Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 10:47pm PT
|
Good to hear from you, Hamish. Hope all is well with you.
Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea for anyone but the developer. Assuming that I am correct in my understanding that the area is within the confines of a Class "A" park, I see no reason for the need of a gondola within its boundaries. This proposal could very easily be seen as a precedent to justify further exploitation of the area.
These feelings have arisen from my involvement in the struggle to protect Strathcona Park. I (along with many others) spent countless hours attempting to defend the integrity of the boundaries of this area, and many law-abiding friends of mine walked away from that scrap with a criminal record as thanks for their efforts... we (sort of) won that scrap, but the battle continues to this very day with no end in sight. Feel free to check out the details for yourself - the history of the exploitation of Strathcona Park would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.
Class "A" status means that if I find a pretty rock within its boundaries, I am committing an offence if I decide to take it home with me. Furthermore, it is my understanding that I would also be committing an offence against the Park Act if I decide to set up a tent anywhere in the area of the Chief outside the designated camping sites. However, the developers feel that it should be OK to rip up Goat Ridge so that only those who can afford the trip can enjoy the view. No dice.
Here's the compromises that I could accept (through gritted teeth):
 the ride is free.
the land involved is traded for an equal (and pristine) area nearby that is acceptable to both the Nature Conservatory of British Columbia or a similar organization and the BCMC.
an enforceable commitment from the B.C. government to retain the remaining land in an undeveloped state in perpetuity.
the developer posts a non-refundable bond to ensure that the area is properly maintained and cleaned up if the project is abandoned at any stage of completion. This would include littering by gondola patrons.
the developer will assume the costs of any additional search and rescue operations resulting from the influx of inexperienced visitors who would otherwise be unable to access the area.
the developer will pick up any increased policing costs incurred as a result of the additional car thieves attracted to easy pickings in Squamish.
a response plan for the admittedly unlikely prospects of an avalanche coming down the clearcut, or a fire caused by gondola operations.
ALL jobs created by the gondola development go to the locals, and at a decent wage.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that the attractions of Class "A" parks should be equally accessible to ALL Canadians regardless of their economic circumstances. The last I heard, they were still supposed to be considered citizens of this nation.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It's still unclear why I would privately consult with the developers, or vice versa, although I’m sure we’d have a nice chat. I oppose land being removed from Class A parks, to land being removed (directly or in effect) from these particular parks for the gondola, and to a gondola being built in or near those parks. If such removal is considered, it should only be after full and open process - public review by BC Parks, and public information/discussion/feedback meetings organized by BC Parks - by internet, and in Squamish, Vancouver and elsewhere. Which hasn't happened. The developers disagree with me, so what would be the purpose? They would say “We’re going to build this gondola, and let’s talk about the bells and whistles, and what we can do for you”. I’d say “No, I oppose a gondola being built there at all, or land being taken from Class A Parks, and to the process that's been followed.”
No doubt they're fine fellows (whoever might be behind the proposal), and we could talk about lots of fun stuff, like what's happening with the restrictive covenant, whether the swathe would be 20, 31 or 62 m wide, and continuous or discontinuous, whether they truly looked at alternatives, the noise and visual impacts, their various promises with regard to a variety of matters, how they'd live up to their promises, why I'm skeptical, why I oppose the proposal, and even what they'd in theory do to address my concerns. (You never really know what they'll do until after the fact, of course.) Perhaps I'd agree that I ought to have said something earlier, but had taken it that TLC and others were looking after it, and would apologize if in fact I'd said anything that was demonstrably incorrect. We could even discuss the pros and cons of locations outside the parks, or acceptable money-making activities that might be conducted within the gravel pit, if they wanted. I wouldn't mind such a meeting at all, and perhaps Bruce can introduce us.
That's not the point. Neither the developers, nor I, have the power to decide anything. It's up to the provincial government to fairly and publicly decide such issues, accordingly to the law and public interest, after proper public consultation. And that's not what's been happening. It is public land after all, in a provincial park. And somewhere in the fine print I read that it was for all the citizens of B.C., which I hope means we all have a right to be consulted by the decision-maker.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The process seems like the one we had in the US and the individual states until the early-1970s...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Wayno, don't be a hoser.
And aren't you home early from work?
ps Thanks for reading, and don't be shy about writing a letter. You've been to Squamish, and can put in your two cents if you want.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
To tell you the truth, Anders, after all that reading, I really don't have a strong enough opinion on the matter to write a letter. I see and have seen this kind of thing go down here in the states too many times. My life is complicated enough these days without having to get emotionally invested in a cause, but I wish you the best in your endeavor.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm thinking the trees are so thick in the campground, the happy campers won't even see any gondolas.
Do you get free lates when you're building those starbucks, Jim?
Seems wherever there's a starbucks going in, there's another one not too far away...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
You're gunna lose the circulation in your feet from sittin on the fence for too long.
I think we're all in agreement it's a crying shame the gondola has to travel over the park. We'd love it if they could slide the project south a few klicks.
Just seems part of life that you can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Life is full of compromises.
You'd probably way rather be building a coffee shop on Lonsdale, where you live, but you're making one in Calgary.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
It will still be a park, just with a tram running over part of it. And if your whole push is the enjoyment of the park for Canadians and foriegn visitors, wouldn't you think more Canadians and more foriegn visitors will enjoy the park if the gondola proceeds? Call me crazy.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Much of this debate relates to the importance of keeping an open mind, critically assessing the process and if needed the proposal, involving all those who should in the debate, and coming to an informed decision.
As Dave and Jim say, it's not the developer's fault - they're simply being and doing what developers do. It's in their nature.
However, the provincial government in particular created a badly flawed process for assessing the proposal, which almost seems designed to ensure it would be approved. The lack of public review of the proposal by B.C. Parks, and a largely local and often private process, speak for themselves. You'd think that the provincial government, approached about a proposal like this, would say:
1. A similar one was soundly rejected in 2004.
2. It's not at all consistent with the master plan for either park, or the Park Act.
3. Concerned parties bought the gravel pit and put a restrictive covenant on it to prevent this happening. Whether or not the covenant can be avoided, it's morally if not legally binding.
4. They're high profile, heavily used parks, of international stature. This isn't just a local issue.
5. Given this, if you want us to consider this, the proposal will have to go through extensive, independent public review. It will have to be approved by all the local governments, after public debate. All those who have an interest in the parks will need to be actively informed of what you propose, with real opportunities for independent public debate.
6. If B.C. Parks recommends against your proposal, after full review, tough. Likewise if it's rejected by one or other level of government, or the public. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
The provincial government has been acting more as facilitator than as trustee of the parks and the public interest, and that's wrong.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
We'll never know what happened behind closed doors. In 2004, we heard of the proposal in the spring. The proponent wanted it to be kept low key, and so no issue was made of it at the time. In August, it was subject of a CBC radio program, at which point the Access Society went public with concerns about the proposal and the process. It generated some news media interest, and considerable public interest. The provincial government, again disregarding the spirit if not the letter of the Park Act, said that before the proposal could be considered, it would have to be approved by the District of Squamish, the Olympics people, the Squamish Nation, and IIRC the regional district. A lot of people held meetings, talked about, wrote letters, politicked etc - I'm sure I don't know the half of it. Keeping track of what was happening, staying involved, and getting accurate information out on a regular basis, was a challenge.
It came to a head at a Squamish council meeting in late September. We suggested that the meeting was of some interest, and should be moved from council chambers to the high school (edit: Brennan Park Recreation Centre), which it was. About 200 were there. It wasn't a public meeting - all we could do was listen, without saying anything. However, we did have cheerful red buttons, which in a sense spoke for us. (See below.) Council discussed it to some extent. The developers were there, as were representatives of the Squamish Nation. (They liked the buttons.) At one point the developers were asked how their meeting with the Squamish Nation that day had gone. They answered so as to suggest that those discussions were continuing, although it appeared that many in the audience knew otherwise. The proposal had been rejected by the Squamish Nation. Council then voted to reject the proposal, and that was that, apart from some grumbling by the developers about suing the provincial government for their investment - which makes you wonder what the government might have said to them.
Afterward, MEC arranged a meeting with TLC, and committed $100,000 to start, for addressing problems in the Squamish area. We said the highest priority was getting the gravel pit off the market, and making sure it could never again be threatened with inappropriate development, such as another gondola - to the Chief or elsewhere.
Shows what people can accomplish if they work together.
Given the geography, the Chief and area will be subjected to repeated development proposals as time goes on. (In 2004, I advised people to hang onto their buttons, as they were bound to be useful in future.) It's easy to say, as in the present case a climber might "Oh, it's not really a climber problem, it's not on the Chief itself, they've promised to make some little changes to address our concerns, plus we like some of the other bells and whistles they promise. We can live with it." The broader issue is the death of 1,000 cuts - next time, it will be something which does have significant impacts on climbers, or some other park in the area. The government will say that the present case shows that they don't have to go through full public review and consultations, and the developer will say that this provides a precedent for it. It's better to stand up for our principles now, especially given a flawed process.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Canada National Parks Act (S.C. 2000, c. 32)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/
4. (1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
8. (1) The Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of parks, including the administration of public lands in parks and, for that purpose, the Minister may use and occupy those lands.
Ecological integrity
(2) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.
Park communities
9. Powers in relation to land use planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.
Pollution clean-up
32. (1) Where a substance that is capable of degrading the natural environment, injuring fauna, flora or cultural resources or endangering human health is discharged or deposited in a park, any person who has charge, management or control of the substance shall take reasonable measures to prevent any degradation of the natural environment and any danger to the fauna, flora or cultural resources or to persons that may result from the discharge or deposit.
Powers of superintendent and Minister
(2) If the superintendent of a park is of the opinion that a person is not taking the measures required by subsection (1), the superintendent may direct the person to take those measures and, if the person fails to do so, the Minister may direct those measures to be taken on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
Expenses of clean-up
(3) A person who fails to comply with a direction given by a superintendent under subsection (2) is liable for the expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in taking the measures directed, and those expenses may be recovered from that person, with costs, in proceedings brought in the name of Her Majesty in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Preparation of community plan
Footnote *33. (1) A community plan for each park community shall be tabled in each House of Parliament as soon as possible after this section comes into force, accompanied in the case of the town of Banff by any zoning by-laws made under the agreement referred to in section 35.
*[Note: Section 33 in force February 19, 2001, see SI/2001-29.]
Contents of community plan
(2) A community plan for a park community must
(a) be consistent with the management plan for the park in which the park community is located;
(b) accord with any guidelines established by the Minister for appropriate activities within the park community;
(c) provide a strategy for the management of growth within the park community; and
(d) be consistent with principles of
(i) no net negative environmental impact, and
(ii) responsible environmental stewardship and heritage conservation.
Elements to be included
(3) A community plan, or the zoning by-laws referred to in subsection (1) and tabled with it, must include
(a) a description of the lands comprising the park community;
(b) a description of the lands comprising the commercial zones of the park community; and
(c) a measure of the maximum floor area permitted within the commercial zones of the park community.
Amendment of Schedule 4
(4) Subject to section 34, the Governor in Council may, by order, add the description of a park community, the description of its commercial zones and a measure of their maximum floor area referred to in subsection (3) to columns 2, 3 and 4, respectively, of Schedule 4, opposite the name of the community set out in column 1 of that Schedule, but any description or measure so added is not subject to amendment by the Governor in Council.
Leases, licences, etc.
(5) No lease or licence of occupation may be granted, and no permit, licence or other authorization may be issued, authorizing a commercial use of lands within a commercial zone of a park community if the maximum floor area for commercial zones specified for that park community in Schedule 4 would be exceeded as a result of that use.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
If I am not mistaken, the proposal regards a BC Provincial Park and not a national park...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-344/latest/rsbc-1996-c-344.html
Park Act, RSBC 1996, c 344
Restriction on alienation of interests
8 (1) An interest in land in a Class A or Class C park must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or obtained or made the subject of a licence except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(2) A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved.
(3) An interest in land in a Class B park must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or obtained except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(4) A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned.
(5) Crown land in a recreation area
(a) is reserved absolutely from sale, and title to that land is retained, in perpetuity, by the government, and
(b) is reserved from lease or other disposal under the Land Act, except as may be approved by the minister.
(6) An interest in land in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated or made the subject of a licence except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
Natural resources protected
9 (1) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a Class A or Class C park must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(2) A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.
(3) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a Class B park must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(4) A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved.
(5) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a park of any class having an area of 2 023 ha or less or in a designated wildland area must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited.
(6) A natural resource other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a recreation area must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed or damaged, exploited, developed, improved or utilized under any Act except as may be approved by the minister.
(6.1) A natural resource, other than fish and wildlife taken, hunted or killed in accordance with the Wildlife Act and fish, game or wildlife stalked or pursued for observation or for photographic or study purposes, in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged, exploited, developed, improved or utilized except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit.
(7) A natural resource in a park of any class must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged or exploited unless, in the opinion of the minister, the development, improvement and use of the park in accordance with section 12 (3) will not be hindered by it.
(8) [Repealed 2004-22-61.]
(9) A natural resource in a conservancy must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, disturbed, damaged or exploited unless, in the opinion of the minister, the development, improvement and use of the conservancy in accordance with section 5 (3.1) will not be hindered by it.
(10) A park use permit must not be issued to authorize the following activities in a conservancy:
(a) commercial logging;
(b) mining;
(c) hydro electric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects;
(d) any other activity unless, in the opinion of the minister, the activity will not restrict, prevent or inhibit the development, improvement or use of the conservancy in accordance with section 5 (3.1).
(11) In subsection (10):
"commercial logging" means harvesting timber for the primary purpose of selling or trading the timber;
"local run-of-the-river projects", in relation to a conservancy, means run-of-the-river projects supplying power for use only
(a) in the conservancy, or
(b) by communities, including first nation communities, that do not otherwise have access to hydro electric power.
Resort and tourism development
9.1 Nothing in section 8 (2) or 9 (2) prevents the issuance of a park use permit for an activity related to resort or tourism development if, in the minister's opinion, the activity and the development are consistent with or complementary to the recreational values of the park involved.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Thanks Ed.
It looks like there is a huge amount of discretionary power given to BC Parks and that citizen input is more likely to happen in the election process rather than the permit process...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There is another very important public policy aspect to this. Nature trusts and land conservancies, such as The Land Conservancy of B.C., do an enormous amount of useful work. They work with governments, landowners, citizens, donors and businesses to acquire and protect land that is important for conservation, heritage, and recreation values - for the public, and the long term. The public has benefited enormously from this.
The negotiations are often complex, but the conservancies' usual goal is to protect important land. They often do so by purchase or trade. Once they own the land, it is often transferred to a government, but with binding conditions (restrictive covenants) as to its future use. Sometimes the land ends up in a park, sometimes it's used for other things. Just like the Access Fund, they acquire the land, make sure it's protected, and eventually pass it on to someone able to manage it, usually a government. The conservancies' work is founded on restrictive covenants being ironclad - they count on government to enforce them.
The total budget of land conservancies in B.C. is in the tens of millions of dollars annually, and at any one time they probably own hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property. Climbers have benefited greatly from the work of TLC, at Skaha, the Malemute, and elsewhere, and Squamish generally has benefited from the work of land conservancies, not just on "climber" issues. The public of B.C. as a whole has benefited enormously from their work. Many climbers and members of the public made substantial donations to TLC to help with its work at Squamish, especially protecting the gravel pit.
The motto of TLC is "Special Places. Forever, For Everyone." Similarly to other conservancies, not just in B.C.
We're waiting for a copy of the restrictive covenant, to see what it actually says. However, it would be normal for it to name both TLC and BC Parks/the government. Both would have rights to enforce its terms. It apparently says something like: "You can't build a gondola from this site that goes through or ends in either of the Parks, or is on the Chief." If the reports are correct, the developer hopes to get around this by having a strip of land removed from the Parks, so that technically the gondola wouldn't contravene the covenant. Still, the intent of the covenant is very clear, and the government may be quite able to enforce it.
The message this all sends to developers is that if they can think of a way around the wording of a restrictive covenant, the provincial government may enable them to do so - instead of defending them. It's an appalling precedent. It sends a message to the public, and to land conservancies, that restrictive covenants may not be effective, and so is likely to negatively affect their work, and fundraising. After all, if conservancies can't guarantee that land really will be protected, and government won't fulfill its role as guarantor (whatever second thoughts some might later have), how can they do their work, and who will donate to them? That may in turn have serious implications, throughout B.C. And then there's the question as to why the provincial government, knowing how important restrictive covenants are to B.C. and its citizens, and to the work of land conservancies, seems to be creating a dangerous precedent by not doing all it can to enforce the spirit if not the letter of this one. It's nothing new for land protected by restrictive covenants to be under development pressure, and you have to stand up for your rights.
Bruce: You're right - the 2004 council meeting was at Brennan Park. I've been to so many high school functions there I get confused. But I'm certain that the public wasn't allowed to speak, as that's something I would remember.
(A reliable source advises that the article in the Georgia Straight was incomplete. TLC bought the gravel pit for $900,000, and nominally sold it for $2 million, but as part of a more complex transaction which didn't result in it actually pocketing $1.1 million.)
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
Hamish - thank you most sincerely for having the courtesy to respond to my concerns.
The bottom line of my objections centre upon the fact that there is absolutely no connection between the words "developer" and "philanthropist" or, for that matter, "environmentally responsible".
My concerns and comments regarding this proposal are, I feel, valid. I am also aware that there are many who feel that they are extreme, but they were stated with the desire to make these (and future) developments so difficult to proceed with that present and future politicians will be required to think long and hard before granting these kind of permits to one of their drinking buddies.
This is a political decision based upon the reality that this proposal arose because of the simple fact that this guy expects to make money out of ripping up a Class "A" park, and ALL Class "A" park boundaries will remain elastic for as long as politicians and government employees with their careers on the line continue to allow this kind of behaviour to continue. Each abuse of the sanctity of park boundaries establishes precedents to justify further development of land that is supposed to be protected for the enjoyment of future generations.
With respect, Hamish - where would you draw the line when it comes to the re-drawing of a park boundary? I could easily envision a scenario where this guy tears up Goat Ridge and either runs out of cash and/or decides it's not such a great idea after all and just walks away, leaving a godawful mess up there with nothing to show for it. I would be willing to bet that the developer would not be held personally (as in out of his own pocket) responsible for the cleanup costs.
Finally, I'm sorry, but WHY build the damn thing in the first place? As I stated in my first post, the beautiful scenery that can be viewed from up high has always been one of the unique rewards for the efforts (and often risks) of those who took the trouble to get up there on foot.
To quote Geoffrey (sp?) Winthrop Young, whose climbing career was submarined as a result of wounds received during World War I, "I hold the heights, I keep the dreams I won."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I got in a bit of trouble for my comment last week asking why the naysayers are joining the eight month old discussion so late in the game.
I know M.H. is no stranger to these differences of opinion and has always been actively involved in similiar discussions, to put it mildly.
Another "actively involved" group is the Climbers' Access Society of British Columbia. This group has been attending meetings with the Gondola Proponents for many months now, and making lots of progress.
Why does the former president, founder, and current member of the CASBC wait until the final hour to stomp his feet?
The very access society that you belong to, and founded, has been in discussions with these guys for months. And as an active member, are you still telling us you learned about this proposal last week?
Not trying to put you on the spot or anything; just wondering.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, HF.
1. I've been rather preoccupied by work, family matters and other things for some time - life. I won't say more.
2. Unless the provincial government has already made up its mind, which I hope it hasn't, citizens have a right to comment on the process and the proposal, and have that taken into consideration, right up until a decision is made. As there has been amongst other things inadequate (no) process to inform and involve people from outside the Squamish area, the governments can't complain if that input isn't at a time or in the form they might prefer.
I believe that I've raised some key issues, which need to be addressed. If no one else raised them earlier, that's unfortunate.
3. I wasn't aware of the restrictive covenant disaster until the Georgia Straight called me about it. (To judge from the article, neither was the executive director of TLC.) I took it that TLC had placed a binding restrictive covenant on the gravel pit to prevent any gondola being built, as agreed by all in 2004, and relied on them and the government to ensure it was enforced. I'm appalled that the government has not from the start carried out its responsibility to enforce the spirit and the letter of the covenant.
4. The Access Society has a focused mandate - it represents climbers regarding access issues. No doubt it's doing just fine at that, and I stay out of the way - I've done more than enough for climbers and access already. Still, they seem to have been haggling with the developer over details, when the bigger picture is the issue. This is about much more than climbers' interests.
Yes, in the best of all possible worlds I would have been aware of and involved earlier. If I've perturbed anyone by speaking out now, sorry about that - it wasn't intentional. Better late than never, I hope.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
To put the governments/restrictive covenant issue another way, consider this. The Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C., with support from many, bought key land in the middle of the Little Smoke Bluffs in the mid 1980s. It's now nominally worth millions, and managed as though it's part of the park, but still owned by the FMCBC. It greatly benefits all citizens of Squamish, and is much more than just for climbers. The FMCBC hasn't donated the land to the District of Squamish. It wants to be sure they have an enforceable restrictive covenant and zoning on the land, so that it's truly protected, and can only be used for park purposes. It won't transfer the land until there is, and there's no agreement. "Whether the FMCBC lands will be transferred to the District of Squamish will depend on how secure the climbing community feels with the park designation by-law." (http://mountainclubs.org/index.htm); Given what's happened with the gravel pit restrictive covenant, the FMCBC may not feel secure about this any time soon.
There's no risk that the land, while owned by the FMCBC, would be used for other purposes. But non-profits sometimes go broke. In which case the land would be sold to the highest bidder, which might be rather a problem.
Perhaps the governments have overlooked this possibility. The FMCBC might draw an adverse inference from what has happened, and retain title to its land, just to be on the safe side.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Hi Woz. You are a very good writer to which I'm no match.
Do keep in mind, however, the development you write about will be occuring way up top, well away from the park. That area up there is old cut-blocks, likely scheduled for more logging at some point. Also, the proponents aren't asking to re-draw the boundaries of the park, they're asking for a 20 meter easement.
I'm sorry but I'm out of time. I will answer all of your questions later, after work.
Cheers.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!