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