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