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