Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2012 - 09:04pm PT
|
Yes, if/when the Ombudsperson process has finished, and barring other developments, the Minister seems likely to sign the permit. That process could take a while yet, though. A time of uncertainty and rumours.
The Ombudsperson looks at whether there has been:
a) compliance with the relevant statutes and regulations,
b) compliance with the applicable policy - in this case, the Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines, and
c) a process that was administratively fair.
Are you quite sure that there was nothing substantively flawed about any of those? If you are, then maybe we need to clearly define "big yawn", so it's clear who wins - and the beneficiary of any bet should be some worthy cause, e.g. the Climbers' Access Society. I wouldn't want to just take your money.
Bear in mind that the Elders' Council for Parks in B.C., which includes retired senior employees from B.C. Parks, including those who wrote the policy mentioned, looked into the issue of compliance with the policy in considerable detail. They had no doubt that the Ministry had not complied with the policy, in significant ways.
It's going to take effort and time to remedy the flaws in the process, and comply with the policy. It's doubtful that the Ministry is sufficiently unbiased to properly do what's needed.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 01:47am PT
|
Don't be absurd - FOSC is much more than me, but I've borne the brunt of your attacks. $150 from the three of you, plus apology, versus $100 from me. That's enough. Let's keep it reasonable, and between the principals. No need to drag others in, although the idea of getting some of you to (finally) support the Access Society does amuse me.
And yes, we undoubtedly need defined rules and an agreed-on referee. Even the morals & ethics committee might not be willing to adjudicate, with good reason. There could be endless wrangling as to who won - that is, as to whether or not there has been a failure of the kind stated.
You have read that policy I sent you, I hope?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
Bruce you are right that there might be bigger fish to fry as this indicates some substantial renovation of Canada's foreign investment policy: http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale, but it is not entirely different than the gamed system that might result in that gondola.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:21am PT
|
Good Point!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 03:45am PT
|
Only took 1800 posts before some good old fashioned gambling started to take place on here. Seems like a good bet since its pretty much a coin toss at this point.
I will add another $50 to Anders pot to even it out if u guys want to open up this pool. I am due for a renewal in November & will be donating soon anyhow. Trust me Anders I don't feel as though I'm being dragged into a freakshow or anything of that sort:-) I see flaws in the process & can't think of a better cause for us to settle this debate over when the gavel finally drops on this flying cow of a proposal than giving some $$ for access if we "lose". I have agreed with most everything you've said on this thread, but what i don't agree with Anders, is $100 for the gondy naysayers while u gondola minions only have to put up $50?? Where'd u get those odds?! :-)
I think Bruce is right & that a pool should grow if people feel strongly enough about whether the job was botched or not. Or maybe those who just really like gambling can throw in? The CASBC gets the sole benefit.
Wait a minute............ Is this illegal??
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 10:51am PT
|
Dave Harris and Hamish down for 50 each by proclamation (we'll tell them later) (yea...ish?
Count me out of the betting. The only way I'll take part is as arbiter of the contest and holder of the funds.
First, I have no idea whether the process has followed the law or not, and have never said a word on that subject. My personal view is that if the gondola will benefit the people who actually live in the Squamish area, and if an equivalent piece of land can be added to that or some other park, then it should go ahead.
But I haven't even got the beginnings of a clue on the question of whether the law has been followed.
So, all of you send me your $50, or $100, or $150, and I'll hold it so that no one can weasel out. And once the final decision is made on whether the gondola decision process followed the law, you can try to get it back from me.
D (keenly looking forward to his first gondola ride up into the forest with his mountain bike)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
|
I simply want the loudmouths who've been so critical, saying that I don't have a leg to stand on, that there was nothing wrong with the process, and on and on and on, to put their money where their mouths are. For once. You know who you are - if necessary, go back through the thread and re-read the things you said.
Ghost - by saying you think it should be decided locally, and that 'locally' means only Squamish residents, you're saying that you support the process that was used.
Ryan - thanks for the offer. That makes it:
Process wasn't flawed: Bruce, Hamish & David ($50 each).
Process was flawed: Ryan ($50), MH ($100).
Access Society membership dues not included in the above amounts. I'll trust people to pay what they say they will - no need to have a third party hold the money. Plus then the 'donors' get a tax receipt.
We still need an arbiter as to who 'wins' and 'loses', and what the rules are for deciding that. It seems that Bruce et al are certain that there were no flaws at all in compliance with the policy, and the process. Which would mean that if the Ombudsperson (or a court, if necessary) finds any flaws, you're on the hook. Are you quite sure?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
Ghost - by saying you think it should be decided locally, and that 'locally' means only Squamish residents, you're saying that you support the process that was used.
For someone who appears to believe he is a great critical thinker, you're pretty funny Anders. If you'd spent more than two seconds reading my post, and thinking about what I actually wrote, instead of just posting your knee-jerk response, you might have realized that I did not say the issue should be decided locally. What I wrote was that I believe that if the gondola will benefit the people who actually live in the Squamish area, and if an equivalent piece of land can be added to the park (or some other park), then it should go ahead.
Who should make the decision about whether it will benefit the locals is an entirely different issue, and I said nothing about it.
The one thing I specifically did say was that I had no idea whether the process had followed the law, and I'm completely baffled to understand how you can look at those words and conclude that I support the process that was used.
Your behavior in this thread is no different from the kind of right-wing Christian Republican behavior that you profess to despise. You appear to have a belief that removing any land from any park is wrong under any circumstance, and when anyone disagrees with you in any way, you immediately start shouting "The bible says so! The bible says so! The bible says so!"
None of the people you are shouting this at (BK, Hamish, me, whoever else) has actually said they disagree with following the rules. None has said there should be a gondola no matter what. It is you that is trying to ram your views down other people's throats, not vice versa.
Step back from this and give it some thought. And in the meantime, please stop putting words in my mouth.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:05pm PT
|
Here we go again...
If the process was significantly flawed, it implies that the proposal hasn't been scrutinized and debated as it ought to be. Chicken and egg. It's also quite reasonable to advocate that the required policy be followed, and that the process be administratively fair. Particularly as others, including some substantial organizations, agree - if nothing else, it's a risky precedent.
There may be compelling public policy reasons for removing land from parks, but none have been shown in this case. ("Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values." Convenience doesn't equate with compelling.)
And yes, my family and I have a 50 year history of contributing to the stewardship of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. I helped have it created as a park, help with its management, and have contributed in other ways. Why wouldn't I stand up for something important to me?
|
|
roadman
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
|
Here we go again...
If the process was significantly flawed, it implies that the proposal hasn't been scrutinized and debated as it ought to be. It's also quite reasonable to advocate that the required policy be followed, and that the process be administratively fair and open. Particularly as others, including some substantial organizations, agree.
There may be compelling public policy reasons for removing land from parks, but none have been shown in this case. ("Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values." Convenience doesn't equate with compelling.)
And yes, my family and I have a 50 year history of contributing to the stewardship of Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. I helped have it created as a park, help with its management, and have contributed in other ways. Why wouldn't I stand up for something important to me?
Well said MH! Too bad these guys paint you in a bad light! Can't really understand how self-serving attitudes like these guys have!, are tolerated. These CRAZY park land grabbers should be exposed for who they are and run out of town! The idea that park land can be cut up into little pieces for profit is a joke! The whole premis of preserving something for future generations and the value that adds to the culture and community is totally lost on these guys. Oh and most of the powers that be in CA.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2012 - 06:24pm PT
|
Hey ...
I live in CA and have no power.
But!!!!
I know how to use a wrench ........
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:05am PT
|
But the other part of your family that has helped with the stewardship of the Chief, or at the least has been hiking up it for 45 years, thinks the gondola is a great idea.
Maybe you're just referring to your cat but there's no way he's over 50.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:53am PT
|
How would a gondola proposal go over in Yosemite, say next to but not to the top of Half Dome?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
My father helped build, maintain and mark trails on the Chief in the 1960s, and helped put on the public hikes that the Mountain Access Committee and the Province newspaper had on the Chief then. (Sometimes with 'help' from his children.) He probably placed some of those overgrown metal trail markers that are still to be found on the Chief. In the 1980s, my mother took kids from the inner-city school she taught at hiking up the Chief each year, with any help she could get - even mine. FWIW, my brother says he agrees that the process that's been used to consider the current proposal is flawed, whatever his views about any merits it may have. My father didn't think much of the 2004 proposal, and I don't recall talking about it with my mother.
There is an alternate gondola route outside the Park, which if anything is superior to that proposed. It doesn't seem to have been considered to date. It would start at a flattish area just north of Gonzales Creek and east of the highway, and run to a knoll 1 km northeast of Petgill Lake. There is ample room, and similar highway access. There wouldn't be power line issues, although one minor one might need to be shifted. The route would be shorter and steeper = cheaper to build. The upper station is only a few hundred m from the old Shannon Creek roads, and so similarly accessible for construction, supplies and water. It would also have considerably better views. Other advantages:
 No clash with either Park, and spreads out activity.
Room to build hiking and mountain biking trails at the knoll, into upper Shannon Creek and possibly linking to Petgill Lake and Goat Ridge, even the Chief. That is, if the operators ever built any trails.
Much of the road into upper Shannon Creek would need to be kept open, instead of just the first part.
The only "negatives" are that the proponents don't seem to have even considered this possibility, and that it isn't beside Shannon Falls. Still, the policy and common sense require that if there's a workable alternative outside a park, it should be used - even if one in a park might be a bit better.
Some professionals had a look at the Gonzales site, and say it's feasible.
Why don't all those who think a gondola would improve access to upper Shannon Creek and area, for hiking and mountain biking, get behind the Gonzales location? At least you'd be sure of improved access to the area, assuming that the proponent did nothing but grade the road.
Todd, while at the FaceLift, I had several interviews with the news media. I happily mentioned that I was visiting a place much like Squamish, with four million visitors/year - and no gondolas to be seen.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:46am PT
|
I am hardly an expert and would not be so presumptuous to assume there are no insurmountable problems associated with that site. Who are these expert opinions that you cite and what exactly do they say?
I mentioned this potential site myself to the proponents well over a year ago and they told me that site had been considered and eliminated due to technical considerations. What have the proponents or BC Parks told you in regard to this Gonzales creek site?
What expert opinions/evidence did the proponents show you to prove what they claimed?
Perhaps "technical considerations" means no more than "Not right beside Shannon Falls bus traffic, and so not convenient for us".
How does the study that the Squamish Oceanfront Development (SODC) people did a few years ago, of possible gondola locations, fit in with this? A study done by a Whistler company, two of whose principals were behind the 2004 gondola proposal. And all three of those involved in the current proposal were involved in SODC in 2009, as consultants or directors. All very interesting. http://www.squamishreporter.com/2012/03/31/sodc-was-planning-to-build-gondola/
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 02:01am PT
|
Bruce, don't forget that one of the criteria for site selection was that the base of the gondola be right beside the highway. (I presume, but don't know, that that's to drag in as much drive-by traffic as possible, like Hell's Gate.) That was on their web site in the early days of the proposal.
The Gonzales Creek site isn't beside the highway, thus they would have have rejected it out of hand.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 10:48am PT
|
We all like the Gonzales location better but there still isn't a flat 2 acre piece of land there which is ready to build on, not to mention three phase power to plug into. Blasting one of these out of the hillside ain't cheap; bottom line.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:19pm PT
|
Yes, it's all about the corporate bottom line, isn't it?
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 12:36pm PT
|
That and compromise. I'd much rather the lift go up from behind Quest University to the (back country skier's) parking lot at Diamond Head, but who am I to say.
Now I see why Jim has been on the fence for so long....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 01:29pm PT
|
The Gonzales Creek location is right beside the highway, and large and flattish enough. It'd require some work, but is feasible. (A senior parks planner with 30+ years experience agreed.) It might cost more to grade the site, but then the investors (Doppelmayr?) could recoup that in a shorter lift.
Bruce, did the proponents do anything more than cite "technical reasons" to you, or are you simply taking their word that the location isn't feasible? If there are technical reasons, what are they? Or are they just blowing smoke?
It seems likely that the "choice" of the proposed location was a foreordained conclusion. There was no due diligence, in terms of a third party insisting that all alternatives be objectively assessed and compared.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!