checklist covers most of the questions that need to be answered before a proposal can proceed. In some cases an environmental impact statement must be written but that is usually not the case as most specific questions agencies have can be addressed by providing more information.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 12:57am PT
|
Canadians are known for their manners. By the way, the Canucks won a game, Anders seems to be warming up to the gondola, and Spring is right around the corner. Things are looking up!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 01:34am PT
|
I've been rather preoccupied with other matters the last few days - have I missed anything?
The information that was posted on Saturday night was of interest in and of itself, although you have to read and think about it. It was also to illustrate that FOSC has done its homework – part of which is to alert people to what is being proposed, especially people who don't live in the area, hadn't been informed, and wanted to comment and participate.
It's interesting that when the NPS proposes a new master plan, it’s widely publicized, with ample opportunities for public discussion. (See e.g. http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1798750/Fence-to-built-around-El-Cap-Meadow-Merced-River-Plan.); Squamish is a provincial park, rather than a national one, and while it offers excellent climbing and scenery, isn’t quite of the stature of Yosemite. Still, you’d think that given the usage and values of the Chief and area, and that it’s an established international attraction, consultations on making significant change would be wide and inclusive.
The meeting on Thursday is one of many small steps needed for the proposal to get all the required approvals. I wouldn’t make too much of it. The SLRD board, which includes some councilors from Squamish, will hopefully see the problems relating to removing land from Class A parks, the flawed process, and the importance of upholding the intent of conservation covenants, and require a step back. The easy decision for them would be to say any problems with the process are the province’s issue, not theirs, and that all they need to consider is rezoning a bit of land – not that the province seems much more interested in the big picture. FOSC hopes to be well represented at the meeting, and ensure our concerns are heard, but when you consider the location, and the fact that many who may want to comment simply can’t attend, it’s the letters that those who are concerned write to the politicians that may be more important. Ed Cooper and many others can’t be there in person - that's part of the problem. We certainly encourage those who can, to attend, but it's not the sort of meeting where those who are most numerous/loudest are the 'winners'.
At this point the most effective thing to do is to write, and to inform everyone you know about what’s happening. Write to the following, with the header “Stawamus Chief Gondola Proposal”:
Premier Christy Clark: premier@gov.bc.ca
Terry Lake, Minister of Environment: env.minister@gov.bc.ca
Adrian Dix, Leader of the Opposition: adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca
Rob Fleming, NDP Environment Critic: rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca
Joan McIntyre, MLA: joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca
Chief Ian Campbell, Squamish Nation: chief_ian_campbell@squamish.net
Mayor Rob Kirkham: rkirkham@squamish.ca
Chair Susan Gimse, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District: sgimse@telus.net
State your views, the reasons you have them, why you’re interested in this issue, who you are, and where you live. Remind them that government’s job is to protect and manage parks, in the public interest.
You can also write to:
• Vancouver Sun: sunletters@vancouversun.com
• Squamish Chief (newspaper) dburke@squamishchief.com
• Globe & Mail letters@globeandmail.ca
• Georgia Straight letters@straight.com
• Vancouver Province provletters@theprovince.com
I'll try to check back in this weekend.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 10:45am PT
|
Let's keep a rational perspective. Many of supporters have voiced support for amenities and benefits which presently fall under the category of fantasy.
Visualize the worst case scenario and strive to prevent it.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2012 - 04:13pm PT
|
Come on guys seriously! We get the lower Malamute classics back, plus make sure we put a clause in the contract that,
A: If this thing goes belly up the security deposit be more than enough with interest to clean up the mess.
B: The tower land is cleaned up and replanted. Then re-classified class A park land.
C: An item is added to the chief park master plan which states that such commercial interests are no longer permitted.
D: another item is added which states that the chief park is class A park land and shall never be re-classified for any reason.
So then if it fails we get it all back + more and if it succeeds then squamish will see some of the economic benefits + WE GET CLEAN CRACK BACK!!!!
And hand jive, caboose, ect, ect...
The added benefit is that since we are willing to compromise we dont look so stuck in our ways. If it does fail we would accomplish a lot more towards protecting the park.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 01:38am PT
|
Um, Mike? We don't get anything back at the lower Malemute. Unless you know something we don't about CN Rail closing shop and pulling up the tracks? This issue has no bearing at all on the Malemute. (maybe you were kidding and I just missed it...)
K
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 01:47am PT
|
I was kidding sorta. If we can re-classify park land for them then why can't they buy an equal strip of land, to reclassify as parkland? Why then could that strip not be the land between the tracks and the Malamute?
since cn is not willing to accept the liability of having people near the tracks we could take away that worry for them by building a fence. Win Win in my book.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 02:45am PT
|
An interesting rainy evening in Britannia Beach, the community about 10 km south of Squamish. It's been neglected for much of the 40 years since the mine closed, but is now getting going again.
It seems reasonably likely that no one changed his/her mind tonight. Nothing much new was said, either, although there were a few interesting tidbits.
It was a Squamish-Lillooet Regional District meeting, a required public hearing on a bylaw to rezone land where the proposed upper terminal would go. (Not to be confused with the District of Squamish, the local government.) A relatively minor step in the piecemeal processes, such as they are. The narrow issue was the rezoning, but comments on the broader issues were permitted.
About 100 people may have been there. After introductions, and a spiel from the developers, each person got two minutes to speak. No questions, rebuttals, etc. People were well-behaved. Perhaps 60 or 70 spoke, with 3/4 or more in favour. Many of those in favour seem to be on a first name basis with the developers, and their comments were very similar. Piling on the positive adjectives. Not surprising - they had a meeting beforehand to script things. Most of those present were from Squamish, probably over 90%. A continuing flaw in the process, that it hasn't been inclusive. The news media was there, also.
15 - 20 from Friends of the Squamish Chief (and supporters) were present, most but not all with our new blue buttons. Mostly from Squamish - I'm the token Vancouverite on FOSC. About ten of us spoke.
The Regional District won't make a decision for a few days to a few weeks, depending on what they make of all the comments and information, and what other information they need.
Afterwards, all the climbers went to the pub and solved all the world's problems. (Sadly, we didn't.)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 10:21am PT
|
"A continuing flaw in the process, that it hasn't been inclusive."
What does that mean? Ed Cooper wasn't invited?
Where did you want the meeting to be held? Surrey? Port Moody? Point Grey? Port Hardy? Nelson? Prince George?
Thanks to M.H. for posting all those interesting articles. The Pique had one written by John French which had many quotes and info from Anders and Friends of the Chief. It's funny to read his tenth paragraph, which lays out the covenant on the gravel pit. Funny because, for some reason, the covenant is worded differently than it was a week ago. Naturally the new wording excludes any gondola whatsoever. I don't how that kind of stuff keeps happening. Perplexing.
Like I've maintained all along, build it or don't build it, I don't really care. But at least be honest.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 11:44am PT
|
Bruce, I talked with someone I know after the meeting, and commented on the similarities in what many of the "Pro" people said. It wasn't you, and no I won't say who it was. But the person confirmed that there had been a pre-meeting where they'd prepared their scripts. As for the "news media" comment, I was simply reporting for the many who couldn't be there in person.
With regard to the conservation covenant, we'll leave TLC and its lawyers, and perhaps those for the developers, to sort it out its enforceability, and the governments to decide on the policy level. It's clearly an issue.
And yes, there should be public meetings in Squamish, Whistler and Vancouver, and by internet, where BC Parks presents its independent review of the proposal, how it fits with the master plans and goals for the park, and seeks public input. Why wouldn't there be?
I met the would-be developers in person after the meeting, and chatted briefly. (We'd earlier offered to meet, through an intermediary.) We agreed that whatever else, their proposed gondola wasn't going to be built to the top of the Chief.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 12:43pm PT
|
Shame on those "Pro" people for getting together to talk about what they would talk about!
And Praise for the "No" people for never talking about what they might talk about. Such stand up citizens. Or, at least, they're citizens standing up. But not talking before talking, or at least if they were talking, they wouldn't be talking about it, after.
Glad we got that cleared up.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 12:47pm PT
|
Yup. When "we" get together to sort out our strategy ahead of time, we are working together in defense of a noble cause. When "they" get together to sort out their strategy, it is obviously unethical.
Doublethink in action.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
|
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 05:33pm PT
|
I knew you had a smart cat.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 06:25pm PT
|
He is referring to the cats world...hence the table comment.
I think his daughter is bringing home too many pirate packs.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 08:02pm PT
|
Are you sure? Boy, I'm so naive sometimes. Ooops.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 08:10pm PT
|
Bruce - re: the Occam's Razor business... so where and how would you recommend that we get the resources to locate the evidence that you demand? It would seem to me that any enterprise that is profit-oriented is unlikely to focus on the negative aspects of their proposal. The words "caveat emptor" come from a language often referred to as dead, but that phrase has weathered the centuries for a good reason.
That aside, THIS IS A CLASS "A" PROVINCIAL PARK. Ministerial "discretion" aside, what do the words "in perpetuity for future generations" actually mean? Also, regarding the rigid thinking that us opponents of this project are accused of, here's some compromises that I am sure all of us critics would agree to:
If world peace can arise from development of a Class"A" park, then have at it - I'll even cough up a few bucks to buy gas for the chainsaws.
If space zombies from planet Zontar attack planet earth and our only defence is to throw chunks of grano-diorite at them, then let's blast the Chief to rubble.
for similar planetary threats - see the above, otherwise leave it alone. It's a Class "A" park. Future generations will thank us.
As for my suggestion regarding the repair of the existing road - here's an idea that may provoke outrage , but it's still OUR country, at least for the moment. How about all of us lobbying the mayors of the communities that currently, or within living memory, based their economies on forestry to demand from the Government of B.C. that timber rights be signed over to these communities just like Class "A" parks - in perpetuity for future generations? It would end the "log 'em and leave 'em" mentality that has destroyed the economies of these towns when the multinationals move on to fresher territory.
I doubt that even the sleaziest small-town mayor would permit raw log exports or tolerate clear-cut logging, which is admittedly in decline. Nevertheless, the BIG bucks sure aren't going into the pockets of the locals. Amazingly enough, the above proposal would result in jobs, jobs, jobs, and sufficient capital to fund such projects as the repair of the aforementioned road to Habrich.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 08:25pm PT
|
Nice idea Woz but really, any town in B.C. that ever based their economy on logging? I guess that pretty much covers them all. You're within range of the North Island TFLs, can't wait to see the look on WFP brass when they find out their god-given TFLs are about to be confiscated. Cool idea though.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2012 - 11:07pm PT
|
That's what Cuba did to piss off the Americans so much back in the day. Take their sh#t back!!
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2012 - 12:06am PT
|
Precisely. Now all we have to do is elect a government with the balls to do it. It's our country - not WFP's - yet.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:24am PT
|
Giddyup
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 12:34pm PT
|
Haybrick eh? the developers are changing the name? :)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 12:49pm PT
|
Yup. And The Chief is now officially renamed "Gondola Peak."
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 01:28pm PT
|
Shannon falls will soon be renamed "gondola sewer pipe falls"
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
|
Sudan is now Couloir Extreme, Big Bang is the right entrance. I still call it Sudan.
Rumor was the Sudan family didn't think it was worthy of his name to they asked intrawest to change it.
Gandy Dancer is now officially "Ross's Gold (Gandy Dancer)"?
http://media.intrawest.com/whistler/maps/trailmap1112.pdf
edit Guess I better go do local boys before it becomes sewer pipe falls!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 01:39pm PT
|
We were satisfied with the attendance and speakers at the meeting on Thursday. FOSC has had only a few weeks to get the word out and get organized. Many of those who have concerns about one or other or all aspects of the proposal and process can only express them by letter or e-mail, and it's no secret that there's some local support. So 15 speaking against the proposal and process, and 40 in favour, seemed respectable. The news media coverage also suggests that there is considerable interest in the issues.
FOSC will continue to send information about the proposal and the flawed process that has been used to consider it, and to encourage all those with an interest in the issue to write to the governments. The provincial government can still create a coherent, inclusive, independent process for examining what is proposed - if it doesn't just decide that removing land from Class A parks is contrary to the public interest.
The knoll where the upper terminal would be located, as seen from the first summit of the Chief. Upper Goat Ridge behind.
A possible alternative, with a base behind/south of the Papoose, and a tram rising to the knoll above, perhaps higher.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 01:59pm PT
|
Are you sure that is the top terminal? I'm not convinced. If you look at your initial pictures from the third page of posts, I think the terminal is higher. In addition, I think they advertise the top terminal as 2700 feet. The knoll in your photo seems fairly equal to the summit of the Chief, which is more like 2300.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 02:10pm PT
|
Which map are you using?
Of course I can't read a map. And if you check the other site, you'll see I just learned how to write two months ago. My only skill is operating a mtn. bike. Total obfuscation. :)
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 02:41pm PT
|
Nice.. glad I said rumor.. marketing is right.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 02:52pm PT
|
Feeling better already. I believe he's perfectly capable of reading a map; just all part of the Plan.
My son's friend's sister can read that map and she's only four. We need a REAL map, not a Dora the Explorer map.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 03:59pm PT
|
I didnt show up to the meeting because I figured it was such a stupid idea there was no way it was going to happen.
Notice that to hike the trail to the upper terminal you still have to hike the chief trail...so any idea that the backside would be any less crowded thanks to this gondola is moot.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
|
a map - oh thanks ... I can see clearly now the pain is gone
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 04:53pm PT
|
A somewhat larger scale photo looking across at the proposed upper terminal area. Whether it would be on the knoll that's in the middle, or maybe the saddle or next knoll to the left, seems of little consequence. There's a photo on the developer's website from that point, showing a largely unobstructed view of the Chief.
Photo taken on Saturday, a quite grey day, so contrast not great. There was no snow on or around the first summit (~670 m), but there was on the knoll, which seemed several hundred metres higher. It's either on or in the near vicinity of it.
Should FOSC hold inclusive public meetings of its own, to discuss the proposal, and encourage all those interested to contribute? Kind of like we did in 2004, but in more locations?
Those who didn't stay to the end on Thursday missed the developer's answer to a question about keeping the Habrich road closed.
Some might be interested to know that Robin Barley wrote a letter to the premier in 2004, to oppose the proposed gondola then. I know - I saw the letter. Robin may be somewhat of a contrarian, and argumentative, which is perhaps why he suggested at our meeting then that a gondola mightn't be all bad. But his heart is (usually) in the right place.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 04:59pm PT
|
That crag looks pretty clean? did they scrub it?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 05:27pm PT
|
the 20m high already climbed by a few routes "1-2p" thing....its garbage.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 05:28pm PT
|
Hey Hoser, nice job on the map! Looks great, can't wait. Thank-you.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 05:28pm PT
|
our garbage would be gold in some places...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 05:43pm PT
|
I still think Anders's upper terminal is a little low and west of the actual site. Not a big deal, I know, but might as well keep it honest.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 06:27pm PT
|
Cant wait...you said ten pages ago you dont care whether it gets built or not...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 06:44pm PT
|
I don't, and I'm not holding my breath. I might not particularly care if it gets built, but I am most certainly NOT opposed to it. That's the important part here. The main reason I ramble on here on the super-time-eraser-site is to try to ensure some fairness in the debate. It irks me to see a 60 foot easement get written up as a potential 250 foot wide swath up the mountainside. It also makes me wonder when I see literature suggesting the tram will land on the summit of the Chief. So far I haven't seen any gross exaggerations by the folks proposing it so I just think it's only fair that the group opposing it be well informed with the TRUE facts. That's all.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 07:13pm PT
|
its there are ready for you to go as we speak....not sure what you are waiting for?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 07:24pm PT
|
The self propelled crew hike up from petgill lake...its called disneyland there are lots of TR's around.
Not sure how reasonable it is to bike in from the Shannon cr road, but for sure you can get to the clear cut above petgill lake from those roads. From there I dont know if there is an easy way to gain the ridge.
The trials guys ride up from the heli landing in Britannia
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:30pm PT
|
If the "self-propelled" crew "hike" up from Petgill lake, how do they get to Petgill Lake in the first place?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:31am PT
|
If the "self-propelled" crew "hike" up from Petgill lake, how do they get to Petgill Lake in the first place?
No sh#t.
Dick Mitten and I once tried to climb "Petgill Wall" You can see it from the road, and Keith Nannery came down from it with tales of the most amazing climb in the universe (many pitches of overhanging 5.8), so of course we wanted it.
After a whole day of thrashing in the jungle, we caught a glimpse of it.
Not an easy hike. Or not back then. Maybe there's a paved path now.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 03:05am PT
|
If the "self-propelled" crew "hike" up from Petgill lake, how do they get to Petgill Lake in the first place?
They hike and bike up man, you know an experience that makes Squamish Squamish and not some wannabe euro joke with casinos and gondolas.
Go ahead and ride in from the boulder blockade, its 2 hours of cross country. Take the fam, the trails are all waiting for you to explore.
Never the less I think we get the point that you truly dont care about the park or the gondola
Petgill wall is no where near Petgil lake, I believe Fern climbed it though and far as I know it was fine.
Goat Ridge-Google
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 09:08am PT
|
Hike-a-bike to petgill lake and then up to goat ridge? Who are you trying to fool Hoser? If you think that's a standard outing and you have no idea why someone would rather take a gondola then I'm out of answers for you.
Funny, but it's this type of misleading information that keeps me writing in. Just as the gondola won't be summitting the Chief, no one hikes their bike to petgill lake and then up to Goat Ridge. They go up through Britannia. If you're going to print it, please make sure it's the truth, otherwise you have people making ill informed decisions.
And while we're at it, please don't quote me as saying I don't care about the Park or the Gondola. More poor writing on your part. What I've been saying is that I'm in no way opposed to the gondola. I think it would be great if it happens but if not, I won't lose any sleep over it. I do feel a need to do my bit to make sure the readers are well informed.... with the truth. You writing in explaining how gnarly you are and that riding your bike up the Shannon creek road or hike-a-biking up through the Petgill lake is no big deal isn't doing anyone any favours. We all get the picture; you're amazing. Save it for a crowd that cares.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 10:52am PT
|
first off this is just a debate right. I know that you guys, specifically BK can dole it out so...make sure you can take it :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a piece of work....Seems like if Hamish doesnt like what he hears he just calls people liars with out do any home work at all.
Continuing with misleading info, the gondola isnt going to get you any closer to goat ridge bike trails than the current roads/trails do now.
Here are three trs for you Hamish, try using this thing called GOOGLE if you want to find others, there are plenty.
As far as quoting goes...do I need to go back and literally quote you?
I don't even care if there's a gondola or not. I love riding my bike uphill; I went to the Rob Cocqyet school of mtn. biking and therefore learned to earn my turns
go get it big boy
http://bivouac.com/TripPg.asp?TripId=5009
I agree with you Bruce, the natives should do whatever the f*#k they want to make some bucks!!
The white man, well he should fuk off with messing with park boundaries.
You shouldnt feel inferior Bruce, its ok for your friends to disagree...next time I see a groupon for some counselling I will send it over.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 11:05am PT
|
Hoser, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm sure you're right and some poor sod has hiked their bike up to petgill lake and beyond. People have done everything imaginable out there; doesn't mean it was fun.
The issue I have is for the average reader taking in your posts. According to your writing, the bikers wouldn't benefit from a gondola because there's a perfectly good couple of ways to bike up there, Squamish style. "go get it, big boys". Give me a break.
And now that you've informed us you know how to google stuff, google "Boundary Adjustments in Provincial Parks". It's commonplace.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
|
Go take a flying Fuk at a rolling donnut.
Now Bruce, you've got to stop hiding your true feelings. It's okay to say what you really think. Keeping your emotions bottled up like this isn't good for you. Why not tell Hoser what your real opinion of him/her is?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:47pm PT
|
Yo boys, I see nowhere in the Sea to Sky information that they are interested in DH mountain biking and it only lists the potential for XC mountain biking.
Is the local mountain biking community developing a plan with the S2S crew?
Does S2S plan on retrofitting the gondolas for bike use?
If the bikers want in on the action they should get some assurances in writing from S2S.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:55pm PT
|
Really sorry to hear that; my sympathies. I know what that sort of day is like
At the Britannia meeting, the proponents said that they would "look at" the possibility of allowing bikes and dogs on the gondola. Sounds like no guarantee either way.
The only thing they have promised is a "1-km loop trail" in the vicinity of the upper terminus. That's it.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 02:03pm PT
|
Bruce, clearly stating your self-interest is simply being honest. That is how the system works best. The facts and truth emerge from a process where parties can clearly and freely express their self-interests and come to a compromise or a solution acceptable to a majority of the players.
I imagine the S2S folks are expressing their self-interest rather vigorously.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 02:30pm PT
|
well lets look at it this way. Lets say they decide not to allow bikes and dogs on the gondi. I guess you could say that is a worst case scenario for some of us (i have a dog and may yet bike)
So does that mean we suddenly say no way - i'm opposed?
No, Bruce, it doesn't, not for me, anyways. I was merely supplying data. As you know, I'm opposed to the project, but not because it will/will not allow me better/worse/unchanged access to the back country.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 02:33pm PT
|
the thing is still a gondola going where its going. Maybe they'll also disallow hiking outside of thier dummy loop. Maybe all this promise of locals passes and so on is bull. Maybe they'll throw a gate up at 1 km on the road.
Maybe, maybe not. If the thing gets approval, and I think it probably will, then it's incumbent on us to work to make sure it gets done in the least damaging way possible and with the greatest benefits to park and back-country users.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 04:46pm PT
|
Bruce, you were post 666!!! Cool!
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 04:46pm PT
|
This still could end up going completely sideways on the backcountry user - get some f*#king promises written down on paper - backcountry users could get screwed and have less access
What if they manage to CONTROL access to Habrich and Sky Pilot - imagine how f*#ked up that would be. Think twice before you sign on as a cheerleader here, because the lead cheerleaders have made a lot of asumptions
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 06:58pm PT
|
and a chunk of land for the parkland they want to steal!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 07:30pm PT
|
The developers want to take public land, some of which is in high profile and heavily used parks, for commercial purposes. Their sole goal, or at least that of the investor(s) behind the proposal, is to make money. They will do whatever they can and are allowed to for that purpose. Anything else is subsidiary - as they say, follow the money. That in turn means that anything not in a written contract or equivalent may never happen. Even if it's on paper, the other side has to hold the developer to whatever promises are made. Would the province or the District have the gumption to do so?
Let's say the project is partly or largely built, and the developers say that for economic reasons they can't carry through with the rest of what they said they'd do. (Or, worse still, that they need additional concessions from the governments.) Governments don't seem very good at holding developers to their promises in the best of times.
At least some of the developer's promises to the District are in a covenant registered against the proposed base property. More easily enforced than a contract, if the District was prepared to do so. I wonder if promises to BC Parks will also be in a covenant?
Call me a realist, or a skeptic. Promises are cheap, making them happen is another matter. For example, anyone who believes that there would be vehicle access past the lower part of the Habrich road should ask to see a written commitment to that effect, signed by Squamish, BC Parks, BC Forests, the SLRD and the developers. Everyone who needs to sign on, and could say "no".
My working hypothesis is that they'd build the bottom and top terminals, the gondola, facilities at the bottom and top, bus access to Shannon Falls, tie-ins with bus tours companies, and maybe a shuttle to the casino. That's what will make them money, certainly in the short to medium term. Things to corral visitors and separate them from their money. Maybe they'd gradually add all the other things that are talked about - mountain bike trails and access, hiking trails, links to the Chief trails, vehicle and foot access to Habrich and Sky Pilot, and so on. But none seem likely to be significant money-makers, and I wouldn't be surprised if some or all didn't happen, or if they did, that it wasn't at the developer's behest.
If the project was 'flipped' to another buyer, before or after construction, it would probably be harder to enforce any promises.
On a related note, how will the proposal benefit downtown Squamish? Tourists might stop off for a few hours to ride the gondola, eat something, maybe buy some stuff. Some might overnight in Squamish. But will the gondola in and of itself draw many to Squamish, or will it mostly be people stopping off for a few hours en route to Whistler?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012 - 10:54pm PT
|
"you guys better get that in writing"
I've never really understood this approach. I could wrap my head around it if I owned the land, certainly. Just seems like a bit of a joke to ask the Developers for everything that makes YOU happy. Suggestions, for sure, but demands? Are you kidding me? From a bunch of people printing their thoughts on supertopo?
As the Landowner, yes, get it in writing. As one of the two million, how bout politely offer a suggestion, try to maintain some manners, and don't be so quick to call these guys the enemy.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 12:06am PT
|
Normally this would not be necessary Hamish (getting it in writing, requests, however you want to word it) but the fact is that they are proposing development that affects public lands,
Lands that are supposed to belong to you & I & the rest of Squamish & BC & many of the supertopropers out there. It is for this reason that we should have a wee bit of a say what should be done with it & it is far from outrageous for us (whether for or against) to have full disclosure & transperancy & assurance that any promises made will be guaranteed & not just smoke from the anus of s2sgc or whatever they are called this week. The developers & their wants & needs should not be put in front of those of the people who are supposed to own the lands --us!
Todd Eastman thanks for your posts/point of view on this issue, they are always interesting.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 12:40am PT
|
I agree with Ryan. If they were proposing to develop land that they owned, that would be one thing. As it's not only public land, but park land, a much higher level of scrutiny is appropriate - if it should be considered at all. Whatever might be built will never be exactly as advertised, but the public interest needs to be upheld.
As for getting promises in writing - such promises are so much hot air, unless they're in writing, and even then the governments still have to hold them to such promises, which they don't always do.
(As every second company in the Squamish area is "Sea to Sky" or "S2S" something, not a very useful abbreviation.)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 10:29am PT
|
Thank-you both, Ryan and Anders, for being so polite... you guys really are a breath of fresh air. Seriously.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 12:54pm PT
|
Bruce, the media will get interested in this essentially local or provincial issue when there is a perception of strong public interest in a full and public vetting of the proposal. The news would not be the proposal but rather the conflict it engenders within both the local community and throughout the region.
Information comes in many forms. While the developers have their information and selectively provide the bits required to meet their needs of moving the project forward, citizens frequently have a wealth of information that may either support or refute the developer's claims. It is up to citizens to collect their information through public records searches, observations, and discussions and bring the information to the public's attention. Citizen action rarely ends projects but it can go a long ways towards mitigating damages and shaping the project's outcome. All of you that have spent years crawling all over the Chief and the surrounding area have a vast amount of information about the location and have lots to bring to the table, whether you are pro, nay, or undecided.
Now should the Chinese develop a taste for BC granite counter tops and the Chief was in the cross-hairs, I expect the discussion would have a different tone...
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
|
Watergate was the result of a bungled burglary and a leak of inside information...
Information is power and in negotiations the power is in the information closely held.
Anders thanks for all your efforts!
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 02:01pm PT
|
These developers are going to see that capitalizing on the up top activities is going to be just one more revenue stream if they can get it.
Don't let this happen. Imagine if Access to Habrich and Sky Pilot trails are required with the purchase of a trail users pass ?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 02:30pm PT
|
Yes, I certainly support the CBC, especially its news and journalism programs on both radio and television. If it can keep a critical eye on governments, fine with me - all governments.
Last week the opposition environment critic said that BC Parks (Ministry of the Environment) was "missing in action" on the proposal. It is the agency that ought to be conducting a thorough, independent, public scrutiny of the proposal, including inclusive public meetings. Looking at the questions of whether land should be removed from parks at all, if so whether it should be removed from these parks for this purpose, and if so making damn sure that the public gets the best deal possible, and that the developers are held to that deal. A process coordinated with the needed local approvals - Squamish, Regional District, Forests, etc. But out in the open, and inclusive.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 04:08pm PT
|
Just another good argument for removing at least some news media from influence of either.
Once you get past the point of putting information up on your Facebook page or your personal blog, you have to start spending money. So I'm curious about where you think the money to support this news source you're so keen on -- the one that's free from outside influences -- is going to come from. To say nothing about how the source of this funding will not be an influence.
It gets really tiring, to say nothing of insulting, to listen to this kind of sh#t. Can't you see you're doing exactly what you were so pissed at Anders for doing? Hinting that the evil news media are controlled by evil forces and that explains why they won't put your pet story on the front page?
Sure there are corrupt newspaper executives and TV and Radio station owners, and corrupt reporters, too. And plenty of lazy ones. As well as some that can be intimidated into silence. Just as there are corrupt politicians and rapacious developers.
But maybe, instead of just mouthing the same old BS about how everyone in the news business is a greedy corrupt hack, you could do what you asked Anders to do: dig for some evidence.
Either that, or acknowledge that Anders' original approach -- smearing with innuendo -- is the one you're now proud to take.
Pot, meet Kettle.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 05:05pm PT
|
There has been a recognized wall between the news departments and the programing/advertising departments. This has been the traditional model but with huge reductions in news department budgets, the quality and quantity of investigative journalism has been whomped in both broadcast and print media. So while, ideally advertising doesn't tilt news, the general lack of money has caused the media to slash news departments, and that lack of deeper journalism play into the big moneyed interests that prefer to operate out of the public's view...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 05:25pm PT
|
Does this reality mute the effectiveness of media in persuing the goods? The more beholden one is, the less likely one is to criticize?
Of course it does. Same as in any industry I know of. Which is the danger inherent in allowing all of a region's news media to be controlled by one entity. But as long as there are competing news outlets, there is hope, because the people or groups they are beholden to are often at each other's throats.
We all have to live in this world. Well, all of us except Werner. Which means we have to deal with the needs and desires of others. You can not escape influence. Jim works in the construction industry, which has an horrific reputation of corruption. Does that make him a criminal? Does that mean the buildings he supervises will have foundations that crumble in the first wet year? Pick an industry or field of endeavor. Any industry. And you will find corruption, old-boy networking, price-fixing, back-room dealing, and a whole list of other evils.
Let's ask Ms. Knight, whose work is as far from the horrible world of big business and big government as it is possible to get. Tami teaches circus arts to kids. And I will bet she faces exactly these same issues, if on a smaller scale. Venues have to be found, rent has to be paid, staff has to be hired. The staff that is hired competes for raises. Moms hint that if their kid gets favorable treatment there might be something extra in the Christmas stocking. All the usual things that lead to corruption.
There is no escape from it. In the news business or in your kid's scout troop. Or anywhere else.
But that does not mean that the stories that should be told are all suppressed. Nor that all involved in the news business have sold out. Reporters are beaten and killed almost every day because they are trying to do exactly what you wish they would do. And yet, evil is brought to light every day.
So put down that brush and pail of tar, and lend a hand. If the first guy you tipped off about this didn't do anything, tip off someone else. And if, at the end of your efforts, no one has picked this story up and run with it, it doesn't necessarily mean the news media are corrupt or lazy. It may just mean no one thinks this particular story is interesting enough to bother with. They may feel that some developer presented a plan, that the various government bodies involved held some public meetings, and that the plan will likely go ahead/be nixed. No real story.
Think of it this way: The advertisers that provide the money to keep the news media alive don't usually give a sh#t about anything that doesn't directly impact their own business. Do you really believe that Joe, of Joe's Chrysler Dealership wants the Vancouver Sun to kill a story about development near the Chief? Of course not. All he cares about is that as many people as possible see his ad.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2012 - 05:54pm PT
|
Well there may be a story. As you and I have both said, it is certainly possible that there is some dirty money changing hands. And even if the deal is clean as can be, there is also the possibility that the developer's business plan is flawed.
And these things should be suggested as possible topics of coverage by the media in the region. But that they are not front page news isn't evidence that the media have been bought off.
I just get upset when all in the news business are dumped on over the sins of some. Just as you would if that attitude was taken toward your industry.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
|
After flying around on google earth for twenty minutes, I'm amping up my support for the project. There's an entire playground up there, waiting for your enjoyment.
I do believe it's very important the gondola cabins are ordered stock with bike carrying capabilities. I think the upper terminal could eventually serve as a terrific starting point for a number of multi-hour rides.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 04:12pm PT
|
Whoo hoo! Post #700. Do I get a life-time free pass on the Gondola?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 06:18pm PT
|
After flying around on google earth for twenty minutes, I'm amping up my support for the project. There's an entire playground up there, waiting for your enjoyment.
I do believe it's very important the gondola cabins are ordered stock with bike carrying capabilities. I think the upper terminal could eventually serve as a terrific starting point for a number of multi-hour rides.
I've enjoyed the area many times, on foot. As have many others.
Anyway, I didn't know that google earth built trails. Most trail building up there will likely be done by volunteers.
Will most mountain bikers simply drive up the road as far as they're allowed, then cycle in from there? $30 is a fair amount, in comparison with perhaps a half hour riding. Even if the road is only open for the first few km, the rest would be improved and easily ridden, to get to trails above. If those trails connect to the upper station of the gondola, then maybe riders will visit it, but isn't their priority the riding? Sure, some may ride up, but overall bikers don't seem a likely major profit centre for the developers. It's easier to corral tourists at the bottom, then separate them from their money in all ways possible - as Bruce observed somewhere far back.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 07:16pm PT
|
Yes, I realize the M.H. has hiked to many areas on his own two feet. Very nicely done. Not everyone is able to hike up to that vista and I still don't really understand what makes the "able" people so much better than the "less able".
I agree, trails are built by volunteers, and with a possible hub of activity up there, those same volunteers may direct some effort in that direction. And/or the Proponents may easily find it in their best interests to contract out a killer single track trail leading all the way back down to Indian Arm.
I don't agree about the tram only saving a biker half an hour to reach the same point. Maybe if the rider is Niel Kindree or Chris Christie; for us run of the mill bikers, that ain't no half hour.
Looking ahead a little, I believe the Proponents could view the biker market as potential riders. Why not? The Goat Ridge descent can take four to seven hours as it stands; add in another hour or two for the traverse over from the upper terminal and you've got yourself an exceptional outing for thirty bucks. People hire helicopters to get there and that's around $200.00 a head.
Does everyone realize that 80% of the area up there is old logging blocks?
For the argument of holding the land in pristine condition for generations to come, what's coming is the yarder, the skidder, and the logging truck. That's what happens with logging areas in B.C., they get logged. Again and again.
I just assume the same group which is anti-gondola would have to be anti-logging regarding the precious basin up top. I would think that by letting the people hike, bike, and climb their little hearts out up there, a better argument could be made to stop the logging in that area.
Glad my mom taught me how to share...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 08:18pm PT
|
But you have lift towers located in Provincial Parks right in your back yard. Is this a N.I.M.B.Y thing for Vancouverites? Or is it an "O.K." in my back yard but "Not" in the back yard where I go to play on the weekends.
I realize the cables are the issues, that's easy. The question is, do the benefits justify a compromise? I see several benefits, and only one set of cables.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 08:47pm PT
|
I never called anyone a "city slicker", just for the record. I've been asking everyone I run into over the last month and I've only had one local opposed. Furthermore, I don't believe their vote counts as they were certain the tram was going up the Chief.
Don't worry, I'm not saying it's us vs them, I'm simply mentioning that you folks live on the North Shore, complete with gondola towers in both of your Provincial Parks, right in your back yard. Just seems a little strange, that's all.
Keep calling me crazy, just like 600 posts ago.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 08:49pm PT
|
These bike trails would be built through the park ?
The parks in N Van with lift towers were constructed before they were parks so its hard to make a comparison there.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 08:50pm PT
|
My guess would be a no. Too steep in that direction.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 08:59pm PT
|
OK - I'll advocate for the loggers. Sign over all logging rights to the municipalities, so perhaps loggers might actually be able to have jobs in perpetuity for a change. Additionally, FYI - one of the most dedicated defenders of the boundaries of Strathcona Park is a second generation logger. Not all people who believe in the sanctity of Class "A" park boundaries are granolas.
I'm repeating myself but, in case you haven't noticed, climbing is one of the most elitist pastimes out there, and I don't think mountain biking and back country skiing are all that far behind, so forgive me for gagging when I read this stuff about helping lesser mortals enjoy nature. If these poor creatures are so starved from a view up high, then send them up to Fat City for a look. If they merely wish to see nature in a pristine state, then let's take them for a nice walk in a Class "A" park that hasn't had its boundaries altered so someone can try to hustle some bucks - if any Class "A" parks have EVER survived this kind of cynical abuse of the public trust. Yeah - it's only a small chunk of park land, and mothers-to-be are only a little bit pregnant - for a while.
By the way, is Tami the only female with the, uh, ovaries to oppose this gondola?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:05pm PT
|
Not dead yet!
I guess I worded that a little poorly. I realize those Parks in North Van came complete with lift towers; my general point is that it works. People use the Park, people do Park-like activities, they're not burning cop cars on Robson st., it works. Why can't it work up here?
If nobody cares about the land up top, and you can't really care too much about the gravel pit, as it's privately owned, then I guess the big turnoff is having to look at a gondola?
Is looking at a gondola really interfering with the wilderness experience up on the Chief summit? A little, no doubt. But so are the few hundred hikers with their i-phones fully engaged.
Sure, in an ideal world, the gondola would start from (hiding) behind the Papoose. But I would think the reality is that area has no road, no flat 6 acre lot, no highway appeal, mass powerlines, etc., etc....
Hence the compromise.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 10:42pm PT
|
Now that's a nice bit of writing, Jim. Wish I had that skill.
My views aren't tainted by any sense of Downtown Revitalization. Like Bruce said earlier, we could all come up with much better uses for that amount of money. That's not really the issue. The issue is a company wanting to build a gondola, which, from what I can tell, will invariably open up more terrain around here.
Yes, you'll have to look at it from the top of the Chief but perhaps when hikers see the bikes dangling off the capsules, they'll think about broadening their horizons and check out a different sport.
Like I said before, the more people getting their heartrates up, the better for our society. Just my opinion.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 01:28am PT
|
Bruce - elitist to the point that if there was no climbing, biking or skiing potential up there, there wouldn't be the slightest support from climbers for a gondola just so that the aged & infirm types could get a nice view.
Have even ONE of you guys addressed the central point of this discussion? If this gondola was the first time that the boundaries of a a Class "A" park were to be adjusted to suit the purposes of some hustler trying to get rich by stealing public land, then I personally just might be willing to consider the merits of the proposal PROVIDING that it was made clear that this kind of crap would end forever afterwards. The fact that those assurances aren't in place is the reason that I am adamant even about a couple of "crummy acres" being removed. Another question that none of you have troubled yourselves to answer is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? 5 acres? 500?
Are you even aware that there are several other categories of park land out there, and if so, why weren't you objecting to the placement of this area in the category that allegedly gives it protection in perpetuity?
Here's something to ask these developers at these meetings - are the funds to finance this project actually coming out of the personal savings of the proponents, and will they and their families be penniless if the project goes tilt? I'll save you the trouble of asking - the answer is no, and the citizens of B.C. will be stuck with another destroyed chunk of another Class "A" park, and these guys will just move on to another project, and probably in another Class "A" park.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:12am PT
|
Hi Woz. Good to hear your views. In answer to your question asking if the public need a view so badly, then why not send them up to Whistler: why send them to Whistler? If I remember correctly, you moved away from Squamish due to a lack of work. Hmmm. Your other point about Joe and Jill Public being able to go for a nice walk in a class A Park which hasn't had its boundaries adjusted: even with a 20 meter easement running up the slope, they'll still be able to go for their nice walk as the easement won't interfere with any of the trails.
As far as lift towers in Provincial Parks in North Van., and in Whistler, as Bruce points out, my point is these lifts are full of people, families, getting outside and breathing fresh air. They're skiing, hiking, biking, bird watching. What on earth is so tragic about this behavoir?
This is the outdoor recreation capital of Canada, not the Casino capital, not the stock car race capital, not the shopping capital.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:17am PT
|
The lift on Cypress was put in nearly thirty years BEFORE it became a park...Cypress became a park in 75
Hollyburn lift was constructed in 51, which was years after the first rope tow which was installed in the 40's
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:48am PT
|
Funny how, when you reach around three or four hundred posts, everyone starts repeating themselves.
If nobody cares about the lands up top, or at the base, then it really does boil down to the easement. Either that or people are jealous someone might make more money than them (that would be embarassing). No one's tearing any land out of the Park. That land isn't going anywhere; it's just having it's name changed from class A to Protected. Classification, a matter of paperwork. It will still be Parkland. Is it the loss of all those trees that need to come down? The tree number is actually quite low and I can't see any climber having any argument in that direction. Climbers have been removing trees from the Chief area for thirty or forty years.
As we mentioned earlier, that lift will be so valueable, even if it fails someone will buy it and fly it out of there, all in about one week of chopper time.
The only remnants would be little cubes of re-bar filled concrete which won't even stick out of the ground very far at all. You'll never see those with the naked eye. The easement would regenerate, because that's what coastal B.C. does best.
Sure it's a bit of a gamble, but it's not like they're asking you to buy shares. And in light of the economic downturn over the past four years, show me a proposal which isn't a little bit risky.
Anyone willing to compromise?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:27pm PT
|
Tami: Do you mean Bruce?
I don't really care which lift went in at what time and which mountain became a Park at exactly what date. I'm simply pointing out that Vancouver has it's share of lift towers in Provincial Parks and I don't recall hearing any whining about it. That's because it works.
Suddenly Squamish wants to share a similar look and a special interest group from forty miles down the road in Vancouver (the city with lift towers in their parks) starts stomping their collective feet and say No.
It just doesn't quite add up, that's all.
Out of curiosity, how many of the opposed wouldn't take their parents up there?
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
|
Suddenly Squamish wants to share a similar look and a special interest group from forty miles down the road in Vancouver (the city with lift towers in their parks) starts stomping their collective feet and say No.
It just doesn't quite add up, that's all.
My notes from the Britannia meeting show that about half of those who spoke against the gondola were from Vancouver (includes West Van, etc.). The other half came from Squamish. Some people from Vancouver, including Surly Don, spoke in favour of the project. Some young people opposed it, some old people opposed it. From what I could gather, the climbing community seemed to be slightly in favour. So it's not just an us/them thing and it's false to present it that way.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 02:21pm PT
|
Uh... I'm not sure how to say this Hamish, but... Ya see, one of the things that got me interested in supporting this project was your bringing up the idea of the gondola opening up more territory for bicycling.
But, well, the more I think about it, the more I think that the best biking is right here in Seattle. Here are a couple of shots of the local riding scene. Have a look at them and explain again why I should drive up to Squamish and pay money to take a gondola up to some place where I'd probably wind up breaking my leg, when I've got this, right here.
and
Yeah, I think I'll just do my riding right here at home.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 03:09pm PT
|
I agree. We can't touch that riding scene you have south of the border.
O.K., I'm willing to accept there are some Squamites against the tram; I'm sure they're here somewhere, I just haven't run into any of them.
Perhaps it's like the old saying "bad news travels 100 times the speed of good news". Sure there were a handful of Squamites opposed who attended the meeting, but as Bruce mentioned, how many pro-trammies didn't bother going.
For every Ed Cooper there could quite likely be twenty Don Serls. Or a hundred.
And I'll try to behave myself and stop using the North Shore as an example of how gondolas get along with Provincial Parks. I can easily shift my focus northwards, up to Whistler. I'll try to leave Vancouver, the largest clearcut in the Province, alone.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 04:00pm PT
|
Oh I see what you mean Bruce. Sounds like such a disaster down at Cypress. My god, I don't know how they deal with it all. Some of the No group might even ride the lifts as well. It must be terrible.
We go mtn. biking on the lower flanks of Cypress quite a bit and it's outstanding. We climb some old back roads, some of which get fairly steep at times. Eventually we "top" out somewhere well under the elevation of the ski hill base and rip back down some gorgeous trails. Funny thing is, we never see any of the development up top, in fact it has absolutely no bearing on our outdoor experience at all.
Perhaps once the Squamish gondola goes in and the scruffy cut blocks up top become recreation heaven, your average backside trail hiker won't have a clue what's going on up there.
Maybe I'm the perfect example, actually. I've been doing those Cypress rides for many years and I couldn't tell you anything about the developed area where the tickets are sold. I think I've been there twice in the last 46 years.
So it's entirely possible different user goups can benefit from the same Provincial Park area and not be in each other's faces.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 05:29pm PT
|
There's a reason we all wear padded bike shorts.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 05:35pm PT
|
How are you guys doing here in gondola-land? Happy as clams, I hope. Anyway, seems clear that there's no need to put a quarter in any of you, although you could think more critically about the proposal. Perhaps you've bought into the dreams being promoted, but check on the reality, too.
We had a FOSC committee meeting in Squamish last night, attended by eight. I was the token non-Squamishite. (Sorry, Bruce - forgot to invite you, again.) Discussing strategy and next steps - we've done reasonably well, given only a few weeks to get organized, but there's more to do. One thing we're considering is holding independent public meetings in Squamish and Vancouver, where information on the proposal could be presented, the pros and cons discussed, and citizens invited to comment to government. (That is, if BC Parks/the Ministry of Environment doesn't hold such meetings.) We'd invite everyone interested, including the governments and media. We don't have the resources to scrutinize the proposal in the way that the governments, especially BC Parks, should be doing. But we'd see that there was a reasonable process for meetings, and that they were open. No more informercials.
You guys really ought to think about the Habrich road opening issue. The developers say they'd spend $15 - $20 million on the first phase. They need to protect that investment. One way to do so is by not allowing private vehicle access anywhere near the upper terminal. When asked about this last week, they pretty much admitted that they didn't want the road to be open. Reduces worry about vandalism, fires, etc, plus ensures a captive market. Such access would also require consent from Squamish, B.C. Parks, and the Ministry of Forests. Seems most likely that there'd be parking somewhere low down, maybe some distance up the road, but that'd be it. If they're claiming otherwise, get it from all four+ parties in writing, from someone with the power to enforce it.
Another interesting one is power. A friend with experience in these matters tells us that the power line can't go up with or on the gondola towers. Equals a separate line for power, either parallel to the gondola, or following the road. (Or perhaps a generator?) The devil as always is in the details, but in the big picture, if a promise ain't in writing, and ain't made to someone willing to enforce, it ain't worth a pitcher of warm spit.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 06:23pm PT
|
Considering both Seymour and Cypress close the roads at night for security concerns its not really a question if we will be allowed access after hours...
Hamish it wasnt long ago that Cypress wouldnt allow you to cross their land to access the park...I believe it was a dedicated few that fought so we could access trails in the park with out being paying customers to Cypress.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 07:05pm PT
|
Habritch and Sky Pilot access control? It will be completely ceded to the developers. No access before or after certain hours. Habritch road blocked completely to any public use
This isn't just about a gravel pit and two pylons in the park.
Suck on that one boys and girls.
Good bye mountain biking dreams
Locals buck up 250 a year for discount pass and the rest of the climbers pony up 50+ bucks to some c*#ks@ckers from Whistler to get to an area that they previously had free unrestricted access?
You know a one time pass to ride up Grouse is 90 bucks don't you.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 07:29pm PT
|
Bruce - considering that most reasonable people would agree that I am aged (62) and infirm (nobody's business), I find it offensive that you would claim to be doing me or others older than me a favour by ripping a hole in a Class "A" park to give us a $30(?) look at Howe Sound, particularly when the proposal comes from a for-profit enterprise. If I want a nature fix, I'll get it somewhere else.
The Smoke Bluffs, as you well know, is a completely different story from the above - the locals had a claim on that area long before climbers starting hanging around the place in any measurable numbers.
As for relevance in terms of existing values, current users, and alleged significant contribution to society, I reject your premise. Once upon a time we had a Prime Minister who actually believed that Canada should be owned by Canadians, people could get jobs that lasted a lifetime, and Canada was arguably the most respected nation on earth instead of the international pariah it has become today.
Values change through time, and it is not beyond reason to consider that future generations with more respect for the boundaries of Class "A" parks will view the gondola or, more likely, the spread of its environmental footprint as an abomination.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 07:31pm PT
|
Stewart everyone is going to get nailed a hundred minimum to even fart near the thing
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 07:49pm PT
|
Do you f*#king dimwits have f*#king clue what a 20 million dollar Habrich road is going to look like from the summit of the Chief?
That is a shitload of blasting.
Think about the rock scar back there from that.
Totally compromises ises the aesthetic from the summit of the Chief
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 08:07pm PT
|
I thought Anders already posted from the horses mouth? They dont want public traffic up there due to security and safety issues.
The thing was just opened what 2 maybe three years ago? Before that it was gated for what 6 or 7 years? Right at the Mamquam turn off.
They were handing out 200$ fines for going around it.
Before that well we just drove to Habrich.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 08:10pm PT
|
The developers have already costed out what they have to charge for tickets and "locals" passes to pay for a 50 million dollar project.
The reason why they have not told you is because climbers and locals will never be able to afford them.
The only payments that will carry this project will be from the 200 dollar a plate Zagat rated restaurant up top.
How much daily traffic from service trucks on the Habrich road to support that.
You guys have been boondoggled.
Pay attention to Anders he is your best friend right now.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 08:34pm PT
|
Hamish - I had many reasons for leaving Squamish, but as you may recall, the locals had pretty well all the higher-paying jobs locked up pretty tight.
Fat City has had - I can't even guess how many - billion(?) dollars of free money poured into it at taxpayer expense to create this rich people's playground. As someone you know well know once told me regarding the "lifties" who were working for minimum wage (and a lift pass that cost the corporations not a goddamn cent) to help tourists enjoy "wilderness" - each person that they loaded was a potential liability suit, but lifties were forced to live a mountain winter in vans, unheated basements, or crammed like sardines into overpriced rental rooms while wealthier "nature lovers" spent gobs of cash to wallow in the undeniable beauty of the area.
Now there is housing for lifties, paid for entirely at taxpayer expense, so I guess another dirty little truth lurking behind the glamour has now vanished from the public consciousness.
Have you got even the faintest idea how many bears and other animals have been murdered up there to avoid scaring the tourists - an area that has been developed right in the middle of prime wildlife habitat? I guess the beauty of Fat City demands that wildlife gets exterminated whenever it gets too close to these nature lovers.
You see beauty up there, and the mountains are beautiful, but what I see instead is a well-landscaped monument to corporate greed, and a cynically manipulated travesty of a wilderness experience.
I remember suggesting when I was living over there that Squamish would be a perfect location for a wilderness education institution, where students could obtain formal certification as climbing (and other outdoor sport) guides. Has anybody explored that option to help jump-start the local economy? As best I can guess, such an initiative would not only provide far more employment opportunities than a goddamn gondola, but it might actually end up helping people to develop an appreciation for a natural environment that doesn't require machinery to appreciate.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
Have you got even the faintest idea how many bears and other animals have been murdered up there to avoid scaring the tourists
No, I don't. Can you tell me about it?
Serious question. You make it sound like the Whistler Blackcomb corporation hires mercenaries to go up the lifts and fan out killing every living thing they encounter. Is this what happens?
Again, serious question. You're making a fairly serious accusation here, and as someone who has a strong feeling about not killing our furry brothers I hope you're wrong, or exaggerating, but I would like to hear more.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:05am PT
|
Yes, as I've grown accustomed to believe, Casper is right. Woz, you are reaching a little there with the anti-Whistler stuff. I realize it's Hollywood North up there and I'm definitely no fan, but give 'em a break.
Sure, Whistler has had it's share of government financial assistance, but do you know how well that same government does when real estate flourishes up there? The property purchase tax, brought in back in the 70's for a few years, but, oh well, why get rid of a tax once everyone is used to it. Every time a property is sold, the Gov't collects a cool sum from the transaction. Well, needless to say, the bigger the number, the much bigger the tax amount. For a million dollar home this figure could be around ten or fifteen thousand. Crunch those numbers a little, while we're on the topic of "free" money. Monthly real estate transactions in Hollywood North: HUGE. Monthly Whistler P.P.Tax remittance: not too shabby, for doing absolutely nothing. And that's not even touching on HST returns.
Free housing for lifties? You know the only free thing up there is the parking at creekside.
We understand you're over 60 and there's no way those boys are getting 30 bucks from you for a ride up top. And there's nothing wrong with that, at all. But you can't really speak for everyone over 60. I would think there might possibly be a few takers.
One last small detail. One of the reasons you left Squamish was due to the locals cornering the well paying jobs? Who exactly would you have working those jobs? Out-of-towners? I'm drawing a bit of a blank on that one. I wouldn't be too surprised if the people holding down the higher paying jobs in Courtenay live.......there.
You can keep calling me crazy.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 10:44am PT
|
Not trying to back pedal too much here but I'm a little confused regarding the sale of the Gravel Pit. If The Land Conservancy was so anti-gondola, why on earth did they sell their land, in Feb,2012, to the Gondola Guys, who were already eight months into their project? The Proponents had done so much work and held open houses, gone before Squamish Council, etc. etc.; there is no way the TLC didn't know what they were doing. They even sold the parcel with a sticky-note attached to it, saying to go ahead and install a tram, as long as it terminates outside the Park.
To hear them come out and dissaprove of the gondola shortly after selling their land to a gondola company seems a little odd, to say the least.
Anders, could you shed some light on this? Because if they had worded their covenant differently, or decided NOT to sell their prime real estate to a gondola company, we could all get back to the other time-eraser site and hopefully see more North Wall pics.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 11:08am PT
|
No real argument. Good.
What is now clear is that the park boundaries must be extended to protect Habrich, Sky Pilot, and Ben Lomond.
Be aware that IPP activities near Powell River resulted in road access removal to the public.
Once private enterprise develops an interest in roadworks MOF has a history of becoming compliant with private and not the publics best interest.
Major recreation loss for Squamish at risk here.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:37pm PT
|
Hey Woz. Don't want you to think we're forgetting about you. The climbing guide certification thing has been going on for years . The super skilled club from Alberta come out here and certify guides all the time. I think there are a lot of local guides and a lot of rainy days in Squamish. Good business for Starbucks; as far as an economic engine for the town, it's about the size of a weedeater.
And since you brought it up, and while we're babbling about drawing lines in the sand, I trust you're aware that these "guides" make their living in your precious, class A, Protected Parkland. That's right, lots of people, receiving lots of money, and guess where they work? In the Park. Furthermore, judging by the busloads of people hiking the Backside trail lately, others are making their living guiding people up the trail. Likewise, over at the other side of the Park, we've got x number of tourbusses making money by bringing load after load of tourists into the base of the falls area.
You've got a bunch of ants on the front of the Chief making money, another colony of ants on the Backside trail making money, and an entire anthill over where the water hits the ground, also for profit. I notice with most of your writing, as with Bruce Macd's, you guys are so negative about these gondola guys trying to make money.
You're always asking us where we'd draw the line with respect to Park Boundary Adjustments; where do you draw the line with "people for profit in the Park" ?
Please don't use the "motorized" argument because they're not building a dirtbike track up the easement. It's an electric lift with the big motor at the bottom, and it'll probabaly use less power that all those diesel Greyhounds parked over at the falls.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:37pm PT
|
The TLC statement on what happened is at http://blog.conservancy.bc.ca/2012/04/public-statement-regarding-squamish-gondola-proposal/
Perhaps there's more to the story, but even reasonable inferences would no doubt be slagged as "mental speculations", so I won't bother.
The developers, if the project goes ahead, would have to restore the Shannon Creek road, at least to the point where a fork leads to their upper terminal site. The power line for the upper station might also follow that line. However, it seems neither in the developer's interests, nor those of the various government bodies, that the road be open to public vehicle traffic. Whether the upper part of the road, past the turn off, would be restored, so that it would be decent walking or cycling, is another question.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 01:07pm PT
|
Thanks for that, Anders. You are fast, especially on a Sat. morning.
I'm still bewildered as to why the TLC would take the trouble to word their covenant so carefully as to condone a tram which terminates outside the Park. Was it too easy to keep it simple and word the covenant along the lines of "No Arial Tramway".
What's your take on this? Sorry, I know we've been through this before; I'd just like to hear your opinion on the specific wording of the covenant. What with you being a lawyer and me being a bikerider.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 03:06pm PT
|
Hamish if you think my argument is centered around companies making money read them again. It's entirely about access issues and examination of details you choose to gleefully ignore
Tell us what the pass prices are going to be to pay for a project that will need a twenty million dollar access road for starters.
They are going to put up a paywall around Habrich and Sky Pilot.
Bruce Kay you need to re-read Anders research questions and answers regarding the developers intention to gate the road for security purposes.
They already co-opted the land conservancy proving these c*#ks@ckers aren't amateurs. MOF do you really think they don't know how to circumvent those guys too?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 03:12pm PT
|
My apologies for hogging the site but I have a Newsflash.
Just yesterday I found my third person that felt strongly against the gondola. She is a busy mom of four and the furthest from ill informed you could imagine. After only a few minutes of talking, she admitted she thought the proposal was similar to that of 2004; she thought FOR SURE the tram was going up the Chief, still.
Classic. Ten minutes later she was warming up to the "revised" gondola proposal.
Bruce Macd,that road won't cost anywhere near 20 million to fix up. It might not even be one million.
O.K., maybe you weren't specifically complaining about these gondola guys making money but you don't exhibit very friendly mannerisms toward them.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 08:38pm PT
|
Hi Anders, hope you're getting some fun in this weekend. Are you positive about the power lines not being run up the same tower line? I don't see any problem with that practice. The live wire might be higher than the gondola cable, but it's the perfect path to the upper station.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 09:44pm PT
|
Well I don't find it uninteresting at all; quite the contrary. There's a reward for the first person to tell us why they had the covenant worded in that particular way.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:27am PT
|
I don't know if you have a stupid amount of free time on your hands like I do, but I'm really curious about a pro's take on it.
Sometimes I have free time, sometimes I don't. Right now, I don't. My monthly pub is on deadline for mid-next week, and my marriage requires my presence at the Railyard tomorrow with shoes, harness, and chalkbag. I worked today, so there may just be time to save both marriage and job, but there won't be much free time till next Friday. Which I will probably declare to be a holiday and drive to Squamish. Weather being reasonable.
I would like to offer some thoughts about your link, but just don't have time right now. However, while you wait, think about one thing: How did you learn about what the news media did to that poor young girl?
In the meantime, back to the regularly scheduled program in this slot -- Selfish climbers and mountain bikers gang up with rapacious developers to destroy a Provincial Park despite the best efforts of environmentally conscious yuppie latte sippers from the big city.
Yeah, I know, it's too long to be a Pulitzer-grade headline, but it does sum things up.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 02:23am PT
|
Gf great minds think alike. But who is the best party to sue them
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 02:39am PT
|
Re: the bear issue in Whistler - I can't speak with certainty about what's happening up there these days, other than the fact that there was such an outcry about the needless deaths of these animals in the '90s that Blackcomb hired a guy by the name of Mike Allen (if memory serves me properly) to help them with the bear problem - I met him before he got the job & he's a good guy, so I hope things have improved.
Yes, plenty of bears were shot by "conservation" officers when I worked there in the '90s. The crime that got these animals killed was nearly always garbage that was stored improperly outside businesses and/or residences. Sometimes they were lured by someone who was cooking food outside (or indoors with the door wide open). The phone call was made, and nearly always the bear was shot - and with no penalty that I ever heard about to the nitwit(s) who attracted it in the first place.
Some time ago I recommended that people concerned about the gondola read a book by Sid Marty titled "Men for the Mountains". Apparently nobody bothered since, on top of being a good read, it addressed the impact of large numbers of tourists on indigenous wildlife: in short, more tourists, more dead wildlife - I've seen more than one dead bear lying at the side of the S2S highway. Again - more traffic - more dead wildlife.
Hamish - I don't know whether I was in such a hurry to make my point or what, but do you seriously think that I'm dumb enough to think that the lifties actually got free housing up there? The CORPORATIONS got free housing (and an improved highway) built for them at taxpayer expense, and I have no doubt that the lifties (also taxpayers) get gouged plenty for housing. Also, please spare me the fairy tale about corporations creating an earthly paradise for us lesser mortals with their generous tax contributions - anyone with a trace of objectivity is aware that they're paying the lowest tax rates in modern Canadian history, and they're making out like bandits. Furthermore, their tax payments sure aren't being spent to protect wilderness.
Good to hear that guides are making bucks out of their monopoly in provincial parks. I don't have a problem with that, but if they were ripping chunks of Class "A" parks apart to increase their customer base, I'd have a huge objection to their presence.
By the way, if they can send guide trainees from Alberta to Squamish, what would the problem be with a similar institution based in Squamish sending their trainees elsewhere for specialized training?
Furthermore, it's not outrageous to expect that local jobs go to locals and it mystifies me why you would mention something so self-evident. About the only thing that I could criticize about the behaviour of locals anywhere is their lack of a long-term vision for the future of their communities. If I recall correctly, even you agreed that if these towns demanded that their areas had control of their timber, then they just might take a more long-term view of the resource extraction process. Sometimes fresh perspectives can actually benefit a community.
Finally, no , I don't claim to speak for anyone other than those who actually respect Class "A" park boundaries. However, it seems to me that the selfless generosity of spirit of which so many profess to be the sole guardians could be less hypocritically evinced by arranging a shuttle bus service to the Downtown East Side to introduce children and families to a wilderness that many of them have never seen - largely because they don't have a spare thirty bucks for a gondola lift ticket. Even poor people like beautiful things.
Hey, Bruce MacD - keep up the good work.
And Tami: how does it feel to be so special?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:55am PT
|
Hi Woz. We miss you over here, by the way.
In my earlier post, I wasn't talking about corporate taxes, I was merely saying the gov't does pretty well when whistler real estate moves around.
Even at a conservative rate of two sales/day and at an average of one million each sale, you're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30,000.00/ day for the P.P.tax amounts. That's a cool million/month for absolutely nothing. You can see when the real estate market really gets hopping, this number swells accordingly.
Here's another whistler number for you. HST: take any month out of Jan., Feb., or Mar., @ 150,000 skier visits/mo., let's be ultra-conservative and say each visit reflects $20.00 into the HST bucket. And that is ULTRA conservative, btw. That's another cool three million/ month generated by that little piece of Hollywood North.
Would you like to explore the Hotel Tax?
I'm just pointing out Whistler isn't all that bad for the gov't.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 12:50pm PT
|
It would be interesting to look at all the direct and indirect subsidies that the provincial government has given Whistler-Blackcomb over the last 35 or more years, and see whether Whistler-related taxes cover them. Seems doubtful.
Jim has covered the gondola + transmission line issue, which a friend who has worked building gondolas mentioned to me.
Yes, I'm afraid that TLC bears much of the responsibility for what has happened. The big questions being whether it will take legal action to enforce its rights, or has sufficient political influence to cause the provincial government to stop the project, or at least interject a plausible public process. I was at the meeting in 2004 at MEC where TLC was given its instructions, and they very clearly included acquiring the gravel pit (MEC put in $100,000), renting it out to the highway project, and not selling it until there was a conservation covenant preventing a gondola, or any other inappropriate development. Effective conservation covenants are bread and butter to TLC, other land trusts, and the provincial government.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 12:58pm PT
|
Do you still have a signed copy of those instructions? Could be handy.
Yes, Jim did cover the tranmission line question, and no, they won't be running a separate power line up the slope beside the tram. They'll run a light line up the service road, if they get approval.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:05pm PT
|
There would be a simple power connection for the lower terminal, and at least for the bottom of the gondola. Maybe that's what was being talked about. (Do you need to 'pull' from above, and 'push' from below? Or both?) Even if they don't need to power the gondola from above, they need power for the cafe and other tourist attractions. My source (definitely knowledgeable) simply said that they can't hang power lines on the gondola towers, which suggests that a separate line is needed - beside, underground, another route. It seems an interesting side-issue, though outside my knowledge.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:10pm PT
|
Which means quite a lot of power to the upper end, for gondola plus tourist attractions. If you can't hang the power line on the towers, how's it going to get there?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:13pm PT
|
You mean, of course, "Why doesn't BC Parks, as part of its independent public review of the proposal, ask them?" and "Why don't you ask that at the public meetings that BC Parks will be holding?" Don't you?
Whatever else, they probably won't be powering it with an "IPP" in upper Shannon Creek.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:14pm PT
|
The main power for the tram will all come from the base; kind of a different design. Up top there will be a little PTO off one of the wheels to help generate power. They'll also do wind, solar, and maybe water power to help out with the small amount of power required up there. There may also be a small transmission line running up th fsr., as a back up.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 01:55pm PT
|
Oh come on Bruce, that would be way too easy and leave no room for speculation, rumours, and exaggeration.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 02:07pm PT
|
Anders is using what little of a public process that exists to cajole, goad, and elicit information from the proponents. It is how the task is done and helps bring the facts, not always convenient to the proponents, to light.
Good work Anders.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 06:17pm PT
|
I don't think these things do much good, but I've signed it and and posted it on my Facebook page.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 07:43pm PT
|
It's almost the end of another beautiful weekend in Squamish and another two days for myself asking every recreator I've run into their opinion on the gondola. It continues to be a landslide for the "pro" side. Some of these people are pretty hard core outdoorsers and they are well travelled.
I've been asking for about a month now and the negative crowd might total five percent, half of which are still convinced the gondola climbs the Chief.
Interestingly enough, a recurring theme has been many people saying how much they are annoyed by the elitest argument of "if you want that view so badly, just hike on up there". There is a substantial portion of our society that simply can't make that hike.
Lots of people out there willing to share their stuff, just like we try to teach our kids.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 08:59pm PT
|
Interestingly enough, a recurring theme has been many people saying how much they are annoyed by the elitest argument of "if you want that view so badly, just hike on up there". There is a substantial portion of our society that simply can't make that hike.
Lots of people out there willing to share their stuff, just like we try to teach our kids
Yikes. I didn't hear anything like those elitist views at Britannia. Reminds me of a short-lived proposal in the late 1950s to put a road into Garibaldi Lake, so that those who were unable to make the then-demanding trek into the lake could enjoy the views and the meadows. Why not?
You are probably correct that the majority of Squamish/Whistler/Vancouver people support the project. The Squamish Chief online poll (431 votes) showed 21% opposed, 33% "not crazy about it but let's go ahead", and 38% "it's fine." Like all such polls, far from a random sample and thus far from reliable, but suggestive at least.
But what's wrong with a public hearing about removing land from the park? What's wrong with following due process?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 09:20pm PT
|
Bruce, with your neighbor you had clearly defined property rights and the issue was a civil matter between you and him.
With this gondola proposal, there is not a clear legal mechanism for re-configuring the Parks' boundaries, and a fear exists among some that the system is gamed towards the proponents because of the shared interests between local/provincial governments and the developers, those being taxes and profits.
The lower mainland's growing population will most likely demand access to its public assets by a pay-per-use or other permit program rather than the fully commercial enterprises like this gondola that the BC leadership seems to currently prefer.
The gondola itself is less the problem than the precedent of on-demand BC Parks adjustments to suit commercial development. In this case, many of the questions being asked on this thread should have been addressed within the process of public and private vetting and be easily available for all to find and study.
This is not a simple civil disagreement with clear rights, but rather a seat of the pants series of administrative maneuvers that clearly benefits one party and could set an unfavorable precedent for the future.
Everyone has brought good points to this discussion and though it is not a replacement of public procedure, these are the types of questions that should be asked.
Anyway, last day of the season at Mt. Baker and wasted it by skating all over the area trying to stay fit enough to climb...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 09:30pm PT
|
Read my little blurb up higher regarding the power question. I e-mailed for that information earlier this weekend.
Yes, Mr. Tricouni, it was a little strange to hear more than one of those complaints about being told to go hike up if you want the view. I'm thinking that quote may have been contained in one of the letters to the local paper.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 09:54pm PT
|
Thanks, Todd - some here seem to have suspended their critical facilities, or lost sight of the big picture.
FaceBook, on-line petitions: Yes, they may not be of a lot of value, but seem the sort of thing that you have to do.
Road, power information: Yes, information about those details would be interesting. As the developers indicated at the Britannia meeting that they'd prefer that the road not be open to public vehicle traffic, and as three or four parties would have to agree for it to be kept open, the question may be more who gets the blame for it being closed.
Polls: Public opinion, not just in Squamish but elsewhere, especially elsewhere in the lower mainland, is one important piece of the process, but only one. The "don't knows" and "don't cares" are probably in the majority, but that's just mental speculations. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of those who have an opinion about the proposal and live in the Squamish area are in favour, or at least not opposed, but then the developers have had considerable time to manage public opinion there. Let's hear what other British Columbians have to say, as it's our park, too. Hence the possibility of FOSC holding independent public meetings in several locations, to better gauge opinion. If the government and BC Parks won't, maybe we'll have to.
Access for the disabled/aged: The proposal is about making money. If the developers put in writing a commitment to much-reduced rates for the disabled, and a reduced rate for seniors and children, that'd be one thing. Many of the disabled in particular are on fixed incomes, and would have greater difficulty even than many seniors just getting to the bottom. If it isn't in writing, it doesn't have a lot of credibility.
"Going legal" (Bruce's phrase): So the developers want to change provincial law, get around a conservation covenant, take land from a provincial park based on a flawed process, and we're going legal? (It's also a far cry from neighbours and garages.) You can either be in favour or opposed to a change in legislation - there's no middle ground.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:25pm PT
|
"I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of those who have an opinion about the proposal and live in Squamish area are in favour, or at least not opposed, but then the developers have had considerable time to manage public opinion there." Ander's quote.
I'm not so sure about that as the hundred people I've talked with about the proposal don't have a clue who the proponents are and have never been to any meetings.
I don't think the proponents have "managed" much public opinion at all; I have yet to see any gondola bumper stickers.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:29pm PT
|
Jim, I imagine that the discretion of said Minister can sometimes be swayed by an active constituency...???
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:39pm PT
|
so up to hamish f's post 800
33 avatars have posted to this thread.
The Bruce Kay has 24% of the posts, hamish f has 18% and Mighty Hiker has 12%, Jim Brennan has 7% and Ghost has 6% that's a total of 67% of the total posts going to 5 people...
it's not to say that the remaining 28 people who contributed a third of the posts are not participating (none are over 3%)...
just sayin'...
adrian korosec 1
ArmandoWyo 1
bearbreeder 17
Big Mike 17
bmacd 24
Bruce Kay 192
Chief 4
Cloudraker 1
coastal_climber 1
Cosmiccragsman 2
doser 2
Ed Hartouni 10
fattrad 1
gf 21
Ghost 49
hamish f 144
Hoser 23
Jim Brennan 56
KabalaArch 7
MH2 1
Mighty Hiker 94
mike m 6
Rolfr 6
RyanD 16
Scrubber 7
Silver 1
Stewart 24
Tami 27
Todd Eastman 23
tooth 1
Tricouni 14
Wayno 2
WBraun 2
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:41pm PT
|
There already is a road to above timberline, very near Garibaldi Lake - the road to the microwave towers. It's gated and rough, but is maintained, and it could easily be improved.
Do Grouse and Whistler track how many elderly and/or disabled persons use their facilities? Is there much demand? Certainly they provide opportunities for such persons. Considering that anyone using the proposed new gondola will have to go by Grouse, and that most of them will end up in Whistler, does the proposed gondola offer anything different/better? In any event, 100,000+ annual hiker days at the Chief and Shannon Falls, and perhaps as many again climber days, suggest that the issues are lack of trails and crowding, and the development would do nothing to address either.
It's common sense to acknowledge that not everyone can or should be able to go everywhere at all times, and that there's a need for balance. An under-discussed aspect of the proposal is the increased crowding it would create, in already crowded parks. Another reason for a credible look at Goat Ridge.
Bruce, Hamish, etc: Ever hear of someone named Meg Fellowes?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:54pm PT
|
Bruce, they told me that they were paying you well. All part of our diversionary mission, so no one catches on to what they're really up to. You know, the secret secret plan. You need to just continue slipping me stuff off-line, OK?
Anyway, not just what they say, but what they put in writing, what they actually do, and whether those they make commitments to are prepared to hold them to the commitments seem more pertinent matters. If developers want land from prominent public parks, full public disclosure and binding public written commitments are needed. As Ronald Reagan - whom I'm sure we agree was a senile fool - said, "Trust, but verify".
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:03pm PT
|
Well I suppose it's pretty evident Bruce and I have some time on our hands, as documented by the number-cruncher a couple posts back. I enjoy debating with my friends and am interested in juicy tid-bits such as paid for covenants which seem miss written.
Another angle which keeps me hogging the site is the reaction of everyone (well at least 90%) when I inform them there's a group fighting to shut it down. When I sheepishly explain the group would be happy if the gondola were to simply slide down the highway, as it requires an easement to travel through the Park, they usually roll their eyes.
The other reason for my endless banter is, as Bruce Kay was mentioning, truth in advertising. Nothing grates me more than missleading or exaggerated information. As soon as I read about the swath of land potentially being 80 m wide or it being a 30 minute bikeride to get to the upper terminal, it gets me typing. It may be poorly written and full of spelling mistakes, but someone needs to help keep as much honesty as possible in the debate.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:11pm PT
|
The thing I think is most important in this discussion is that climbers bring a strong set of experiences and opinions to land management decisions. Few others have clawed, crawled, hiked, scrambled, and climbed throughout the area as much?
The climbing community with its diverse opinions about a proposal like this, brings a tremendous resource to the greater public discussion.
I would be doing the same if my childhood crags in the East and especially Poko and the Adirondack crags were under the gun. Fortunately the blackflies seem to discourage such proposals...
Great input from all!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:26pm PT
|
As for the road, we have no jurisdiction of the road as it is a forest service road. If we have any influence we want to try and keep the access at least as good as it is today.
Yeah, I'd say that's worth a button. Pretty much confirms what's been said. Remind me again how "good" the access on that road is today? (But don't be going legal on us - Bruce said we shouldn't do that.)
Anyway, the discussion here has been helpful and sometimes informative, notwithstanding occasional diversions. It's been interesting to see how some are more focused on the details of what would be built and how the thing would operate, all of which are relevant and informative, whereas others are more focused on whether it's something that in principle should even be considered, and if so, what a credible process for doing so is. Early on I got sidetracked into some details, but then realized that they probably don't matter very much.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:27pm PT
|
Jim. I tell everyone I talk to it's a Provincial Park; I'm not hiding a thing. I can take my question to Vancouver and anytown B.C. but do you really think the response will be that different? I would have to guess that the further afield from Squamish one goes with the question, the more you'll hear people either being fine with it or not caring. I would have to put the Squamish population, especially the types I've been asking, pretty high up on the caring scale.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:24am PT
|
Is the covenant being perverted though? Wouldn't that interview be a tad embarassing for TLC, as they specified no gondolas terminating in the Park. The proposed gondola won't terminate in the Park, so, all Spirits aside, where's the beef?
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 01:08am PT
|
Hi Tami: that was meant as special - as near as I can tell, you're the only female posting on here. Be proud.
Gotta go
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 10:27am PT
|
But if these covenants are, as Mighty noted, the bread and butter of organizations like TLC, wouldn't any judge rule that they (TLC) have had ample history and practice at properly spreading the butter on the bread?
A few years back someone broke their leg while riding a zipline just north of Whistler. There was definitely negligence on the part of the guides. Naturally, everyone was required to sign a waiver before zipping. When Limpy brought his lawsuit before the judge, the judge informed the poor chap he was out of luck because, as a lawyer (yes, Limpy was a lawyer to boot), he had excellent knowledge of what he was doing when he signed that waiver and he was experienced in understanding the meaning of waivers. I suppose if Limpy had been a dump truck driver he might have limped away with a bundle of cash.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 11:44am PT
|
Just to set things straight, my story didn't take place at the ziptreck course on Whistler/Blackcomb. I wrote "north of whistler".
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 05:11pm PT
|
"The covenant detailed the gondola was not to be in the Park"
For some reason, when I read the covenant, it seems to specifically detail the gondola was not to "terminate" in the Park.
Hey Bruce, where did you buy those glasses?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 05:31pm PT
|
I guess my zipline story wasn't that well interpretated. Not enough coffee perhaps. My point was nothing to do with liability or waivers. What I'm suggesting is TLC might look a little amateur coming forward to say they made a mistake when they wrote their covenant. As M.H. informed us, covenants are TLC's bread and butter, so if anyone knows how to properly write a covenant, it's TLC.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 05:59pm PT
|
Like M.H. has been schooling us for almost a month now, at the end of the day it's all about the money. If TLC sold something for more than twice as much as they'd paid, perhaps there's a slight possibility that "terminating" word netted them an extra few hundred. Just a theory, that's all.
Here is an interesting quote from The Mighty Hiker, five weeks ago, in his initial thread-commencing post, Post #1 :
"The proposed gondola would avoid the restrictive covenant on a technicality"
Well, he's the lawyer.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
|
TLC knew exactly what they were writing. The deal went through because of this.
Examination of the TLC mission statement or bylaws will determine culpability of the directors. This deal stinks like a pulp mill.
Resignations are in order at a minimum.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 09:56pm PT
|
Bright side is there won't be a pulpmill in the view from up top.
Everyone might as well face the fact that TLC was, and is, just fine with a gondola going up to the Habrich area. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 11:03pm PT
|
Issues with the TLC are a sideshow to the real issue and that is the removal of lands from a Class A BC Provincial Park to a commercial operation and the precedent such a removal will set for other BC Provincial Parks.
A removal of lands like this means that the highest level of land protection within the province is no guarantee that private interests will not be placed ahead of the public interest in the future. Not what I would call effective long-term planning for the environmental and recreational needs of BC residents.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2012 - 11:46pm PT
|
Todd that is correct. The whole show must be moved south of Shannon falls to eliminate impact on the Chief parking and recreation
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Praise the Lord we don't go around in circles on this site!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
No, but gondolas do.
With regard to the full story of what happened between TLC and the developers, we may never know. TLC's statement isn't that long. It seems in a somewhat awkward spot, and hopefully is doing what it can to retrieve the situation.
TLC did good work at the upper Malemute and Skaha, to the benefit of the climbing community. Still, what's happened is rather disappointing.
Todd has it right - the real issues are removal of land from parks, and the process for doing so. The importance of conservation covenants, and governments respecting their intent, too.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
I thought the buttons were trade for coming up with the answer for how they will get power to the top of the hill?
What did trevy say about that?
Or no power up there, closes at dusk?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Anders, you need to accept the simple fact that TLC sold them the property knowing perfectly well a gondola was going in. They (TLC) just made them promise, by way of a covenant, not to run it up the Chief or terminate it in the Park.
Remember a few hundred posts ago, when Bruce K nominated me for "master of the obvious"
I think you need to be O.K. with the fact that there are a lot of people out there, even land protection agencies, who don't always see things your way.
Moving on. Next complaint.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm aware you guys skim over my posts rather quickly, probably because I'm lacking the big, cool words. Reverse a little and read post #788.
I'll go buy a thesaurus when I get a chance... then I can start writing catchy stuff, like "ipso facto".
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Reverse a little and read post #788.
Okay, I went back and tried to read that post. But the words were all really little, so I couldn't understand it.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
So I've been told...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
TLC sold the site to a business man in Squamish with a covenant upon it to prevent the property from being used as a gondola to travel up the face of the Chief or terminating in either provincial park. Currently, another proposal has been brought forward to build a gondola from the gravel pit site and into the backcountry over and beyond the provincial parks. The proponent of this current gondola initiative is dealing with the person who purchased the site from TLC. TLC does not have a connection to this gondola proponent. It appears that the gondola project has found a way to avoid the covenant.
However, it has now come to light that they are requesting to remove some land from the Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks to allow for the gondola to be constructed. When selling the property, TLC never
anticipated that BC Parks would consider removing land from the Park to facilitate such an endeavour. The covenant that TLC placed on the land will prevent this gondola, unless BC Parks gives permission to the developer.
(Sorry, there are a few long and complicated words, but they're not mine.)
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
You mean like that windmill on Grouse that they plug in so the tourists can see it move?
|
|
sagot
Trad climber
Vancouver
|
|
I'm off to "Hack and Squirt" that valley just in case it goes though!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
If I eat a lot of beef, I"m a really awesome wind generator.
This thread has generated enough wind to power the gondola for a whole year.
Closing in on 1,000 posts repeating the same few points about 250 times each.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Typical contractor, you ask him one thing and you get billed for another :)
Wasnt the whole point of your email to Trevy to answer this?
they need power for the cafe and other tourist attractions. My source (definitely knowledgeable) simply said that they can't hang power lines on the gondola towers, which suggests that a separate line is needed - beside, underground, another route. It seems an interesting side-issue, though outside my knowledge.
All you really got was, we have a plug at the base and we HOPE you will still be able to at least drive to the boulder blockade.
pffft we already knew that
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Come on M.H., just because you read something in the newspaper doesn't mean it's true. You're a lawyer, you know that.
Less than three months ago,TLC sold the gravel pit to the proponents. As an integral stipulation of the sale, a covenant was registered at the same time, stating no gondola up the Chief and no terminating a gondola in the Park. Prior to this date there was no covenant on the land.
Not only did TLC have a perfectly clear idea they were selling the land to a gondola developer, they dictaded exactly where the gondola would have to go.
It seems impolite to direct your animosity toward the gondola proponents when really it's TLC that let you down.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Said the Business Owner to the Lawyer..."There's gotta be someone around here we can sue, can't we?"
Off topic, I know, but when are we going biking?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I guess I'll have to speak for my lawyer as I don't have one.
Next week sounds great.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
We're developing a secret crag near Seattle that requires a bike to get to. Which is okay, but it puts you at the top, not the bottom, and I'm thinking maybe a small gondola from the base of the crag to the top would make access to the start of the routes a lot better...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Hanging out at my kid's school this afternoon, doing my usual canvassing of the local mums; one conversation had a bit of an impact.
When I asked her opinion on the proposed gondola, she said she didn't understand what the big deal was. I filled her in on the easement required from Parks and the fact that a number of people were quite upset with the "removal" of land from a Class A Park. She asked me if that was the same crowd that was removing all the beautiful moss from the cliffs close to the highway. She went on to tell me she notices every time she drives by the apron (that's my word), the rock down close to the highway is much cleaner of all the moss; she said it looks like someone has taken a pressure washer to it.
I explained the whole route-scrubbing process to her and she explained to me how long it took that moss to get established. She said she liked the mossy look a lot better than the pressure-washed look.
When I informed her the Captain of the "against" crew spends a lot of his time scrubbing moss off that slab, just higher, she said it sounded like the pot calling the kettle black. Well, she said, he really is removing land from the Park.
She didn't care if it was trees or moss, to her it was all Park.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
When I informed her the Captain of the "against" crew spends a lot of his time scrubbing moss off that slab,
I wonder who in the world he could be referring to? Jeremy? Robin? Kris? There's quite a list of likely suspects, but none is on the FOSC committee. As my 'cleaning' activities never amounted to much, and are now nearly negligible, it can't be me - indeed, I've been known to speak out against other's excesses in that regard.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Oh,I do apologize, M.H., for some reason I thought you spent a bunch of time last summer scrubbing and bolting Slab Alley. Sorry, must've been someone else.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
I wonder who in the world he could be referring to? Jeremy? Robin? Kris? There's quite a list of likely suspects, but none is on the FOSC committee. As my 'cleaning' activities never amounted to much, and are now nearly negligible, it can't be me - indeed, I've been known to speak out against other's excesses in that regard.
So let me see if I understand this. You are unhappy with the idea of the gondola polluting the area, and if it does go in you will never ride it. Likewise, you are against scrubbing routes clean, and if routes do get scrubbed clean you will never cli...
Hmmm. Where was I going with that thought. Almost seemed like... No. Anders is an honorable man. If he would refuse to ride the gondola because putting a gondola in that spot is wrong, the surely he would refuse to get on routes that were too heavily cleaned.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Now now Casper the Friendly. That type of rhetoric won't get you a button from the Fifty and Older Social Club.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I never mentioned Anders was making any type of political point at all, and for all I care he can re-scrub every route on the Apron till it sparkles.
I'm simply making an effort to pass on the view from the street, so to speak. Or, in this case, the highway. Because if Anders wants to have any success shutting this thing down, it's the people on the street he'll need to win over, not the fourteen unhappy climbers on supertopo.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
So let me get this straight, this woman feels as strongly about moss removal as she does about tree removal in a park. Then in the same breath say's she doesn't understand what the big deal is in putting up a kilometre long gondola through a park to a restaurant and interpretive centre?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I don't know Jim, just seems like you can't have your cake and eat it too.
As a group, climbers feel they have every right to swarm all over the Chief, scrub the daylights out of the rock, cut down countless number of trees (some of which took hundreds of years to grow in their precarious positions), and drill bolts beside cracks to make guiding (money-making) easier. Throw in a little detour to Murrin Provincial Park for some real-man's tree falling to fascilitate climbing at Pet wall.
Now Parks wants to re-zone a strip of land for the gondola guys and the climbers have their knickers in a twist regarding development. The climbers have been developing the area for decades. Just have a peek at the irony of the conundrum from Joe Public's point of view.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Naughty Hamish! Wicked Hamish! No button for you. (No doughnut either.) You have much to learn about trolling, grasshopper. The notion that my bit of cleaning to restore historic Slab Alley is discernible to any but attentive climbers is a bit of a stretch. Certainly not from the road. I'm sure that 'civilians' can see the over-exuberant 'cleaning' efforts of some, on the Apron, around the Chief, and at the LSB. It seems unlikely that includes much if any of Slab Alley.
I have no objection to cleaning. It has its place, as long as climbers remember that we share the area, and allow for natural and human values. Some don't, unfortunately. After all, I helped write the master plan, and then the climbing strategy, a good part of which addresses cleaning. And have in a very modest way cleaned a few climbs. I've also spoken out against excessive cleaning for 30 years.
routes that were too heavily cleaned And there's the rub, eh?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
She's a soccer mom who's willing to go with the flow. And who knows, maybe they'll have a corner in the interpretive area devoted to moss species.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
O.K., Anders, I apologize, again. I wasn't aware there are several levels of scrubbing, or aware there are written rules on the subject.
This is somewhat educational for me and now I understand that you condemn the scrubbing practices at the base of the Apron but you're fine with a "light" scrub. I'm getting it, slowly. Nobody ever said it wasn't complicated, that's for sure. Again, I'm sorry. In the future I'll try to tread (scrub) lightly.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, Hamish. We are all just friends, hashing over current affairs and interests. Not so different from the past. And it's hard to convey nuance with this internetz thingie. Still, I wish you and Bruce would subject the proposal to the same level of criticism you aim at me. For example, ask the developers if they talked with any prospective partners or purchasers, and what happened.
FWIW, a helpful friend who happens to be a professor of forestry has informed us that the park and area, including the land that would be taken for the gondola, are: "in the dry maritime (dm) subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic (ecological) zone. This is one of the most poorly protected zones in BC, and the dm subzone is one of the most poorly protected subzones of the CWH." He also advises that the removal of a strip of land through the park would affect more than just that strip: "bisecting a park has effects on land and ecosystems adjacent to the bisecting corridor."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Geeze Louise, sorry everybody. I honestly didn't know there was a "scrubbing scale" in effect around these parts. I mean, Ive scrubbed a few routes myself. I couldn't get them to look like the new ones at the base of the Apron but that was mostly due to attention span difficulties and a limited supply of time and brushes. So climbers scrubbed the snot out of the base of the Apron; so Anders scrubbed a route up higher. So what; scrub-a-dub-dub. It was all scrubbing to me until a few posts ago when I became educated on all the varying degrees of scrubbing. Holy Moly.
I move for a post from Scrubber; just seems so timely and we haven't heard from him for awhile.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
A fair question might be, why would the party wanting to put up the gondola justify the purchase of the gravel pit from the owner unless it had some assurance of being fast-tracked through the local and provincial processes?
Is such a purchase without assurances of being allowed to do the project, a typical business risk?
Just wondering...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Jim, as Bruce answered you 23 hours ago, have you costed out the drilling and blasting expenses to create a six-acre flat piece of turf down to the south. You're in construction; how are those road-building (in rock) quotes coming in these days? Costly stuff.
We all would way rather the tram go in down the hwy a bit further, and who knows, perhaps that'll be how the cookie crumbles. I wouldn't be surprised if the difference was in the millions and millions.
Also, I hate to bring it up but everyones' timing stinks. These proponents truly did have many open houses, meetings,etc., all starting last summer. Ideally, somewhere in those initial public consultations would've been the place for what we continue to spin on this site. To bring all these concerns in the last month, after they've purchased the land, got the District's approval, got the letter of reccomendation from B.C. Parks, had an overwhelming (seemingly, anyway) support from the public; well, the timing is less than perfect.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I had a look around Britannia Beach a few weeks ago, as the map, and google earth, indicated there were possibilities. There appears to be a fair amount of flat or flattish land on the 'uphill' side of the power lines, which is road accessible. There would surely be private property, neighbourhood, road access issues, and the like, but it appears to be physically possible. It might be somewhat like Grouse, though not so far off the main road.
There also appear to be possibilities for a gondola going up the ridge between Britannia and Furry Creeks, perhaps from somewhere above the top of the Furry Creek hill.
Neither, of course, has Shannon Falls bus tourists or a casino nearby. But that doesn't seem to affect Grouse.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
The person(s) who just bought the "makin lands" south of Brittania paid cash apparently. Maybe they want to toss a few duffellbags of cash towards the gondola being built more south to draw people to their "new" community....or so one could speculate. Seems like they got a nice gravel pit all ready to go!
Chinese developer Taicheng buys Britannia lands to build 4,000-unit community
A Chinese development company feels it has struck gold with a $30.5 million purchase of land surrounding Britannia’s infamous mine.
The Taicheng Development Corporation plans on constructing a sustainable community of up to 4,000 homes after scooping up close to 480 acres of land through a court-ordered, cash sale.
The property includes the gravel pit directly south of Britannia mine, the former Makin Lands, and land that stretches up to the top of Furry Creek, said project manager Paul Prade on Saturday.
The property includes the gravel pit directly south of Britannia mine, the former Makin Lands, and land that stretches up to the top of Furry Creek, said project manager Paul Prade on Saturday.
“(Taicheng) have been scouting projects in different areas and when they saw this, the owner, Peter Cheng, just absolutely fell in love with the property and its location,” Prade said.
“It was something he couldn’t believe was available.”
The former owner of the land fell into financial hardship and had been unable to sell the property.
The first phase of the development, called South Britannia, is between one to two years away from the start of construction, and will feature a town centre at the gravel pit location with some commercial space and residential units.
Taicheng will bring in more funds to complete the project.
Civil engineers drilled wells in the area in late 2011, and water levels will be tested for 12 months.
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Chinese+developer+Taicheng+buys+Britannia+lands+build+unit+community/6319636/story.html#ixzz1rmSTu6hR
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Start? I thought we started recycling on page 3!!!
More like at post 3
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Another day (well, when school got out) asking two of the local mummacittas at the school playground their views on the gondy. They were both pretty much for it, but mostly from an economic stand point. Their husbands rarely work in Squamish and they see a slight economic benefit with the Tram. They weren't too happy about an easement through the Park, but both are ex-whistlerites and knew about the precedent set with Blackcomb.
One of the Moms grew up in West Van and spent her first eighteen years driving to Whistler and never stopping in Squamish; now that she is a resident I think she feels a little bitter about all the money driving through and not stopping.
When I asked their opinion specifically on the gondy and the easement, regardless of any economic spin offs, they were still keen although felt it was a shame to cut through the Park.
Then I ran into my friend Jake, who is always pretty blunt and to the point. In his trademark low voice, he suggested the other side of the river, across from downtown or the railyards, would be much better as that area had even less access than the Habrich zone.
If the boys placed their tram over there, with the first span rising above the river, I would have to imagine the economic gains for downtown Squamish would be greater than if the lift was over at the Park.
Of course there are heaps of power lines on that slope above the Squamish River but I'm sure the views would be equally as magnificent.
That wraps up another day on the street, or at least an hour after work.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thank you. One of the alternatives in the 2009 Oceanfront Development Corp. study was a gondola from the downtown to Mt. Lapworth, or another location on the west side of the Squamish River. It ought at least to bring traffic into downtown Squamish, which the current proposal - or for that matter one on Goat Ridge - seems unlikely to do much of.
Many of the recent comments simply highlight the failure of BC Parks to publicly do its job well, including a resourced, independent and transparent review of the proposal, and independent public meetings.
Whether it's alternative locations, the actual impacts and benefits, the biogeoclimatic zone, the commitments made by the developers and whether they'd be binding, the process, or many other issues, none of us have the resources of the governments or the developer. FOSC has done its best to discuss concerns and issues, based on the information and resources available, and with a rightly skeptical attitude toward the developer's claims.
As for the biogeoclimatic zone - well, you were demanding facts. A report from a professional who knows the area seemed to fit the bill.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Yes, well Jim B. mentioned this about 347,000 posts ago and I must say that after talking to a myriad of people here in the center of the Universe, it's shocking how many of them want to bring people into the downtown core.
This gondola will be pretty hi tech and no matter where it commences, I would put it under the heading of "build it and they will come".
Seems as if we have an unhappy group due to the Park easement, an unhappy group watching their downtown limp along, and a couple of businessmen that could cheer up both crowds.
There are a huge amount of hydro lines up on that slope; tough one.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I just spent a couple hours in downtown Squampton asking everyone I could what their thoughts were. I was surprised by how many people were counting the days till the Squamish downtown got revitalized by way of all the tourist traffic over at the new gondola.
I'm not too sure I fully agree with this. Once the tourists get off the lift, back at the base, I don't necessarily see them pinning it for the downtown core. I look around downtown and see many commercial buildings up for lease and for sale and it's a shame that such a beautiful setting isn't receiving the attention it deserves.
If part of the reason for the gondola is to provide another engine for the Squamish economic community, perhaps that engine should be closer to town. I realize there are countless hydro lines up on that slope across the river but I can't help but think if the tourists got off the gondola in closer proximity to the downtown area, the benefits for the town would be infinitely more measurable than if they were getting back into their car at the gravel pit.
Once they're done with the gondola, they're either going to drive north or south. If they drive south, they bring absolutely nothing to the local economy, by way of the spin offs. If they drive north, I don't actually see too many of them hanging a left into Squamish. I might even guess the businesses up the hwy at Garibaldi Highlands, where most of the current development seems to be going on, would benefit more than those downtown, simply due to the hwy frontage.
It's funny that the gondola is so intertwined with the Chief when, really, the views of the Chief will be very limited. The truly outstanding views of the Chief would be from the slope on the west side of the river. The Chief, from that vantage point, would (does) look phenominal.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Are you aware of the gondola proposal that was already studied for that area?
Frank Baumann did all the studies for it...maybe someone can convince him to post his findings.
edit:
here is a little write up by him on Bivouac. Sounds like a much better idea for everyone.
http://bivouac.com//DsxPg.asp?DsxId=1163
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
No, I wasn't. Thank-you for finding that. Gotta say, there is a lot of terrain over there. Nice digging, Hoser.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Frank was at the meeting in Britannia, and spoke emphatically about the downtown-Lapworth proposal.
I pretty much agree with Hamish. It's hard to see how the current proposal would bring tourists into the downtown, unless it's part of a tour. Many of them will be on Vancouver - Whistler bus tours, leaving first thing in the morning, at midday, or later on. They'll stop at Shannon Falls, and then if there's a gondola and it's included in the price (package deals are usual), they'll take it. Buy some stuff or a meal at the bottom or top, spend a few hours, then continue to Whistler. Ideally they'd instead be taken into downtown Squamish, stay in the hotels there, do other things and see other sights, and buy meals and stuff. Will they? Is there enough to attract them into the downtown area, and keep them for long? Traditional tourist attractions in Squamish are quite spread out, as are accommodations and restaurants.
It maybe highlights that Squamish is a different kind of community and tourist destination than Whistler. Whistler has had 30 years to develop the tour shtick, with a lot more of the attractions that such tourists want. You need a certain density of attractions, accommodations, restaurants and such to make it work.
How much "drive in" traffic the gondola may get is another question. Again, many are en route to Whistler, and will have read at least a bit about the area. They're already spending quite a lot of money. Taking the "big" gondola at Whistler may be on their radar, but a lesser one en route (and framed by the Grouse gondola) may not get much traction, especially once the novelty wears off. Whether there'd be enough local, ordinary GVRD, hiker, and bicycle traffic, or facilities, to make much difference is another question. The price may have to be pretty low to attract much of that traffic.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Could you imagine....take the train up from Van then either head up to the tantalus via the gondola or leave a bike and ride up to the bluffs or the chief.
What a freaking dream that would be!!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
When you read through Frank's plan, it calls for a two gondola in-a-row format. Change lifts on top of the flat bluff where the hydro lines are. Just passing on what I read; not sure if that's feasable or not.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you guys are goin' for 1000, aren't you
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It's probably only equal to eight guys and one girl sitting around the table with a few beers each...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
isn't the girl drinking whisky?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Whiskey for Mrs. Knight? I'm thinking wine.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Whiskey for Mrs. Knight? I'm thinking wine.
Depends on the desperation level. I remember one night of travelling in a snowstorm when she though she was gonna die, and we finally got to Canmore and I pulled in under the sodium lighting in some strip mall and she realized she was gonna live. We didn't say anything for a minute or so, and then she looked at me and said "Have you got a bottle in this car?"
Watched her take the cap off and up-end a bottle of scotch over her face and do her best to suck it dry.
Not that that has anything to do with gondolas, but I thought y'all oughta know.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Both Paul and Phil Kubik are still around, and active, although Phil has two or three kids to keep him busy.
Whatever else, the gondola proposal hardly seems a killer app in terms of the future of Squamish, or its downtown. Even one based in or near the downtown probably wouldn't be. It may have some benefits for the downtown, but they don't seem likely to be substantial, and may take some time to develop.
Location location location.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
At least we've got a handle on Tami's drinking habits. You can spell whiskey with an e, btw. We're not really maroons.
I don't know, Anders; I think downtown needs an attraction or two to lure people off the autobahn. I remember living there years ago when the Royal Hudson would pull into town for a couple hours every day during turon season. It actually worked pretty well, everyone would get off the train, walk around town spending their money, voila, mini-economy.
It's also much closer to the parking area for the cruise ships which might venture up the sound one day, if there were some activities for the cruzies.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Bruce K for council
|
|
thekidcormier
Gym climber
squamish, b.c.
|
|
I think Bruce is onto something here!!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Good idea Bruce! That is some progressive thinking. You'll need some heavy metal for that mosh pit. Oh, and yeah no worries plenty of condos already being built downtown that need inhabitants & as for crossing our fingers i think pretty much every single business owner who doesn't own a bank, fast food or grocery store down there crazy glued their fingers crossed sometime just before Feb 2010- last time they were supposed to get rich & receive "economic benefits". Didn't exactly pan out that way, did it?
Seems like we are really getting somewhere with this gondola thread now.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Oh we're splitting the atom, that's for sure.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Not if Jim and Bruce build 'em.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
I say Ram it.
Okay! I'm coming up this w/e to turn the first shovelfull of earth for the base facility. Get the ribbons in place with the scissors waiting, and make sure there's plenty of Champagne on ice.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Bump for endless loop stupidly busting out into downward spiralling gondola wreck by post 1000
;)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
A prominent Squamish environmentalist has resigned her post as chair of a local conservation society to publicly oppose a proposal to build a gondola over Stawamus Chief Park.
Meg Fellowes, a former Squamish district councillor, resigned as chair of the Squamish Environment Society — which has not taken a position on the gondola proposal — last week. Fellowes said in a statement she plans to refocus her efforts on lobbying the provincial government to hold a public hearing on the proposal, joining forces with the grassroots group Friends of the Squamish Chief, which has launched an online petition to that effect. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Squamish+environmentalist+resigns+post+oppose+gondola+project/6570231/story.html#ixzz1u1fD0NF4
Only 58 posts to go. HF and BK between them should be good for 30, DH another five.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm making an effort not to subject the masses to my endless stream of consciousness. I have a one foot long chunk of inch and a half cable in my garage which I'm offering up as a prize for the lucky 1000th poster.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are things at play right now that put this gondola thing into proper perspective, that is if you care to look.
I'm sorry Bruce, but my religion -- which requires me to oppose removal of land from Parks no matter what the local circumstances -- does not require me to oppose the transshipment of US coal through Canadian ports. So I don't care about that.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Environmental Issues? I guess so but I believe the key players in the 70's who harvested the whole basin were named Sthil and Husqvarna. Those two guys had a lasting effect on the environment up there when they cut it down and strapped it on the back of a thousand logging trucks.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Oh geeze Bruce.... China only burns 8 billion tonnes of coal per year. I wonder how much dirty diesel the tankers burn getting the coal to the church on time. Still a little early on sunday morning but I'm thinking they use about one million tonnes/hour of coal. There's a depressing soundbyte. Still a mere 10,000 railcars/hour of coal consumed, 24-7. Just for Ed, cause I know he's a number guy, that's a whopping 80 miles of railcars/hr. I guess you could say railcars of coal get consumed at a rate of 80 mph, just to keep it simple. 2 railcars of coal per second; that is a lot of energy.
I guess that might generate a little heat, so to speak.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
You're right, she is lovely. I can't stay up late, messes me up.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
You two are hilarious. Hamish it didn't take you long to get addicted to super duper topo.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
O.K., we're leaving the compost heap and moving to Vegas. Do they have water there?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
What are the ski touring options from the top of the proposed gondola?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Below treeline, there are trees. Above treeline, it's fairly rocky and often steep. I'd say that the possibilities for backcountry skiing there are limited. A bit of ski mountaineering may be possible on Goat Ridge, but it wouldn't be easily reached from the upper terminal. The upper Shannon Creek basin, doesn't seem well suited to cross country skiing, either. Too low for reliably decent conditions, and maybe a bit too hilly.
As with the gondola itself, the possibilities are overshadowed by better options not much further up the highway.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
How about an "alpine slide" down from the top station? Re-live the logging sluiceway descents of days gone by.
Maybe a zip line? Barrel rolling off Shannon Falls?
|
|
Saugy
Mountain climber
BC
|
|
Up on the Bulletheads today with my lovely wife, and all I could think about was that there could be one day an amusement park(ing lot)down below and a tram chugging uphill (and down) right thru my sightlines, and very close by...as I sat..
imagine this pic full of parking lot and gondola
..and this one further uphill
This aspect gives us about 18% traffic and road noise, the other 82% pristine (more or less) parkland, and peace.
Lets keep it that way...peace. Don
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
about 20 odd years ago there was a move made to have the local rifle range shut down so that a few scruffy crags could be free to be grid bolted for the entitled lycra wearing navel gazers.
A cliff that the one climber who promoted access to it called the Art Gallery, and everyone else calls the Shooting Gallery. He was disappointed when the Access Society wouldn't go to bat for him. (The shooting range had been there for decades.)
Hardly in the same vein as a highly intrusive and seemingly marginal gondola, of course.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Geeze Bruce (again), the poll may say 78% against but when the total number of votes cast is 56, well, you get the picture.
Furthermore, it'll be a bright day for Squampton when they move that shooting range far out into the sticks. I believe that was a Lonsdale-Legacy.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Saw you out there, Saugy. A sunny quiet reasonably dry day.
There's enough hardware now around Cream of White Mice they could string the gondola on that.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Was that the crag known as the "art gallery" Bruce?
I could see how guns won the battle vs Lycra in this town, no contest there.
In search of a 1000 I guess I will sprinkle a little more pessimism on the pot.
Maybe the gondola developers should try a new angle & make it a tram accessed hunting area, you could shoot sh1t up there & hang it off the gondy to bleed out on the way down. Or maybe they could rent chainsaws & tourons could go & cut their first tree down??!
These guys are going to need realistic ideas of potential revenue streams to keep from going out of biz since right now they only have one guaranteed - a sightseeing gondola with a 1 km "interpretive" loop trail & what will likely be an overpriced ball park concession- that is currently the only guarantee. No skiing, mountain biking, road access, or trail systems that will not leech off the already gangbanged backside trail are going to happen since those ideas are just massive speculations that we have created on this thread among other places, the media has came up with some good stuff as well. All nice thoughts & I'm sure the developers love it that we & many others have speculated some sort of recreational utopia up there but lets get real- if built this gondola is going to be to gondolas what chances bingo hall is to casinos- Super welly & good for nothing but a place to take a crap on your way out climbing(yes Bruce I know the patio is nice but the glorified bingo hall casino with no actual gaming tables is a joke- they are barely in biz still I hear). A gondola to a cut block that is not even a summit yet with no purpose except sight seeing will be of similar quality & value IMO.
Edit- just saw MH post saying the name of the shooting gallery
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Ryan has a firm grip on reality.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Just for the record, the only reason I'd like the gun club to move further into the sticks is due to the noise polution, especially when they train with their automatics. They're just too close to the burbs. How about in behind the dump, no one lives out there and the noise of the river can cover up the gunfire.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
The poll is showing 73% opposed! What could be the explanation?
Age, the posters here all worried about wheel chair and disabled access for a reason...its imminent :)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Quite off topic, but there are significant challenges with closing outdoor shooting ranges. 50+ years of lead deposited in an area (often well outside of or downrange from the actual property) can lead to major remediation problems. Likewise opening a new one, with the permitting required. The present one may be grandparented.
Cleaning up a closed rifle range is probably nothing like as hard as cleaning up a failed gondola, though.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
At least the Squamish shooting range confines the fireworks to one small safe area. Up until a couple of years ago, coming down from Zeke's Wall was like passing through a war zone. By mid-afternoon the ORV crowd would be good and drunk and blasting away at anything and everything. Some of them were reasonably safety conscious, but I often thought the first serious injury or death at Zeke's wouldn't be a climbing accident, but a gunshot wound.
Fortunately, the logging company with the rights to that area wasn't amused at the road degradation caused by ORV use, and then the DNR got upset about watershed degration caused by ORV use, and that was that. They simply shut off all access except by foot to the entire area.
It was pretty weird listening to the response from the ORV folk, who screamed that their god-given right to trash the world was being taken away from them by a bunch of big-city liberal environmental wingnuts. (This being the US, the insult they actually used was "Democrats.") The reality, of course, was that liberal environmentalists had nothing to do with it. Those idiots (the ORVers, not the liberal environmentalists) upset the lumber and fishing industries, and doing that in WA is no different than doing it in BC.
There may be something of relevance to the gondola debate in that story, btw.
|
|
coastal_climber
Trad climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
This just shows how much of a write off the sea to sky corridor is. F*#k sakes.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
Here's the gist of what's in the legislation with respect to the gondola proposal:
Stawamus Chief Provincial Park - 2.36 hectares are being removed from the park. The area being removed will subsequently be established as Stawamus Chief Protected Area under the Environment and Land Use Act. This allows for the application of a Park Use Permit for a right-of-way through the park. BC Parks staff will review the application to assess environmental impacts.
Approximately 1.93 hectares are being added to the park as a result of Crown lands transferred to the ministry in 2008 from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for a closed road that was no longer needed as part of the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project.
Nothing about public hearings. BC Parks staff will "review" the application AFTER the land is removed from the park.
Anybody know anything about the land that's being added?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Start looking for the bribes...
... this deal stinks up a storm!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
We all rip off the place for an income.
The income's point is to have an enjoyable instead of a miserable life. Government's primary purpose is to be the firewall between bad ideas and good ones.
Now that is some interesting thought.
"We all rip off the place for an income." Easy to forget, but so true. When people criticize "development" while still happily using TP to wipe their asses, or think they're better than you because they drink their coffee out of china cups instead of using paper (conveniently forgetting about the hot water and soap they're going to use when washing up), it's hard to take them seriously. We all do rip off the place for an income.
"Government's primary purpose is to be the firewall between bad ideas and good ones." In an ideal world, maybe. In the real world, governments are composed of people, not saints, and the operative response should be quis custodiet ispsos custodes. Anybody who thinks governments actually provide a firewall between good ideas and bad is abdicating their responsibility to themselves and their children and just begging to be seriously f*#ked over.
Edit: I forgot to say that those Italians that said F*#k You to the highway didn't get it exactly right. There are pluses and minuses. I lived for over twenty years in Vancouver, and have now lived for over ten in Seattle -- which has a superhighway running through it. In terms of livability, I'll take Seattle. I-5 may be a nightmare, but every time I visit Vancouver and try to drive somewhere on city streets, I realize that my nightmare is the better one.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Canada is competitive and somewhat relative on the globe because of our ease of insertion concerning someone else's earnest belief in making things better...
One of us has had too much to drink tonight, because that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Could be me, as I've had a couple of pints, but still... What would that mean if it was translated into intelligibility?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
From Joe Public's point of view, the calamity over the 2004 gondola proposal partially paved the way for this recent one. That and TLC. So much fuss was raised over the gondola going up the Chief, and rightly so, nobody was seeing the bigger picture of the two amalgimated parks. To them it was the notion of a gondola ascending and summitting the Chief; it had nothing to do with placing a gondola in a park.
Joe Public and TLC shared a similiar thought that the new proposal would sit well with the climbers, as it was staying away from the Chief. Little did they know a percentage of that group still wouldn't be happy.
It is exceptionally difficult to keep everyone happy.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The Access Society's position in 2004 was in part that there seemed to be several viable alternatives. One was similar to that now proposed, but others were suggested. However, there was clear sentiment against a gondola, or any similar development, anywhere in the park or from the gravel pit. For that reason, when we met TLC in autumn 2004, we told them that the goal was to get the gravel pit off the market, and ensure that it could never be used for a gondola, or any similarly inappropriate development.
As you say, pro-development people might interpret this as leaving an opening, but it wasn't much of one.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
M,H., your paragraph is a tad conflicting. Shortly after you stated that you were good with a few alternatives, including the present one, you mention the gist of the plan calling for no gondolas from the gravel pit. Which one was it?
Perhaps the message you sent in 2004 was a little similar to your opening two sentences right now.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Christie has been sucking on Harpers dick so hard there has been a transfer of grey matter.
Gentleman start your pens and pencils, Canada is for sale and in some cases the price is nominal.
Get your proposals in early, get them in often.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
I am going to propose a strip joint up at Black tusk meadows
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
And apply for a logging permit in golden ears park
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
How about a casino up at Wedgemount Lake?
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
It's just like taking candy from a bigfoot...
I'll give you what ever you want in exchange for a piece of gravel road, which you dont even own, so we can sanctify it as parkland
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Not so fast - I've never had a thread go over 1,000 posts. Not even the "Climbing at Squamish in the 1970s" one. We can't just stop now. If nothing else, the legislation won't be passed until the end of May, plus there's going to be stuff in the news media this week.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Pretty f*#king tragic really. What is happening with government in Canada? The people are the enemy? Dismantle every institution built since the fifties?
I still control 1000. Might gift it to Anders.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
bmacd, you're not totally in control...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Just dismiss some one as drunk and irrelevant from the safety of the other side of a border and you can attain relevance...
Not me Jim. No matter how many times I read what you had written, I just couldn't make any sense of it. One possibility is that you were drunk. Another is that I was drunker than I believed myself to be. Or, I suppose, you could simply have been communicating from a plane higher than those available to me.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Why stop @ 1000? There is still lots of new thoughts and ideas surfacing amidst the redundancy here, as well as questions that have been asked and at least twice as many that have not been answered. I think I'm just getting warmed up. Went downtown today & talked to 50 ppl who think the gondola is a bad idea, hmmmm wierd, must have been my delivery when explaining it to them, an agreeable bunch us squaminards are:-)
Interesting fact- 4 restaurants shut down in whistler this week, tourism is obviously thriving when established businesses are shutting down at the end of the winter. I wasnt planning on mentioning it but I have been working up in fat city for the past 15 years & my pessimism towards the gondola stems from the changes I have seen there- Whistler is obviously a barometer, so to speak for the traffic that comes through Squamish. Believe me when i tell you that it is not what it once was. The people are still showing up there but the loose pockets that existed in the 90's arent exactly there anymore & the summer crowd is the cheapest of them all. People will still go there & ski- always. But will they have 5 fine dining dinners a week?? Nope. Will they but new boots just because the dollar is & 1.5? Nope. Because its not.Will they make 2 sightseeing gondola stops, even 3. Maybe, but i would doubt it. In this days economy people are constantly looking for ways to do the things that they want to do & visit places that they have dreamed of- like Whistler. They just do it differently, in a much more frugal manner. $150 bottle of wine?? How about a 1/2 L of the house red please? I know this from dealing directly with tourists every day & have seen the paradigm shift with my own eyes. More and more all of us regardless if we're 1% or 99% are doing what we can to keep our cash in our pockets.
As i mentioned once already the speculation that this gondola will have 300k users per year is a gross exaggeration, WB does this many sightseers per year- barely. How is this part time operation in Squam supposed to match those numbers?? Seriously???? You want to keep sh1t honest Hamish? maybe try looking into some of these claims instead of insinuating that Anders is not being honest every few pages. I think most will agree that he's been very open with his position & intentions from the opening post, while the developers are consistently fabricating information.
Hey Bruce, to answer your question i have actually sent some emails regarding the gondola plan & my opinion on it. I also made a few calls & tried to do some research regarding comparisons to the WB operations & obviously by forwarding the petition as well- which is not anti gondola but anti process BTW & we would all be smart to sign it whether we are for or against the proposal. It is more to make sure that our government plays by the rules rather than having the power to bend us over whenever a good cash grab presents itself. However, much like Anders I don't really have much desire to contact the developers to tell them that I think their idea is retarded on so many levels. Even though I don't agree with their plan, like you said up thread they are still people too & I wouldn't appreciate or react kindly to people questioning or second guessing the viability of my business plan, especially when they already have the tip in. Basically if you don't have something nice to say to someone don't say it at all y'know (yea I'm a hypocrite tho for slamming them online I know).
Anyways, much respect to everyone here & appreciation for all of your opinions, for or against. Even those who are not from the area that have chimed in it has been cool to hear a different perspective. I just really hope that within this debate we have all thought about things from as many different points of view as possible and considered the potential consequences & benefits in a realistic way, Bruce K has been a great example of someone who has considered possible outcomes & his tune has changed a few times throughout his many posts here. Although I may not fully agree with his position on the gondola I appreciate how he has been dynamic & listened to what others have said.
Thanks Bmacd!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Ryan, thanks for your kind words. Actually they're not that kind. Next time please read the previous posts before calling me out. You'll notice on post 316 I was mentioning how the rider estimates seemed particularily high; so I was on that tangent 700 posts ago, in the old days, so to speak.
And as for dissecting Anders's posts here and there, they require it. Perhaps it's just me, but when he writes that he (access society) was O.K. with alternative proposals, including the present one, I can see where TLC drew their assumption. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe you just need to read his post on the previous page again. Post 991... "Our position was that there were several viable options, including one like the current proposal". Does that not shed a slightly different light on how things were left in 2004? Do you see how it was possible TLC misinterpreted Anders's wishes?
I think this is semi-important stuff because if TLC hadn't O.K.'d the gondola, we wouldn't be squabbling away our time here.
Also, on the fairness note, is it really that fair to be hassling the proponents because you're uneasy with their business plan? I mean, it's their money, not yours. It's not as if they're asking you for a loan.
You seem to have restaurants on the brain a bit. If someone wanted to open a Thai restaurant in Squamish and you didn't think they'd get enough customers in, would you put them under the microscope on a time-eraser-computer-site? The truth is we all doubt their rider numbers but who are we to say? We're not their bank.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Well I can't put any stickers on it because I don't want to slow it down.
Also too short on time to be a dogcatcher due to the number of quality trails around this place.
And for any folks out there who don't think there's economic value in regards to mountain biking, inquire how the gravel road to Diamond Head was being used over the weekend. I'll save you the hassle: Over 1000 people up there for the launch of Full Nelson, vehicles lining both sides of the logging road, bumper to bumper, for well over a kilometer. Mayhem.
I admit I instead rode trails with no one on them, but my information is bang on.
Yes, those bikers have money. And they don't sit around in restaurants ordering water while waiting for the rock to dry.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Sorry, I couldn't resist as an old timer I chatted with the other day laid that one on me. I was explaining the bit about the climbers and the park and he went into a little rant about how his neice used to work at the Klahanie and wasn't too appreciative when it would rain and the climbers would come in, hang out, and order water. 15% of not much is definitely not much. I guess that drove her nuts.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Ed you are a sly dog but self sustained fusion still eludes you. My man Anders in line for succession to 1000 in this reality set.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
and I just gave it to him!
now back to work on fusion...
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
BRAVO.... Sir. Well done
|
|
Fish Boy
Trad climber
Vancouver
|
|
CBC right now are having a chat about this and the state of provincial parks in BC.
|
|
saa
climber
not much of a
|
|
Anders
get the f*#k off super topo. It's a waste.
Go for the gondola man....
That s where your mc2 is need! (E= mc2). Waaaaarrrrhhh!!
I'm with you on the gondola, stop wasting your energy off it. Please.
Sabine, and Darwin (his political views are limited).
from Chamonix, but keeping squamish in very close sight.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Do they have a gondola in Chamonix?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Sabine spent a month at Squamish last summer. She's entitled to her views, isn't she?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Oh absolutely, I was just wondering if that was one of the towns with a gondola. Not trying to be negative, or positive.
One of the locals I interviewed on the suject lived in (I'm 99% sure) Chamonix and was raving about the benefits of the gondola there.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
She's entitled to her views, isn't she?
Yes. And they carry exactly the same weight as my views about political issues in her town would carry if I'd visited it for a month a year ago.
Not meant as sarcasm, but as a statement of something that should be thought about.
Same thing applies to me, by the way. I haven't lived in Vancouver, nor been a regular at Squamish for over a decade, so my views shouldn't carry the same weight as yours. Which in turn should maybe not carry as much weight as Hamish's (or any other resident of Squamish). Which is why I've never really expressed any view pro or con, only urged people to debate facts, rather than preach an entrenched position.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
"One of the locals I interviewed on the suject lived in (I'm 99% sure) Chamonix and was raving about the benefits of the gondola there."
That's because it links to Italy and provides access for tons of climbing and skiing in addition to the tourists...
... as opposed to the "Gondola to Nowhere"
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It's provincial, not a regional or local park, and one of national if not international stature. Which is why all views bear equal weight. Including those of emigres to Seattle.
The government, and certainly the developers, will no doubt argue that those who don't express any view should be taken to be in favour, or at least not opposed.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
It's provincial, not a regional or local park, and one of national if not international stature. Which is why all views bear equal weight. Including those of emigres to Seattle.
Yes, a Provincial Park is involved, so yes, people in the province have every right to express an opinion. But to believe that your opinion should have the same weight as that of someone who lives in Squamish seems a little arrogant.
That said, I do understand that sometimes local desires have to be overruled for the greater good. Homes and businesses were displaced or seriously devalued by the construction of the Vancouver SkyTrain, for example. But to casually suggest that your view about the gondola is just as important as that of someone from Squamish is to forget that only part of this debate is about a Provincial Park. Much of the debate is about other things, and on those things your opinion isn't very important, mine is almost unimportant, and Sabine's is completely irrelevant.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Hamish, to be blunt the cards you are playing in this debate are very very weak. The upside is your writing skills have progressed from poor to superb in a short time.
Concentrate on the known facts and issues identified. The fantasy conjecture isn't becoming of someone as sharp as you are.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I wasn't even aware I had any cards to play. I'm just calling it like it is and doing my best to give readers the typical Squamilian point of view, from a fairly large base, as I've spoken with many people from all walks of life on the subject.
I expressed my thoughts in regards to preferring the gondola travel up the other side of the river, where the views of the Chief are a lot better, and thereby boosting the Squamish economy a tad. I realize it's not my baby and therefore I have no say in where it's going. I also fully realize I'm about seven months late with that idea; not too mention it wasn't even my idea.
I find it endlessly interesting that TLC fascilitated the project and sometimes wonder whether the whole excercise really was to get the gondola away from the Chief, not the Park.
The more time that passes, the more I believe TLC, Anders, and whoever else was at that table eight years ago had their hearts set on protecting the Chief, not the Park.
The buttons say "Friends of the Squamish Chief" after all.
Perhaps if those buttons had said "Save the Park", TLC wouldn't have sold Anders down the river without even realizing it.
Also, I'm not as think as you sharp I am; what exactly is my "fantasy conjecture". You're losing me there.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I'm not quite sure what Bruce is on about either.
Some here could be more critical in their consideration of the proposal.
I reject the notion that I'm a second class citizen, and that my views carry less weight, simply because I don't live in Squamish.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Pressed for time but big picture tells us government corruption in play again. Gordon Campbell legacies linger.
BC FOR SALE
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
100% Canadian
|
|
The gondola is going in so f*#k the discussion. Let's focus on the big picture which is the whole sale destruction of the environment by the federal government as puppets of the Chinese and big oil. The erasure of decades of sound institutions by Harper.
Glen Woodsworth how about getting the ball rolling on a new thread regarding that one.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I just want to say how much I like B.Macd's latest mini-photo at the left of his posts.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bruce K, the S2S gondola propaganda only describes their little nature world as part of the proposal. Biking, skiing, climbing, etc are not part of the planning of this deal. These activities are only listed as possible and nothing assures that the proponents will do anything to open access to roads or upper elevation terrain. Getting guaranteed access for these activities should be the least of the concessions from these folks that want to carve a swath out of Class A parks.
As for comparisons between Cham and Squish, Squish stacks right up there. It is nice to go climbing without being terrified the entire time... at least these days!
What to you may be crummy second growth blocks are to most of the visitors from around the world, amazing forests.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, a fair number of people seem to share my concerns, to a greater or lesser extent. How about addressing the issues:
Should land be removed from Class A parks, at all?
If so, should it be removed from this park, which was only recently created after a lengthy public process?
Why isn't there an independent, resourced, inclusive process to examine the proposal? Just as when the park was created? Rather than a largely local, fragmented process mostly controlled by the developers?
The pros and cons of the proposal, the claims of the developers, and all the other details.
You yourself showed that beliefs that the project would lead to better access to the Habrich road weren't borne out by the facts - the developers only said that they hoped access would be as good as it is at present (i.e. poor). You're not much interested in the process, so how about turning your eagle eyes on the developer's other claims?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
they carry exactly the same weight as my views
Do you know Sabine? I doubt very much whether your views carry as much weight as hers. We could discuss it when you visit this weekend.
Not that I could tell what Sabine's view was vis a vis the gondola.
edit:
Damn! I posted at 5:13 but SuperlaidbackintimeTopo only gave me credit for 5:11
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Off topic, as usual, but did TLC purchase, or trade land for, the Malemute?
Can you shed some light on that Anders, please?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bruce, a good cumulative impact review would have looked at all those issues and offered a variety of perspectives and most likely a series of potential alternatives. Even if this was not part of an open public process, it should have at least been performed to give information to the legislators and decision makers. The lands matrix needs to be included with such an analysis so future planning can provide for subsequent adjustments as required by potentially adding more use to the Crown lands.
I would guess we here at ST have discussed more ideas, potential impacts, outcomes both good and bad, than the legislators and decision makers will have done.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Oh wow, looks like the first 1000 was just a warmup....
Hey Hamish, my apologies if my post came off as a call out. Not my intention to get in a mudslinging match with anyone on here but only to debate & provoke thought. I will post in more detail later to further explain as there have been a lot of interesting posts on this thread today.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 09:56am PT
|
Really? It's over? No more Special Kay? Fun while it lasted.
See you on the gondola.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 10:49am PT
|
I'm staying right here, even if I have to talk to myself.
How about the Klahanie site? Seems prime for a makeover and another pedestrian (shannon falls tourist) overpass.....
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 10:51am PT
|
Done,
The Klahanie site parking area is now pay parking...maybe it was in response to people parking there instead of shannon falls.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 10:58am PT
|
I suspect they'll keep punching the shannon falls parking lot to the north. Two days ago it was three quarters full and that's early May.
Off topic, as per usual, but... Whistler bike park annual riders: 50,000 @ a min. of $40 per = 2 mil/5 mo.= $100,000/wk.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 11:36am PT
|
Be careful - when you say things like "I suspect", people like BK, ghost, ahd HF will jump on you. (Speculations by developers exempt from this.)
I suspect it's almost certain that there would be a direct off-highway road connection through the parking are for Shannon Falls Park to the gondola base area, for buses. That would be their bread and butter, if the thing works at all.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 11:48am PT
|
At least you said it first. You're bang on Anders.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 12:08pm PT
|
The Klahanie site parking area is now pay parking...maybe it was in response to people parking there instead of shannon falls.
Know anything about the parking down toward the ferry? That doesn't seem to be pay but whose is it?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 12:51pm PT
|
Hamish, you edited your post below my last one for some reason, too bad- i appreciated it??
BTW whistler does over 100,000 mountain bikers per year, please try to cut down on the imaginary figures.
read here on page 14:
http://www.whistlerblackcombholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240837&p=irol-presentations
Haha this thread is hilarious.
Enjoy your gondola everyone, what with all the imaginary mountain bikers & imaginary bike trails & imaginary bike "hooks" it should be spectacular. FYI at every single DH mountain bike area in BC the bikes are brought up on trays that are installed on existing chair frames on every other chair. There is not a single one that uses a gondola, so yeah good luck with all that. I'd be surprised if they let anyone cram mucky bikes inside their brand new sit-down gondola cabins either. Watch out Whistler- you are going down! Our imaginary bike park is going to be way better than yours, oh wait ..they don't even have an imaginary bike park up there yet- we are way ahead of them! Having a hard time getting your real bike up to the imaginary park? No problems, just take the imaginary public access road up there & do shuttle drops! Hahaha.
Notice how the developers like to speculate as well, just like us, in this case the word "could"
& "potential" is used.
From the developers site:
What are the plans for Phase 1 and Phase 2?
To develop the business in a way that ensures long-term viability, we are being conservative with the staging of the facilities to be able to grow with the projected visitation.In Phase 1, the base terminal is envisioned to incorporate a small retail shop, a small cafe, washrooms for guests and administrative facilities. The top terminal will include a food and beverage facility with indoor seating for 150 people, a small interpretive area, a viewing deck, washrooms and an outside area for outdoor and group events. A one-kilometre loop trail will provide interpretive features to help people learn about the past, present and future of the area while showcasing the spectacular views to Howe Sound, north over The Chief to Garibaldi, and the Squamish Valley.Phase 2 of the Sea to Sky Gondola project will be designed to accommodate future visitation and deliver additional experiences. The bottom terminal could incorporate a larger retail and rental offering, potentially a larger food offering (such as an ice cream stand) and a possible activity concierge area. The top terminal would incorporate expansion of our food and beverage offering, a possible indoor location for group events, an interpretive centre with a theatre and museum space, a guides’ bureau, equipment rentals, and a possible First Nations cultural retail experience. Additional outside experiences at the top terminal could include interpretive tree walks, forest experiences and new trails.
What activities will be available at the top?
The top terminal has the potential to provide access to mountain top viewing areas, interpretive walks, hikes, cross country mountain bike trails, snowshoeing, a West Coast inspired lodge serving a high quality locally produced menu, and a theatre experience highlighting the history, culture and activities in the area.
A clever bunch for sure.
And Bruce you are absolutely right, i have emailed the developers to ask some questions regarding their business plan, probably a much better way to receive new information (legitimacy of their words debatable) than through all the stuff we make up here. I'll let you know if/when i get a response. Sadly, i don't think it matters much at this point. Again, despite my sarcasm, respect to all of you and your opinions. For comedic value alone this thread should live a long illustrious life.
Bmacd's new thread is very interesting, i don't have much to contribute on the topic but it is a very important subject which i believe this is relative to this gondola proposal process in many ways.
Edit: Whistler used to use their gondola for DH biking as it is the taller kind which can accommodate bikes. I do not believe this type of cabin is made anymore as it is uncomfortable as hell.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 01:11pm PT
|
I agree; very uncomfortable.
I know I mentioned this about 750 blurbs ago; baby steps.
I don't expect a mtn. bike mecca on openning day, but perhaps this is a step in that direction? Could be.
Also, 100,000 mtn.bikers/yr in whistler? Wow. I got that 50,000 # off of one of their websites; perhaps it was an old one... I guess you could round that off to a million bucks/month in riders; not too shabby.
Thank-you for the real info.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 03:27pm PT
|
Know anything about the parking down toward the ferry? That doesn't seem to be pay but whose is it?
says no parking private property, there is a small strip next to the lamp for a couple cars that seems to work.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 03:45pm PT
|
Hi Ryan.
Patience Grasshopper; Rome wasn't built in.....
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 04:44pm PT
|
This gondola is not about the bikers and the climbers, its about getting the sick and the cripple to see the views, its for the mall rats who will go on to save Jumbo from being converted from an old saw mill site to a resort...wait, thats a little self centred.
Screw it
I say go Jumbo, lets just go all Cham on the province, if it doesnt work...place will re-grow in less than 5
In the grand scheme its a minor experiment and in the mean time the jobs will be plenty!!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 06:50pm PT
|
You know the sick and the crippled are people too.
And you don't have to be sick or crippled to not be able to make the four hour hike up.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 06:54pm PT
|
And here I thought the proposal was so that the developers, or at least their backers, could make money. Silly me.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 06:57pm PT
|
You're still batting 1000 Anders.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 11, 2012 - 05:02pm PT
|
B.C. environment minister slammed over Stawamus Chief Provincial Park legislation
This week, the B.C. Liberal government introduced legislation that would remove 2.36 hectares from Stawamus Chief Provincial Park in Squamish.
Sea to Sky Gondola project in Squamish: a timeline of events
A former NDP environment minister is calling on the B.C. Liberal government to shelve its plan to carve a strip of land out of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park in Squamish for a proposed sightseeing gondola.
John Cashore told the Straight he was “a bit shocked” when he heard that Bill 49—the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012—received first reading in the legislature on May 7. He called it “disturbing” that B.C. Parks relied on Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation to consult stakeholders, rather than holding its own public meetings or comment period on the company’s park-boundary-adjustment application.
http://www.straight.com/article-681801/vancouver/minister-slammed-over-stawamus-chief-bill
Mr. Cashore was Minister of Environment when the Chief was made a park, in 1995.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 14, 2012 - 12:07pm PT
|
Getting a little lonely here. Having a hard time arguing by myself.
Anybody out there? Special Kay?
Partys over I take it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 14, 2012 - 07:56pm PT
|
What you can do:
Premier Christy Clark: premier@gov.bc.ca
Terry Lake, Minister of Environment: env.minister@gov.bc.ca
Adrian Dix, Leader of the Opposition: adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca
Rob Fleming, NDP Environment Critic: rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca
Joan McIntyre, MLA: joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca
Chief Ian Campbell, Squamish Nation: chief_ian_campbell@squamish.net
Mayor Rob Kirkham: rkirkham@squamish.ca
Chair Susan Gimse, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District: sgimse@telus.net
State your views, the reasons you have them, why you’re interested in this issue, who you are, and where you live. Remind them that government’s job is to protect and manage parks, in the public interest.
You can also write to:
Vancouver Sun: sunletters@vancouversun.com
Squamish Chief (newspaper) dburke@squamishchief.com
Globe & Mail letters@globeandmail.ca
Georgia Straight letters@straight.com
Vancouver Province provletters@theprovince.com
OnLine Petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief
FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Squamish-Chief/336259626423033?ref=tn_tnmn
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 14, 2012 - 08:02pm PT
|
Well that's all great, M.H., but there isn't any debating to be done with those lists.
Anyone?
Mr. Marbles?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 14, 2012 - 09:35pm PT
|
Perhaps you guys should make up a list of all the promises made by the developers, so if needed we can score their performance.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 14, 2012 - 10:35pm PT
|
I'd debate you too Bruce but we're both on the same side. Could be difficult.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 01:33am PT
|
Bruce & Hamish roleplaying????!
this is getting kinky...............wierd.
You guys are masterdebaters, plain and simple. I think the developers owe you both founders
passes at this point for all your supertoproping efforts in their defense.
Emailed the developers last week, still haven't heard back. Not too shocked.
Wish i had more to add to the debate at this point, just read an article in the chief which doesn't really reveal much more except the developers claiming that they are not withholding any information. Why they feel the need to say that i am not sure. Kind of like how some people like to say things like "honestly" or "no word of a lie" before they speak. Anders also grabs some ink in there too which is nice to see, way to go Anders!
http:///www.squamishchief.com/article/20120510/SQUAMISH0101/305109979/-1/squamish/bc-moves-to-reclassify-land-for-gondola
This thing seems to be in a bit of a standoff right now while the powers that be decide what kind of candy coating will go on their next round of details that avoid the major issue of flawed processes & lack of public input from the parks, probably these details will focus on all the other land that is being "added" around the province as protected areas & parks that will eventually be removed & sold off when the time is right to private commercial interests or whoever is giving Terry Lake the reacharound at that point in time. All relative to the same backdoor BS that is explained in Bmacd's newer thread.
Hopefully we'll be able to get into some more debating again soon.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 11:41am PT
|
This whole debate has inspired me to new heights of accronym-ization. What seems to be happening (and no, I don't have statistical data to back this up) is that the bulk of the local population is in favor of the gondola, while most of the opposition is from outsiders -- latte-sucking pseudo-greens from the city, if you will. So what we have here is an interesting inversion of the usual NIMBY thing.
Instead of the locals shrieking "Not In My Back Yard" it's the outsiders shrieking "Not In Your Back Yard."
NIYBY
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 12:07pm PT
|
Yes, but when they have time off they can't get out of their yard and up to this yard fast enough.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Which folks fought against which park?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 12:15pm PT
|
The saying about squandering one's birthright for a mess of potage comes to mind.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 12:20pm PT
|
Ghost -i was floating around the area too over the weekend -alas we did not connect.
That would have been great. Sorry I missed you. But I heard that you saw another old friend, and I got a chance to re-connect with Andy, so I think we both had a good weekend in that regard. I also had a grocery-store encounter with Mr. Beckham, and look forward to seeing him again on my next visit.
And re your gondola comments, I fully agree. In fact I've said several times in this thread that removing land from the park (or any park for that matter) should be contingent on adding land to the park system somewhere else.
Or, in the absence of a sensible land swap, some other deal could probably be worked out if an effort was made.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 12:25pm PT
|
But are they really getting something for nothing? All they're really getting is an easement. No money, no tax breaks, not much of anything in the way of handouts except for an easement. It's still a huge gamble and they're the fellas taking the risk. They're the ones spending the millions and they're the ones who might lose it all.
Who knows, maybe Parks will negotiate a quarter/rider to be put toward trail maintenance/improvement in the Park ?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 12:27pm PT
|
^^^^
How do we know that for sure??
edit- I sense another debate!! :-)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 01:09pm PT
|
The property is clearly valuable to the would-be developers. It's in the middle of heavily used, highly visible public land. Appraising it might be a challenge, but it's clearly worth a lot. It's certainly not "free", although the provincial government, which nominally owns about 85% of land in the province, has a dismal history of giving away public property.
The project, for its financial backers, is about making money. Whatever high-minded things their front men may say about other goals, or incidental compromises they may have to make. Most of those who might use a Squamish gondola will drive by the Grouse gondola, and end up at Whistler. Both places offer established gondolas with superior locations and facilities. Sure, lots of any bus traffic that they can divert from Shannon Falls to take a gondola will be older folks, but the object is their money, not their age or ability.
I'll believe that the gondola project is about access for the aged, infirm, and locals when I see a written commitment that there'll be a significantly reduced rate for such users. (I helped rebuild the Yew Lake trail at Cypress Provincial Park, which is reasonably accessible to the aged and infirm, and free to boot.) And as a provincial park with larger attributes, it's far from a 'local' question.
Overall, for any foreseeable future, it seems very unlikely that the project would do more than the following:
Some short term construction jobs.
Direct bus access from Shannon Falls.
Bottom and top terminals, including gift shops and restaurants.
Gondola itself.
Grading of the Shannon Creek/Habrich road, but its closure to vehicle traffic fairly low down.
(Possible) Links to the casino.
Seasonal service jobs, mostly May - September, mostly part time. Plus a few supervisors/maintenance people.
It'll do little if anything for 'downtown' Squamish - once the highway was diverted away from it in 1978, the McDonald's was allowed to be built in 1987, and the Royal Hudson stopped operating, its isolation became clear. And it'll do nothing for Squamish having become, over the last 30 years, a commuter suburb of Vancouver and Whistler. It'll hardly be the economic or tourism salvation of Squamish, and isn't likely to do the town's reputation a lot of good.
Add: "Squander one's birthright for a mess of potage" = as P.T. Barnum put it, there's one born every minute.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 01:33pm PT
|
I have no problem at all with developers, or making money - any suggestion otherwise is just mental speculations. Although I doubt that the current proposal would in fact be a money-maker.
With your family background, you probably know more about the history of Seymour, Grouse, Hollyburn/Cypress Bowl and Whistler/Blackcomb than I do. There's already been discussion of them upthread. None of them is much of a parallel with what's proposed at Squamish, with the partial exception of the encroachment on Garibaldi Park by Whistler in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
They all provide some benefits, but there has to be a balance. And when it comes to encroaching on provincial parks and protected areas, the scales should be weighed strongly toward continued protection. As was stated from the outset, what's the point of protecting areas of provincial, national and even international significance, if they're not actually protected?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 05:36pm PT
|
It'll still be "protected" land. Just a reclassification, really. No biggy.
You guys and girls need to get your story straight. One month you don't want it because it won't financially work and who's going to clean up the mess. Next month you don't want it because they're going to make money and why should they be allowed to do that in a park without giving something major in return. Which one is it? Maybe it's both?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 05:58pm PT
|
It'll still be "protected" land. Just a reclassification, really. No biggy.
Yes, a lot like being a little pregnant. Pretty much what developers always say. For practical purposes, they'll own a strip of land through the park, with impacts to both sides. If nothing else, vegetation removal, traffic, parking, noise, and possibly lights, and maybe other things.
One of you should ask the developers whether they attempted to presell the project to established tourism operators, and if so, what the result was and why.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 06:08pm PT
|
Isn't that similar to the scrubbing debate though? The pregnancy stuff? I mean, you scrub a route a little and it might go unnoticed; scrub a route in earnest at the base of the slabs and everyone sees it. No matter how you slice it, they're both having babies.
Not to worry M.H., I'm not implying you scrub routes, just trying to understand this pregnancy stuff of yours.
It's not as if Parks is selling them the land for the easement; not sure it's too fair to start appraising something for easement purposes.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 06:12pm PT
|
O.K., well that's very fair and makes a tonne of sense, although a touch on the ironic side. I think G.F. and M.H. have hit a slight fork in the gravel road, or, parking lot.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 07:17pm PT
|
I suppose that's a good question. I still don't quite understand why M.H. doesn't ask it along with all his others.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 07:37pm PT
|
We need to remember that Parks isn't finished with them yet. For all we know, they'll be the ones negotiating a few goodies.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 07:51pm PT
|
Almost 1,100 posts later, here we go again...
The principle, or if you like ideology, is simple. Land shouldn't be removed from Class A provincial parks, contrary to their master plans, except in extraordinary circumstances. Public safety and trivial adjustments perhaps excepted. That goes all the more for a park:
a) That was only made a park 15+ years ago, after considerable public study and debate,
b) Is already heavily used,
c) Is highly visible, and
d) Has national if not international stature.
If such things are even to be considered, it should only be after rigorous public scrutiny, involving all those interested.
If you believe everything the developers and their supporters say, there'd be no impacts beyond the visual ones. The likelihood seems small. Tree removal, parking, crowding, traffic, noise, fumes, lights, visibility, upper and lower station, wildlife, are all likely to create impacts. Pretty simple - they say they'll squeeze the operation, and (allegedly) tens of thousands more people into the area. There'll be impacts.
Your ideology seems to be that everywhere should be open to development, even in parks protected by law, and that there need not be an inclusive, independent process for reviewing such proposals. We disagree - but then, I helped the park come into being. Different perspectives.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 07:55pm PT
|
"They'll be impacts." Very true. That's what happens when you build a billion dollar autobahn up the sound...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 - 08:49pm PT
|
Isn't it supposed to be the Be Cheap Mountaineering Club? Anyway, I'm not the right person to ask, bearing in mind the famous adage about clubs.
It's strange how many "locals" say the Chief and its climbing are world class. Not my call, but it does seem odd that boosters on one hand say the thing is world class, and then say what should happen is a local matter.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 11:23am PT
|
I think climbers, as a group, are acting a little selfish. Take the Park as one big playground for a minute. Us climbers have full use/control over the entire front side, the slabs, the north walls, the squaw, and even some slabs over at shannon falls area. Not to mention the backside of the chief crags.
When a developer wanted to run a lift up the chief a big fuss was made and the project was shut down. Now the powers that be seemed to have worked out a compromise where the lift won't interfere with the climbers, yet some are still disgruntled.
Considering the gondola will travel over an area without any climbs, or for that matter, an area with barely any access, surely the climbers can adapt.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 11:30am PT
|
Considering the gondola will travel over an area without any climbs, or for that matter, an area with barely any access, surely the climbers can adapt.
More accurately, it will travel over an area without any climbs yet.
So I would adapt by filling my pack with scrub brushes, ropes, aiders, gri-gri, and jugs, and rectifying that lack of climbs.
Edit to add: Of course I would be carrying that pack up to the top via the gondola.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 11:54am PT
|
I agree, there are several potential climbs to be done up on those creekside cliffs. I can see the route names now... In The Line Of Fire, Under The Microscope, Lightweights Overhead, Industrial Disease, Special Kay, Don't Drop Your i-phone On Us, Git Outta Our Sandbox, Mighty Hikers Meet Mountain Bikers,...
Yup, at least eight good lines up there.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 01:06pm PT
|
I wonder how this proposal would impact Oelsen creek itself? seeing as it is the water source for the campground. Especially if there is going to be people pooing up there. We still haven't heard what they are going to do with the poo & other wastewater.
A lot of unanswered questions still abound. An independent environmental assessment should be publicly available. Yes i have asked them myself, no reply.
Back to the point- it should not be up to us to prove all of these facts, it should be up to the developers, who are trying to use our land (not me as a climber, but all of us as citizens who allegedly "own" provincial parks by law, regardless if we live in Logan lake or Squamish does not matter) to answer all of our questions & prove to us that it is in the best interest of everyone. To be transparent with their plans. To cut down on the "could" & "potential" in their statements & plans. An important part of the process has been skipped & it's interesting how some people can't seem to identify this or just don't care.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 01:14pm PT
|
Good points, RyanD. Remember, this is 2012, they won't be flushing the sewage down Shannon Falls.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 04:46pm PT
|
I think you should go on M.H., I like seeing that side of you too.
Actually, believe it or not I hiked around (clambered) the base of that feature a long time ago to look for new routes. I seem to remember a pretty cool looking face climb up a spine of some sort; it was really steep. That could be Spineless Gov't.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 05:17pm PT
|
I hiked and scrambled up that entire buttress (if that's the word for it) about fifteen years ago. My memory is that there are dozens of small-to-medium-size crags scattered through the forest. Kind of like the Smoke Bluffs, but spread out vertically instead of horizontally.
I'd often looked at the Oleson Creek Wall from the backside of the Chief and wondered why no one had started anything on the bottom tier. Then in 1998 I went to work on a line pretty close to the main trail (not even as far as Wiretap). I think I'd dug out one pitch, but then I moved and never went back.
But one look at Wiretap should be enough to convince anyone about the potential over there.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 05:41pm PT
|
A gondola on Goat Ridge would definitely spread things out horizontally, and would have many other advantages. It appears to be feasible.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 05:56pm PT
|
Toothless Little Covenant?
Totally Lame Covenant?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 07:29pm PT
|
"Million Dollar Ridge" ; oh wait, that's a ski run in Whistler.
"Million Dollar Baby" ; oh wait, that's a movie.
"Million Dollar Profit" ; the amount of money TLC made knowingly flipping their land to a gondola project.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 07:45pm PT
|
A proposal to build a gondola in Yosemite was rejected, in about 1970. To Glacier Point Apron.
90% or more of Yosemite is a wilderness, and managed as such. Even the Valley proper is mostly quite natural, notwithstanding millions of visitors each year. It's parallel to the frontcountry at the Chief, the campground and parking areas.
Will you next be arguing that it's possible to be a little bit pregnant?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 08:12pm PT
|
I believe it's somewhere around a half of one percent.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 08:14pm PT
|
The Losing Covenant
The Lamest Covenant
The Leaky Covenant
The Loopholed Covenant
This is fun I could go all day!
The reason I bring up poo (didn't mention pee but since you bring it up) is because way, way up thread it mentions how the district will not be involved with getting water up or down from there, fresh or waste. It is entirely up to the developers. Just an example of one of the many things involving this development that there should be a plan for that should be available to us to see before the decision to go forward & build this joke of a project is made.
There are many reasons this gondola isnt a good idea & i dont think those opposed are changing their minds as to why they are against it but actually being constantly given more new reasons to be against it which seems to pale in comparison for all the new information being released as to why it should be built. We know nothing for certain regarding the details of the business plan. Only "coulds" & "potentials".
There are so many reasons this thing should not be that it is impossible to decide which one to pick!
Once our crooked cash grabbing government sees how easy it is to remove "protected" public land for private profit (even just "lending" it out) from what is allegedly the highest level that it can be protected in BC -while all the citizens cheer them on- the sky is the limit. They can add 1000000 acres of protected parks, now that they know protected don't mean poo it won't really matter & the free for all at our expense can continue. I know land has been removed from parks before & it probably will be again but like it, believe it, or not, this will set a precadent. & as i mentioned I'm not a gondola hater, rich people hater, or old people hater but just a corruption hater & this poo stinks of corruption to the high heavens.
& I also hate people that don't tip! Well not hate, but strongly believe that they will have karmic repercussions for their ignorance.
Unless of course the service sucked.
Or the food.
Or the server hit on your date.
But those are the only excuses!!
And I strongly agree that poo & pee have been managed before, but since this is entirely the responsibility of the developer it would be good to know their plans as well as the effects it may have, who knows maybe they plan on running a poo tube straight down their land, errrrrr i mean easement under the cables to the base-like the one off blind channel road that dumps all of valleycliffes poo into the channel. Oh that's how we manage poo!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 08:27pm PT
|
^^^^
has nothing to do with the point, nice try
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 10:00pm PT
|
Hahaha no I got it
TLC= Terry Lakes Covenant!
Edit- Terry Lakes ummmmm, nevermind
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 16, 2012 - 11:10pm PT
|
If you put TLC and the gov't under the same umbrella, I'd say the Malemute was traded for the gondola easement; give or take a few hundred. Pretty simple.
I also realize someone like Scrubber posted this a thousand posts ago.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 17, 2012 - 12:27pm PT
|
I'm not quite convinced Yosemite is a shining example of non-development when compared to Squamish and the Chief area, M.H..
Yosemite may be lacking a gondola but they've got every other money-grab in place, including admission at the gate, mate.
The Chief has free parking and one campground for five or ten bucks a head.
Besides, it's America; they've got the Army Corps of Engineers,(or whatever it's called); they'll build beautiful paved roads at 10,000 feet. They also have a stonger connection to their automobile, or at least they did when gas was 35 cents a gallon, so why park and ride when you can drive the pavement with your cooler in the trunk and the a/c on full blast?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you drive a cadillac to (a parking lot beside) Glacier Point Apron, on a nice paved road at no greater than 5% grade?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 17, 2012 - 12:48pm PT
|
I've been on the fence since the beginning, neither for nor against, but I think I'm going to go very loudly against. That's because Squamish doesn't need a gondola as badly as I now do. DNR has once again cut off access to the road system leading up to Zeke's Wall, so I want the gondola down here.
I'm not a spoilsport though, and if I can't have it here, then you guys can still have it at Squamish.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 19, 2012 - 11:52am PT
|
That's a long time sitting on the fence; it must be painful. At least you're sitting beside Jim so you have some company.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 19, 2012 - 03:34pm PT
|
Is that Loki?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 01:17am PT
|
No - Loki is orange, and much furrier.
It would not surprise me if the government snuck through the legislation last Friday, before the long weekend. The usual tactic, hoping it will draw less attention. Perhaps I'll check in the morning. It isn't all that important, in that the Rubicon is only crossed when/if a park use permit is issued, and we understand that negotiations in that regard continue.
There may be some inteesting news in a few days regarding the process, and whether it has complied with the government's own policy, and been adequate. You'll have to be content with mentally speculating about it for a few days - but then, some seem to like that stuff. Easier than critical thinking.
Yes, Yosemite has all sorts of money grabs/developments, but virtually all go back to the 1960s, and most much further back. There really hasn't been a lot of truly new development since then. A bit like comparing what is proposed at Squamish with what happened on Seymoure, Grouse, and Cypress Bowl, decades ago. A different world.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 01:59am PT
|
Haha Anders you crack me up! More ink in the piqué this week for FOTSC. As well as a few poorly written letters supporting the project. The question I have for you though Anders: is it still mentally speculating if you are posting your thoughts on supertoprope? Or is it verbally speculating? Or physically?
Sign the petition if u haven't already, as mentioned already it is not an anti gondola petition, only a petition to ensure that the government is following its own rules. Something we would be silly not to sign!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief
|
|
saa
climber
not much of a
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 04:27pm PT
|
Mighty hiker,
Did you récrive m'y mighty donation from Chamonix. ?
(trying to béat thé Dictatorial spellchecker. Appppology!
Lové
S
Léo wheere r u
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 06:37pm PT
|
Half a dozen letters on the gondola project in today's Vancouver Sun. All but one are supportive of the project. I have no idea if that reflects the % of support among all letters they received.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 06:48pm PT
|
It sort of suggests a concerted effort by the would-be developers and their homies, kind of like the meeting in Britannia. The Sun has been sent several letters by FOSC and its supporters, but published only one that I'm aware of. Whether that reflects some editorial policy isn't for me to say.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 22, 2012 - 07:12pm PT
|
Its probably your language. they always edit out the most outrageous insinuations and ridicule I direct at John Weston. I'm sure they look at everything you write and just huck in in the garbage.
Actually, if I remember correctly, Anders has had a fair number of letters-to-the-editor published in the Sun over the last few years, so it's unlikely to be his language or writing style.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 09:29pm PT
|
Numbers as of today:
E-Petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/);
303 have signed the petition, including some couples, so probably 310 or 315 total
40 who provide names, and five anonymous (45 of the total), currently live in the Squamish area, and a few more did in the past.
Many also provide comments
Click on "signatures" to see names and comments.
FaceBook
111 have "liked" the FOSC page
146 have "liked" the proponents page (established a year or so ago)
Paper
There are paper petitions out in Squamish and Vancouver. We have 80 confirmed signatures, and there are probably more.
Considering that our FaceBook page was set up in early April, and the e-petition and paper petitions in early May, we're doing OK. Please sign the petition, and "friend" us, asap!
Squamish Climbing
71% of the 70 or so who've signed an (old) petition on the Squamis h Climbing website are entirely opposed to the gondola, and other have reservations: http://squamishclimbing.com/squamish_climbing_bb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3406
None of this is conclusive, and no doubt there's some overlap. Still, it indicates that there is considerable public opposition to the proposal, in Squamish and elsewhere.
Elders' Council
The Elders Council for Parks in B.C. should be issuing its report on the process, in context of government policy and legal requirements, on Friday. http://elderscouncilforparks.org/
Some other possible names:
If You Build It, They Won't Come
A Gondola Too Far
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 09:49pm PT
|
More than 50% of Squamishes population is under 19.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 09:55pm PT
|
I guess I did all that research for nothing. I passed on my results last month. It was approx. 90-95% for. And that was a pretty fair and wide spectrum.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 10:36pm PT
|
Hamish, one of the FOSC committee has done much the same as you. She's lived in Squamish for 30+ years, and is retired. The people in her circles, quite different from yours perhaps, are for the most part opposed to or ambivalent about the proposal.
Such anecdotal things don't prove anything - but signatures on a petition do. FOSC has a respectable and growing number of signatures, well over 400 allowing for duplicates. Fact.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 10:47pm PT
|
Hey bear breeder your conspiracy theory may just be right, and probably a very good analogy. This may siphon off whis or grouse but if you think you can run a gas station off of siphoning gas, well, you would be a ......hmmmm. You would be errrrrrr. Never mind.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 24, 2012 - 10:59pm PT
|
O.K., Anders, that's good work. Like you say, a slightly different circle than my interviewees.
Of particular note in this week's Chief newspaper is a letter from Meg Fellows SUPPORTING the gondola. Meg quit her position on the Squamish Environmental Committee to fight the tram a few weeks ago, to team up with the folks at FOSC (see post 942); I wonder what happened? Did Loki scare her off?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 12:47am PT
|
How do you construe Meg Fellowes' letter as supporting the gondola? All she does is admit that she might use it, if it was built - while emphasizing that she's pro-park. Then goes on to talk about some of the larger issues. She seemed to me to be saying that Squamish doesn't need to be "just like" Whistler, and that it shouldn't think that a half-baked gondola (or any of the many other half-baked schemes that have been proposed over the years) is somehow going to be the salvation of Squamish.
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20120524/SQUAMISH0303/305249978/-1/squamish/gondola-desperately-needed
Meg and eight others were at the the FOSC meeting last night (sorry, Bruce - forgot again!), and believe me she has little positive to say about the gondola.
(There are several other letters on the Squamish Chief website which may be of interest.) Petition now up to 308, although one person somewhat overachieved by signing three times, so that makes 306.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 01:25am PT
|
If the proposed Sea to Sky Gondola gets permission, if it gets financing, if it is built, I will use it, possibly several times a year. Given my pro-park position, call me a hypocrite if you must.
(Emphasis added.)
Seems pretty clear to me. Added to her original letter from a few weeks ago, there's no doubt as to Meg's views.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 01:39am PT
|
The gist of Meg's letter is unclear and muddied, in my reading. She says If... and If... and If... she would use it. Not a good letter, IMHO, and not good ammo for either the pro- or anti-gondola forces.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 01:50am PT
|
From the Vancouver Sun, May 8th. Verbatim.
IIRC, Meg had a letter published in the Squamish Chief on or near that day, stating what she was doing, and why.
Squamish environmentalist resigns post to oppose Sea to Sky gondola project
A prominent Squamish environmentalist has resigned her post as chair of a local conservation society to publicly oppose a proposal to build a gondola over Stawamus Chief Park.
Meg Fellowes, a former Squamish district councillor, resigned as chair of the Squamish Environment Society — which has not taken a position on the gondola proposal — last week. Fellowes said in a statement she plans to refocus her efforts on lobbying the provincial government to hold a public hearing on the proposal, joining forces with the grassroots group Friends of the Squamish Chief, which has launched an online petition to that effect.
The Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. is proposing to reclassify a 20-metre-wide, one kilometre-long swath of land in Stawamus Chief Provincial Park to enable the construction of gondola towers. The gondola would run from a base terminal on a vacant gravel pit along the Sea to Sky Highway to the top of Mount Habrich, overlooking Howe Sound.
The group proposes expanded walking trails, ticketing and retail outlets at the base and a top terminal with trails for interpretive walks, hiking, snowshoeing and mountain biking, a lodge with a restaurant and a theatre. The gondola development would employ 30 to 50 full-time staff and benefit local business by extending the stay of visitors in the Squamish area, the company website claims. The project would also help fund improvements to the park’s infrastructure, proponent Trevor Dunne said in an interview.
Pending approvals from the District of Squamish and the provincial government, the gondola would open in about a year’s time. Three quarters of the more than 70 speakers at a public meeting held late last month and hosted by the Squamish Lillooet Regional District spoke in favour of the project, proponents Dunne and David Greenfield said in a statement, adding that they are hearing strong support for the project from within the community.
Fellowes acknowledges that there are many in the community who support the project, but said there are others who don’t feel they have enough information to take a position, which illustrates the need for a more robust debate. The issue is also one that goes well beyond Squamish, as many rock climbers who live throughout Metro Vancouver care deeply about the status of the park, she added.
“There are environmental issues not only with respect to the park, but when you start pumping ... 300,000 people annually into the basin behind, it’s going to have a significant impact on biodiversity in that area.”
I didn't write the letter, but as a former councillor of Squamish, perhaps she didn't want simply to repeat what she'd already said, but talk about the bigger picture. Perhaps she could have been more emphatic in the first sentence, but that's about it.
ps A button has been set aside, just for Bruce. One each for gf, Jim B, and Hamish too. But you have to wear them.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 10:21am PT
|
Oh goodie, I don't have to sit here and argue with myself anymore. Phew.
I agree that Meg's letter was pretty vague. I slanted it in the "I'm O.K. with it" catagory simply because she didn't say anything about not wanting it built. You'll notice most of the writers which don't want to see the thing built definitely say so. Pretty simple.
Anders, she doesn't say she MIGHT use it. She said she WILL use it, possibly several times a year. I can understand us workin-folk mixing up other people's words, but you're a lawyer; this is your specialty.
How many FOSC members share the two-sided mentality that both don't want the gondola but if it's built will use it? I carumba. Why are some people so bent on getting things done only to their liking?
This whole majestic Province is one massive Park. Between Vancouver and Squamish there must be twenty miles of steep, bulletproof sidehill; fill your boots.
O.K., let me have it. I'm pretty bulletproof myself.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 11:00am PT
|
Ya, guess I should've had a coffee first.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 12:04pm PT
|
Almost makes me want to start drinking coffee.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 02:33pm PT
|
Perhaps the Squamish Chief edited out that part - it appears to be the same letter.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 03:16pm PT
|
Bruce, you were at the meeting in Britannia, where the proponent's homies praised them and the project to the high heavens. Even though many seemed to be working to a script, I felt embarrassed for them. Out-Heroding Herod, as Shakespeare put it. They may not quite have said that a gondola would be a magic bullet, but they came close.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 04:29pm PT
|
"If they build it I'll use it several times per year."
It's pretty easy to see who is conflicted, it's Meg.
I'm thinking Meg's letter in the sun should've tacked on to the end her initial sentence from her letter in the Chief. Then it could've read, " bla bla bla magic bullet, but if they build it I'll use it several times a year."
A guy like Anders would have a field day with that attitude in the courtroom.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 07:06pm PT
|
Magic bullet is good for chopping up weed.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 07:34pm PT
|
Several times a year...considering its only open in summer that translates to using it every month.
She is confused.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 25, 2012 - 08:10pm PT
|
I have no doubt Meg will use the gondola more than I will, at least until they get those bike hooks epoxied on...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 01:34am PT
|
FOSC volunteers fanned out across the Chief today, insofar as it's possible to do so when there's really only one trail. Picking up the usual garbage, about 10 kg worth, mostly bottles and cans. I was surprised to find a half empty ketchup bottle - pretty unusual. Also when two people, with packs, asked if I'd take their empty plastic bottles.
Two volunteers (not me) helped hikers exercise their constitutional right to free speech, by asking that they sign a petition opposing the gondola, and requesting a transparent and defensible process. They got about 50 signatures in ten minutes, and about 80% of those who were asked, signed. An experiment - we'll obviously have to do that again, on a more organized basis. They ran out of paper.
You meet a very diverse crowd on the backside trail, but all very friendly.
Current numbers:
e-petition: 321, so allowing for couples and duplicates, perhaps 330.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/
Today's Chief petitions: 45+
111 have "liked" the FOSC page
80 confirmed signatures on paper petitions in Vancouver and Squamish, perhaps more.
Considering that our FaceBook page was set up in early April, and the e-petition and paper petitions only in the last few weeks, we're doing OK. Please sign the petition, and "friend" us, asap!
So allowing for duplicates and duds, well over 500 in support, and rising. 15% or more of those signing the e-petition are from the Squamish area; we haven't tallied the paper ones yet.
ps Don't think I'd trust my bike to any epoxied on hook - bolts only for me.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 09:55am PT
|
Well I'm glad to hear that you'd take your bike up there, Anders. We'll make sure those hooks are well fastened.
No need for petitions "pro" gondola. Word on the street is that it's a done deal.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 11:51am PT
|
Oh Geeze Bruce. I think they're saying that their miniscule percentage of the population doesn't care to have a gondola in their viewscape. Certainly not in an area where they're used to seeing steep coastal sidehill rising out of the autobahn.
I mean, where else can you see that combination?
How do 321 signatures on an e-petition turn into 330, due to couples and duplicates? Just wondering.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 01:11pm PT
|
Now fellows, let's try to keep it polite, shall we? Whatever happens, we're all friends. Don't be too disappointed if things don't go as you'd like.
When the process is restarted, there'll be a proper, independent assessment of the project, full disclosure, and inclusive public meetings to discuss it. Not sales meetings or infomercials, that is. Maybe later I'll do a summary "Gondola: Myths and Facts", so it's all there.
Though there's not much need to discuss what the proponents would actually do. All they'd be committed to is building a base station, the gondola, and a top station, with little trails at the top and bottom. They'd also incidentally have to improve the Shannon Creek road. Nothing more. Maybe in three or five or ten years, if things went OK or others did it for them, they'd build other things. Maybe not.
To take an easy example, the gondola might facilitate access to Mt. Habrich - if someone works on the trails, if it starts running early enough in the morning to make it worthwhile, and if it runs late enough in the day for the trip down. It might not - and don't bet on there being a reduced rate for locals. Got it in writing?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 03:53pm PT
|
Doesn't it come down to belief, either way? Leaving aside the flawed process. Some believe much or all of what the proponents claim, others don't. Key documents, such as the stage 2 proposal and the park use permit application, haven't been made public. The only way to address that is full disclosure, independent review, and inclusive public discussion. That is, the facts.
The proponents may make all the claims they wish, and hold infomercials galore. Their supporters can believe what they want - it's a free country. Unless there's disclosure of all facts, and something in writing with binding guarantees, it's reasonable to remain skeptical.
We all have sticking points when it comes to principles and values. I'm generally in favour of appropriate development, and indeed believe that the adventure centre, perhaps with a First Peoples component, would have been a reasonable fit in the gravel pit. A gondola isn't.
Much of what has happened seems parallel to what is happening at the federal level. Governments doing their best to quell independent review and discussion, notwithstanding the law and past practice. A Squamish gondola is small potatoes compared to say Enbridge, and doesn't appear to entail anything like the same risks, but the principle is much the same.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 04:53pm PT
|
Just wait, the gondola if built will probably serve tour busses that would then drive on up to Whistler without dropping a dime in Squamish itself. Such arrangements are common with tourist facilities. With $$$ to be made by selling food and trinkets, encouraging tourists to venture downtown would be a fools mission.
While the above is speculation, without the proponents clearly and in depth describing the how they intend to finance and run this deal, the public is left with speculation.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 06:06pm PT
|
Bruce, actually not all opponents of the gondola are disinclined to communicate with the proponents. I've emailed them, asking them for a copy of their environmental assessment report (which should be public by now). No reply, and I can't find it on their web site or any government site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Maybe they didn't do one? Maybe they have something to hide? I don't know, and that's a huge problem with this proposal: we don't know enough.
I emailed them asking them how they were going to get power up to the top: up the road? Up the gondola right-of-way? Generate power at top? No answer.
I'm not asking for details on their business plan, just on stuff that affects public land.
Glenn
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 06:11pm PT
|
Bruce, Squamish seems to have tons of potential in the downtown and closer to the water. You local have a better grasp of the possible ways to make the downtown for for local and tourists alike. My impression having lived in several towns that depend on tourism is that the place that is best for the locals will find its tourism niche. Tourists (and when we leave our neighborhoods we fall into that category) want to be treated like locals and to a large extent will aspire to do the activities locals enjoy doing. Consider that perspective from your travels.
You, I believe, mentioned the need for access to the downtown from the south. This makes lots of sense in many ways but I remember that railroad and perhaps port issues were a barrier. Maybe with strong community involvement that could be addressed. The current entrance to town seems pretty good by many standards and many tourism based towns have had to find a way to get automobiles out of the core downtowns because of traffic and safety issues. Maybe you guys are ahead of the curve.
The location and scenery of Squamish is world class and deserves top notch planning and public process to develop the best style of tourism, one that meshes with local needs and interests.
It is my sense that this deal is not about the town of Squamish but about the investors in the gondola. This proposal does not need Squamish, it would be "Another Roadside Attraction" but not as funny...
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 06:29pm PT
|
I agree that this project is unlikely to direct buses downtown. A much better proposal would be to put it somewhere like the site of the old foot-suspension bridge across the Squamish River and run it to a platform above Monmouth Creek. Mow THAT would be a great view! Good for downtown S., too.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 08:28pm PT
|
"1.9% financing on a toyota, that was my idea."
Here we go again; see posts 906-918.
At least on this thread, we'll earn our recycling badges honestly.
And Anders, you'll be my friend even if you lash your naked body to the first pieces of re-bar at the gravel pit.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 09:40pm PT
|
Hmmmmm., building lots mean water and I'm not sure they'll want swimmers in the resevoir. I'd think the development at the top of the hill south of porteau would be way in front of Watts Pt. I might see a hwy in there but res. lots might be pushing it.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 09:47pm PT
|
Off topic but the Sports guy on the 6 o'clock news just compared Ryder Hesjedal's feat to Mike Wier winning the U.S. open. Moses.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
|
There's a choice lot across the hwy from the Shell station; you could probably get that one for two hundred. Comes with ear protection for the whole family. Looks down on the nice new highway though. West Van this isn't.
There are also many view lots in Britannia, quite reasonably priced. One acre plus for 350. I'm not sure what a one acre lot at Cypress would go for but something tells me it won't be 350.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 10:21pm PT
|
Due to the usual power line issues monmouth creek or Lapworth or anything else over there isn't going to happen. I wish it could as well, along with goat ridge but thats all in a perfect world unfortunately.
I recall that the power line is pretty close to the river there. Perhaps the gondoal intake (so to speak) could be above the powerlines. We could have a short, horizontal cable car or gondola to get people across the river and then a tiny moving sidewalk sort of thing to get people under the powerlines to the gondola proper.
I know, I know, completely impractical; just wishing.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 27, 2012 - 10:55pm PT
|
O.K., my mistake, although Watts Pt. is pretty close to Squamish.
Tunnels have their own unique hazards. And lets not forget.....we're broke.
I'm still re-reading your second sentence Jim. I may have to do a few laps on it. What's the connection between profit and hwy construction/Murrin? Am I missing something?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:03am PT
|
333 signatures now, on-line.
Some photos from the south summit, from Saturday.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:19am PT
|
For your viewing pleasure.
PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY, PROCESS AND GUIDELINES
Stage 1: Initial Proposal:
The proponent submits an initial proposal to the Director responsible for protected area planning, BC Parks. The initial proposal should include:
6. Preliminary assessment of alternatives that would avoid the use of protected lands and the reasons those alternatives are not considered feasible.
4. GUIDELINES FOR DETAILED PROPOSALS:
Implementing a boundary adjustment requires approval of the Minister, Cabinet, and usually the Legislature. Proponents should ensure that the information they submit with their detailed proposal addresses the following considerations to the satisfaction of the Minister:
1. Alternatives to avoid the protected area have been considered.
Proponents must consider and document alternatives that would avoid a protected area boundary adjustment. Clear supporting rationale for supporting or rejecting an alternative must be provided.
No detailed proposal has yet been posted to the government website, as required by the policy, or indeed much else information.
Imagine the possibilities of the Goat Ridge location:
much better views,
no apparent conflicts,
lots more room for mountain biking and hiking trails if they were ever built, especially linking with existing trails on Goat Ridge and perhaps Petgill Lake,
perhaps accessible from Shannon Creek roads and if not, maybe from Britannia Creek, either way opening up the area, at least to walkers and mountain bikers, and
maybe shorter.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:24am PT
|
Damn right you need a bike! Look at that countryside. World Class.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:25am PT
|
It would be steep below the upper terminal regardless where it was in upper Shannon Creek - IIRC it's a hanging valley.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:33am PT
|
I like the idea of the highway being rerouted around to the west of Murrin Park, depending on what other interest there is in the area. Environmental, First Peoples, private property, etc. It doesn't seem all that likely, although widening to four lanes through Murrin Park and Browning Lake would also be problematic. Still, it's the only two lane section between Brohm Lake, or even further north, and Britannia, or really Furry Creek. Widening it is in the plans.
In 2005-07 or so I went to innumerable "Recreation Focus Group" meetings with the highway planning team, for the Access Society. All the usual suspects were there. Quite interesting, and they were somewhat receptive. We got some money for trail work at the Papoose, although they blasted more than was originally planned. Plus a bunch of work on roads and parking in front of the Chief. They couldn't be persuaded to use "quiet pavement" through Murrin Park and in front of the Chief and Apron, and the money that was spent on the fancy pedestrian bridge could have been better spent on a simple tunnel under the highway, with the remainder used for trail work and such. But there were other useful odds and ends we got.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 02:02am PT
|
At least you're still standing.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
Richard Nixon's initial campaign slogan in 1960, after eight years as Eisenhower's vice-president, was "We Can't Stand Pat".
Patricia Nixon, his wife, was not amused.
ps I don't know that we need to discuss the non-naming of a certain bridge at all. Also, the "memorial" bit seems premature.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 10:40am PT
|
I love the morning coffee with special K.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:09pm PT
|
Many things are over my head. All climbs, when I start climbing. Most jobs. That doesn't stop me from trying.
There's already an Ourom Lake, in northeast Saskatchewan. Named for my father's brother.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:18pm PT
|
Ya., Anders gets the bridge.
Already looks like an A pressed into an O.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 01:21pm PT
|
If Mark Twain could say "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated", why can't I have a little fun with BK and HF?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 02:44pm PT
|
Has an over/under roadway been considered for Murrin Park and the canyon?
A version of this was used to reduce impacts on the Colorado River through Glenwood Canyon for I-70 in Colorado. $$$ for sure but so are the alternatives.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 03:54pm PT
|
352 signatures on the e-petition now, which added to paper petitions (~ 125), the FaceBook page (113), and the Squamish Climbing 'survey', is getting close to 600 - excluding duplicates and duds. 15 - 20% seem to be from the Squamish area.
I'll refrain from participating in the name game, though.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 05:36pm PT
|
So far there are 120 Squamites that don't want the thing? Maybe I wasn't too far off with my 90-95% for?
Angus Reid better watch out.
And speaking of real estate that's flat and waterfront, how 'bout that Interfor site with a bridge over the water to town?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 09:38pm PT
|
The Squampton Muni should have a four person crew on full time trail construction and maintenance instead of endlessly wattering hanging flower baskets. This in turn would lead to the companies G.F. refers to locating here in bike mecca, thus fullfilling their employees' dreams. Yes, the local muni could take a lesson from Rossland, and one of their projects could be to put the trail in from the Habrich terminal over to meet the goat ridge trail.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 09:43pm PT
|
I suppose a little specialty hiring might be in order.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 09:50pm PT
|
The Squampton Muni should have a four person crew on full time trail construction and maintenance instead of endlessly wattering hanging flower baskets.
Agreed on that - a little investment in trail creation and maintenance can go a long way. It may not be as dramatic as say a gondola, but over the last 20+ years, hundreds of people have moved to Squamish in part due to the existing recreation. Much of it is dispersed, and needs relatively little in the way of facilities apart from environments to do it in. Cumulatively it's substantial.
Existing uses and users, and their growth potential, are too often overlooked by those seeking usually non-existent magic bullets.
And yes, the terminal on Goat Ridge should really open upper Shannon Creek and Goat Ridge to hiking and mountain biking.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 09:56pm PT
|
Hundreds? That's conservative. And the graph is steepening.
Squamish muni may not have the athleticism found on it's Whistler counterpart but there are some fit, hard working individuals on the staff. Well, one that I know of anyway.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 10:05pm PT
|
It would be hard to measure just how many have moved to Squamish for its recreational opportunities, and how much other factors e.g. affordable real estate played in their decisions. Plus you'd have to add in those living in Squamish's southern suburbs, such as North and West Vancouver.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 28, 2012 - 10:11pm PT
|
Yes, you're right, affordable real estate is a big one. I keep forgetting this is affordable because it seems so damn expensive.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 01:25am PT
|
Was the idea ever considered for the gondola base to be somewhere up the forest service road?? What would people think about a location up there? It would have to be a full on bike park to make any money, but it would miss the park, not be as obstructive to the view, and the sightseers would get a bit of a scenic drive off the highway. It would be interesting to know which other alternatives were considered, if any. Seems like on this thread alone we have been able to explore many different ideas & logistics from various opposing opinions from various persons located all over the map. I would like to know the things that the developers considered. I would also like to know their plans for moving water & power up & down from there.
One thing we all need to be aware of is that these guys aren't building a gondola for you to take your bike up Hamish, they aren't building a ski lift Bruce, they are building it to make $$ for themselves. They are going to use some land that you guys own & you are going to get nothing for letting them use it. Actually if their plan doesn't work, just maybe we will all get to be on the hook for the bill for the cleanup. I don't think it's too much to ask for those who care about public land to be able to know the clear intention & details of the proposal as well as making sure the land is acquired in a way that is legal & fair in regards to the park act & any other "laws" we have made to protect it in the first place. It should not be up to us to prove that they are doing something wrong, it should be up to them to be transparent & prove to us that they are using a fair, just process to acquire these lands. If they have nothing to hide it should be no big deal. If the gondola is passed & built in a fair legitimate process which is proven to be the The best use of this land I would consider being more supportive, I just don't feel as though this has been proven yet- by them. The media has not been helpful but in my opinion the developers have not done themselves any favors for trying to backdoor this thing into existence.
I will agree that mountain bikers spend 10 times more money on gear & everything than climbers do. Good for any town having mountain bikers visiting. If this was in an area that could be fully developed for biking with that being a main objective there could maybe, just maybe be a chance that this project will survive more than a few years, it could even be huge. Bikers will stay a few days, spend some $, sightseers will not, they get the photo and move on. The current base station & path are not conducive to this & short of a myriad of trails coming back down to the base through the park it seems unrealistic that any biking will ever occur under the current proposal. The base is not in a good spot for trails to end.
I am opposed to it because of the location, how it is using land which is said to be protected at the highest level to be preserved for future generations in perpetuity or something like that & because I do not believe the land has been acquired in a fair, just, manner.
Also as I've stated up thread before I also think that the business plan itself is unrealistic & a dumb idea in its current state, or at least the little we know about it. You guys look up there today?? Gondola into a jar of milk, way to go guys, great idea.
I also tried to contact the developers via their website & received no reply.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 12:33pm PT
|
I'm also on your side Ryan. I'd much rather the gondola climb up this forested knob between Edith lk and Paul Ridge. I'm well aware bikers aren't the proponents' gravy but I have a little hope they'll end up milking everything they can, including developing the connector trail from that basin over to the goat ridge trail. There are other possibilities for returning closer to the base, such as reversing part of the petgill approach but keeping north on that old logging spur. This would pop you at on the northern slope of the murrin hill, and riding back to your vehicle at the Klahanie would be easy. Or for the more advanced, stay on the goat ridge descent and pin it all the way down into Britannia. Pretty easy to have left a vehicle there but even the worst case scenerio would see the fittest rider get elected to go retrieve the car at the Klahanie. Small price to pay for a six or seven hour ride in beautiful B.C.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 12:41pm PT
|
Bottom line however is if the gondola dosn't go there, it aint going anywhere.
There's no evidence that the proponents have truly considered alternatives outside the Park(s), as is required by government policy.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 01:06pm PT
|
My reasoning behind the backwoods option idea was one of the gondola actually being built & dedicated to recreational purposes (e.g. mountain bike park) as their main M.O. Not with sightseeing/tourist pocket picking as the main objective as the current proposal has planned. I actually think it would be cool if tucked away somewhere up around the corner we had a full on bike park, a legitimate, profitable recreational draw. I know many who would feel the same. I am not a biker anymore but i work up in Whis & have seen the impact that the bike park there has had on summer business. It is a good thing. The hangup of the bike park there is that it must dance around winter operations, as well it deals with a slightly higher elevation so it is often not in prime conditions until mid june. It is second fiddle to skiing there, and always will be. Squamish has many advantages in this department & could probably have an extended season that would draw many people to the area, these people would stay in town, spend money @ shops, restaurants & hotels. Squamish could have biking as it's #1 recreational tourist draw, and focus on it. The town could really get behind it & market it to the world. Entire families go DH biking together, it is a great beginner sport. The 100 or so cloudy days we will probably see from now to thanksgiving wouldn't be total revenue killers for the gondy if it was a bike park as people would still go up there and bike. It would not have to be on the side of the highway because it would actually have a purpose, people would have a reason to go there again & again. It would not have to be a tourist vortex that requires a roadside location to scrape up revenue. It would be something that our town could be proud of, who is going to be proud of this carnival ride with the 1km loop trail up top?? Not me, that's for sure. Embarrassed would be a more likely term that i'm sure many of us would realize over time when we realized someone put wool over our eyes and their thumb up our ass.
Do we really want to be the town that relies on a goofy sightseeing gondola to "save" us?? So sad that the developers did not see(or care to see) the potential value in possible recreational resources & instead took a stab @ the apparent "easy money". Frikkin' vultures IMO, sniff out the limping carcass on the side of the highway rather than hunt down your own food.
The current proposal would not work for a bike park, which is a shame. I'm sure that bike trails could be built up there & that biking could be a "possibility" but never to a level that it would be a destination for people from all over NA to come on their annual family bike trip. The base area simply could not support it. I would not support it, there just isn't enough space there. This thing is being designed for one time visits, in & out. I think that if this gondola is built at the gravel pit that tourists will stop & fork over some cash, then get back in their busses or cars & carry on, not the kind of operation that is conducive for people staying awhile. Who wants to stay in Squamish for a few days to go do daily laps on the sightseeing gondola?? Seriously?? I think we all know the answer to that one.
This current proposal lacks creativity, foresight, originality, respect for the park & it's users. Not to mention it does nothing for the downtown of Squamish except pose a risk to it's taxpayers because of it's murky business plan, lack of due process, & shortage of details.
Oh, what's that? There is no left turn lane in or out of the gravel pit. The highway would likely need to be widened at that spot with proper turning lanes- Unless it is just assumed that everyone stopping there would be on the way to Whistler. Does anyone know who would need to be jerked off to make the road wider?? Would it be the ministry of highways or would it be someone more local?? Either way i'm sure it won't be a major issue for these guys to figure out. Oh, wait a sec...Who pays for highway improvements?? Is it taxpayers?? Hmmmmmmmm. Another detail.....
I know it's a little late in the game here to be proposing alternatives but it seems to be somewhat productive in this debate to consider other options & things that may actually be beneficial to Squamish. I have learned a lot from this thread from others stories, ideas & opinions. Maybe if this proposal gets denied(fingers crossed) these guys will still be looking to throw some cash around & might need some new ideas.
edit: Just saw your post Hamish, & yes, shuttles and whatnot aside the type of biking that you propose would be great, but likely not be enough to draw people when you could be doing multiple laps up the road & getting 20,000' feet of vertical in a day without even having a chain on your bike. However, with some thought & biking as the main objective there are many possibilities for something like the Whistler park to be a reality at Squamish.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 01:53pm PT
|
I realize my biking ideas don't embrace heavy downhill bikes doing laps all day long, they have that in Whistler. My perfect storm uses the tourist lift to access multi-hour adventures; not for everyone I'm sure, but the numbers are increasing all the time.
I know you're down on the limited size of the gravel pit but don't you think all that land between the pit and Shannon Falls is ripe for expansion? Shannon Falls is maxed out already so the next step is a D-9.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 04:06pm PT
|
Did the municipality of Squamish give any tax incentives to the developers of the gondola?
|
|
Squamish Climber
Trad climber
Shangri-La
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 06:41pm PT
|
Sea to Sky Gondola Project passes 3rd Reading with Squamish-Lillooet Regional District:
The Chief posted the news this afternoon:
Proponents of the Sea to Sky Gondola project received more good news from the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) board table on Monday (May 28) in Pemberton, where the bylaw and OCP amendments for Electoral Area D were given third reading.
Board members heard results of the public hearing in mid-April and were told that most attendees were supportive, while many opposed had misconceptions about the project — that the gondola would land on the Stawamus Chief, for example — or had frustration over the Province's process of reclassifying of provincial park land.
So it looks like once the province passes the park reclassification the SLRD will give final approval. That could happen as early as June/July.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 06:45pm PT
|
A minor step in the process, and not unexpected. The key remaining step is the province issuing a park use permit, in effect a contract between it and the proponent. Until that happens, there's no legal obligation.
Board members heard results of the public hearing in mid-April and were told that most attendees were supportive, while many opposed had misconceptions about the project — that the gondola would land on the Stawamus Chief, for example — or had frustration over the Province's process of reclassifying of provincial park land.
An absurd canard which some have suggested, with little basis. FOSC has certainly never said any such thing. Amusingly, one gondola supporter, a councillor from Whistler at that, claimed that: "The proponent's gondola lift will travel over/across Shannon Falls Park (not Stawamus Chief Park as the "No side" likes to suggest)."
http://www.vancouversun.com/Squamish+area+residents+largely+support+proposed+gondola/6657346/story.html
Which would greatly surprise the government, B.C. Parks, and many others - the legislation removes land from Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, and you'd think they'd know what they were doing.
It's also disingenuous to suggest that park land is being "reclassified", although about 25 of those at the meeting did express concerns about the province's actions. All part of the disinformation campaign, I suppose.
No doubt there are a few opponents of the gondola, or the process, who aren't perfectly clear on everything. So are some supporters. All part of democracy.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 09:17pm PT
|
"Progress Can't Wait" John Rosholt,1998ish.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 09:25pm PT
|
"vultures circling"
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 29, 2012 - 09:53pm PT
|
Progress Can't Wait
If the proposed gondola represents 'progress' - a dubious proposition - it may well have to wait.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 03:24am PT
|
hahahaha o jeez
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 11:30am PT
|
I particularly liked the bullet about the Gov't standing behind the covenant. Since we finally dug up the history of the covenant, I find this very amusing indeed.
As usual, this stuff is a bit of a viscous circle. M.H. keeps writing Chief this and Chief that; then the SLRD doesn't give much credibility to the "no" side because many people still thought the gondola went up the Chief. Check out post #381 for instance.
For all the great work M.H. is doing, he has his moments when he is his own worst enemy. But he's still a great guy and he's putting in a big effort.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 12:08pm PT
|
FOSC has taken pains to make clear that the gondola would go through the Park, but wouldn't be on the Chief itself. To the point of including the proponent's website URL in our messages etc, for those who want the details.
Like any public debate, not all may be completely clear on the details, and people sometimes believe what they want to believe. Some of the proponent's supporters, at the meeting in Britannia, being an example. But perhaps some FOSC supporters too, no doubt. That's democracy.
We did discuss whether we should call ourselves something other than Friends of the Squamish Chief, and decided not to. The proposal would have significant impacts on the Park and so the Chief, and our messaging about location etc has been clear.
(SLRD) Board members heard results of the public hearing in mid-April and were told that most attendees were supportive, while many opposed had misconceptions about the project — that the gondola would land on the Stawamus Chief, for example — or had frustration over the Province's process of reclassifying of provincial park land.
The SLRD Board members were mostly at the meeting in person, and hardly needed a report from anyone else. About 1/4 of those present were opposed to the gondola, the process, or both. Which was reasonable, considering that at that point we'd had two weeks to organize. If anyone there claimed that the gondola would be on the Chief itself, I didn't hear it. Certainly people said it would be in/through the Park, which is factual. Not a very good bit of journalism, I'm afraid.
377 signers of the petition as of this morning, 117 FaceBook friends. No doubt a few of them believe the gondola would be on or even to the top of the Chief - so what?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 12:16pm PT
|
The proposal would have significant impacts on the Park and so the Chief,
What would be the impact on the Chief?
I understand the arguments about removal of land from a Park, about the potential for the development to fail economically, and about the government not following protocol. But the impact on the Chief of a tram from the gravel pit to the bench between Oleson Creek and Shannon Falls is not clear.
Unless maybe you mean the presence of the Gondola would siphon some of the crowds away from the Backside Trail.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 12:26pm PT
|
Remember the guy who wrote in moaning about climbing on the very southern end of the Bulletheads and having to see the tram? Well, at least there isn't a busy hwy down there or anything.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 12:34pm PT
|
David, you're familiar with the topography at the Chief already, and (I hope) are one of those who've made the effort to become informed about the proposal. There are already parking problems at the base of the Chief on summer weekends. How would the gondola and its bus and car traffic affect that? Would there be overflow parking there, or would it spill over into the Chief parking? How about access to the gondola base for southbound traffic? There's nothing there now.
Some proponents claim that the gondola would relieve crowding on the backside trails. It's not that it's a real issue, just a busy trail. Still, some of them claim that a trail would be built linking the upper station into the backside trails, and that would magically benefit the Chief. How would that help? Wouldn't it if anything increase pressure? The only thing that might not do so would be an entirely independent trail - and there isn't much room for one.
Then there's construction noise while it's built. Months of work at the top and bottom, weeks if not months installing the towers. All with noise and other impacts.
Despite some claims, the gondola and the upper station would be highly visible from the summits of the Chiefs. Glaringly so. And any noise from their operation.
Overall, the proposal, if it goes ahead and if it succeeds, will significantly increase pressure on two already busy parks. The Goat Ridge location wouldn't do so.
And let's not forget the BruceHamishDavid spotted toads...
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 12:41pm PT
|
I heard if u touch those type of toads you can hallucinate.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 01:02pm PT
|
And let's not forget the BruceHamishDavid spotted toads...
Can't say anything about Hamish and Bruce, but my toads have no spots. For the millionth time, I am not pro-gondola. Nor am I anti-gondola. I don't have a toad in this fight. But it does irk me to see pseudo-facts brought in to support an argument. Whether it be evil (but unspecified) impacts on the Chief, or a thousand-mile bike park based out of the top station.
The difference is that while Hamish freely acknowledges that the wondrous biking is a dream that may not be realized, and hasn't to my knowledge brought in any magical new bullets, you continue to hint at these non-specific evils in a way that implies they are real.
Yes, if the gondola is successful, there will be parking issues. But whether the gondola is successful or not, there will be parking issues. The town of Squamish wants to grow and prosper, and pretty much anything that brings on that growth and prosperity will "impact the Chief."
Speaking solely from my own self-interest, I would love to be able to ride the gondola up to that top station and gain easy access to new climbing and riding opportunities. Speaking as a non-local with a general concern for the environment, I would hope that the gondola proposal receives a thorough vetting before being approved or declined.
But the Chief of your youth and mine is gone. It doesn't exist any more.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
|
OK - but let's not be shooting toads in a barrel. That would be unsporting, like shooting foxes or something.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 02:03pm PT
|
But the Chief of your youth and mine is gone. It doesn't exist any more.
Indeed. And mine; that's become clear to me in the last couple of years. I'm getting over it.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 04:45pm PT
|
Now we're getting somewhere...
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 05:00pm PT
|
It doesn't have to be gone, there just needs to be some spread...instead we get a gondola that uses the existing chief and shannon falls trail to access the top terminal. Its the killing blow to an already very popular and busy trail.
Besides that, as has been mentioned, the gondola doesnt go anywhere new. The furry creek road is still accesible and driveable for access to sky pilot and the hut and the road to the boulder blockade is 2wd for access to Habrich.
Oh well sounds like its a done deal and I am also getting over it...see you out there
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 05:53pm PT
|
I understand the bottleneck scenerio on the Backside trail but if this thing works out to it's potential, I'd look for a new trail heading up to the top terminal. How about that next little gully/drainage to the south of the tram easement? Anybody around here ever hiked up toward that area? I know it looks awefully steep but perhaps a few dozen switchbacks and voila... a good make-work project for unemployed somethingorothers to generate an EI claim. I recall one of these such ventures on the Backside trail in the mid-nineties and that crew had some pretty impressive production.
Hey Anders......1300!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 06:12pm PT
|
This is what council should be focused on for downtown squamish for encouraging folks to locate here for a global supply chain development hub
Ah yes, I can just see multi-million sq m warehouses, cargo terminals, and distribution centers springing up like mushrooms along the Squamish waterfront and beside the new international airport, as major players in the global supply chain abandon remote and underutilized locations like Shanghai, Singapore, LA, Hong Kong, and Amsterdam and rush to get in on the ground floor at Squamish.
Well, if nothing else, that'll take the focus off the gondola.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 06:42pm PT
|
405 have signed the petition now: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/
To save the peanut gallery the trouble, no doubt they're all misled and deluded, know nothing at all, and shouldn't have the right to vote, or be out in public without an adult. (Sarcasm)
Yes, this stupid thread about a half-baked gondola proposal that should never have gotten serious consideration gets 1,300+ posts, and lots of 'real' climbing threads don't get nearly as many. Grrrr.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 09:00pm PT
|
Anders, your efforts & commitment are far from being in vain. However I do think that a few of the goose eggs you probably have at this point from beating your head on the wall as well as future ones regarding this thread could be avoided by just focusing on your initial purpose for starting it. I am actually very impressed that it has taken over 1300 posts, many which could be interpreted as badgering, mean, or disrespectful to you personally for signs of wear to appear on your Mighty Charisma! I say kudos to you for standing up for what you believe in & keeping your cool. Thank you. There are many out there who understand the basis of this debate from your point of view and appreciate your selfless efforts, whether in full agreement with you or not.
The levels of speculation & redundancy that are spread throughout this thread are ridiculous, not to mention the sarcasm & silly jokes. But, as a collective I'd say that this debate has been productive & for the most part I think everyone who has followed along or participated has enjoyed themselves, largely because of those things I just listed. Many, including myself have learned much about Squamish, developments, & opened themselves to new ways of thinking about the proposal. Not to mention we have had the firsthand opportunity to see how legitimate information in situations such as this can be very difficult to come by regardless what side of the fence you are on, even if you're sitting directly on a picket. I hope the debate here continues until the final outcome is decided. Hell, if the gondy is built in the current location I plan on posting daily Tom Evans style reports on this thread showing pics of the cloud cover & empty gondola cabins from the base station :-)
I like GF's train of thought about slowing down ideas such as this & doing things properly. Insightful post. Thanks.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:09pm PT
|
Yes Ryan, G.F. for mayor. He's got a vision.
So you're O.K. with underground parking and condos in amongst the tram base but you are anti-gondola? I might require a quick explanation of that stance.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:14pm PT
|
Damn, Hamish busted me in my own web of lies again!!!
Haha I didn't say I like his example, just his train of thought. Take it slow, do it right.
Don't just stick it in!!!!
Ps not anti gondola, just anti of this current location & proposal.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:16pm PT
|
Thanks, nicely explained.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:37pm PT
|
Is that lease on a strip of steep sidehill really that huge of a givaway?
If Parks put out an "expression of interest" for all interested parties to come fourth and offer up their ideas and $ for that strip, do you think there would be any, other than the current company? Regardless of who owns the lot at the base, of course. I'm not convinced the phone would be ringing off the hook.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:47pm PT
|
But if it's stacked correctly in the sun, you could be burning it in January. If these guys do a good job with their lift, we could be hitching a ride to the high country within a couple of years.
Or Parks could say NO Thanks, we're waiting for a better offer down the road. Which wouldn't be so bad as we'll be biking up a storm somewhere else.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:50pm PT
|
If Parks put out an "expression of interest" for all interested parties to come forth and offer up their ideas and $ for that strip, do you think there would be any, other than the current company?
As mentioned in the first post, what's the point in creating parks (with considerable effort), if they're not actually protected, and up for the highest bidder?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 30, 2012 - 10:54pm PT
|
It'll still be protected, they'll just be a bunch of tourists passing overhead at about six miles/hr. And hopefully the odd maniac with their bike.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 12:18am PT
|
what is this erp suite that you speak of?
Enterprise Resource Planning.
But I don't think it's going to happen in Squamish. Or at least not until a lot of other stuff happens first -- some of which would be just as bad (or good, depending on your p.o.v.) as the gondola.
Greg, I'd be happy to talk to you about this, but maybe we should take it off ST.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 12:34am PT
|
As in, Starship Enterprise? I had no idea that you and Greg were Trekkies. Learn something new every day.
The levels of speculation & redundancy that are spread throughout this thread are ridiculous, not to mention the sarcasm & silly jokes. But, as a collective I'd say that this debate has been productive & for the most part I think everyone who has followed along or participated has enjoyed themselves, largely because of those things I just listed. Many, including myself have learned much about Squamish, developments, & opened themselves to new ways of thinking about the proposal. Not to mention we have had the firsthand opportunity to see how legitimate information in situations such as this can be very difficult to come by regardless what side of the fence you are on, even if you're sitting directly on a picket. I hope the debate here continues until the final outcome is decided. Hell, if the gondy is built in the current location I plan on posting daily Tom Evans style reports on this thread showing pics of the cloud cover & empty gondola cabins from the base station :-)
Thanks, Ryan. I was fairly sure when I started this thread that I'd get some fairly severe criticism, not just regarding the actual issues, but also personal. And not much in the way of thanks. I thought about whether I should bother, and had time, but it seemed worth it, as I knew and the FOSC committee once it formed knew that we have an uphill battle ahead. We're making some progress, but even if we get the government to require a more transparent and inclusive process, complying with its policy, it's going to take effort. Better to hone arguments early, and climbers can be both your best friends and your harshest critics. As I've known David, Hamish and Bruce for decades, I'll forgive them.
Current: 424 on-line petition signers (plus ~130 paper), 121 FaceBook friends. A good day.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 12:51am PT
|
The process that led to the Chief and area being protected as a park was rather more rational and considered than 3,000 year old tribal beliefs. It was also transparent, inclusive, and involved some science.
Looking at it another way, you frequently post that you want to stop economic development ('progress'), e.g. Enbridge, salmon farms, and so on, and that you distrust government decision making processes for not being transparent or inclusive. Isn't that based on your beliefs?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 01:15am PT
|
Admit it, pal. Beneath that Whistler/West Vancouver emigre, cappucino and microbrew swilling, heli-this and heli-that, faux redneck nail banging, pro-development exterior, you're a greenie at heart.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 01:36am PT
|
Distrust of the conservatives and bc libs is based on not just a principle of anti capitalism or some other rot but EVIDENCE that they are corrupt, controlled by corporate interest, subverters of the democratic process. If thier principles of governance could show evidence that it results in values which I uphold I would support them, even if they hair cuts suck and they go to those dreary churches every sunday. Thats why I don't suport your anti gondola crusade. The principle of anti gondola without evidence sucks.
The B.C. Liberals whose Minister of Environment will be making the decisions about the proposal, if I'm not mistaken? If they're "corrupt, controlled by corporate interest, subverteres of the democratic process", then...? Or did I not get the memo, yet again?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 02:22am PT
|
In the stage of formulating a development proposal and presenting it to the agencies for review, all possible impacts, both positive and negative from stakeholders with differing opinions, should be considered. This is not evidence. It is conjecture and opinions. If the conjecture and opinions are found by the agencies and possibly the legal system to have merit they will be considered in forming the decision on the proposal.
Evidence is not part of the discussion at this stage, while opinion is very much a force in the process. You can not prove future benefits or impacts, you can only state opinions with supporting data and information.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 02:32am PT
|
Actually at this stage it is simply administrative law or likely administrative procedure...
... civil action could be the next step, but that would be na$ty.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 02:58am PT
|
Quite right, that process was poorly (hastily) conducted and driven by passions and monied interests rather than by bringing many parties with differing views to the table. Green washing is also a big problem in Merika. Often stalling a project allows for market corrections to show the light and for parties left out of the original and frequently closed process, to have a voice and shape policy.
In the US there is often opportunity for citizen suits in environmental disputes. While these can be expensive, the threat of such actions can help curb some abuses before more expensive remedies might be required. Needless to say the role of citizens in the process is not appreciated by all industries...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 12:31pm PT
|
435 signatures on the e-petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/
124 FaceBook "likes": http://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheSquamishChief
130+ signatures to petitions: Rika and the gang have been busy, so if anything more.
Bruce as much as admitted a few days ago that the process that had been used to consider the proposal was flawed, and didn't comply with the government's own policy. Given that, and his general attitude with regard to the provincial government, you'd think he might wonder why the government chose to create such a flawed process. It's not that I know anything specific, but developers, particularly developers from Whistler, have always done well at getting what they want from the provincial government.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 02:49pm PT
|
I think we all realized from the get go there wasn't going to be much more of a process other than the eight months of meetings and permits, etc..
That's why I did my survey and supplied you with my rounded out number of 90-95% for. That's for the Squamish area and I imagine the numbers would be pretty favorable throughout the province. All for free.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 03:03pm PT
|
Currently 446 signers, just of the on-line petition. 65 say they live in Squamish, Brackendale or Garibaldi Highlands = about 15%. If you add in those who say they were born or used to live in Squamish, getting close to 20%.
There's also a significant international component to the signers. The Chief and area are "local" to much more than Squamish.
Shouldn't B.C. Parks set up a booth at the campground/start of the backside trail, with hard information about the proposal (e.g. how visible and noisy it would be), and ask existing users what they think of the idea? Provide objective information - no proponent infomercials - and get feedback, on a series of summer weekends? In fact, maybe we'll do just that.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 06:58pm PT
|
You and Hamish get one button each, maybe one extra. (gf and Jim B too.) They'll be collector's items, and eventually your grandkids will get a lot of money for them on the Antiques Roadshow. They'll tell the whole story, of the victory for the park and the people, and how their grandpa helped.
Petition Numbers Update
On-Line: 450
FaceBook: 124
Paper (known): 525 (yup, really)
Paper (other): There are non-counted petitions in Squamish and Vancouver, which we haven't checked lately.
Allowing 10% for duplicates, duds, anonymous and such, that makes just about 1,000 supporters so far.
As for whether there's any binding legal/financial commitment between government and proponent, the answer should be "no". The policy is clear:
PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY, PROCESS AND GUIDELINES
A decision to consider an application to adjust a protected area boundary to allow for a development does not constitute approval of the proposed project. The final decision to adjust a boundary rests with the Legislature. As well, all proposed projects are subject to the normal provincial and federal regulatory review processes that apply to such projects. Protected area boundary adjustments, if approved by Cabinet or the Legislature, will only be brought into force if the proposed project has received all other approvals to proceed (e.g. Environmental Assessment Certificate).
"Other approvals" most pertinently including a park use permit, the contract between government and developer. There isn't one yet. The proponent may claim that there's a commitment of some sort, based on its dealings with the civil servants, but that's another matter.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 07:03pm PT
|
After all, the gravel pit is designated gondola base only, right ?
Maybe not. If the gondola fails or doesn't get approval, then don't be suprised to see it turn into a Costco, or condos, or something else.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 07:11pm PT
|
An interesting question. The land should simply be added to the parks, to provide some additional parking, perhaps an "out" route for buses from Shannon, and even for a conventional campground. Low impact commercial development at the front would also be OK.
Perhaps the proponent, who supposedly told TLC that he'd use it for things like movie set work, should be held to his word.
Having seen the restrictions Squamish placed on possible development there, there are limited possibilities.
Are there any big box stores not already in Squamish, and would they want to locate there?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 08:42pm PT
|
Perhaps there are knee jerk anti-development people who can't see any development there, but it seems unlikely that will happen. The question is, what would be appropriate, and fit in reasonably with the two parks, without negative impacts? Just throwing out some ideas.
It should have been the site of the adventure centre, a "Sea to Sky" adventure centre at that, to welcome visitors to the whole area. With a First Peoples component, and bus parking, overflow parking, and some limited services - restaurant, gift shop. Nothing wrong with that.
When we bought the gravel pit in 2004/05, one of the main ideas was that the land be added to the park, perhaps with some camping, and some low-impact commercial activity.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:11pm PT
|
I'm not sure which is funnier, this thread or the old sienfeld re-runs. Neck and neck.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:21pm PT
|
O.K., that's it....sienfeld's out.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:25pm PT
|
Hamish, I'd say this thread is as good as anything from the first 2 or 3 seasons of Seinfeld. Any episodes newer than that though blow anything on the Internet out of the water IMO.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:27pm PT
|
Sheesh! You two. Some people are impossible to please. OK OK, there can be a mountain bike trail there too. Between the overflow parking and the new campground - it's a fairly big gravel area. Sure, it's kind of flat, but we can always stick some boulders in there for the bike heads to throw themselves off of, or maybe they can do dodge the pedestrian over at Shannon Falls.
Not owning a television, I don't get such references.
And if you believe that the gondola would have no negative impacts, I have a bridge you might be interested in too.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:28pm PT
|
If Bruce K had a local cable access show however it could be a different type of comparison!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:32pm PT
|
Jerry had those same six boxes of cereal in his apartment for the duration. We've done remarkably well with one variety.
"Bike Heads", I love it.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 09:49pm PT
|
I was more on the Larry David theme than Hunter S. I was thinking all of us venture out on a nice, easy, old guy bikeride and M.H. can "taste the adrenalin". Prety sure that was Bruce (banned but back)Macd's line as he was leading humpty dumpty a couple lifetimes ago.
Anyhow, we get Anders's blood pumping and sensory overload on overload setting and he'll be sold.
|
|
hamie
Social climber
Thekoots
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
|
Eat your hearts out, guys!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
May 31, 2012 - 10:07pm PT
|
What's with the sticky rubber Hamie?? Thought that was cheating??!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I've spent lots of time on bikes already, thank you very much. LOTS. Commuting, triathlons, racing.
Real men (and women) ride road bikes. In time trials, triathlons, and hill climbs, especially. Come over to the side of the angels - just like Hesjedahl.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Road biking is probably just as exciting & quite possibly more dangerous.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
O.K., real people ride on the road. Too dangerous and industrial for me, but I do get it. As long as you are aware of Hesjedahl's and Erin's (I'm pretty sure) background. (mtn. biking).
|
|
thekidcormier
Gym climber
squamish, b.c.
|
|
Anyone wanna go mtn biking today?.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
I've spent lots of time on bikes already, thank you very much. LOTS. Commuting, triathlons, racing.
Real men (and women) ride road bikes. In time trials, triathlons, and hill climbs, especially. Come over to the side of the angels - just like Hesjedahl.
Can I nominate this for the "Funniest Post Of The Thread" award?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Yup. Especially the "especially" part.
M.H., you have us mtn. bikers all wrong.... we bike uphill too.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
You guys are incorrigible. Insatiable. Probably innumerate, too.
Each to his/her own, and for everything, there is a season. So there!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
No, we're just trying to keep everyone laughing as much as possible.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
No, we're just trying to keep everyone laughing as much as possible.
Exactly.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
"Those who can't/won't do, criticize."
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
"Those who can't/won't do, criticize."
Well, I've done lots of both (road and mountain) and wouldn't dream of criticizing either.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
No the funniest thing is that this is the view for the Squamish gondola for the next month
http://squamish.ca/quick-links/webcams
and this is the view for the same priced peak to peak gondola which includes the ride up on the whistler gondola..
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Hoser nails it.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
How can you criticize road riders? No group on the planet has so defiantly stood shoulder to shoulder through the years ,defending matching neon Lycra suits.
Not only that, think of the advances in medical science driven by road riders' insatiable demand for more and better drugs.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Every one of you "climbed" while wearing lycra in the 1980s. There are photos to prove it. I may have been wearing lycra then, but at least was on a bicycle, where it was appropriate. I was never dumb enough to climb while wearing lycra.
And we won't even go into a certain person's red underwear fetish.
Nyah nyah! So there!
ps Hoser, nice photos - they tell an effective story, that's been discussed upthread.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I'm sure that we'd all draw the line at riding the gondola (if built) while wearing lycra. The horror! The horror!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
I think those three guys in the middle are holding hands.
But to get this thing back into the original ruts, has anyone been able to find out what, if any, thoughts the gondola owners have regarding mountain biking?
I know Hamish drools at the thought of a vast network of trails accessible from the top of the gondola, but I do wonder if this is likely. It sure would be wonderful if it happened, and obviously it can't happen if there's no gondola.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It certainly can happen if there's no gondola. It already has happened. Hamish and his pals are already riding around up there. It probably wouldn't hurt if the road was brushed out a bit, but that's feasible with volunteers. There's an extensive network of 1980s era logging spurs in upper Shannon Creek, extending almost to Goat Ridge, which provide a good start, and IIRC some riders have continued from there into roads on the north side of Britannia Creek, and maybe down Goat Ridge to Petgill Lake etc.
A little birdie tells me that the proponents have applied for 84 hectares (= 200+ acres) of land in and around the upper terminal, going right across to the main access road. Which would allow them to lock it at that point if not below, which it is in their interests to do. If nothing else, to protect the upper terminal, but also to generate more traffic. It will also require agreement by the District of Squamish and the Ministry of Forests to open the road to public traffic at all.
Whether the proponents really care a fig about mountain biking trails, or hiking trails, is an open question. It might generate a bit more traffic, if they need it, and if/when someone (else) builds some trails. I wouldn't count on them doing much more than piggybacking on what's there already, and what others might build.
Edit: I'll donate $20 to a charity of your choice, for the first person to post a photo of gf climbing in lycra.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Will mountain bikes be allowed up the Gondola?
We will certainly look at mountain biking as one of the potential activities that could be provided from the top terminal. There are many possible routes from the top that could include a spectacular ride over Goat Ridge down into Britannia Beach.We will review all the various activities that can be offered safely from the top terminal and will explore these options with key local stakeholders such as SORCA, Search & Rescue, Squamish Trails Society and others.
What will you do to prevent people from using the Gondola to access the backcountry who end up getting lost?
Education of the backcountry hazards outside of our ‘operating area’ will be a key part of our operating plan. Backcountry users will be reminded to be aware of the risks and have the sufficient education and equipment to perform self-rescue if required.
For Grouse mountain that means no downhill hiking and no accessing of back country terrain from their lifts
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
If you ride the lift up then apparently you have to abide by their rules...
I still cant figure out why you continue to claim that the back roads are aldered in when in fact they are 2wd to the blockade and then just fine bike riding roads after that.
I agree this whole thing wont affect what I do at all, I just think its too bad that this is the route Squamish is going with regards to addressing the crowds that want to hike and enjoy Squamish
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Thats right, you are not allowed to hike down the grind.
Grouse is private property, its a little different than the park ski hills. They do not tolerate folks going out of bounds, I am aware of the difference between permanently closed and avy closed terrain.
The signs are still there in summer but I guess they dont care as much..dont know.
The roads leading to Cypress and Seymour are closed in winter outside of working hours so I would be worried that the gondola folks may do the same thing in the name of counter acting vandalism and such.
Why exactly do I feel its too bad...I just feel that there are better options for the outdoor capital of canada to pursue than gondolas. We all agree that this will not do anything for Squamish downtown, it will not alleviate backside trail pressure and it does not provide any new trails for the 4- 500 000 visitors who currently come to the park to hike and climb.
I think its short sighted and if they really wanted to improve the area they would look at what they already have. Underused trails from Slhany over all three peaks including a via ferratta, trails to sky pilot and cabin and trails to Habrich and onwards to Petgill.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, it would bother me, and apparently 800 or more other people, many living in Squamish. Given that it's only been a few weeks, probably many more.
The total number of signatures on petitions is now ~825. Allowing for duplications, 750 – 800 have expressed their support, including:
• On-Line: 465 (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/);
• FaceBook: 128 (http://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheSquamishChief);
• Paper petitions (Squamish, Vancouver): 235+ (A report yesterday from a 'remote' location proved incorrect, so we're about 250 fewer than we thought.)
There are additional signatures – some petitions haven’t yet been returned. We expect the number to rise in the near future, with petition signing initiatives in Squamish and elsewhere this weekend.
Our effort to gather public support has had only a few weeks, and indeed most signatures have been acquired in the last two weeks.
Approximately 15% of the signatures on the on-line petition are from residents of the Squamish area. However, signers include many from the USA, as well as from New Zealand (2), Norway (2), Argentina, Australia, and elsewhere. This underscores both that the park and its attributes are of international interest, and that there has been a failure to adequately consult with existing users of the park as to its fate. Putting it another way, the “local” community of the Stawamus Chief is world-wide.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The muffin top, plumbers' crack, and lycra bulge problems had not previously come to the attention of the FOSC committee, and will be noted for discussion. There may be endangered species issues, too - possibly the peregrines moved to the Grand Wall area so as to see fewer unsightly tourists.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Who ever owns it has made the rule...I dont why you cant hike down it.
Its here on the GVRD web page..grouse web page, signs and more signs all over that shitty hill
http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/grousegrind/Pages/default.aspx
I dont know why your making such a big deal out of it, I just think its a lame proposal and possibly setting a poor precedent for how we may treat our front country parks going forward.
I have stated my arguments in posts pasts and I have heard yours and we disagree. Not a big deal.
Whatever the outcome my wish is for the park to continue to expand and for folks to explore more of it, new trails and new routes.
Now I am off to the bar!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I've worked as a volunteer with groups that help persons with disabilities, plus put together and ran a project that rebuilt the Yew Lake trail at Cypress Bowl, to make it more accessible. Not totally, but one of the more accessible mountain trails in B.C. I'm very aware of such issues. Given that I'm a modest climber (with much to be modest about..), and rather unathletic, I'm no elitist. A club that won't have me for a member. Plus I'm getting older and feebler...
Finding the right balance is difficult, to see that there are reasonable opportunities for access to our world, for all. (We're lucky we can afford such considerations.) In terms of the truly disabled - many older people, and the physically disabled - the project seems marginal. It faces fierce competition from Grouse and Whistler/Blackcomb, both of which seem superior locations and facilities. And unless such folk are guaranteed significant discounts, vague promises wouldn't amount to a lot anyway, given that many are on fixed incomes.
For those who simply lack the fitness to hike up and down the Chief, maybe there's a larger social issue around enabling their behaviour. It's a bit like driving children to school, when they could walk, and it would be better for them. There's no simple solution for such social problems, but it is after all a relatively modest hike, and there are other easier hikes and walks at the base, and in the Squamish area, with good views.
Also, too often access for the elderly/disabled is used as a wedge, to help justify developments of this kind. Sometimes they mean it, but show me the money, eh?
|
|
flyingkiwi1
Trad climber
Seattle WA
|
|
If your goals include accepting the world as it is, I think it's useful to recognize the irony in passing judgement on the judgemental.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
If your goals include accepting the world as it is, I think it's useful to recognize the irony in passing judgement on the judgemental.
Ian, you're forgetting the fundamental issue: If we don't pass judgement on the judgemental, who will? Somebody has to do it.
But more seriously, I think any discussion of making it easy for fat or old people misses the whole point Bruce was trying to make. Correct me if I'm wrong Bruce, but I think what you were talking about was latte-sucking Vancouver environmentalists assuming their vision of parks without people was somehow more worthy than Squamish gumbies' vision of a development that would help them. Nothing to do with making the high place accessible to the grossly obese.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
"parks without people"
There's close to 100,000 annual hikers days on the Chief - they have a counter. Probably half or more that number of climber days. There's no shortage of people - the shortage is of trails. Judging by responses we've been getting, the existing users aren't very happy about the proposal. It's hardly terra nullius.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I've got to work on my obeseness, which I can't seem to attain no matter how hard I try, with a big bowl of cereal, between my fits of laughter. I'd give anything to put on 5 lbs.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Yes thats it. But in all the confusion I can't remember if I'm a latte sucking gumbie or a locally situated obese environmentalist.
The label doesn't matter. As long as you yell "Not In Your Back Yard" loudly and often, you'll be fine.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Hamish can have some of mine, too. It'll be metric, so much classier lard.
You guys should check out the following thread. You'd fit right in, not just on Friday nights.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1054430/The-Friday-Night-Posting-While-Drunk-Post
Rules:
1. Your current consumption
2. At least one inflammatory comment **
3. Why you are drunk and typing on McTopo instead of doing something worthwhile, like driving to the crag.
Perhaps the terra nullius comment was a little obscure, but it does reframe the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
It was the argument that was used to dispossess the natives in B.C., elsewhere in Canada, and around the world. The theory being that the land was empty, or at most populated by savages needing to be civilized. Kind of like the climbing and hiking savages at Squamish, perhaps. And really, just because the land's in a park, it's vacant, isn't it? That is, not being used for direct economic gain, whatever its other benefits to the world?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
No, it's that the existing users of the park - 100,000 or so hiker days, maybe 50,000 or more climber days, plus others - are being treated as though the park is terra nullius. They for the most part haven't been asked what they think of the proposal. It wouldn't be hard to set up a booth at the campground, with objective information, B.C. Parks staff on hand to discuss what is proposed, and for the actual current users to say their piece. Better still, a booth at the perched rock 2/3 of the way up, or even at the top, where they could see where the gondola and top station would be.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
At least this is a new argument, unlike anything we've heard before...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Arguably the park isn't a tabula rasa, although the gondola would go through a zone that is untouched, and under-represented in B.C.'s park system. Coastal Western Hemlock Dry something or other.
Should proposals to develop in or near provincial parks - especially carefully-considered, well-established, heavily-used parks - be considered on the same basis as proposals to develop any other public land, or should they be a rare exception, subject to considerably increased scrutiny? Some of you seem to be arguing that it's simply vacant land, open to the first development that comes along. It isn't. And the proposal doesn't even come close to complying with the government's own policy for scrutinizing such proposals.
(Nothing like throwing in a bit of pig Latin, eh? Though I learned it when studying history.)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It is interesting to read the various numbers of people signing petitions but I'm holding pretty firm on the 90-95% "for" tallies. Looking down the road, or lift line, I would be generous and go with the 90% "for", just to be safe.
If there are 4.4 million people in the province then I'm thinking there are around 440,000 opposed, give or take. I'm sure that given enough time, M.H. will gather those signatures but strangely enough it will still only represent 10%.
I promise I'm not seining, or trolling, but what does one do with only ten percent?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Petitions, and FaceBook sites, and letters writing campaigns, are all part of the process. Same with allies, influential friends, and prominent supporters. As the Bear says, it's all politics. But when you add that to a flawed process that isn't even close to complying with government policy, and a proposal that seems half-baked, it gives the government more reason to do what's necessary. Their problem now may well be backing down, without losing too much face. (OK, the Liberals may not have a lot of face to lose, any more - BK is working on that.)
I suspect that for those residents of Squamish who are moderately informed of the proposal and process, most have concerns about either or both, but don't lean much one way or the other. Maybe 5 - 10% have strong views one way or the other. But 800+ signing to indicate that they're opposed, including 100 or more in Squamish, is rather more than the proponents can claim. Not that it's local to just Squamish.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Part of the decision-making process is public opinion, whether informed, uninformed, right, or wrong. And news media coverage - ditto.
In this case, the rule of law is also a real issue. Some seem to believe that the government can disregard its own laws and policies, just because it's convenient to do so. A lot of people have died since Magna Carta in 1215, in defence of the rule of law. It's a pillar of our democracy. As to who ultimately is responsible for a badly flawed process, it's the government. Maybe aided and abetted by others - who knows?
Whether there's one person objecting, or 50,000, the government has to play by its own rules (legislation, policy). It hasn't been. No real review or analysis of alternatives - although we hear that one of the proponent's drawings was of a route from the gravel pit, to the top of Shannon Falls, and then over to Goat Ridge (!). Kind of confirms what their real agenda is, eh? No independent review by B.C. Parks, of the merits and of whether the proposal meets the policy. No independent public meetings (Squamish, Vancouver, on the Chief, internet) to present information and analysis, and request opinion.
Maybe the issue now for the governments is how to salvage a botched process, and who gets the blame.
There's all sorts of non-compliance with the policy. Should I provide chapter and verse again?
Anyway, aren't you and HF too cheap to take a gondola? I mean, $30 is the gossiped about but undocumented price for the gondola. Let's say that in reality it's $40, plus another $10 for a bike, plus tax. I'll be generous, and assume that "locals" get $10 off - although I'm a local, too. Neither of you is going to pay $40, or $30, or even $20, for the ride, when you can drive part way up the back and ride for half an hour to get to it. Who would?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'll pay that if it translates into a six or seven hour bikeride, no problema, Emma. Then I just have to pedal back from Britannia to the gravel pit to retrieve my vehicle. I don't want to ride in from the logging road and I'm still not too sure about that half hour estimate.
Besides, a coffee and a scone for ten bucks at the top will be a great way to start the ride,Clyde.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Even @ $30 it doesn't sound like a very good deal when this is 35 min away & costs
$45.95 for a day pass, $38.95 for seniors & $21.95 for kids. A very competitive rate I would
say. WB can get away with running their world record breaking sightseeing operation at these costs because it is being piggybacked by $50 a day bike park passes which do not even use the same lifts.
BREAKING WORLD RECORDS.CONNECTING MOUNTAINS.
Spanning the distance between Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains, the new world record-breaking PEAK 2 PEAK Gondola is a breathtaking, 4.4-kilometre journey to infinite possibilities. Redefining the Whistler summer experience by creating limitless new ways to get up-close-and-personal with the mountains, this engineering marvel breaks three world records.
Longest unsupported span of 3.024 kilometres
Highest lift of its kind at 436 metres above the valley floor
Completes the longest continuous lift system on the globe
Your Sightseeing Ticket Includes:
A ride up the Whistler Village Gondola which is located at the base of Whistler Mountain in Whistler Village. From there you'll have access to the PEAK 2 PEAK Gondola which connects you between Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains. Your ticket includes unlimited crossings on the PEAK 2 PEAK Gondola for the day.
To re-iterate what I have already said, why would u want to compete with that. What stats & pitch could seatosky gondy possibly have that would make people think its a worthy stop en route to the holy grail of sightseeing packages??
Hey Bruce what's your take on the potential issue of taxpayers and/or parks dealing with a failed gondola? Seems like an area of this debate we haven't messed with too much but could very well be a reality at some point. Especially if we are just "lending" these guys the land. Seems as though it would be easy enough for them to just say "here's your land back, we don't want it anymore." thoughts??
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Neither of you is going to pay $40, or $30, or even $20, for the ride, when you can drive part way up the back and ride for half an hour to get to it. Who would?
Let me take a shot at that question:
First, the assumption underlying your idea is false. Driving up the back is not free. Riding the half hour isn't free.
Driving up the back has a cost. It requires a vehicle capable of dealing with a road not always in good shape, on top of which there is the gas ($$$ plus environmental impact) and the incremental maintenance costs. Driving up the back also has a time cost.
Likewise, riding from wherever the car has to be parked to the upper terminus has a time cost. Maybe your available time is endless, or not worth much, but that's not true for a lot of people.
And on top of both of those things, your car is way the f*#k up that road when the day is over for your friends who rode up on the gondola. If your plan is to ride from the upper terminus to, say, Britannia Beach, how are you going to get your car back?
Again, this isn't an argument for a gondala. That's a different subject. This is an argument against lame arguments.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The Habrich road is currently reported as driveable - two wheel drive - to where it has been blocked by boulders for the last 20 years, at about 700 m. (That's further/higher than for some time - see upthread for details, reported by others.) Probably about the same point at which it would be gated by the proponents - who would have to grade the road every spring, to move supplies and materials in and out. Most likely starting late this summer, that being when they want to start building. The road would be driveable, the only question being how far it would be to the gate.
So you'd have to drive say 5 km up a decently graded road, likely driveable for most vehicles owned by mountain bikers. Maybe 15 minutes, plus say $1.00/km for the theoretical cost of the vehicle that you already have so all you really have to pay is the running cost, which is more like $0.25/km, times two for the return trip. As opposed to say $30 or $40 for the gondola, plus waiting in line, plus maybe it doesn't run as early or late as you'd like plus...
Of course, maybe they'd gate it near the bottom, for "public safety" or "to protect the watershed" - that is, to have a captive market and protect their assets.
Not that it's only about economics.
Fish in a gondola I tell you, fish in a gondola.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Just running low on ammo., that's all.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So, you guys ever go to any of the proponent's infomercials? Did they make a to do about how their Squamish roots, and how they plan to run the gondola until they retire, and turn it over to their children? Just curious.
(BTW, several FOSC committee members did go to infomercials, and talk with the proponents then and at other times.)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm not sure if I'm cheap or not. I'll have to ask my beautiful wife; just a minute.
No, not cheap. Phew
I know I've stated this tid-bit before, but let's not forget it's $200/head to bike Goat Ridge via the A-star.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bruce, what do you have against holding the BC government responsible for following the process clearly stated in its policy and regulations. If that had been done, all of the questions seen here, supportive, neutral, or against, along with many other questions none of us knuckle dragging climbers have even mentioned would have been addressed. A good process doesn't depend on the good will driven transparency of the developer (notably absent in this deal) but examines the questions publicly in an impartial setting and delivers answers. As BC surges in population there will be a greater and greater need for transparent public vetting of all sorts of projects. The blueprints for such a process exists but they appear to be covered in dust somewhere in Victoria and the local government halls.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bruce, what you consider a red herring may be considered a legitimate issue to others...
... public process sorts these out without resorting to courts in the early stages of a deal like this gondola proposal.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
I think it's safe to say that if more information was provided by the developers as to their actual plans & the responsibilities they are willing to accept for using public land(regardless of how much or where it is) & the process was done by the book, in a just, legal fashion(we should all be able to agree at this point that there is an obvious discrepancy here) through BC parks & the appropriate Govt sectors then we wouldn't All be stuck here measuring our ideals & reasonings which are largely figments of our own imaginations.
Bruce- how do you know that there is no environmental impacts? Have you done a scientific assessment? Have you seen one? Pretty sure that's a "no".
Hamish- can you really believe that 90% of Squamish is for a gondola based on the people you have spoken with? No, this is a figure you have created and supplied us with.
Anders- Do you know for certain that there will be issues with the proposed development encroaching on endangered species habitat? No, this is speculation.
Me- do I know for certain this development will tank? I'd like to say yes, but really this is only what I've been able to convince myself based on the information I have access to which is this thread, the media, & the developers site. None of which I would consider to be 100% reliable.
These are just a few examples of many speculations that we have made that we are now reffering to as "facts" and even making calculations on them! As far as any of us know we could all be right but without more info or proof we really don't know sh1t except for our own opinions & the ones of others that we may happen to agree with here on the toprope.
I'm not trying to call anyone out but just trying to prove a point that we are all ill-informed & that we all have made serious speculations based on the lack of information available.
What I'm getting at is that we shouldn't be opposing each other based on all of the misinformation & speculation that has been given to us & that we have created. We should be actively researching & trying to find legitimate information and comparisons to similar issues, rather than basing our information on opinions. This is a major reason that I am not down for the current proposal at the current location- not enough info!! I really do agree with some ideas from those that are for a gondola & there are some really good arguments. Flip side though this is a major issue & a lot of suspect info & processes that have been implemented really make me question the whole thing. I like the "where's the beef" analogy & do think it goes both ways. Sadly all we've gotten to chew on is potatoes.
Edit- much respect to all those I mentioned here as well as the many others that have posted.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Ryan, I wouldn't print anything unless I believed it to be true. My 90% might be closer than you think. Don't forget most people that live in Squamish have never even hiked the Chief. Also of huge importance is the fact that you're not asking anyone to cough up; it's not like their property taxes will rise due to a gondola. And lastly, I believe Anders's numbers back this up. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he at a measily 100 plus Squamites "against"? If my 90% is close, this means there are 900 people "for" to date. You decide if that number sounds realistic or not.
I don't mind if you'd like to crunch the numbers a different way. How about this: 2 months, 120 negatives. Hmmmmm., that's 2/day. Do you think we could find 20 people per day from the yes camp?
And then there's the wording of just what exactly these votes are pertaining to. Many of the no votes may be simply arguing for a better process, not necessarily arguing against the gondola.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Doesn't matter if it "sounds" realistic, that's my point. All of our figures & ideas sound realistic, but it does not make them legitimate.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Go out on a limb Ryan, talk to people about it. Do your own survey, that's what I did. See what numbers you come up with. And don't limit it to your friends, ask everyone.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Hey Hamish, I agree that it is great to be discussing this & I have done so with many. Some are for, some are not. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and reasons as to why & I have no issue with either side. My issue though is that opinions & information are 2 very different things. We are buried in opinions but have very little information that is not based on said opinions. Very little of what we could call facts, proof, or beef. This is not our fault either, Bruce's bone to pick with the media is very legitimate. Anders issues with the parks & the developers way of distributing information is also questionable I'd say. That is of course, just my opinion :-)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I don't remember anything about endangered species, apart maybe from a joke about the rare gondola frog in Olesen Creek. Michael Feller, Ph.D., a well known forestry professor from UBC, is on the record as stating that the biogeoclimatic zone that the proposed gondola route falls within is currently underrepresented in the provincial parks and protected areas system, under BC Parks' own targets.
Heli-mountain-biking? Ha ha, nice try. Next you'll be trying to convince me that people ride their bicycles downhill, but can't be bothered to ride uphill.
As for what Ryan and Hamish have been discussing - yes, in addition to the other issues, there has been a lack of transparency, of independent review, and of independent opportunities for all the concerned public to state their views. Petitions by FOSC only partly fill that gap, but at least allow many to express their views who hadn't otherwise been able to. They're arguably less subjective than the proponent's infomercials, though. And notwithstanding Hamish's comments, we have signatures, and he doesn't.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I actually quite enjoy riding my bike uphill. The reason I mentioned the heli-bikers riding Goat Ridge @ $200/head is simply to reiterate the fact that lots of riders would gladly pay $30/head for a ride which would be very comparable. Sorry, I thought I was being pretty obvious with my first explanation; I'll try to keep it a little clearer in the future.
My apologies for not gathering any signatures; I wasn't aware this was my Baby. Oh right, it isn't.
Oh Man Anders, I'm out there ten hours a day... you want me to work too?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Those are council votes, not petition signatures- hardly a comparison. Once again bearbreeder, you miss the point entirely.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Petitions etc don't usually 'prove' much, and often don't do much more than provide a basis from which to argue that the government should reconsider a flawed decision/process, including a more objective assessment of public opinion.
FOSC members who attended the infomercials reported that the same 40 - 50 people were at many of them, the usual suspects who also showed up in Britannia on April 19th. The proponent's homies, all on a first name basis with them, all well prepared. SOP, but kind of transparent.
472 on-line, 129 FaceBook, about 240 signatures on paper, so that's up ten or fifteen since yesterday. OK considering it's a weekend, and that a bunch of signatures were collected yesterday and today that aren't reported yet.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Homies. Transparent this, transparent that. The Usual Suspects was a great movie. I've got to go to bed.
Kaiser-Solzei.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
The proponent's homies, all on a first name basis with them, all well prepared. SOP, but kind of transparent.
And what do you think they say about you and your crowd? Exactly the same stupid thing. "Yeah, there were the usual forty or fifty granola-heads that all know each other, all well prepared. SOP, but kind of transparent."
Anders, I've seen you attack the Republitards and the religious folk for going about things exactly the way you're going about things here. Think about it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
David, I have it on reliable authority that the pro-gondola people met immediately before the meeting in Britannia on April 19th, and prepared for it. Our source didn't reveal the extent to which that meeting was arranged and run by the proponents, but they were present.
Most of the FOSC committee had never met in person before April 19th, and only did so outside the meeting. We're getting better organized, have supporters, and communicate with them, so maybe if there is another public meeting, we'll see if we can interest any of them in meeting beforehand to prepare. There's probably very little you don't know about FOSC and its doings. A classic asymmetry, whereby the proponents are much more able to manage their message than critics, if nothing else due to having greater resources. Which is why the government ought to be objectively scrutinizing the actual plans and running an objective process.
All attempts to manipulate public opinion should be exposed. An example being the modern trend of developers, and their publicists/shills, trying to greenwash what they're doing.
Perhaps you should turn your critical faculties to the proposal, for a change, and examine it. Sure, we have only each other to talk with - no one else, particularly the proponents, seems to want to play. But let's keep it polite, eh?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I don't know, Bruce. The last time I used the outhouse at the Apron, each square of the toilet paper had on it "Sign here if you support the proposed gondola". Something like that, anyway. The paper in the outhouse at the campground was for those opposed to the gondola, or the process, or both. An economy measure, perhaps.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
By the way, M.H., now that you've brought your brother in on the debate, how about printing his two cents as he's hiked that thing more than everyone on here put together, times ten.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
He can speak for himself, if he wants. He's posted here before.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
We'll take that as a "for".
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The announcement of a GM with his level of experience indicates to me that there is more to the gondola project than simply building a seasonal tourist attraction. This is way too risky a business venture as it is currently described for experienced ski area developers to set out on without a larger project in the wings...
... these are my hunches. Any development beyond the current publicly announced plan will be with the blessing of the managers of Crown Lands.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Well let me say this is the BEST news we've had yet. Jason will do an excellent job.
Fixing myself a bowl of Special Kay to celebrate.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Geeze Anders, give him a chance already.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Nice link Anders, that's just another great example of the media bring the true, hard, unbiased facts to the people. How convenient.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Please explain how 80 full-time jobs are supported by a seasonal tourist gondola?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There are lots of unchallenged assumptions and promises in the proposal. If it was to go ahead, get all the promises in writing, with solid performance bonds that the governments are prepared to require the proponent to comply with.
As of today:
e-petition: 472 http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/ (Internal duplicates removed)
FaceBook: 131: http://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheSquamishChief
Paper: 275 (still tallying, and not all in)
Given that some of the FaceBook signers overlap with the e-petition, getting toward 850 total. Not including groups that have indicated support.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Please explain how 80 full-time jobs are supported by a seasonal tourist gondola?
The article written by the GM contradicts everything on the FAQ page so not sure any more...is it seasonal or is it open all year long?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Jim, you're better than you think. The name of that stellar bike ride which starts on Goat Ridge is Disneyland.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
See you on the lift and don't forget your bike.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Hoser, the article doesn't really say anything new, apart from Faulkner's appointment. It essentially reprints a press release from the proponents, and perhaps was done so as to maintain an appearance of momentum.
Now, the proponents are tying up loose ends, which include a management agreement with B.C. Parks.
The key line - the proponent knows that the park use permit/management agreement is much more than a "loose end", and also that the entire process is under review at a senior level with the province.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Oh this is awesome news, this is going to bring so much business & traffic into downtown Squamish! It will create jobs for generations to come & provide a sustainable industry for Squamish to grow around! I can't wait to go biking & snowboarding up there, it sure is going to be great to catch the gondola down after climbing Habrich! It's going to be great to have that road open to the public again too! Phew, what a relief, for a minute I thought that this protected land was actually going to be protected! That sure would have sucked. Now people will come from all over the world just to ride the sea to sky gondola & Squamish will finally get the recognition it deserves. Oh praise Jesus our prayers have been answered.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Well you cant bring any of those on the Gondola....but maybe this is Ski Capilano's second chance :)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Yeah - sign the darn petition, already.
|
|
new world order-
climber
|
|
Anders, shouldn't you be watching (quite possibly) the last hockey game of the season?
See you at the ribbon cutting ceremony.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Even I know that hockey games start with a face-off, not a ribbon cutting.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Well said.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
George Bush was a mountain biker, it doesn't mean he made good decisions...
... Mr. Faulkner, with ties to the climbing and conservation communities is well placed to reduce opposition from those communities. Personal relationships should not get in the way of a transparent delivery of development plans. He is being paid to move this project forward, not represent the interests of climbing and conservation.
Until the developers want to clearly share with the public the long tern plans for it, questions will be asked.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm not too sure he would be satisfied with anyone.
There will always be a small percentage of the population that is hard to please.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Hopefully the new guy does a better job answering questions than the other buddies. I emailed them over a month ago & haven't heard a peep back, based on my experience I would say that they are not even worth talking to if they are incapable of responding to questions that may cause them to think about their position & plans for "our" park. Regardless if the new guy climbs or bikes or whatever, he is being hired to do a job & we can only speculate as to what his job description entails. If he wants to keep his job, he will do whatever that may be. I think Todd brings a great point, I think he actually brings many great points.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
If he wants to keep his job, he'll do whatever he asked to do? Ryan, with all due respect, you are describing most people at their jobs.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Sorry, I was stating the obvious. So did he write that article in the squeamish queef or did someone write it for him?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
^^^^^^
Haha awesome reef lol! Despite all the debate & whatnot this thread is still cracking me up!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, you could as easily say it's time for the proponent to move out of an adversarial role - after all, they're the ones who want to take land from a well-established, heavily-used park, based on a severely flawed process that hasn't come close to complying with the government's own policy. They're the ones who want to disrupt the status quo. They're the ones that haven't thoroughly examined alternative locations. They claim that the process has been open and inclusive, which it hasn't. And so on. And they know their problems, now.
The press release in the Squamish Chief was clearly not much edited. It does get Faulkner's relationship with the proponent out in the open. (When did it start? He didn't say anything about it in Britannia on April 19th, where he strongly supported the proposal and process. Or in his letter to the Vancouver Sun, published last week - the one where he claimed that the gondola wouldn't run through Stawamus Chief Provincial Park.)
But for a really funny one, see http://www.ropeways.net/rn/index.php?i=0&j=1&news=3056 (Sent by Todd E.) Maybe the Doppelmayr lift company is behind in the proposal? (A Swiss gondola manufacturer was apparently behind the 2004 proposal.) We heard that the proponent attempted to sell the project to three large tourism operators (names removed), without success. Perhaps they thought it too risky an investment.
All fit subjects for a thorough, independent, transparent examination of the proposal. Maybe at the end of it, all questions would be answered, it would have solid support from all concerned communities, and it would go ahead. But let's ask the questions and get the answers, first.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So you're unskeptical when it comes to what the proponent says, but the opposite with me? I don't get it. Being critical is fine, but try to be consistent.
But maybe Barnum was right, even when it comes to climbers.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, perhaps we should get together and chat privately this weekend, in Squamish - I'm the token Vancouverite. I need to be there Saturday or Sunday, for FOSC business. We could have coffee, and discuss things more effectively than here, including some things that shouldn't be on-line. But you have to promise not to beat me up.
Plus I could deliver your button.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
No, it will be a private chat - we may talk about some things that need not be public. But Hamish can come too, if he wants.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Ok bearbreeder,
here's a few comments from the article you linked(which is from mid march btw-old news) from ppl who support the plan, as you can tell the misinformed are not only those opposed:
Go for it...I'm too old and fat to climb, but I pay tax dollars to maintain it. Allow all who pay for it to use it. Good for the local economy as well.
The climbers can climb. The non-climber can ride. The locals get jobs. win-win-win.
See you at the top!
^^ this guy thinks taxpayers are building the gondola!
Good Idea.
Here's why
1) There will be controlled access to the summit.
2) The natural habitat of the summit area will be thr responsibility of the operators
3) Access to a ridge bike trail.
4) Good for the local economy.
5) Provides good argument for the Brohm Ridge Resort proposal.
6) A lovely restaurant will no doubt be at the summit. (Long overdue).
^^^Summit?? What summit, does he think it's going to the summit of Habrich? Or the Chief itself? Either way he is clueless on many counts.
Typical attitude in BC
If we don't build it, they won't come.
Then later when they are all here anyway, we will have a bigger more private company come along and buy the whole thing because it wasn't managed correctly and we will pay more.
Gotta love that mindset that people are not going to move here if we do nothing.'
How's that working for us so far? Crappy and there is no money for parks, well you can't have it both ways.
Stop the exclusionary thinking and invite some people to enjoy more! And let it pay for more than just it'self.
^^^ So the current proposal is not private according to this guy. As well he makes zero sense.
I really think this is a good idea as long as they will have to help pay for the park in order to get their gondola and keep it there.
Access for everyone healthy enough to hike or bike down a mountain too. Not just up. That's got to add another 20% of the pop, just guessing.
And it's not that bad for the environment because most of the people who will use this gondola are usually very good at respecting parks and their importance.
I don't believe it will overly bisect the park and the animals don't care, in Alberta for instance that's where you will get a good photo op of big horn sheep.
Thumbs up!
^^^^ ummmmmmmmm, is this your comment bearbreeder??
Fantastic! My tourism business is in desperate need of more kid-friendly "outdoorsy" attractions. I can virtually guarantee them 300-400 annual visitors if a group rate price is in the $20 range.
Folks, this is a tiny fraction of the park. The more we are able to exploit tiny fractions of our parks, the more resources we are able to devote to protecting the rest of the park - or setting aside more land as parkland.
There is a reason that the richest countries in the world have the most, and best protected parks in the world.
^^^ i think this man must be a professor of logic at some prestigious university.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
I looked on the blog and it doesnt say a thing about the chief, so I guess that leaves you as the industry shill.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
People can, and will, believe whatever they want. Such is life. There are even people who believe that the proposal, if it went ahead, would be entirely positive for everyone, would have no negative impacts, and that everything that the proponent has said should be believed. Public debate in a democracy isn't always a precise thing.
FOSC has always been clear in its communications that the gondola wouldn't go to the top of the Chief, but that it would go through and significantly impact the park, and that treating the Chief and Shannon Falls as a continguous unit, that it would go through the middle of the parks. We've even included a link to the proponent's website, for those interested, although as always what is said and shown there may not correspond with reality.
As Greg says, there are real issues around the proposal and the process - let's talk about them.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
All part of the same picture, Bruce. Harper and his allies don't want a critical look at their various initiatives, just as some seem not to want a critical look at the gondola proposal. Harper is perhaps driven by ideology, but at least has been public about his clumsy attempts to change the various laws and processes which are used to review such proposals. Whatever the motives of the BC government, it hasn't been so forthright, and instead has largely disregarded its own policy.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
Hey thanks for posting that up here Bruce, some things that we should all be aware of. Terrifying as well. God bless you :-)
GF, thanks for putting us back on track.
|
|
georox
Sport climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
Hi, I'm new here, have gym climbed and took a climbing course in Squamish. Not a lot of background, but I'd like to get back to it and do more. Anyways hearing of the gondola, I have a question.
The access society is neutral on the basis that this will not hinder access to any climbing, but is there any more to this? Is there any possibility the gondola could still interfere with climbing, even though it does not block access to it?
People point out that it does not go up the Chief so should not affect it, however, once up top people can walk along the proposed gravel road which connects with trails up to the Chief. Although there is some walking, it will become the easiest way to get up the Chief by far. If they do get the hoped for 300,000 people, that is 820 per day. If say one quarter or 205 walk over to the summit of the Chief, that would result in about 30 to 40 additional visitors on the Chief at any one time during some times of the day? So even though it does not go on the Chief, it will about double the number of visitors on the Chief. This may not be much different and therefore of no concern, but have there been any incidents where kids have thrown say rocks, apples, or whatever off the cliff while climbers are below, or in any way have visitors made climbing difficult?? I don't know, but I don't think so?
So although I personally think the gondola does not make sense to me, and I am not supportive of it myself, at the same time I find it difficult to feel strongly against it. I like the idea that many people would like the gondola, even though it is sad that so many people would never go up any mountain without a gondola.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Although there is some walking, it will become the easiest way to get up the Chief by far.
Uh... No, it won't
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It most definitely won't.
|
|
georox
Sport climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
Maybe it would not become the easiest way up, but an access road will be built down to connect with the existing road. I am not sure how close this would come to the northeast side of the Chief, but that would be about 400 m elevation, making it attractive to start from. So if people drive up part way then walk to the Chief a new trail would soon be developed through to the summit, or they would connect to an existing one. The map on the gondola site does not show the road very far, so maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe they could be asked to route the road far enough away that this is not an attractive option, however, there likely are not many differing routes for a road.
Comparing it with the Whistler peak to peak gondola summer price, which is $46 plus tax, or $75 for a pass. That may be about what the cost would be. Sounds to me like the talk of $30, was just to help sell the idea, not to be taken seriously. The other gondolas were built primarily for skiing, but in this case the primary use would be for summer access, so it may be likely that any passes would be at a higher price.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 09:45pm PT
|
For those who hike the Chief trail, have you noticed the BC Parks yellow plaque by Olesen Creek that says "No access. Drinking water source" or something to that effect? If we're meant to take this seriously, we have to consider the impact of anything that will be leaching into Olesen Creek through the ground waters from the top of Habrich mountain, during construction and long after. This is partly what makes the area unique: the close proximity of two creeks, one of which is apparently a drinking water source. A location further south would not have the same sensitivity, if a gondola absolutely must be built (others have addressed this latter point already so I won't, tempting as it is).
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:04pm PT
|
When did Oleson Creek become a "drinking water source"?
|
|
thekidcormier
Gym climber
squamish, b.c.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:09pm PT
|
The sign was erected last summer...
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:26pm PT
|
The park uses water from the creek. I believe that little tap by the ranger hut spews Oelsen creek water. Whether ppl drink it or not is debatable. I'm sure the gondola could not possibly affect it, because we have been told the gondola will do no environmental damage. That is why there is no need for a current independent environment assessment. Or at least one that the details could be made available to the public.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:29pm PT
|
Olesen Creek has been the water source for the campground ever since before it officially became a campground, in 1996. The intake is a few hundred m up the trail. Hence the signage and fencing, to keep people (and dogs!) out of the water there.
The proposed upper terminal is quite a distance from that point; still, perhaps there should be concerns with regard to water supply, sewage disposal, percolation, and so on.
It may be possible to build a trail down from the proposed upper terminal, connecting into the backside trails at about the halfway point. It would take some effort, and there is a quite bluffy section, and it's not like there's any need for more use on the backside trails. (A trail up to the Chief/Slhanay saddle, then linking around behind, seems a much more plausible idea.) I wouldn't hold my breath on the proponents actually building it - there certaily aren't any binding promises, apart from little trails at the bottom and top stations. An entirely new trail, well south of Shannon Falls, seems a more feasible option, and would spread out users - highlighting again the viability of a Goat Ridge location.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 03:51pm PT
|
That water does go to the Ranger cabin and the campground but also passes through an expensive water filter, or series of filters. Given the number of dogs and hikers in the peak season, I'd be a little hesitant on drinking it, even though I'm sure Parks has it tested from time to time. Scary.
It might be a good idea for Parks to run more pipe and grab the water from higher up the creek, once the trail has veered away somewhat.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 03:58pm PT
|
It's not the number of dogs that makes it scary, it's the number of people crapping in the bush.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 05:08pm PT
|
Thanks for the detailed information. That's what was looking for. I wasn't even aware of formulated arguments against the gondola based on threat to water quality. But if they exist, I don't see how they fail to be relevant.
Out of interest I mentioned the proposed cost of the gondola ticket to my boyfriend, and he rolled his eyes and laughed. It might make sense if people can buy seasonal tickets, but that excludes the entire population of tourists who only visit once and have the competitive choices of Grouse or Whistler. To me this gondola looks like a venture attractive to *local* hikers and mountain bikers, which is fine as long as it generates enough business to keep it from becoming an abandoned rusting eyesore. I very much doubt it's about giving seniors and disabled people access to the top of the mountain. How many of them have been longing to do this? What are they going to do once they're up there - freeze their butts off for a few minutes before they ride down again? Or, take shelter in a cafe? And that's another can of worms.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 05:29pm PT
|
In response to bearbreeder:
Yes, I'd be concerned about people and dogs doing their business close to Olesen Creek, but at the foot of the Chief trail there are sections that simply can't avoid flanking the creek (there's a wall of rock on the other side). One of these sections is the one with the BC Parks sign. Fortunately, further upstream the trail veers away from the creek so the problem solves itself.
Mighty Hiker:
I agree. If there isn't a well-developed network of trails waiting for hikers and bikers at the top of Habrich, I don't see how the gondola is attractive even to them. It's just a dead-end stop at a mediocre elevation compared to Whistler, and a non-existent infrastructure compared to Grouse.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 05:52pm PT
|
Oh Boy. Where's my cereal bowl.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 06:02pm PT
|
We're now up to 858 confirmed signatures, not including those from today. That combines those from the e-petition, FaceBook, and paper petitions, with duplicates weeded out. A good effort, considering we've had only a month or so.
E-petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/squamishchief/
FOSC FaceBook page: http://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheSquamishChief
106 identify themselves as living in Squamish and area, about 15% of those who provide a location. Many of the signers are climbers and hikers, which further underscores the failure to inform existing users of the proposal, and seek their input.
The petitions to date, including the summary, will be sent to the Minister tomorrow, and there'll be a meeting next week. Notwithstanding the press release printed in the Squamish paper last week, there is no park use permit, and that is a key step in the process.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 06:28pm PT
|
ya it just magically goes into a non existant sewer pipe and it goes away...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
|
The District's website says that there were 12,077 eligible voters in the November 2011 election. 4,663 actually voted, or 38.6%.
The winning candidate for mayor got 2,283 votes, the other viable candidate 2,104.
106 votes is therefore of some significance.
http://www.squamish.ca/downloads/election-results
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 07:16pm PT
|
How, exactly? Two and a half months and you're at slightly over 100? Think how many anti-smart-meter votes could've been had in that ten weeks.
I'd be willing to bet there will always be at least 1% of the registered voters who don't agree, regardless of the topic de jour. Actually I might peg it much higher. Imagine if 99% of the voters thought the same way; sorry, wrong planet.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 07:27pm PT
|
106 out of 4,663 voters is about 2.3%, which in most democracies is significant.
The difference between the first and second place mayoral candidates wasn't much more than 100. By the next election in 2014, the voters may be looking for someone to blame for the gondola disaster/boondoggle, even a supposedly pro-development council. It could certainly be a factor.
As for numbers - nearly 1,000 after not much more than a month of active petitioning is respectable. There are also supporting organizations, which have written or are expressing their concerns in other ways. Some are of considerably greater stature than FOSC, and have grave concerns with regard to the process. The number of signers simply indicates that there is public interest in the issue.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 07:31pm PT
|
O.K., fair enough. Just a little hard to stomach 0.8% as substantial. I'm sticking with my 90/10 for/against so you've still got some autographs coming your way.
Nice work Anders.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2012 - 08:03pm PT
|
I just want to remind people that it's a provincial park we are dealing with here, not a regional district or municipal park. As such, the issue concerns all B.C. residents, not just those in Squamish.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 10:07am PT
|
M.H., you can't put the 106 over 4663 without confirming all of your 106 voted last time around. What happens with one number has to happen with the other. I think that's grade 8 math.
I'm sorry for being so picky. :)
I still believe the highest percentage of opposed would reside in the Squamish area. I can't see Prince George residents getting too upset about a private tram venture down in the lower mainland.
Anders's numbers possibly back this up as his support increases by a factor of only about ten as he slides down the hwy from Squish to Van., yet the Big Smoke houses approx. 100 times the population of Squampton.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 10:55am PT
|
Glenns' point, which I agree with, is as we know, "should land be removed from a class A Provincial Park?"
True, but in this case the Provincial Park happens to be effectively in a small city. Does this alter the idea of all in the province having an equal voice? I don't know, but perhaps the answer to the question "Should land be removed from a class A Provincial Park?" might not necessarily always be "No!"
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 11:45am PT
|
rue, but in this case the Provincial Park happens to be effectively in a small city. Does this alter the idea of all in the province having an equal voice? I don't know, but perhaps the answer to the question "Should land be removed from a class A Provincial Park?" might not necessarily always be "No!"
Of course it might not always be "No." MH never said otherwise, but his is asking that Parks follow the established, due process, to make sure that land-removal is done carefully. It should be harder to get land out of the park than into a park. It shouldn't be a popularity contest: who can sign up the most "voters."
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 12:54pm PT
|
Of course it might not always be "No." MH never said otherwise, but his is asking that Parks follow the established, due process, to make sure that land-removal is done carefully. It should be harder to get land out of the park than into a park. It shouldn't be a popularity contest: who can sign up the most "voters."
I certainly agree with the "it should be harder to get land out of a park than into a park" part. And I've said several times in this thread that I think any land that is removed should be counterbalanced by land added elsewhere.
Also agree that it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a decision made by rational minds with the best interest of the citizens of the province as its basic guideline. Unfortunately, we're dealing with humans, all of whom have personal agendas, so the theoretical best process isn't likely to happen. And I don't have any answer for what the best way to handle it is. As you say, signing up "voters" (as Anders is doing) turns it into a sort of popularity contest, but what is the alternative?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 01:07pm PT
|
As I've said several times upthread - if anyone was listening - a petition doesn't decide anything, and is only one factor in these situations. It never hurts in a democracy to demonstrate that there is support for your views, but except for elections and referendums, isn't usually decisive. It simply indicates that there is public concern about an issue. Just as letters and e-mails do, and letters and support from other groups.
In this case, the process is badly flawed - according to the govermemnt's own policy, that is to say the law. (The merits and demerits of the proposal really haven't been examined, and can't be without a proper public process.) So there's a solid case, with respectable public support. The government must now decide what to do.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 02:11pm PT
|
With the land removal, a precedent is set. What is then to keep other proposals from removing land from other BC Class A Parks with a similar lack of process that this gondola project is apparently doing?
Yes, the Chief is safe for now, but exactly what degree of protection will it receive in a future altered by the precedent currently being set within BC's administrative and legislative branches?
While some may oppose the gondola for resource impacts or a violation of nature, my issue with this project is with the ability of a small group of investors being able to avoid a clear and open public process that gives the public an opportunity to comment and perhaps shape the outcome of the project.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 02:51pm PT
|
As I've said several times upthread - if anyone was listening - a petition doesn't decide anything, and is only one factor in these situations.
I wasn't dissing your petition idea. Far from it. Absent a perfect decision-making process, I think it is important to get some idea of what people think, and a petition is one way -- albeit a far from precise one -- to do that.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 03:22pm PT
|
I've signed many petitions, including the anti-gondola one.
Petitions, letters, demonstrations, voting, and the like are small ways of making one's wishes known. Collectively, they sometimes work. What else is there to do if one doesn't like a particular direction a government is going?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 05:11pm PT
|
Someone had their Special Kay this morning.
And quite possibly an extra latte.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012 - 09:04pm PT
|
Haha gf brings the funniest post in ages to this thread. Top notch.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 01:14am PT
|
He completely forgot to mention the banana slug flinging contest. Bound to be a big draw. Anything for a shekel, those people.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 12:06pm PT
|
Just so we have it straight:
We don't want a gondola because it won't make money and it'll rust away on the hillside.
We don't want a gondola because it will make money and noone should be able to profit within a class A Park; well, except climbing guides.
We believe it's not a Squamish topic but one for all residents of B.C. and everyone in the Province should have an equal voice.
We've seen the numbers and they aren't very substantial at all, so we'd like to throw away the voting process.
Hmmmmm.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 12:18pm PT
|
Hamish, you forgot the most important reason of all:
"Because the bible says so!"
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
|
Oh ya., leasing an easement through the Park. Yes, that is a bummer; I think we all agree on that. But perhaps we will all benefit in the long run if the development works out and we gain another Park up top, the Shannon Basin Park, as I mentioned in post 202, Apr.03.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 01:21pm PT
|
HF, you've forgotten that:
a) FOSC has been quite clear that it doesn't oppose a gondola on Goat Ridge, which if anything appears to be a superior location. We've never said we're opposed to a gondola, period.
b) The government as well as citizens is obliged to comply with the law, and it hasn't. That law requires an open process, independent review, thorough consideration of alternatives, and publishing information about the process and documents on BC Parks' website.
Remember that the rule of law is a cornerstone of every liberal democracy. The government has to play by the rules, too.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 02:37pm PT
|
I haven't forgotten anything. I'd much rather see the gondola to the west of town, so as to force the tourists toward downtown. You may have a nicer spot in mind a few klicks to the south but are you going to raise the difference in construction costs?
As far as a see-through, translucent, transparent, public process goes, I don't see the developers have failed in that area. Sure, they haven't installed a kiosk halfway up the Chief trail with a complaint box but they were at this, in a public manner, eight months before you decided to get involved.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 02:52pm PT
|
The developers presented their plans locally in Squamish and Britannia Beach, but with both BC Crown Land and BC Parks also players in the project, a more extensive public process might be warranted.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 02:55pm PT
|
And this would affect the outcome in which way exactly?
I suppose they could've presented their proposal in Pemberton and Port Moody, or Whistler and West Vancouver, or Port McNiel and Quesnel. Where do you draw the line? Terrace?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 02:59pm PT
|
Consulting with existing users of one of the most heavily-used provincial parks, just for starters. Why wouldn't BC Parks have a booth at the base for several weekends, presenting objective information about the proposal (in context of the requirements of the policy), and requesting comments? Better still, at the first summit, from which hikers and climbers can see what's proposed?
Sorry, a local, fragmented, captive process only embarrasses the government and Squamish. If they think the proposal is so great, be truly public about it.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:14pm PT
|
As far as a see-through, translucent, transparent, public process goes, I don't see the developers have failed in that area. Sure, they haven't installed a kiosk halfway up the Chief trail with a complaint box but they were at this, in a public manner, eight months before you decided to get involved.
The developers are free to present whatever proposals they want, when they want, and where they want. I have no real problems with the developers. The point is that the law requires that PARKS have an open, transparent process, and they've failed miserably to do so.
I've requested the environmental impact statement prepared by the developers from both the developers and parks. The developers haven't answered me (their choice, fair enough) and Parks hasn't supplied it, either.
So, Hamish, how can I make an unbiased decision as to what impact the thing will have on the park without this data? Or do you feel that I have no right to the data? Or do you feel that I should just trust parks and proposers to do the right thing?
Glenn
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:15pm PT
|
Fast forward to your little shelter up on the south summit staffed with someone to point out where you'd see the gondola travelling. Sure, there will be x amount of people that can't stand the thought of a gondola being in their viewscape, even though they're looking down on the local autobahn. But aside from that overly-pickey group, what is really going to be solved? The colour of the gondola cars? I believe Tami offerred to paint all sorts of rats and various other wildlife scenes on the outsides of the gondola cars. It'll be the Wild Kingdom in motion.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:20pm PT
|
Will there be banana slugs painted on the trams? Maybe some old growth devil's club?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:31pm PT
|
O.k. Glenn, fair enough. But why exactly do you need to make a decision regarding the impact to the Park? Yesterday you were saying it's not a popularity contest and it shouldn't be a matter of who votes which way.
I'm not sure about the legalities of Parks handing out environmental impact reports to every Joe Public that asks for one but it wouldn't surprise me if it's like so many avenues of the Gov't.... complicated. These Parks guys have a lot of work to do, and a lot of coffee to drink. Then there's making the coffee, that takes time...
Anders,I'm sure Tami will paint most anything you fancy on there, as long as she gets to submit an invoice.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
|
The government's policy requires that the environmental impact statement be posted to the B.C. Parks' website. At least as of yesterday, it hadn't been. Although the statement relates only to the strip of land that would be taken from the Park, and impacts on it - there's no overall assessment of the impacts on the Park and area, as you'd expect.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 03:51pm PT
|
Obviously a rainy day on the coast.
Let's see, environmental impact on a strip of sidehill brought on by a gondola. We better get a study on that. Well we'll have quite a few stumps, some grease drippings around the tower bases, some pads made from re-bar and concrete, and there must be more, I'm sure. As the gondola cabins won't come with built in bathrooms, I can't see any sewage related impacts. Best do a study.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 05:21pm PT
|
Sounds like someone is missing their special Kay.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 05:41pm PT
|
Agreed; it's like his laptop short circuited. That or he's off climbing.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 06:42pm PT
|
So if its jobs for the locals, would you be paying me to be going to this brothel then ? Otherwise I dont get it, would it be some form of punishment?
Kinda works with the current gondola plan though, you know a crappy idea based on how things work in high priced cities.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 06:46pm PT
|
Ouchy.
Wasn't it Bruce MacDonald that wanted to put your brothel up at the top of the gondola? You two need to collaborate on a location.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 06:57pm PT
|
Wasn't it Bruce MacDonald that wanted to put your brothel up at the top of the gondola? You two need to collaborate on a location.
Now you're getting somewhere, feasibility-wise. But how will you reconcile this with the delicate sensibilities of small children, old people, disabled people, overweight people, less-than-toned people, etc. etc.? After all, this is the demographic to which the nice man in charge is supposed to be pitching.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:05pm PT
|
Besides the children I think you just illustrated a typical brothel clientele
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:12pm PT
|
And because children are the business's future clientele, each child who rides the gondola will be given a free copy of the famous Dr. Seuss book "Horton Hires a Ho."
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:18pm PT
|
You may have a nicer spot in mind a few klicks to the south but are you going to raise the difference in construction costs?
When did it become the public's responsibility to provide a safety net for a private investor's pipe dream? Oh wait, we have a nice precedent - we did have a bank bailout. The worst of capitalism blended with the worst of socialism :-)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:22pm PT
|
Now that's funny. (the Dr. Seuss bit)
I suppose G.F.'s brothel would take care of all those foul weather days up there. Bussiness would still boom even when the weather gets nasty.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:23pm PT
|
"Privatized profits, socialized losses". Sound familiar?
And it's public land that's being talked about, and not just any public land - as a park it's impressed with something of a trust.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:23pm PT
|
The chief summit brothel will be part of phase 2, since it was so easy to take a bit of land out of the park & set a precadent it should be no problem to build a second lift from the top terminal & approach the chief from the back. It will require less land removed than the first easement & will still render the useless TLC covenant well, useless. I have some small news, I actually received an email- not from the developers though.
Thank you for your email of March 30, 2012, regarding the Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation’s application to adjust the boundary of Stawamus Chief Park. As Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for BC Parks, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond and apologize for the delay in doing so.
In February, the proponent submitted a Stage 2 boundary adjustment application, which has been reviewed by BC Parks. This application is for the purpose of constructing and operating a gondola through the park, consisting of a 20-metre right-of-way approximately 1.2 kilometres in length to accommodate the gondola alignment.
The application submitted by the proponent is consistent with BC Parks’ policy regarding park boundary adjustment applications, which can be found at the following website: www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html. This includes an investigation of alternatives to avoid the protected area, clear rationale for the location proposed, documented socio-economic benefits to the province, consultation with First Nations, local communities and governments and potential impacts and mitigation measures.
Any adjustment to the boundary of Stawamus Chief Park requires an Act of the Legislature. The legislation to amend the boundary of the park received Royal Assent on May 31, 2012. Once the amendment modifying the boundary of Stawamus Chief Park is brought into force, it is proposed that the 2.36 hectares being removed from the park be established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act and managed by BC Parks. If established as a protected area, BC Parks may authorise the proposed gondola under a Park Use Permit. The Park Use Permit application will follow BC Parks’ permitting process and will be subject to review under the BC Parks’ impact assessment process. More information on this process can be found at the following website: www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/impact/impact.html. Through the impact assessment and permitting processes, BC Parks will work with the proponent to mitigate any impacts to parks and protected area values that will address many of the concerns you identified in your email.
Thank you again for writing and taking the time to express your concerns.
Sincerely,
Lori Halls
Assistant Deputy Minister
BC Parks and Conservation Officer Service Division
cc: Honourable Christy Clark, Premier
Wow, even the honorable Christy Clark was cc'ed. I may have to write back to find out what kind of investigation was researched to avoid the protected area as well as a question inquiring as to the clear rationale for the location proposed. I am also interested to know how this proposal is consistent with BC parks policy regarding boundary adjustments.
I wish I was climbing sun ribbon arête today, actually I wish I could just take a gondola up there.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:40pm PT
|
Ryan, everyone seems to have gotten the same response. Kind of pathetic, really - it's a long way from the facts. But maybe she's required to parrot the official position. The Ministry has long since had detailed notice (not just from FOSC - larger and more influential groups have the same concerns) that the process that has been used is far from what is required by the policy, and in any case quite deficient. Oh well, it ain't over yet. Their problem may now be extricating themselves from the morass.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:41pm PT
|
documented socio-economic benefits to the province
This sounds like a contradiction in terms. If the benefits have no yet "happened," how can they be documented? In the good old days this used to be called a feasibility study. Has it been done, and has anyone seen it?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 07:41pm PT
|
One of the advantages of the gravel pit is the fact that there is ample power already to the site. Those other sites down the highway may be adjacent to the massive transmission lines but "plugging" into them isn't as easy as it may look.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 08:07pm PT
|
I agree Hamish, sadly is that reason enough for justifying removal(yes that is the word she used when emailing me) of publicly owned land from a class A provincial park. I am afraid that power should be the private developers problem, not ours & IMO is not near reason enough to justify removing parkland. A brothel however would make me reconsider the viability of their business plan.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 08:34pm PT
|
I agree, power is the developer's hurdle. I'm just trying to shed a little light on the probable reasons they chose that site. You know, reasons other than it being deemed, or deeded, a godola base by The Land Conservancy.
Now, back to Greg's brothel and the naming of it. He was posting something about how much he could bench press a few hundred posts ago so perhaps G.F.Strong? No, that doesn't sound right. Back to the drawing board.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 08:36pm PT
|
I am afraid that power should be the private developers problem, not ours
Ryan,
Have you noticed how it somehow became our responsibility to prove that a class A Park deserves to be left alone? This is bassackwards logic. But heaven forbid the developers be burdened by feasibility studies and other hurdles...
Brothel or not, the whole thing is already one big brothel. Public land got pimped out to the highest bidder.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 08:39pm PT
|
Maybe- the "G" spot
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 08:40pm PT
|
Yestocarrots I couldn't agree more!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 09:39pm PT
|
And the pimp's name is The Land Conservancy. Just in case Carrots hasn't been reading our dribble over the last couple of months. Don't forget they profitted a cool million when they, in Feb. of this year, declared the gravel pit fit for gondola use (via a covenant) and sold the land to a (gondola) developer.
Smooth move.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 10:01pm PT
|
Yes, let's give carrots a carrot. 1,620 posts, and carrots nails it.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 10:38pm PT
|
Now we're hearing some truth.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 10:42pm PT
|
We may never know exactly what happened with TLC and the gravel pit. I know that the transaction wasn't as simple as "they sold it for $1 million profit" - there was some horse trading, which may in some way have involved the upper Malamute. All murky.
They may gotten us into this mess, but ultimately it's a side issue now. The real issues being things like the government being held to an open, accountable process, where the proposal can be transparently scrutinized, and all those concerned can comment.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 10:48pm PT
|
g spot brothels inc. brings a very good point, the TLC have been strangely off the grid since their initial OMG statement, who knows what the actual subjects & details of the transaction that took place between them & the developers were. Maybe the TLC are the ones who have to bite their tongues, if not it may cost them. Would love to hear their current position & take on all of this.
Edit- Anders is right however, that this is just a detail of something that has already been flushed, so to speak.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 10:49pm PT
|
Wow Anders. I don't think you should treat the TLC botch like a sideshow. That's really where the beef lies. Maybe they thought they were doing all the climbers a huge solid by spending the money on the Malemute? Maybe they thought this, maybe they thought that, who knows. Perhaps it's time for you to rekindle your relationship with them and ask them whatever happened to the plan you folks cooked up several years ago.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 11:11pm PT
|
I don't want to be mean and unfair and to heap blame on just one player. Yes, I did miss out on that part of the discussion so I went and read up on the background. Did Parks BC absolutely have to sell that stupid gravel pit in the first place? Maybe, because they are always strapped for funds - which is not their fault but the government's - and the buyer was by all accounts reputable and committed to protecting parks. TLC bought the gravel pit to prevent a gondola up the Chief in the first place, and they succeeded at the time, so I'm hesitant to put the blame entirely on them until I know more. But TLC is a non-profit organization, or so they say. I'm interested in this information, if any of you have it: how much did TLC pay for the land when they bought it from Parks BC? If they are truly non-profit, why were they forced to sell the pit - what was the urgency? Their official explanation is that they had no response to their proposal for a "low-profile green development" from the District of Squamish. What was the proposal? Maybe the District should share at least some of the blame for not taking them up on their offer, for showing apathy.
Anyway, you've got me reading up on this backstory when I should be working :-)
Edit - you brought up some of these points while I was typing the above. Still interested to know the exact numbers.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 11:17pm PT
|
Carrots, you're in now. The important few words in your paragraph are the ones referring to prevent a gondola from going "up the Chief".
I'm pretty sure they paid 800-900,000 and sold it for more than double that figure, give or take.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 11:22pm PT
|
Hamish,
If that is so, those are pretty good profits for a "non-profit" organization.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2012 - 11:26pm PT
|
Sure, but in the grand scheme of things they will have spent that money on more land, so no profit, so to speak. Just more land and less cash on the balance sheet.
Anders can explain this stuff much better as he moves in these circles for a living.
I'm not sure you read Anders's initial post as to who bought and sold the gravel pit at which point in time. The way I read it, Parks never owned the pit, and didn't have the funds to buy it. Anders might know who originally sold the land to TLC.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:20am PT
|
Hamish,
You're right, the numbers and sequence of events are in the original post. And it was not Parks BC who initially sold the land, it was the Behrner family. My bad :-) But it's still the government's fault that Parks BC were too poor to buy the land.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:27am PT
|
Diletante or Dilettante?
Dillettante:
1. An admirer or lover of the arts.
2. A person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge: a dabbler
Pretty sure most of us could be classified as this :-)
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:27am PT
|
I'm not sure if they didn't have the money or if perhaps they had different priorities. In that same basic timeline,Parks purchased the 13 acre chunk up at Edith lake to roll into the Alice lake parcel. That cost somewhere in the neighborhood of one million. And that's just in our little corner, it's a big province.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:31am PT
|
I have copies of the land ownership documents, but they don't show the sale price from 2005, when TLC bought the gravel pit from the Berhners, and from 2012, when it was sold. It would cost a bunch to get copies of the sale documents, the transfers, which show the price.
As for TLC, perhaps it can still help, or is even trying to help. I believe that it's aware of the situation, and perhaps a current initiative. Whether it is helping, or trying to, is another matter. It doesn't visibly seem to be doing so. For the time being, though, there seems no need to antagonize a party that may, just may, still provide help. Notwithstanding gf's unnecessary personalty, I fully intend to hold TLC to account at an appropriate time, and not just for gondola-related matters.
For now, there are more pressing fish to fry.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:38am PT
|
but to demand less than full accountability on both sides lays you open to charges of being a diletante; something I believe Mr Serl raised in the Sun some 31 years ago?
Holy F*#k Batman! One thousand six hundred and forty posts of digging around in the muck, and finally Greg hands us a diamond.
Don called Anders a dilettante thirty-one years ago? And the Vancouver Sun printed it?
How did I miss that?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:40am PT
|
A fair question might be, when did the municipality and the developers first begin communication about the proposal. This should be public information and may shed some light about municipal decisions regarding the TLC and the gravel pit. Land trusts are not set up to hold such purchases for a long time and were likely over a barrel.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:41am PT
|
There's no need to embarrass Don any further - he lurks, and sometimes posts, here. Nor is there any need to indulge in irrelevant insults - this isn't the Ivanhoe. And we all know each other too well.
As for the gravel pit. According to what TLC said in its press release, the District wouldn't rezone the land to protect it from high-impact development such as gondolas, and BC Parks wouldn't (couldn't, probably) afford to buy it. Perhaps there's more to it, e.g. was there always an agenda in local government to support the proposal, and was the refusal to rezone part of that?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 01:13am PT
|
I wouldn't believe a word of TLC's press release. It's all bunk.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 01:16am PT
|
Be careful - BK may jump on you for mental speculations.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 01:58am PT
|
I do believe this is the same letter...
Oh, that.
Yes, I remember it now.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
there are many who enjoy the park and have no beef with a gondola ...
Sure, but they are all infidels who have forgotten that the Bible says "Thou shalt not create easements in Class A Park land."
They might not have a beef with the gondola now, but when they're burning in that eternal lake of fire, they'll sure wish they'd been against it.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 02:16am PT
|
Your Biblical fatuousness is perjorative, editor...
Intentionally so.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 04:02am PT
|
I like this part from the article that Todd linked. Apparently there may be a gondola to downtown someday, i didn't know these guys had their dongs in the waterfront too. It is an old article though. As well, who knows who writes all this dribble anyways.
GroundEffects Development Inc. is the company behind the Sea to Sky Gondola proposal. Principals David Greenfield and Trevor Dunn bring a vast amount of experience to the project, working on the complete lifecycle of countless world class large-scale projects primarily through many years working with Intrawest Corporation. Locally, GroundEffects is currently engaged in the Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation, the new proposed Coast Mountain School in Squamish, and Whistler Olympic Park in the Callaghan Valley.
|
|
LeeBow
Trad climber
Victoria BC
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 04:15am PT
|
Holy Crap!!!
What is wrong with you?
It's a gad darn Prvincial Park!!!
NO PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT!!!
This is what PARK means.
At least in my country.
I guess you folks are use to RCA owning Curry Company and thus the Park.
Here in the GWN the idea of a Park means NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT...
I think it might help if a few guides spoke up and offers to take their private enterprises out of the park, but let's face it self interest rules, thus the gondola will prevail...Maybe not this time, but sooner or later.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 11:22am PT
|
"I think it might help if a few guides spoke up and offers to take their private enterprises out of the Park"
Ya, that'll work.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 11:28am PT
|
"Somehow I personally suspect that they'll be outraged and still oppose anything regardless"
You nailed it.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:12pm PT
|
Bear breeder, with all due respect you have been missing the point since somewhere around post 1134. Good for you. It must be nice to live in a world where rules & logic are irrelevant. Your arguments would be relevant if they made any sense. They do however hold a high entertainment value & seem to be very effective at baiting Jim B & gf which is nice while BK is absent. Cheers.
Ps read yestocarrots insightful post again before you reply for an example of some very reasonable logic, aka - the point here. I wish u the best of luck & hope you figure it out.
Have you noticed how it somehow became our responsibility to prove that a class A Park deserves to be left alone? This is bassackwards logic. But heaven forbid the developers be burdened by feasibility studies and other hurdles...
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 12:38pm PT
|
Hey bear buddy read the op maybe. You are out to lunch! Damn, now you are sucking me into your illogical vortex!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 11:45pm PT
|
Clear now?
I will be surprised. You are way in the vortex.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2012 - 11:55pm PT
|
This thread is going to go to 2000 just to get bear feeder to understand what the hell is going on, I don't even know what is going on any more! Whatever you are smoking BB can you please get me a pound!
Edit- bear feeder damn autocorrect! Thanks gf I had a chuckle myself let me know if u need a bartender!
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 01:25am PT
|
bb, this is what you note:
"I simply pointed out that
the numbers being trumpeted as widespread opposition are not significant
there arent any arrrests, lawsuits or mass protests over the alledged violation of ... Well something
that there are people who enjoy the park who look forward or are not opposed to a gondola
that pristine wilderness is a myth at the chief with the traffic it sees
that some opposers seem to be using innuendo, conspiracy theories, and questioning of others ad hominem, while the developers have refrained from such tactics
that there have been misprints and misunderstandings by sone opposers of the gondola who believe it went up the chief
that despite the claimed abused of some process and environmental monstrocity, no political party seems to want to oppose it so far
that the democratically elected concil of squamish is in favor
etc
These are simple facts that can be found on this thread an the news articles"
None of this you have listed validates the railroading of written policy regarding the transfer of land from a BC Class A Park as specified within the administrative code of BC Parks, the land manager and representative of the public's interest in matters regarding BC Parks.
Proper following of policy probably would not stop this project, but it would address a wide variety of concerns that ultimately would improve the project. Frequently these comment (or scoping) periods define issues that the proponents have not considered but should have. A good process saves court costs by preemptively addressing issues.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 01:59am PT
|
bb, from MH, April 8, 2012:
//The B.C. government policy on removing land from parks and protected areas, such as Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks, is at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/boundary_adj_guide.pdf
The "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines". In this case, removal also requires legislation.
Some pertinent quotes:
• Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values.
• The review and evaluation process will be timely and transparent.
• The proponent must establish the case to adjust a protected area boundary (including meeting the provisions of this Policy) and bear the associated costs.
• Suitable public consultation will be required, consistent with the significance of the proposed change.//
The ambiguous wording, the mentioning of a "timely and transparent" process, and "suitable public consultation will be required" seem to beg public concern and deserve questions...
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:15am PT
|
I think I'll stop following this thread now.
Bye.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:15am PT
|
I wonder who bearbreeder could be? 106 posts, over half in the last two months on this thread. Evidently a climber. Hopefully not someone with a personal interest in the gondola proposal - we've already had one faux neutral who turned out not to be.
Perhaps she/he can look at the Park Act, the Protected Areas Act, and (most importantly) the “Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines”: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html It's a bit of homework, but a good read, and then you'll understand a bit more. It's the law, and in Canada, citizens have the right to insist that the government comply with the law.
If you send me your e-mail, I'll send you the master plan and rock climbing strategy for the Park. The former states that the Park is for "non-mechanized" recreation, and IIRC, at the planning meetings in 1995 - 97, the idea of a tourist gondola in the Park came up momentarily and was dismissed out of hand.
Suffice to say that other, larger and more influential groups than FOSC have become involved. They also have major concerns with the (lack of) process, and the precedent. There will be a rather interesting meeting quite soon. I can't tell you more, but trust me. (So Tricouni should check back in a week.)
As for numbers, our petition may now have jumped to over 1,000 - we have to tally and collate, but it's quite close anyway. It seems that not many hikers and climbers, when asked, think a gondola is a good idea. Too bad no one bothered to ask existing users of the Park before, eh? Wonder how that got forgotten?
As for BB's question, if there is a transparent, credible process where:
a) all those interested in or affected by the proposal have a true opportunity to be informed and comment;
b) BC Parks is given the resources to thoroughly review the proposal, in context of the policy and the Park's master plan, and report on its findings;
c) alternative locations outside the Park (e.g. Goat Ridge) are properly considered; and
d) the policy itself is complied with, and the process is actively and independently managed by B.C. Parks;
then if so, and if the conclusion is that a gondola should be permitted to intrude into the Park, then I personally would abide by the decision. I would never use such a gondola or its related facilities, though. I would not object to a tourist gondola on Goat Ridge, and might even bring myself to use it, if only to entertain visitors.
(My mother's school once had a budgie, named BB = Bayview Boy, except it was a girl.)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:45am PT
|
Maybe it's time to knock off for the night, eh guys?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 04:12am PT
|
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
|
The Bearbreeder is correct, I don't exactly support the gondola, but I most definitely don't oppose it. I believe it's a fair compromise. The Friends of the steep slope in between the Chief and Shannon Falls is doing some interesting work but I must admit it seems their support is a tad low.
I'm still hoping Anders will call up his buddies at TLC and ask them why they felt it was a prudent move to take steps to ensure a gondola would be located there.
As Anders told us early on, follow the money. The Land Consevancy has already profitted a million dollars from this gondola and it's not even built yet.
How much work, time, hurdles, meetings, permits, hiring, firing, investing, construction and risk taking do you think these developers will go through before they can (possibly) make a million bucks? It's high time for the real story from The Land Conservancy. And I don't mean the "Release of Lies", or "Press Release", whatever it's called. We need the Real Story, Anders. If you were so involved with them in the purchasing of the gravel pit in the first place, then you have some history with them. Phone them, meet with them, e-mail them, do whatever you have to do to communicate with them, but get the "goods".
Transparent-translucent-opaque-hidden-not-hidden, whatever the processes are that need to happen, TLC made a huge decision on behalf of everyone and somehow isn't being asked to account for it.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
|
there are many people who enjoy that park who support the gondola, or at the very least are not opposed ...
BB,
Believe me, we get it. But there is a huge difference between "Oh yea, that would be nice" and "We really *need* a gondola, because without it people are truly deprived of something valuable that they will not get any other way." A lot of people will casually say yes to a lot of things (besides carrots), but this does not spell a true need. Once again, the burden of proof is on those who want the gondola and claim that it's necessary.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 02:29am PT
|
With all due respect, Carrots, you make it sound like a gov't project paid for with taxpayer money. As far as things we don't need and aren't necessary, where did you want to start the list....
It wasn't "necessary" for Parks to purchase the 13 acre piece of land up at Edith lake (for over a million bucks) a few years ago, but that's what they did. Perhaps they should've spent that money on the Gravel Pit instead. Loki the cat would've approved. That was a boundary adjustment, and a pricey one at that. But it made sense.
B.C. Parks didn't "need" to build two beautiful little log cabins at Porteau Cove Provincial Campground right on the waterfront and rent them out for 500-600 bucks a night, but they did, and it wouldn't surprise me if the income helps balance the books a bit. That was pristine beachfront enjoyed by many families and now it's off limits unless you have a few brown ones in your wallet as opposed to twenty bucks for a campsite.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining at all. Parks needs more revenue and this is a good way to grab it. My point is simply that it most likely didn't mesh perfectly with the Master Plan and it wouln't surprise me if there were a few citizens who didn't agree.
Very difficult to keep everyone happy.
|
|
YesToCarrots
climber
Squamish, BC
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 04:57pm PT
|
Hamish,
In both of your examples, nothing was taken away from a park, and a class A park at that. My point is, if you do intend to take something away in this case, you need to show compelling reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by comparing that to taxpayer-funded projects, but that was so far from my mind I can't even see a connection. Maybe you were comparing tax dollars to park land (both being public "funds")? But I'd say it's a bit dangerous and a bit cynical to look at park land as disposable currency.
The purchase of land around Edith lake added to the existing parkland, it didn't take away from it. Ironically, maybe that's why they couldn't afford to buy the gravel pit, but that's just guesswork. (I'm interested now in why they did buy that land and will do some research into that.)
And yes, the two cabins at Porteau Cove are cute as buttons and probably generate revenue, but they were added long after the place was developed into campsites. It was hardly pristine by then. Again, nothing got taken away from a park. (I too love Porteau Cove and use the little pebble beach under the cliff, at the very end of the road.)
Parks needs more revenue and this is a good way to grab it. That's assuming we've accepted the sad and cynical situation where Parks are underfunded and expected to go fend for themselves. But even so, where is the guarantee that any significant amount of revenue from the gondola would go to Parks? Taxes will be paid to the District of Squamish, but where do they go from there?
Edit: on a lighter note, Happy Father's Day!
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 07:27pm PT
|
Thank-you, and a great Father's Day it was. My examples were really only to show that some people out there might not always agree with the moves taken by B.C. Parks.
I guess I find it tough to understand your part about people being required to prove that we "need" a gondola. I'm not too sure there is a gondola in the world which is actually "needed". Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me, as the majority of Park services and attributes are all perks for the rather spoiled first world we live in.
B.C. Parks also underwent a major renovation up at Alice Lk. to run underground power to most of the campsites, at a cost you really don't want to know. Do people really "need" to plug in whilst on their "camping" trip?
Do we actually "need" a gondola? Of course not; I couldn't agree more. But someone decided to call this place the recreation capital of Canada and I'm not too surprised to see something of this nature, all things considered.
I don't think we "need" a Wendy's/ Tim Horton's, Burger King, Fatburger, White Spot, Taco Hell, "Adventure Center", Casino, Million-Dollar Overpass to get to the Casino....... it's endless.
We didn't really "need" a billion dollar highway, but now that it's finished, it's pretty handy. We don't need access up to the Shannon Creek basin but if these guys do a good job, it too could be pretty handy. Best case scenerio, imagine heading up there after breakfast with your kid and your bikes, stopping at the circus up top for a coffee and a view, and then heading off on a seven hour bike tour/descent all the way to Britannia where your hubby picks you up. Fun day or what? Now I realize that's the best case scenerio but no pain, no gain.
I agree, there isn't any proof the gondola development will be kicking any money in the Park's direction, but I think everyone needs to be patient as they most definitely haven't finished with their Park Use Permit etc..
You and I may believe those little log cabins at Porteau are cute, cozy, and a bright way to generate three or four thousand dollars a week, but I can assure you there are some people out there who aren't very impressed. Sure, the place had campsites already, but that ain't camping; not at three hundred dollars/night.
Sorry for hogging the site so much, just seems to be raining SO much lately.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 09:46pm PT
|
"outdoor" recreation capital of Canada. Self-styled.
And yes, it's clear that some in Squamish, most likely with support from Whistler, have long wanted a gondola.
References to Porteau and Alice Lake aren't necessarily all that helpful, in that both are classic 1950s roadside campgrounds, dolled up a bit. Not very similar to the Chief, and with very different purposes.
And yes, that pedestrian bridge to the Malamute is going to embarrass us for a long time - an underpass/tunnel would have cost a fraction of that, and maybe allowed some of the money to be redirected to other needed work at the Chief.
Hamish raises some key questions about the role and stewardship of parks in our fortunate society. Questions that are familiar elsewhere, even in Yosemite, with it being an early national park, perennially threatened with development, the Hetch Hetchy event, and so on.
In the case of the proposed gondola, no one seems to have genuinely considered most of the underlying questions of principle:
1. Why was the park created, for what purpose(s)?
2. Should removal of land from parks, including this park, be considered at all? If so, when and how?
3. Are there other suitable nearby locations, outside the park, whether or not they're ideal from the proponent's perspective?
4. If a removal is to be considered, what process should be used, bearing in mind the requirements of government policy (law), and the simple democratic need to inform those who are or might be affected, and seek their views.
5. BC Parks has chronic problems with underfunding, and the park system is increasingly under siege by commercial and industrial development. The area 'protected' in parks doubled during the 1990s, largely due to the Protected Areas Strategy, a byproduct of the Brundtland Commissions recommended 12%. The budget for BC Parks has been significantly reduced over that time. Recipe for problems.
6. If and only if a proposal passes the above hurdles - as mentioned, if BC Parks could get some backbone, and start to tell developers to simply piss off, that'd help - then an initial step should be hard, independent scrutiny of what's proposed, and the risk/return to the park. It is in every proponent's interests to inflate supposed benefits, and downplay risks, and the government, instead of facilitating, should be examining.
So I agree with carrotclimber - the onus is on every developer to conclusively demonstrate that it is in a park's and the public's interest to even consider something like this, and if so, it's essential that the process be public and independent.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 10:34pm PT
|
I meant the overpass going in at the Casino, as we speak, not the blue bridge to the Malemute.
Is that really you writing bullet #6? Holy Moly Anders, I do appreciate seeing your various sides. That tone of language is bound to develop good working relationships with your peers. Good on you.
I realize my examples aren't very interesting to you Anders, but would you please tell me what you think about the pricey cabins available at Porteau?
Thank-you.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 11:02pm PT
|
What's the worst case Hamish? Kinda hard to include bikes as a best case since they are already not allowed.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 11:05pm PT
|
We took a quick stab at the worst case scenerio somewhere around post #458.
As far as the biking goes, patience Grasshopper.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012 - 11:55pm PT
|
I wouldn't be willing to trade away access and precedents for patience and possible best case scenarios, personally.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 12:16am PT
|
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/porteau/
Porteau Cove Olympic Legacy Cabins
The Olympic Legacy cabins were built by Pioneer Log Homes of Williams Lake, BC and used during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games at Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology as information kiosks and a showcase of BC Parks.
Each cabin has one bedroom and a loft, a private kitchen and a bathroom. All linens will be supplied. Occupancy for the cabins has been set at a maximum of four (4) people.
$199/night during high season, $139 otherwise.
I had no idea that they were there. It smacks of someone having leftover cabins, and scrambling to find somewhere to put them. It doesn't seem totally out of line, in context of a roadside/camping park, but is a bit unusual. Hopefully they're not right beside the railway tracks.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 09:07am PT
|
Thanks for the quick response, I'm sure Loci isn't too happy when you spend more time with the computer than with her.
I guess I was a little off on the rates for the cabins,I thought they were 300/night, not 200. Oh well, I was in the ballpark. Actually, these days, 200 plus tax is 300.
What do you think about ten of those cute little cabins next to the camprground at the bulletheads to help with cash-flow? Could be ten or fifteen thousand dollars a week to help fund trail maintenance and possibly some new trails. Maybe save up for a bigger septic field so as to install real toilets and get rid of those outhouses? And with that endless supply of water, perhaps some hot showers would be appreciated? Then the climbers with dineros could stay at the base of the crag and not have to slum it over at the Brew Pub. It might not be the Ahwahnee but those cabins are pretty cute.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:05am PT
|
Heck, they could even become members of FOSC at that point; talk about joining hands and singing kumbaya -makes my heart swell at the thought
And not only that, but they could also host FOSC meetings in the new pub at the top of the gondola.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:44am PT
|
So, what do you think Anders? Maybe five cozy cabins nestled carefully in the mistletoe-ridden forest?
Maybe Carrot-Girl could answer this question as well, if you can take a break from work for a minute. Thanks.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:51am PT
|
I'm actually just trying to get a handle on what type of money-making development Anders would permit in his Park.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 01:11pm PT
|
We're reasonably sure that we're now over 1,000 signatures.
It's not "my" park, it's our park.
The park was established by law, after careful consideration and public discussion. Its master plan, which is legally binding, doesn't have anything about commercial accommodation. There is ample commercial accommodation in the Squamish area - hotels, motels, cabins, and so on. Given that, a proposal to build tourist cabins in the park shouldn't even get off the ground - if you'll excuse the expression. The first step of any proposed commercial development in a park is to look at whether it can be done elsewhere, outside the park, and in this case it clearly can. In fact, aren't there already such cabins at the Klahania, or whatever they call it? Across the road?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 01:34pm PT
|
Thank-you for answering the question, Anders. You were O.K. with the rental cabins at Porteau, and there were other options available for those campers, so why the change of heart in respect to the Chief?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 01:46pm PT
|
We're reasonably sure that we're now over 1,000 signatures.
One thousand. Sounds impressive. But is it really a lot? Or is it in fact just a little?
When the subject of benefit to Squamish is brought up, you've been very clear in your view that this is not a matter for the residents of Squamish to decide. You've made it clear that you believe this is a Provincial matter. A matter to be decided by and for the entire population of the province.
In light of that, what does your getting 1,000 signatures show? The latest population figure I can find for BC is 4.4 million. Now, obviously, some of those folks are babies and young children, but if we eliminate, say, 20%, that leaves us with just over 3.5 million who are eligible to sign your petition.
Of these, you managed to get 1.000. Which is 0.03% Three one-hundredths of one percent.
Once again, I stress that I am not campaigning for a gondola. But to trumpet the fact that 0.03% of a population group is willing to say they're against the idea is almost like giving ammunition to the enemy.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:30pm PT
|
Yes, I always like the numbers stuff too, but last week someone suggested it wasn't a popularity contest and we shouldn't be counting votes. No problem, we're all pretty flexible around here.
I, like Tami, also like what Greg said several posts up but also realize this is truly a circular site as we covered that stuff at around post # 377.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 12:36am PT
|
Perhaps rather than doing the "editor/critic" routine - for whatever reason - some of you might instead look back at what's been said on this thread, and what's been accomplished. That is, that FOSC has over the last two months established that:
There are significant procedural concerns with the proposal,
Its substantive aspects haven't been independently examined in any real way,
There has been no credible and inclusive public process, and
A considerable number of individuals, and organizations, share these concerns.
Be constructive and positive, for a change.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 10:53am PT
|
yup.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 04:39pm PT
|
Maybe the folks up North feel the same way as BK about taking land out of parks...not everything needs to be discussed. Hell its smaller than site C...stawamus is smaller than Klinaklini...everyone has there own view.
Maybe its just best to not negotiate land out of parks and reserves eh?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 05:29pm PT
|
17,000 posts and I'm still a bit curious as to the "land being removed from the Park" quote. The land isn't going anywhere and anyone will be free to hike as they currently do. The only thing going anywhere will be the trees, and even they won't be going far.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 05:31pm PT
|
If people would only breed less, perhaps we'd have fewer environmental problems, whether with goofy gondolas or other things.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2012 - 05:32pm PT
|
Hey Big Fella, just because you live with a cat.....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2012 - 07:22pm PT
|
So you have something against cats?
Today's newspaper coverage of the proposed gondola issue.
http://m.squamishchief.com/article/20120621/SQUAMISH0101/306219978/-1/squamish/gondola-foes-stand-firm&template=JQMArticle
FOSC was rather amused to hear that some gondola supporters are claiming that we've been telling people that it would end on top of the Chief. Not! We have been quite clear that it would go through and have significant impacts on Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, and have also included links to the proponent's website for those interested. No doubt a few with concerns about the process, the proposal, or both aren't entirely clear about it all - but then, that's democracy, and neither is it very clear just what the proponents would and wouldn't do. For all the fine talk, it's pretty clear that they wouldn't be committed to much more than building a bottom and top terminal, and the gondola itself.
Hoping to have more news in a few days, after a meeting tomorrow.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2012 - 08:57pm PT
|
According to Frank Baumann, that IPP will never 100% never go ahead. Both have been shot down by hydro.
So we can go back to worrying about the gondola now
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2012 - 10:17pm PT
|
Nice work Anders, your tireless efforts are appreciated. I look forward to more news from FOSC. Thanks.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2012 - 11:48pm PT
|
Oh goodie, now where's that cereal bowl gone to?
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:09am PT
|
gf is right, the slippery slope is indeed the issue here. We are getting nearer to the precipice I think. They allready legislated the Ashlu project into existance next is the feds with the pipeline. This is just sign of the times. what's next?????
I think both Bruce and Anders are right. There alot of other pressing issues but this sets a precedent for resource development in our parks without consultation which also needs to be addressed.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:27am PT
|
The point is without that meeting this process is invalid. BC Parks must follow thier own guidelines.
edit ^^^^^^^ Obviously Bearbreeder. Par for the course.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:33am PT
|
Oh wow, bear breeder & BK on the same page, I thought BB was just subbing in to bust Anders balls while BK was away.
Speaking of being away Bruce, when are u gonna put up a TR? I could use some Sierra psyche since I don't get any Sierra granite till September.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:51am PT
|
FOSC has been clear about what the problems are with the process are, and how they can be solved. Compliance with the government's own policy. (It's not "guidelines".) True consideration of alternative locations. (Not done to date.) Publication of information and applications to the government's website. (Not done.) Independent scrutiny by BC Parks of the merits of the proposal. (Not done.) Independent public meetings - Vancouver, Squamish, even internet. (Definitely not done.)
And no, a token public meeting, even if in Vancouver, won't do it. Nice try. Neither would an unlimited number of additional informercials by the proponent, often with select audiences in Squamish.
If the proposal is as genuine and worthwhile as some of you have been hornswoggled into believing, it should withstand real scrutiny and debate. If it isn't, don't you think it's better to know, now?
The proponents should be glad that this isn't subject to a real public review, including full disclosure and cross examination.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:52am PT
|
So basically they make it up as they go. wow.. what's the point of parks again?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:12am PT
|
OK, you asked for it - apparently you're unable to click on and read a link. Here are some excerpts - read the damn thing for yourself.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html
PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY, PROCESS AND GUIDELINES
Consideration of proposals for protected area boundary changes will be guided by the following principles:
• The BC Government is committed to the protection of provincial protected areas and the integrity of their associated ecological, recreational and cultural values.
• Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values.
• The review and evaluation process will be timely and transparent.
• The proponent must establish the case to adjust a protected area boundary (including meeting the provisions of this Policy) and bear the associated costs.
• Where feasible, consultation will occur with participants that were involved in a public planning process where that process resulted in the establishment of the protected area.
• Consultation with First Nations and local governments will be required.
• Suitable public consultation will be required, consistent with the significance of the proposed change.
That's just the introduction.
Stage 1: Initial Proposal
The proponent submits an initial proposal to the Director responsible for protected area planning, BC Parks. The initial proposal should include:
...
6. Preliminary assessment of alternatives that would avoid the use of protected lands and the reasons those alternatives are not considered feasible.
...
8. Known community groups with an interest in the protected area, and the status of any discussions with these groups.
4. GUIDELINES FOR DETAILED PROPOSALS
Proponents should ensure that the information they submit with their
detailed proposal addresses the following considerations to the satisfaction of the Minister
1. Alternatives to avoid the protected area have been considered.
Proponents must consider and document alternatives that would avoid a protected area boundary adjustment. Clear supporting rationale for supporting or rejecting an alternative must be provided.
3. Social and environmental impacts have been documented.
All potential impacts of the proposed development on the social and environmental values of the protected area must be identified. This should include consideration of how the proposal may impact or benefit traditional user activities, visitor enjoyment and safety, identification and impacts to natural values in the area and associated risks to natural values. Broader environmental impacts or benefits, beyond the protected area, should also be identified.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:16am PT
|
bearbreeder, you're being a troll. When creation of the Park was being considered, and then its master plan, BC Parks held public meetings to discuss in Squamish and Vancouver, and maybe even Whistler. Those meetings were widely advertised, and included presentation of information and analysis, discussion, and written feedback.
Local meetings, largely under the control of a proponent with an inherent conflict of interest, don't amount to much. People from FOSC attended some of those meetings, and reported that they were more like infomercials, with no real discussion was possible. And, to repeat a point that you've evidently missed, Stawamus Chief Provincial Park is "local" to far more than those who happen to live in Squamish. Doh!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:18am PT
|
Oh really? Where did FOSC, or I, say that "one" meeting would be enough? How would that address a fundamentally flawed process?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:32am PT
|
All in good time, grasshopper. Tomorrow there will be a meeting that may resolve some of these matters. I'll report so soon as I can, though it may not be right away. Patience!
As to the possible responses of FOSC and its allies to various outcomes, we've considered that also. You'll learn soon enough what is decided.
You're a climber - you know determination and tenacity are important. Plus the opera ain't over until the fat lady sings, eh?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:39am PT
|
Anders, I advise you to not get sucked into "barely reads er's" vortex of illogical asinine dribble.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 03:30am PT
|
Hey BB not trying to be an a$$hole I just don't get your point of view at all. Sorry.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 05:56am PT
|
I can't wait for extra foods to open in the morning so I can re-load on cereal.
Perhaps B.B.'s and B.K.'s point is simply the probable outcome of any number of public meetings, should they come around. Fast forward to any meeting, anywhere in B.C., Point Grey/Kits for example.
Some FOSCers weigh in and voice their concern, Parks says that these complaints have been addressed already and thanks very much for bringing them up again.
Another FOSCer stands up and says they want the Bean Around The World coffee served up top instead of the usual Starbucks. Parks barks back that they are fine with Starbucks being served (this way Jim can build it) and the issue is resolved.
Another FOSCer gets vertical and says he's found a far superior location down the highway, far away from the Park. Parks finds this slightly interesting but points out how extra construction costs would deem this site prohibitive.
A final FOSCer raises his hand and says he doesn't want the gondola in his sight line when he's climbing on the south end of the Bulletheads. To this Parks replies something along the lines of suggesting the climber wear those sunglasses with the little light blocks on each side, so as to cut down on anything in his periphery.
Then the meeting will end.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:18pm PT
|
Cheerios for this pilgrim today. Either that, or Wheaties, the breakfast of champions.
You guys are fixated on the idea that all that's needed is a token meeting, maybe in Vancouver. Not so. First comes a credible, independent and transparent review of the proposal. Including whether it has met the basic requirements of the government policy. For example, alternate locations must be thoroughly examined. They weren't. And so on. Plans, implementation, finances, management - publicly scrutinized. Then, and only then, public meetings where the information and BC Parks assessment of it is presented, and the public is asked for its views. In Squamish, Vancouver, by the internet, and even on the Chief. It's quite clear that such meetings would show that there is substantial opposition, - notwithstanding the proponent's report to the contrary.
The government might still ultimately have to decide, but at least it would be a better informed decision, with objective information as to the various issues.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 04:33pm PT
|
Bruce, are you saying that the opinions held by the developers that guided them through the different levels of securing government support, are more important than the opinions of those that want a more rigorous governmental review?
Opinions matter, but in this case the opinions backed by money and assertions of future benefits matter more...?
Whether the issue is a gondola at Squamish, hydro power further up the coast, or pipelines, public review is important. Without it money will always trump the public's interests and rights. Only constant demanding of the most transparent processes will assure future adherence by the agencies and regulators to laws and policies.
Good on ya for getting in some climbing in the sunny south!
The moss grew back in at the local boulders over the last few weeks.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 04:52pm PT
|
#1,800.
Almost 1,000 more than the "Climbing at Squamish in the 1970s" thread.
Maybe in a way it's good - we need to look to the future, too.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
|
From: Minister, ENV ENV:EX [mailto:ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: June 22, 2012 4:52 PM
Reference: 169517i
June 22, 2012
Dear (sir):
Thank you for your letters of May 23 and 29, and June 1 and 13, 2012, regarding the Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation’s application to adjust the boundary of Stawamus Chief Park.
This email is to acknowledge the receipt of your correspondence and to assure you that a detailed response will be provided once I have had the opportunity to review with ministry staff the issues you have raised.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Terry Lake
Minister of Environment
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, where were you last night, you hoser? I brought your button and everything.
The Tyee article is reasonable, but doesn't say a lot new, although for once both the Minister and the proponent actually spoke. It'd be useful to know when the Minister was interviewed, before or after a meeting on June 22nd. No doubt he's saying what his staff tell him to say, but still, if I were him, I'd be somewhat embarrassed. He's insisting that everything is hunky dory with the park, the process, and the proposal, and there's a lot that says otherwise. And much of what he says in terms of the goals and values of the park is outright revisionist.
As for creation of the park, and the master plan. I was there, and neither you nor the Minister were. The subject of a gondola anywhere in the park was brought up, IIRC by Jim S - he'd been exposed to them in Europe. He wasn't quite laughed out of the room, but close.
Whether hiring Mr. Faulkner does anything for the credibility of the proposal is a matter of opinion.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2012 - 02:56am PT
|
Bruce, the assumption that this gondola would actually expand recreation in previously hard to reach sections of the Park complex (Squamish/Shannon Falls) is without merit unless the hours of operation are expanded top allow late returns from high-country trips And/or early starts. Now if BC Parks were to stipulate that hours of operation were to meet nearly all users including early and late arriving backcountry users, the gondola proposal might have a degree of merit. Still, this group of developers has gamed the system to get to where it is now and those opposing it are fully entitled to utilize other means within the system to de-rail it. These chumps are using the same methods to circumvent the process as those chumps building dams further up the coast and the chumps wanting to build pipelines all over this continent.
It is all the same problem. Practice on the small stuff and get good; and then have at the big ones!
I hope summer is cranking up your way. The chores and skiing have kept me from doing anything but bouldering locally, but one of these days...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2012 - 09:38am PT
|
So? Six weeks since the last post and nada? Is the process still ongoing? Is the gondola dead? Already under construction?
We're probably headed up next week and it would be nice to know whether we should be prepared for roadblocks and gunfire, or a massive construction mess, or whether the whole thing has simply been swept into the dustbin of history already.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2012 - 10:05am PT
|
You will slip right through the border and everything else. Let me know if you need accompaniment on Borderline.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2012 - 10:42am PT
|
Word on the street is the towers are going in this fall...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2012 - 02:53pm PT
|
AFAIK, the Ministry of Environment has not issued the required permit(s), and may not for some time.
TLC didn't go bankrupt. Its accounts were frozen by the Canada Revenue Agency, for failure to pay payroll remittances and taxes. It quickly made an arrangement for payment with the CRA, and the accounts were unfrozen. TLC is undoubtedly in serious financial and organizational difficulty, but not bankrupt or in receivership.
(Segue into another 200 ad hominem posts attacking me for daring to suggest that the proposal and the process are anything less than perfect, have not complied with B.C. Parks' policy on such matters, etc etc.)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2012 - 05:52pm PT
|
Damn, that must be some video! Because when I tried to play it, I got a black screen with this message:
"This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2012 - 05:23pm PT
|
Well, whatever the abuse here, no one has suggested burning me in effigy, with "a hundred drunks dancing around this burning monster to the tune of some brutal death metal". Not yet, anyway.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 03:17pm PT
|
I thought this thing was supposed to be getting built by now?? What happened? Did the media say something it shouldn't have? Did it say that there was going to be a park use permit issued a few weeks back? Yes it did. Now where is the permit? It would appear that the process has been slowed down a little? I hope that the Mighty hiker & his friends of the Chief have had something to do with this. Seems like good weather to start squabbling about this again, any takers?? The only new info i could find was here, but as always should be taken with a grain of salt.
Cautious optimism about gondola in Squamish
The Sea to Sky Gondola is a proposed gondola that will go up between Shannon Falls and Stawamus Chief (known as The Chief) Provincial Parks. The project dismays hikers, and pits a small group of vocal opponents in the community against the enthusiastic support of many residents, business owners, the Squamish Nation and city councillors.
Beth Hong Posted: Oct 10th, 2012
On a gorgeous Sunday on and around The Chief in Squamish, British Columbia, the Vancouver Observer found more people for the city's proposed gondola project than against it.
The lure of attracting up to 400,000 visitors annually and building the economy of the struggling town has convinced many it's a good idea. One thing everyone can agree upon is that the city is set in one of the most gorgeous areas between Vancouver and Whistler.
What appeals to many of the people the Vancouver Observer talked with is that the gondola could transform Squamish from somewhere people breeze past on their way to one of North America's primo ski areas to a popular destination in its own right.
Cautious optimism about the gondola in Squamish
Adventure Centre, Squamish's official tourist hub, is home to Gallileo Coffee. This is where many climbers and hikers grab coffee and check email before setting out.
Gallileo Coffee owner and local resident Cara Barth. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"I haven't read up on it as much as I should," co-owner Cara Barth said.
She added, however, that the gondola would bring more people "up the highway," and said her business would benefit from this.
"I can't think of what the other effect it would have on other businesses other than the Whistler gondola. It comes down simply to environmental things."
When pressed to elaborate, she said it depends on how the gondola is built.
"If it's not nice or not done properly, or not pulling in the money that makes it worth to take that hit, maybe it's not worth it," she said.
Sitting at the coffee shop charging his smart phone was 24 year old Paul Brennan, a mountain climber who frequents The Chief and said he relishes the climb. Brennan admitted that he didn't know much about the gondola— including where it would go—but was generally against the idea of a gondola near The Chief.
"It just seems strange to put a gondola in a place that takes only an hour to walk," said Brennan, who is originally from Ireland but has lived in Canada for the last seven months.
"The same has happened in some of the mountains in Scotland, people have put in gondolas and ski lifts and a lot of the local community are against it. What's the point of imposing something on the natural environment?"
Gondola a hot topic of conversation at First Peak
A sign at the path leading to The Chief reads, "This is not a walk in the park!"
An hour and a half of intense, almost vertical climbing later, hikers are rewarded with a dazzling view of Howe Sound, Squamish, Brackendale and beyond at the First Peak.
Three women who drove in from Vancouver and hiked up together lounged on the First Peak, cooling off. When asked their opinions on the gondola, all three immediately chimed in with their disapproval, based on their limited knowledge of the project.
"It'd be overcrowded and commercialized," said Hannah Foy, 36. "Why would you go where everyone is? It's a decent hike that's not too treacherous and it's a beautiful view and it's not too far of a drive."
Christa Howe, Hanna Foy and Kim Christensen take in the view from First Peak at The Chief. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"You can go to Grouse or Whistler if you want to be on a gondola, not everything has to be commercialized," said her friend, Kim Christensen, 30. "You don't want to go where there's thousands of other people."
"Then you have to pay $20 to park," Christa Howe, 34, added.
Meanwhile, Aaron and Jason Foote, two brothers in their forties who grew up in Squamish, disagreed.
"Anything that generates business in town is helpful, stimulates the economy and otherwise you don't want the town to die and everyone to get laid off," said Aaron Foote, 40. Foote, a firefighter who has lived his whole life in Squamish, added that there's a lot of economic development opportunities that don't go ahead for reasons he can't fathom.
Aaron and Jason Foote both support the gondola. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"There's been a lot of great ideas that kind of flounder in this town. The university is just wavering. They've got the highest enrollment rates they've ever had, but I don't see it as a money maker."
"Restaurants in town seem to struggle, turn over all the time. I don't know what it is," Jason Foote, 42, said. "I know they've got Grouse Mountain, Cypress and all that, but it'd be another jewel on the crown."
Foote, who was visiting his brother Aaron for the weekend, said that he still has a "vested interest" in the town's development.
"We've got all these assets that no one can access. Get them up in a hurry, get back down. It's great for climbers and for handicapped people too," Aaron Foote added.
Concerns about gondola changing Squamish's "small town feel"
Sitting nearby was a group of seven 19-year-olds from Squamish, visiting home for the weekend. Of them, three boys and two girls who grew up in Squamish said that they were in favour of the gondola, based on what they'd read in the papers and through conversations.
Jereomy Pelletier said he was concerned about how a gondola may change the "small town feel" of Squamish.
"I just enjoy having Squamish being the pristine area where you have to hike to get anywhere," Pelletier said. "Because we have Grouse if you want to take the gondola up, or you have Whistler for all that, where Squamish is the hiking town."
Sam Bowerman, Jereomy Pelletier, and Clinton Shard. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"I think it'd be great for Squamish because the downtown core's been the issue, it's been dying out," said his friend Clinton Shard. "And a lot of it's moving past downtown into Garibaldi Estates and that area. It would help bring more tourism downtown."
However, his friend Sam Bowerman expressed reservations about the viability of a year-round gondola.
"I don't know if it's something that's running steadily two weeks of the year and then on weekends the rest of the year—it hardly appears to be a viable business venture in my mind," Bowerman said.
Caila Martin and Brianna Ross, both 19 and from Squamish, added their support for the gondola.
"I think I'm for it, because it'll bring a different crowd to Squamish, the kind that wouldn't hike up The Chief but would still like to go up," said Martin. "I haven't thought too much about the environmental effect, but it would have to bring enough people to make the cutting down of trees worth it."
Brianna Ross and Caila Martin. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"I'm for it—I don't think it'll affect The Chief at all, since it's an entity over there, and I think it'll bring a lot of people here," Ross said.
Greg O'Malley, a 26-year-old resident of Brackendale since 2009, [pictured at top of story] said that generally thought it was a good idea, but he also had reservations.
"I think generally my friends have thought it'd be a neat addition to the town. It's not like there's any shortage of space around here, so building a trail system, as long as it's not detrimental to the area, is a good idea," he said.
"But it depends on how tastefully it's done. If they flatten all the trees and build a 500 car parking lot, it's not good."
Downtown business owners and local residents support gondola
Back on the ground in downtown Brackendale at the Shady Tree Neighbourhood Pub where about a dozen locals and regulars gathered to relax and socialize, Brackendale resident Phillip James said he supports the gondola because it would help Squamish develop economically, with minimal impact to The Chief.
Squamish resident Phillip James. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"I think it's not going to affect the hike of The Chief, and it's going to bring in more people, more business to Squamish," said the 56-year-old James, who has lived in Brackendale for 20 years. "It's not costing the city anything, it's a privately funded deal—yeah, I'm excited about it."
Down the road from the pub, Shannon and Jason Lorenz were enjoying an ice cream with their two young children on the wooded patio of the Brackendale Bean Around the World coffee shop.
Shannon and Jason Lorenz in Brackendale. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
"I'm looking forward to it," Jason Lorenz, 36, said. "It would bring access to a new area for recreational use, for locals and tourists, and it would bring in new jobs."
"We own a construction business, and I also do events, so both of our industries can be impacted which would be awesome—it'd bring a variety of jobs," Shannon Lorenz said.
"In terms of recreation we both mountain bike and hike, and for a gondola we'd have to go to Whistler to go peak to peak. Having kids, to have that right at your doorstep it's pretty amazing."
A better proposal than last time, some think
"The last people who proposed a gondola project basically got run out of town, but that's because it wasn't proactively done," said Stan Matwychuk, during his shift at Howe Sound Inn and Brewing Company, one of the businesses in town which stand to profit from increased tourism.
Matwychuk is also director of the Squamish Arts Council and vice-president of the local Business Improvement Association.
Stan Matwychuk at a Squamish pub. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
On a late Sunday afternoon Matwychuk was serving micro-brewed beer during a shift at the hotel in downtown. A popular hangout for local hikers and climbers, Matwychuk didn't go a full minute without filling up a pint of locally brewed beer as he discussed his hopes for the estimated $15-million to $20-million project.
He moved to Squamish nine years ago and he said he's hopeful about the gondola increasing tourism in Squamish. The developers care about the community, he said, and have done rigorous public consultations.
"It opens up a whole new realm," says local resident and business owner
As the sun set over Squamish, over a dozen people sat sipping teas and eating vegetarian and vegan-friendly meals at Zephyr Cafe, a popular spot for locals and visitors from out of town.
Colleen Myers, owner of Zephyr Cafe and Squamish resident since 2003, said that she's followed the Sea to Sky gondola closely in the news and read the reports from Ground Effects, the company associated with the gondola bid.
"I think their point of view and opinions are valid, but I don't think they represent the majority of Squamish," she said about the Friends of the Squamish Chief (FOSC), a local community group opposed to the gondola. "It's taken me awhile to get to being, 'I'm pro.'"
Myers explained her reasoning behind supporting the gondola.
"It opens up a whole new realm, such as high-end rock climbing guiding companies. It opens up world-class guiding companies to guide people who want to paraglide off. It's not just khaki wearing tourists and their cameras. It opens up a whole new economic realm for Squamish to use."
Zephyr Cafe owner and Squamish resident Colleen Myers. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
Myers, who also sits on the board of directors for the Squamish Arts Council, said that she wants to see downtown Squamish flourish with greater urban density as a result of the gondola's economic benefits. Her one hesitation, she said, was the precedent the gondola was setting for taking land out of provincial park lands.
"Once you set the precedent for anything you can't take it back," she said. "I'm hoping that there's enough community consultation and they jump through enough hoops. They have to prove to enough people that it's win-win."
Small but vocal group decry province selling park lands, unaccountability to public
However, the Friends of the Squamish Chief maintain that the BC government has hit a new low in public accountability for commercial development of provincial park lands with its approval of the gondola.
"This is a provincial park, and that means to me we're all stakeholders in these parks," FOSC member Theresa Negrieff told The Vancouver Observer. "I think there's a failure of democracy when people don't have their voices heard."
A gondola next to The Chief was one of the reasons Negrieff moved out of Squamish in October after six years. Now a Victoria resident, she said she did not feel the proponents of the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. properly represented the concerns of the entire community in its reports to the government, and that the government failed to properly inform and be accountable to all British Columbians in its assessment of the gondola.
Negrieff said that even the official Sea to Sky Gondola Corp.'s website stated early on in the process that BC Parks would have a hearing, but this was later removed.
"I had a chance to speak with the developers directly and said that I'm not in favour of the project," she said. "But when I saw the submission to the Environment Minister and there was no mention of any opposition I thought, 'Well are there other people like me who actually said that they're not in favour and just don't have a voice in this?' Because the developers aren't mentioning the fact that there was some opposition."
"It's like everyone was in favour and I'm sure there were people like me who told them that the project won't happen, but we weren't named in the document."
The empty lot between Shannon Falls and Stawamus Chief where the Sea to Sky Gondola base will be constructed. Photo by Kathleen Kozak.
According to the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines in effect since March 2010, the BC government gives the proponent of commercial projects the responsibility to consult with local community, First Nations, and other stakeholders and file reports in two phases.
The BC Ministry of Environment maintains that it and the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. followed due process.
"To date, the Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation has undertaken significant public, local government and stakeholder consultation regarding the gondola proposal, including more than 80 meetings and community open houses," wrote Ministry spokesperson Stuart Bertrand.
"The Ministry of Environment is satisfied that the requirements of the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines were adhered to in the review of the proposal to adjust the boundaries of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park."
Jayson Faulkner of Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. also countered the FOSC's claims.
"There are not too many other projects that are as complex and that have to have every duck in a row," he said. "But we've dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't'."
However, Negrieff said that FOSC will continue its fight against the gondola.
In August the group appealed to the province's ombudsman to force the province to take a second review of a commercial development that they argue has implications far beyond Squamish.
"It was our park, but next time if could be your park in Fernie, or your park in Nelson. It could happen anywhere, it's left to the developer to manage, steer and edit the proposal however they want.
"How is that a fair process?"
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/outdoors/squamish-mixed-opinions-about-gondola-chief
and......
Most people who love hiking The Chief in Squamish, BC, probably don't know, but they'll find out when the chainsaws start up, critics of a gondola project say.
The Sea to Sky Gondola's critics maintain that the real public consultation will begin once construction begins in the fall.
"When the chainsaws fire up in the park this fall, we expect the real public information session to begin, and it won't be a happy affair," said Friends of the Squamish Chief (FOSC)'s Derek Christ. "There's going to be a lot of sad and confused faces out there, wondering how this provincial government not only allowed this to happen, but perhaps facilitated it."
A proposed gondola between the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park and Shannon Falls pending approval from the BC Ministry of Environment has set hikers and locals against the project, who say that the province is selling out a beloved park for cash.
"Let's face it, the Province is cash-strapped, and the Crown's assets are quietly up for sale, including park land." said Christ. FOSC "works for the continued protection and wise stewardship of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park and area for all the public," according to its website. The group has over a hundred members on its mailing list and over a thousand signatures on its online petition calling for a public hearing in May.
The BC Ministry of Environment announced last week that it would grant a park-use permit to the 820 metre-high Sea to Sky Gondola proposal allowing “commercial gondola” activity in the Stawamus Chief Protected Area.
The gondola would start at a vacant gravel pit along the Sea to Sky Highway and go up to a ridge northwest of Mount Habrich. The project from Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. is estimated to cost about $15 million to $20 million according to the company.
The vacant pit is part of a 2.36-hectare strip of land that the BC Liberals removed from its list of Class A park lands with a park-boundary amendment bill passed at the end of May 31.
Class A park land is Crown land designated under the Park Act or by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act whose management and development is constrained by the Park Act. This type of park requires a park-use permit, which can't be issued for commercial purposes "unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved."
The park-boundary amendment bill, also known as Bill 49, was good news for the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp., which applied to attain the 2.36-hectare strip in December 2011.
Meg Fellows, a former president of the Squamish Environment Society, told The Georgia Straight in May that she was “horrified at the lack of public process” when the bill was passed.
“I think all people who care about parks in BC have to be concerned about that,” Fellowes said.
FOSC is concerned about the fact that the government did not conduct its own public consultation process, entrusting it to a private company with commercial interests. It also warned about the damage to park land in the construction of the gondola base, at a gravel pit located between Stawamus Chief and Shannon falls.
The Squamish-based group has members from another group called the Friends of the Stawamus Chief, which arose in opposition to a 2004 proposed gondola project which proposed to put a gondola to the top of the Stawamus Chief.
However, the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. expressly states that they are not replicating the 2004 gondola project.
"It is important to note that this proposed alignment will NOT be to the top of the Stawamus Chief as was previously attempted by a different group of proponents several years ago," the company states on its site.
Spokesperson Jayson Faulkner said that the company is not answering questions about the provincial review process, or the criticisms of it from the FOSC.
"While we would be happy to answer your questions we feel at this time it would be premature to presuppose an outcome without official notice from BC Parks. While we are obviously pleased that BC Parks has commented publicly on the issuance of Parks Use Permit to Sea to Sky Gondola, until such time as we officially receive said permit, we would be commenting on hearsay and it would be irresponsible of us to do so," Faulkner wrote.
Who knew?
The Ministry failed to consult and inform the public, according to FOSC organizer Anders Ourum.
Ourom wrote in an August 28 letter to the BC ombudsperson that the ministry failed to comply with the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy process and guidelines, and to fully inform the public about Sea to Sky’s park-amendment proposal.
Ourom also said that the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. drove the consultation process, and the ministry didn’t carry out an “independent, transparent public review” of the application.
FOSC demanded an "amended process" where BC Parks would post all project documentation on its website and publicly report the conclusions of its review. He also said the group wants BC Parks to do the park-adjustment process over for the Chief park and hold its own public meetings in Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Squamish.
“The Ministry ought to know what is required by its own policies, natural justice, and procedural fairness,” Ourom wrote in the letter.
FOSC member Theresa Negreiff said that the group is waiting to hear the report from the ombudsman.
A Ministry spokesperson told The Vancouver Observer that the government does not plan on changing its current course.
"The Ministry of Environment is satisfied that the requirements of the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines were adhered to in the review of the proposal to adjust the boundaries of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. As such, the ministry intends to continue with its review of the park use permit application for the proposed gondola development," the spokesperson wrote in an email.
Squamish city councillors say public consultation adequate
Meanwhile, Squamish's mayor and city councillors said that the gondola has overwhelming support from the residents of Squamish after a rigorous public consultation process.
Mayor Rob Kirkham said that the city is in "full support" of the project, and that the economic and recreational benefits to the city are aligned with the city's goals for growing its tourism industry.
"We have been very satisfied with the widespread public consultation that the project proponents engaged in with the community, as well as the extensive process they have had to go through with the various governing bodies.As a result, the project has garnered strong support among Squamish residents. We look forward to when construction can begin," the Mayor told The Vancouver Observer.
Councillor Susan Chapelle agreed, and defended the owners of the Sea to Sky Gondala Corp.
"Both the proponents I dare say are environmentalists, with young families that live in our community. They want to see our constituents be able to earn a living and enjoy our wilds as much as anyone," she told The Vancouver Observer. "The proponents have engaged all of our groups, the BIA, Chamber, parks, recreation and all are unanimous in support. I get the odd email from people who still believe it goes up the Chief."
"The people I hear from in Vancouver would not like Squamish deciding on property use in Vancouver," she said.
But opinions on the project from Squamish residents are mixed.
The FOSC's Christ is a Squamish resident who calls the gondola project "unconscionable."
"With so many alternative venues for the construction of a gondola in the Sea to Sky corridor, to chop the Stawamus Chief provincial park in half is unconscionable," he said. "This precedent does not bode well for the preservation of any of our parks, or for planned development in the Sea to Sky corridor."
On the other hand, Thors Froslev, a District of Squamish resident and owner of the Brackendale Art Gallery, said that he and his neighbour support the gondola.
"I like to get up there, and I think it's a great tourist idea," he said. "It's not just summertime, it's all year round," Froslev said.
Gondola scheduled to open in summer 2013
The gondola's base terminal will be located on the vacant gravel pit site along the Sea to Sky Highway. The top terminal will be located on the ridge leading to Mount Habrich, which is land currently owned by the province.
Base terminal plans include ticketing, parking and maintenance facilities, a small food and beverage outlet, retail space, outdoor equipment and guiding services such as hiking, mountain biking, and snowshoeing.
The proposed Sea to Sky Gondola will have eight-passenger enclosed cabins offering views of the 335 metre high Shannon Falls.
Sea to Sky also proposes an alpine trail, giving climbers and hikers easier access to nearby Mount Habrich, Sky Pilot Mountain, and Goat Ridge.
Finally, a Grouse Grind-like “high intensity” trail is also planned for hikers coming to hike up from the base and then ride the gondola back down.
David Greenfield of the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. told Stephen Hui at The Georgia Straight that the gondola would "be barely visible from the Chief and downtown Squamish but would deliver spectacular views of Howe Sound, Mount Garibaldi, and Sky Pilot Mountain."
Construction is slated to begin in September, with the gondola scheduled to open for business in summer 2013.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/outdoors/chief-squamish-get-extreme-makeover
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 03:29pm PT
|
The B.C. Ombudsperson is investigating whether the process used to examine and discuss the proposed gondola complied with the Ministry's policy, and was administratively/procedurally fair. We don't know how much longer it will take.
Publishing a 'notice of intent' to issue the required permit(s), and actually issuing them, are quite different things. The government apparently does not usually take definitive action pending an investigation by the Ombudsperson. We don't know the reason why the notice was published, but we could all mentally speculate about it if there's nothing better to talk about.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 04:48pm PT
|
Anders, what is the role of the Ombudperson? Could you kindly explain as i have no idea & am likely not alone. Are they some sort of mediator, or are they responsible for reviewing government processes? Do they have the power to toss the whole proposal if they find the process has been flawed?
|
|
crasic
climber
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 05:18pm PT
|
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 08:22pm PT
|
Thanks for the info Anders. An interesting step, with our usual government & its crooked practices these days it seems the Ombudperson is likely a busy guy :-)
It seems that this is maybe why the construction that was scheduled for this fall has yet to begin.
Edit- oh weird, where did your post go MH?? Was I hallucinating? Oh well at least I got to read it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2012 - 08:24pm PT
|
(Had to update this a bit - sorry.)
The Office of the Ombudsperson receives enquiries and complaints about the practices and services of public agencies within its jurisdiction. Our role is to impartially investigate these complaints to determine whether public agencies have acted fairly and reasonably, and whether their actions and decisions were consistent with relevant legislation, policies and procedures. Our services are provided free of charge.
The B.C. Ombudsperson is:
•an officer of the provincial legislature
•independent of government and political parties
•responsible for making sure that the administrative practices and services of public agencies are fair, reasonable, appropriate and equitable
https://www.ombudsman.bc.ca
What we do
•generally oversee the administrative actions of government authorities
•conduct thorough, impartial and independent investigations of complaints
•consider possible resolutions of complaints
•consult with, provide reasons, and make recommendations to authorities to improve administrative practices
•provide reports to the Legislative Assembly and the people of British Columbia about administrative fairness issues and how they can be remedied
•respond to inquiries from the public
•provide information and advice about administrative fairness
Thorough and impartial investigations. We
•identify issues of administrative unfairness
•identify causes of recurring unfairness and advise on how it can be avoided in the future
•attempt to resolve complaints through consultation when appropriate
•employ an approach that identifies and addresses the underlying causes of complaints
•make recommendations and issue reports that are based on sound analysis of the facts, are consistent with our statutory mandate and apply the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness
IIRC, the Ombudsperson may not have the legal ability to order a ministry or agency to do or not do something. Their authority is mostly moral, the ability to provide an independent review, and cause change. A review and if necessary report can cause considerable embarrassment to one or other party.
Still, if the Ministry was confident of its claims, it could issue the permit(s), but then runs the risk of the Ombudsperson later reporting that there were problems. Potentially quite embarrassing.
Likewise, if the proponents are confident that the permit will eventually be issued, they might do quite a lot of work at the proposed bottom and top terminals. They have most if not all of the needed permits for that, and could do most everything but cut the swathe, build towers, and string cables and cars to connect them, through the Park. Again, running the risk that the Ombudsperson will find problems with the process or compliance with the policy or statutes, and require changes that would either delay or eventually prevent a gondola being built. The money and work could be wasted.
Of course, there's also the last resort of litigation, to get the Ministry to comply with its policy and natural justice.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2012 - 08:27pm PT
|
The Ministry seems so committed at this point that it may well decide to issue the permit, and risk whatever the Ombudsperson may do, public opinion, and the political fallout. They're quite insistent that they've complied with the policy, and that there's been procedural fairness, and plan to go ahead. The next election will be in May, and right now it seems unlikely that the government will be re-elected. So maybe they don't care. The Ministry may also feel that the cost of a lawsuit by a disappointed developer would be greater than the costs they'll incur otherwise, and so go ahead. Although it's unclear how much work they'd be able to do now before winter.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2012 - 08:41pm PT
|
Hot off the press:
Sea to Sky gondola clears last major hurdle
The B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE) is in the process of issuing a park-use permit to the proponents of the Sea to Sky Gondola, clearing the way for construction of the tourist attraction that will whisk guests up to a ridge next to the Stawamus Chief.
The move, confirmed by an MOE spokesperson in an email to The Chief on Tuesday (Oct. 16), comes in spite of the fact that a group opposed to the gondola has filed a complaint with the office of the B.C. Ombudsperson, claiming B.C. Parks did not provide sufficient input into the process of adjusting park boundaries and issuing the permit.
David Greenfield, one of the two principles of Sea to Sky Gondola Corp., said he, his business partner Trevor Dunn and general manager Jayson Faulkner were “ecstatic” to hear the permit was about to be issued.
“We understood this week that the permit was going to be issued,” Greenfield said. “We haven’t been provided the final signed version of that, but if the Ministry is saying that they’ve issued the permit, it’s obviously something they’re comfortable with.”
Greenfield said he’s not sure when construction might begin, admitting that it’s getting late in the year to start a major construction project.
“Within the next month or so we’ll be able to put our timelines together. There are a lot of details to work out and without the permit in hand, you can’t start to put these sorts of details together,” he said.
Once construction does begin, it should take between 12 and 16 months to complete, he said. The proponents’ original intent was to open the gondola in the summer of 2013, but that’s obviously not going to happen, Greenfield said.
The gondola is expected to attract some 300,000 guests a year and boost Squamish’s tourism industry. The proposal was first made public in July 2011, but before being allowed to proceed, proponents had to receive rezoning from the District of Squamish for the base area, from the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District for the top station and, because the gondola cables and towers are set to run through what had been a portion of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, a park boundary adjustment from MOE.
Issuance of the park-use permit should clear the way for construction.
On Sept. 27, MOE officials issued a “notice of intent to issue park-use permits” in local newspapers. However, previous to that a group calling itself Friends of the Stawamus Chief filed a complaint with office of B.C. Ombudsperson Kim Carter, arguing that MOE/B.C. Parks officials had not provided sufficient opportunity for public input in the park-use permitting process.
Anders Ourum, a spokesperson for the group, on Oct. 9 said that after an initial review to ascertain whether the ombudsperson’s office had jurisdiction to look into the complaint, an investigation into the group’s claims was launched.
“I spoke to them today and they said they expect that it’ll be several more weeks” before the probe is concluded, Ourum said.
Ourum said he didn’t know whether the ombudsperson’s office had the authority to order the permit application process to be redone. He also didn’t know whether issuance of the permit might be delayed pending the release of the ombudsperson’s report.
The role of the ombudsperson’s office is “to impartially investigate [citizens’] complaints to determine whether public agencies have acted fairly and reasonably,” according to the office’s website.
An ombudsperson’s office spokesperson said she could neither confirm nor deny that an investigation into the matter was underway, nor could she say what possible outcomes might arise from the probe.
The MOE spokesperson wrote that the ministry “is satisfied that the requirements of the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines were adhered to in the review of the proposal to adjust the boundaries of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. As such, the ministry has issued the park use permit for the proposed gondola development.”
He said ministry officials are aware of the complaint to the ombudsperson’s office and that it would be “inappropriate for us to comment” while the complaint is under review.
“In this case,” he concluded, “B.C. Parks is proceeding with business as normal and the Ombudsperson process is not impacting the timeline.”
Greenfield said Sea to Sky Gondola Corp. officials “are not privy to discussions on the ombudsperson’s office’s process and don’t have any comment on that.”
http://www.squamishchief.com
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2012 - 08:52pm PT
|
While reading some other so called gondola news I happened upon this comment which I found interesting. Perhaps BK can enlighten a bit as he seems fairly knowledgeable on IPP's & general govt tomfoolery. Perhaps the reason our prov govt has a hard on for pushing this project thru & removing park land has nothing to with the gondola which I actually find a bit terrifying. Of course this is just some random Internet comment but I would be curious to know if the theory holds any weight??
2012-10-02 12:14
Just a Test
This Provincial Park boundary adjustment was, of course, non-consultative. It's just more of old Gordo-style politics - test the public and see the reaction before going ahead and doing what you really want to do. In this case, the land the Liberal government really wants to remove from parks is a long green strip ascending west from the upper Pitt River valley, and cutting through one of the east-west valleys of Pinecone-Burke Provincial Park, terminating on the other side of that gentle mountain spur right near - surprise! - Squamish. Why do they need this strip of land? Powerline right-of-way. They want to dam the Upper Pitt to generate power with a massive, government-guaranteed private power project. It's a sweet place for such a project, too: the old logging roads up there are already in place as infrastructure, with a dock for heavy equipment and everything, and the Pitt River is a prime generating river. A lot of potential money in the upper Pitt for investors eager to profit from this government's private-public policy. Of course, the upper Pitt is something of an important piece of water, a spawning river, with its source and primary drainage basin deep in Garibaldi Park and a significant piece of natural habitat. It's surrounded on all sides by parks, and the proposed development, when last brought forward, was a touchy subject with - well - everybody. That's why there was a massive public outcry the last time they tried to do it, with people mobilizing, crowding consultative venues, and so on. It seems that removing park land just so some company can make a taxpayer-funded profit off of a sketchy government deal by chopping up parks, and wrecking a watershed and spawning river was kind of a no-no. The company, and the government, backed off. Well, guess where that power line would have come out, had they succeeded: just up the Mamquam Road FSR, the road you take part of the way to Mount Habrich, the ridge to which they want this gondola to extend. Now they've removed a bit of land in this first park, tested the waters for public outcry, and they have a precedent for removal just a couple of clicks east. Don't be fooled! The real money in removing park lands isn't in frickin' gondolas!
http://straight.com/s?fid=22&a=799126&f=latest&s=60
More info on the proposed IPP project proposed in the upper Pitt. Some interesting comments & points regarding precadents & removing class A parkland. This could be "the beef".
http://straight.com/s?fid=22&a=134736&f=latest&pal=1&s=60
|
|
roadman
climber
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2012 - 10:11pm PT
|
The precedent was set with Canadas very first national park. Banff. THey made it 40 years later took back 2/3's of it for logging and mining! Then gave 1/3 of the raped land back to the park!
Yes indeed, you Canadians do it differently up here.
NO FUIKING GONDOLAS ON EL CAP OR ANY OTHER U.S. PARKS!
Canada is a republicans wet dream: States rights trump all, small toothless federal gov. super low corporate tax, no environmental rules or regs.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2012 - 01:00am PT
|
The Ombudsperson has the authority to investigate, to recommend, and report. When doing so, it has to inform the Ministry in question as to what it's doing - hardly a surprise to them, considering that they're required to disclose documents. It is unusual if not rare for the government to take prejudicial action while an investigation is under way. Perhaps in this case they'd do so, and live with the consequences. The Ombudsperson could still report to the legislature both that a Ministry took action that prejudiced one of its investigations, and of course also on the results of the investigation. A high risk scenario for the Ministry.
Perhaps we'll soon definitely learn whether the Ministry has actually taken any action, as opposed to a notice of intention. There's nothing I could find on the government or Ministry websites about it issuing the permit.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96340_01
There is a further problem for the Ministry, in that if the Ombudsperson reports that there were problems with the process or compliance with the policy that need to be corrected, the Ministry has by its actions demonstrated that it already made up its mind. It's no longer neutral, if it ever was. How could it now credibly restart the process, as it were? The Ministry might for example propose some token public meeting in Vancouver as a 'solution'. That would hardly address the problems, and isn't really believable anyway - they'd just go ahead and do what they intended, claiming there'd now been consultation.
If the Ministry has gone ahead and issued the permit, in disregard of the Ombudsperson, we're in for some entertainment.
As for the precedent, under the Protected Areas Strategy B.C. almost doubled the area of provincial parks during the 1990s, to nearly 13%. The current ("Liberal") government has steadily slashed funding for B.C. Parks over the last ten years, and no doubt it and its backers would like nothing better than to further erode provincial parks, by removing land, cutting services, and minimizing management. I hope it's an election issue in 2013.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2012 - 01:30am PT
|
MH sets "the Holy Hand Grenade"!!!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2012 - 08:46pm PT
|
There's definitely a few different opinions as to when/if the permit will be issued, depending on where you look. Kind of interesting since all the media sources seem to be talking to the same people/groups. It's definitely starting to get a lot more ink again.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2012 - 09:04pm PT
|
Yes, if/when the Ombudsperson process has finished, and barring other developments, the Minister seems likely to sign the permit. That process could take a while yet, though. A time of uncertainty and rumours.
The Ombudsperson looks at whether there has been:
a) compliance with the relevant statutes and regulations,
b) compliance with the applicable policy - in this case, the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines, and
c) a process that was administratively fair.
Are you quite sure that there was nothing substantively flawed about any of those? If you are, then maybe we need to clearly define "big yawn", so it's clear who wins - and the beneficiary of any bet should be some worthy cause, e.g. the Climbers' Access Society. I wouldn't want to just take your money.
Bear in mind that the Elders' Council for Parks in B.C., which includes retired senior employees from B.C. Parks, including those who wrote the policy mentioned, looked into the issue of compliance with the policy in considerable detail. They had no doubt that the Ministry had not complied with the policy, in significant ways.
It's going to take effort and time to remedy the flaws in the process, and comply with the policy. It's doubtful that the Ministry is sufficiently unbiased to properly do what's needed.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 01:47am PT
|
Don't be absurd - FOSC is much more than me, but I've borne the brunt of your attacks. $150 from the three of you, plus apology, versus $100 from me. That's enough. Let's keep it reasonable, and between the principals. No need to drag others in, although the idea of getting some of you to (finally) support the Access Society does amuse me.
And yes, we undoubtedly need defined rules and an agreed-on referee. Even the morals & ethics committee might not be willing to adjudicate, with good reason. There could be endless wrangling as to who won - that is, as to whether or not there has been a failure of the kind stated.
You have read that policy I sent you, I hope?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
Bruce you are right that there might be bigger fish to fry as this indicates some substantial renovation of Canada's foreign investment policy: http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale, but it is not entirely different than the gamed system that might result in that gondola.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:21am PT
|
Good Point!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 03:45am PT
|
Only took 1800 posts before some good old fashioned gambling started to take place on here. Seems like a good bet since its pretty much a coin toss at this point.
I will add another $50 to Anders pot to even it out if u guys want to open up this pool. I am due for a renewal in November & will be donating soon anyhow. Trust me Anders I don't feel as though I'm being dragged into a freakshow or anything of that sort:-) I see flaws in the process & can't think of a better cause for us to settle this debate over when the gavel finally drops on this flying cow of a proposal than giving some $$ for access if we "lose". I have agreed with most everything you've said on this thread, but what i don't agree with Anders, is $100 for the gondy naysayers while u gondola minions only have to put up $50?? Where'd u get those odds?! :-)
I think Bruce is right & that a pool should grow if people feel strongly enough about whether the job was botched or not. Or maybe those who just really like gambling can throw in? The CASBC gets the sole benefit.
Wait a minute............ Is this illegal??
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 10:51am PT
|
Dave Harris and Hamish down for 50 each by proclamation (we'll tell them later) (yea...ish?
Count me out of the betting. The only way I'll take part is as arbiter of the contest and holder of the funds.
First, I have no idea whether the process has followed the law or not, and have never said a word on that subject. My personal view is that if the gondola will benefit the people who actually live in the Squamish area, and if an equivalent piece of land can be added to that or some other park, then it should go ahead.
But I haven't even got the beginnings of a clue on the question of whether the law has been followed.
So, all of you send me your $50, or $100, or $150, and I'll hold it so that no one can weasel out. And once the final decision is made on whether the gondola decision process followed the law, you can try to get it back from me.
D (keenly looking forward to his first gondola ride up into the forest with his mountain bike)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
|
I simply want the loudmouths who've been so critical, saying that I don't have a leg to stand on, that there was nothing wrong with the process, and on and on and on, to put their money where their mouths are. For once. You know who you are - if necessary, go back through the thread and re-read the things you said.
Ghost - by saying you think it should be decided locally, and that 'locally' means only Squamish residents, you're saying that you support the process that was used.
Ryan - thanks for the offer. That makes it:
Process wasn't flawed: Bruce, Hamish & David ($50 each).
Process was flawed: Ryan ($50), MH ($100).
Access Society membership dues not included in the above amounts. I'll trust people to pay what they say they will - no need to have a third party hold the money. Plus then the 'donors' get a tax receipt.
We still need an arbiter as to who 'wins' and 'loses', and what the rules are for deciding that. It seems that Bruce et al are certain that there were no flaws at all in compliance with the policy, and the process. Which would mean that if the Ombudsperson (or a court, if necessary) finds any flaws, you're on the hook. Are you quite sure?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
Ghost - by saying you think it should be decided locally, and that 'locally' means only Squamish residents, you're saying that you support the process that was used.
For someone who appears to believe he is a great critical thinker, you're pretty funny Anders. If you'd spent more than two seconds reading my post, and thinking about what I actually wrote, instead of just posting your knee-jerk response, you might have realized that I did not say the issue should be decided locally. What I wrote was that I believe that if the gondola will benefit the people who actually live in the Squamish area, and if an equivalent piece of land can be added to the park (or some other park), then it should go ahead.
Who should make the decision about whether it will benefit the locals is an entirely different issue, and I said nothing about it.
The one thing I specifically did say was that I had no idea whether the process had followed the law, and I'm completely baffled to understand how you can look at those words and conclude that I support the process that was used.
Your behavior in this thread is no different from the kind of right-wing Christian Republican behavior that you profess to despise. You appear to have a belief that removing any land from any park is wrong under any circumstance, and when anyone disagrees with you in any way, you immediately start shouting "The bible says so! The bible says so! The bible says so!"
None of the people you are shouting this at (BK, Hamish, me, whoever else) has actually said they disagree with following the rules. None has said there should be a gondola no matter what. It is you that is trying to ram your views down other people's throats, not vice versa.
Step back from this and give it some thought. And in the meantime, please stop putting words in my mouth.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:05pm PT
|
Here we go again...
If the process was significantly flawed, it implies that the proposal hasn't been scrutinized and debated as it ought to be. Chicken and egg. It's also quite reasonable to advocate that the required policy be followed, and that the process be administratively fair. Particularly as others, including some substantial organizations, agree - if nothing else, it's a risky precedent.
There may be compelling public policy reasons for removing land from parks, but none have been shown in this case. ("Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values." Convenience doesn't equate with compelling.)
And yes, my family and I have a 50 year history of contributing to the stewardship of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. I helped have it created as a park, help with its management, and have contributed in other ways. Why wouldn't I stand up for something important to me?
|
|
roadman
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
|
Here we go again...
If the process was significantly flawed, it implies that the proposal hasn't been scrutinized and debated as it ought to be. It's also quite reasonable to advocate that the required policy be followed, and that the process be administratively fair and open. Particularly as others, including some substantial organizations, agree.
There may be compelling public policy reasons for removing land from parks, but none have been shown in this case. ("Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values." Convenience doesn't equate with compelling.)
And yes, my family and I have a 50 year history of contributing to the stewardship of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. I helped have it created as a park, help with its management, and have contributed in other ways. Why wouldn't I stand up for something important to me?
Well said MH! Too bad these guys paint you in a bad light! Can't really understand how self-serving attitudes like these guys have!, are tolerated. These CRAZY park land grabbers should be exposed for who they are and run out of town! The idea that park land can be cut up into little pieces for profit is a joke! The whole premis of preserving something for future generations and the value that adds to the culture and community is totally lost on these guys. Oh and most of the powers that be in CA.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:24pm PT
|
Hey ...
I live in CA and have no power.
But!!!!
I know how to use a wrench ........
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:05am PT
|
But the other part of your family that has helped with the stewardship of the Chief, or at the least has been hiking up it for 45 years, thinks the gondola is a great idea.
Maybe you're just referring to your cat but there's no way he's over 50.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:53am PT
|
How would a gondola proposal go over in Yosemite, say next to but not to the top of Half Dome?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
My father helped build, maintain and mark trails on the Chief in the 1960s, and helped put on the public hikes that the Mountain Access Committee and the Province newspaper had on the Chief then. (Sometimes with 'help' from his children.) He probably placed some of those overgrown metal trail markers that are still to be found on the Chief. In the 1980s, my mother took kids from the inner-city school she taught at hiking up the Chief each year, with any help she could get - even mine. FWIW, my brother says he agrees that the process that's been used to consider the current proposal is flawed, whatever his views about any merits it may have. My father didn't think much of the 2004 proposal, and I don't recall talking about it with my mother.
There is an alternate gondola route outside the Park, which if anything is superior to that proposed. It doesn't seem to have been considered to date. It would start at a flattish area just north of Gonzales Creek and east of the highway, and run to a knoll 1 km northeast of Petgill Lake. There is ample room, and similar highway access. There wouldn't be power line issues, although one minor one might need to be shifted. The route would be shorter and steeper = cheaper to build. The upper station is only a few hundred m from the old Shannon Creek roads, and so similarly accessible for construction, supplies and water. It would also have considerably better views. Other advantages:
No clash with either Park, and spreads out activity.
Room to build hiking and mountain biking trails at the knoll, into upper Shannon Creek and possibly linking to Petgill Lake and Goat Ridge, even the Chief. That is, if the operators ever built any trails.
Much of the road into upper Shannon Creek would need to be kept open, instead of just the first part.
The only "negatives" are that the proponents don't seem to have even considered this possibility, and that it isn't beside Shannon Falls. Still, the policy and common sense require that if there's a workable alternative outside a park, it should be used - even if one in a park might be a bit better.
Some professionals had a look at the Gonzales site, and say it's feasible.
Why don't all those who think a gondola would improve access to upper Shannon Creek and area, for hiking and mountain biking, get behind the Gonzales location? At least you'd be sure of improved access to the area, assuming that the proponent did nothing but grade the road.
Todd, while at the FaceLift, I had several interviews with the news media. I happily mentioned that I was visiting a place much like Squamish, with four million visitors/year - and no gondolas to be seen.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:46am PT
|
I am hardly an expert and would not be so presumptuous to assume there are no insurmountable problems associated with that site. Who are these expert opinions that you cite and what exactly do they say?
I mentioned this potential site myself to the proponents well over a year ago and they told me that site had been considered and eliminated due to technical considerations. What have the proponents or BC Parks told you in regard to this Gonzales creek site?
What expert opinions/evidence did the proponents show you to prove what they claimed?
Perhaps "technical considerations" means no more than "Not right beside Shannon Falls bus traffic, and so not convenient for us".
How does the study that the Squamish Oceanfront Development (SODC) people did a few years ago, of possible gondola locations, fit in with this? A study done by a Whistler company, two of whose principals were behind the 2004 gondola proposal. And all three of those involved in the current proposal were involved in SODC in 2009, as consultants or directors. All very interesting. http://www.squamishreporter.com/2012/03/31/sodc-was-planning-to-build-gondola/
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 02:01am PT
|
Bruce, don't forget that one of the criteria for site selection was that the base of the gondola be right beside the highway. (I presume, but don't know, that that's to drag in as much drive-by traffic as possible, like Hell's Gate.) That was on their web site in the early days of the proposal.
The Gonzales Creek site isn't beside the highway, thus they would have have rejected it out of hand.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 10:48am PT
|
We all like the Gonzales location better but there still isn't a flat 2 acre piece of land there which is ready to build on, not to mention three phase power to plug into. Blasting one of these out of the hillside ain't cheap; bottom line.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:19pm PT
|
Yes, it's all about the corporate bottom line, isn't it?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:36pm PT
|
That and compromise. I'd much rather the lift go up from behind Quest University to the (back country skier's) parking lot at Diamond Head, but who am I to say.
Now I see why Jim has been on the fence for so long....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:29pm PT
|
The Gonzales Creek location is right beside the highway, and large and flattish enough. It'd require some work, but is feasible. (A senior parks planner with 30+ years experience agreed.) It might cost more to grade the site, but then the investors (Doppelmayr?) could recoup that in a shorter lift.
Bruce, did the proponents do anything more than cite "technical reasons" to you, or are you simply taking their word that the location isn't feasible? If there are technical reasons, what are they? Or are they just blowing smoke?
It seems likely that the "choice" of the proposed location was a foreordained conclusion. There was no due diligence, in terms of a third party insisting that all alternatives be objectively assessed and compared.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
|
I quote from the Sea to Sky Gondola website:
The third part of the process is a BC Parks Assessment. Because of the close proximity and routing of the Gondola alignment through the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, we will be engaging in a BC Parks Assessment process as we near the completion of the base area rezoning. This is a rigorous process driven by the requirements and regulations of the Ministry of Environment and BC Parks. ... The BC Parks Assessment process is a comprehensive review of the impact to the Park and the resulting benefits the Park will receive.
Has anyone seen this assessment? I thought those things were to be made available to the public? And, what "benefits to the Park" did the process find?
I asked the proponents, once, if I could see said report, and never received a reply.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 11:13pm PT
|
Bruce, you are obsessed with "evidence" in a situation that is about finding if the required procedures for moving the project forward have been applied. Demanding that the proper procedures have been followed is the right of any citizen and/or advocacy group. The proponents and the agencies should be forthcoming with information requests. Without all the information being exposed to the light of day, public support for or against the project is based on opinion rather than establishment of findings through an evaluation based on codified procedure.
Facts come later in this battle of speculation and hyperbole... when and if, the judicial system takes charge.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 11:21pm PT
|
I admire the principled stand MH and others who continue to fight the gondola battle on many fronts-but i would suggest that placing themselves in the role of business analysts might not be their strongest suit
Which gets to the heart of the alternative locations issue.
That some other location may be less offensive to one's personal aesthetic says exactly zero about whether it ought to be considered by the developer. While the developer will consider a great variety of things, that consideration will only be given to sites that pass the first test of commercial viability.
This may lead to a stand-off between developer and FOSC (or any number of other groups/individuals), but it is a pointless waste of time. From the point of view of the FOSQ, the best place for this gondola is probably at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. For the developer, the best place may well be from the Chief Parking Lot to the Middle Summit. But neither of those alternatives is worth wasting any thought on, because neither is ever going to happen.
The developer can only consider sites that will allow a profit, so the discussion has to center on those sites. FOSC can reasonably take the position that none of those sites should be allowed, and that therefore the gondola shouldn't go ahead at all. But if they (FOSC) do take that position, then the matter is in the hands of the government.
Which is where it seems to be now.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 12:16am PT
|
Well I don't know about obsessed, but yeah I think when someone is actively pursuing an organized agenda to influence public policy I do expect something more persuasive than inexpert speculation.
That is a choice an individual and/or an advocacy group is allowed to do and it is up to the proponents and the agencies to produce the requested information or deal with the fallout. Public policy can and should be influenced by the public; upholding that policy is exactly what MH has chosen to do. It is how you would be able to take to task something you found to be against your interest that was suppposedly subject to a formal review process. While the gondola project is what is being discussed here, it serves a a proxy for other proposals that have similarly been able to avoid a full and public review process at either the provincial or national level.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 12:49am PT
|
The "were alternative locations properly considered" question is simply one example of the flaws in the process. That is, an example of possible non-compliance with the policy and natural justice, and of the Ministry failing to do its job and provide independent scrutiny. If that isn't the case, let's see the studies and reports that show that all alternatives were objectively examined, that there really is no viable alternative outside the Park, and that the Ministry did its job properly. (If there is a viable location outside the Park, even if not ideal to the proponent, the policy is clear that locations inside aren't acceptable.)
Yes, there are larger flaws in compliance with the policy, and the process.
FOSC raised this example (and others) with the Ombudsperson to illustrate the problem. We have limited resources, but a retired park planner and an engineer looked at the Gonzales Creek location. (I won't provide the naysayers with their names.) They told us that they didn't see any reason that a gondola couldn't be built there. The proponent, with far more resources, and under the supposed scrutiny of BC Parks and the policy, hasn't disclosed so much. It should be disclosing everything, and BC Parks should be independently scrutinizing and reporting on what it claims.
Apparently, though, there's a double standard, with everything the proponent says taken at face value, but those who question its plans and the process subject to intense scrutiny. Although perhaps Bruce, ghost and others are grilling BC Parks and the proponent, and just not telling us...
It appears, though, that the Ministry (and others) simply take the proponent at its word. Double standard. The Ministry has for practical purposes been missing in action - all it's done/said was (briefly) a link from its website to the proponent's. I don't blame BC Parks - they've been gutted for years. It's entirely consistent with the Liberals' agenda that they'd starve BC Parks, and then privatize parks to "save" them. Which is pretty much what seems to be happening. If they can get away with it at Squamish, they will elsewhere.
FOSC has been clear from the start that alternative locations outside the Park, such as that at Gonzales, are acceptable to it. They'd still have to go through the process, but would not bisect and directly affect the park, and so can't be ruled out on that basis.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:10am PT
|
Although perhaps Bruce, ghost and others are grilling BC Parks and the proponent, and just not telling us...
Anders, I'm not grilling anybody. I don't give a rat's ass whether the gondola goes in or not. I just get kind of aggravated at your inability to see both sides of this issue.
A perfect example is your statement that you've got evidence from two knowledgeable people (a retired park planner and an engineer) that the Gonzales Creek site is a better location... But you won't provide their names.
Why not?
If I were opposed to this project, and had credible experts willing to support my position, I'd be trumpeting their names in neon lights. What kind of stupid bullshit is "I've got evidence to show I'm right, but I'm sure not going to let you see it!"
You persist in seeing this as a black hat vs white hat showdown: Anders and god's holy angels on one side, vs. Hamish Fraser and the evil developers on the other. But that's a cop-out. A simplification of a not-simple issue. It's the eight-year-old's way of dealing with adult problems.
Hamish is not blindly pro-gondola. Nor is Bruce. Read their f*#king posts. Bruce has said repeatedly that if there was credible evidence of illegal goings-on, he'd jump onto your bandwagon. He's asked repeatedly for you to show him evidence that something illegal is taking place. And what do you say? "I've heard some retired guys think another site is better, but I'm not going to say who they are."
Meh!
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:20am PT
|
Using the media and public exposure is a common method of getting agencies to be more forthcoming with information they have been not disclosing. Similarly, demanding information from the developers is best done in the public forum by press releases and interviews.
It is not as though the developers did what they have done to this point without shaping public policy to meet their needs.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:27am PT
|
"Illegal"? Non-compliance with a policy, and lack of procedural fairness, aren't that.
Sorry - perhaps due to familiarity, you are applying a double standard. Try contacting the proponents, let alone obtaining information from them or discussing their proposal with them.
I'm not naming the professionals I mention because I haven't asked them if I can. They exist.
As for black and white hats, if the proposal is properly considered under the policy, with independent scrutiny by BC Parks, compliance with the Park Act etc, full disclosure, an open, inclusive process for presentation of information and then public debate, and a transparent decision-making process, and if it is then approved, that'd be the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If it was built through the Park I'd never use it. I'd probably experience a little schadenfreude if the proponent's non-gondola promises turned into smoke, and wouldn't be surprised if it went broke.
It would be a sad day for the Chief, Squamish, parks and B.C. if the proposal simply went ahead without the required process and scrutiny.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:52am PT
|
^^^
Haha ain't that some shlt.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 02:13am PT
|
As stated several times upthread, the Elders' Council for Parks in B.C. put considerable effort into looking into this during the summer. They met at length with the proponent and with BC Parks. They concluded that the role of BC Parks in the process had been very limited. The proponent would not disclose much more than it had already. The Elders' Council concluded that the policy had not been complied with, and advised the deputy minister accordingly. The Ministry made no change to the process.
The Elders' Council is a group mainly made up of retired government parks employees, including some quite senior. It takes no position as to the proposal, but is quite concerned about the precedent that would be set by the process.
http://www.elderscouncilforparks.org/
Other groups that oppose the process are Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., Federation of Mountain Clubs of BC, and others. None necessarily oppose the proposal per se, but as one said, it's chicken and egg. Without an open, fair process, how can you make informed decisions? All are concerned about the flawed process, and the precedent.
Bruce and Dave will now demand the names of my "imaginary" friends at the "imaginary" organizations listed... They seem to suspend their critical facilities when it comes to the proposal, and this thread.
Holy crap! I got #1,900 or something.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 - 04:30pm PT
|
Bruce and Dave will now demand the names of my "imaginary" friends at the "imaginary" organizations listed... They seem to suspend their critical facilities when it comes to the proposal, and this thread.
Not at all. I'm sure your friends and their organizations are real. And I personally am not interested in their names. All I said was that if I were as passionately opposed to the project as you are, I wouldn't keep their names secret. As long as I felt they were credible, I'd be shouting their names loudly and often.
For what feels like the five hundredth time, I am not pro-gondola, and I don't understand why you keep acting as though I were campaigning on behalf of the developers. I'm not anti-gondola either, which may -- in your eyes -- mark me as Satan's right-hand man, but that's more a comment on your eyesight than on my position.
Keep on pointing to me as one of the evil ones if it makes you feel good, but you're far off the mark.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 - 05:30pm PT
|
Ya, what he said.
I'm not promoting or pushing it iether. I believe, if done properly, the gondola could be a great asset but that's about it. I'm most certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2012 - 11:18pm PT
|
Bruce, thanks for posting your concerns. This is a universal situation and really frustrating for those expecting to be involved in land use decisions by following the rules.
I hope all is well up your way. The schnee gods are being bountiful down here in the Baker convergence zone. Maybe a ski some day, eh?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 12:13am PT
|
Bruce, great post. Glad to see you looking at the coin from another angle. Gondolas, heli skiing, IPPs, pipelines, all this sh#t has something in common- as citizens it is being done at our expense.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:17am PT
|
Speaking of which, I wonder if they've found some sucker to buy/finance the thing?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 04:43am PT
|
Bmacd this thread has missed you dearly......
Edit- u gonna wager some dough here or what?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2012 - 02:35pm PT
|
Holy sh#t I just drove by the gravel pit & there's banners up on the fences & a f*#king gondola cabin perched in the middle- no bike racks! This is a shame, Anders have u heard anything about this? Am I out $50??
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2012 - 02:54pm PT
|
Haha it's a virtual gondola! Get in line!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2012 - 09:37pm PT
|
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2012 - 09:51pm PT
|
In Ryand's picture one of the signs reads "Adventure by Nature"
Does this mean there will be sushi? Doug? You planning a sushi fest on the patio of the gondola's top stop? I hope so.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2012 - 11:09pm PT
|
You're right Bruce, It could be a great spot without the cable.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:41pm PT
|
This might fit better in http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1768379/The-Coast-Range-B-C-Mt-Bute-Waddington-etc
I wrote with my comments, on paper at that. I wrote in 1990, when the master plan was last revised. I wrote on several occasions before and after, when the heli-skiers trespassed outside their permit area, e.g. to operate right beside the Himmelsbach Hut. In my view, heli-skiing in the park ought to be phased out over the next five years. If the proposed huts - which I'm undecided about, and fear are a trojan horse - go ahead, increased ski activity in the area may have the serendipitious benefit of discouraging them anyway.
Nobody listens to me anyway.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:48pm PT
|
Anders, do you know how to move my comments and the replies to the Wadd/Bute thread?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:54pm PT
|
I don't think there's any way, certainly none simple. All you can do is move/re-post your comment on that thread, and hope that Greg et al re-post. Shouldn't be hard.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 1125 of total 1125 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!