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