Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!