Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
|
I quote from the Sea to Sky Gondola website:
The third part of the process is a BC Parks Assessment. Because of the close proximity and routing of the Gondola alignment through the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, we will be engaging in a BC Parks Assessment process as we near the completion of the base area rezoning. This is a rigorous process driven by the requirements and regulations of the Ministry of Environment and BC Parks. ... The BC Parks Assessment process is a comprehensive review of the impact to the Park and the resulting benefits the Park will receive.
Has anyone seen this assessment? I thought those things were to be made available to the public? And, what "benefits to the Park" did the process find?
I asked the proponents, once, if I could see said report, and never received a reply.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 11:13pm PT
|
Bruce, you are obsessed with "evidence" in a situation that is about finding if the required procedures for moving the project forward have been applied. Demanding that the proper procedures have been followed is the right of any citizen and/or advocacy group. The proponents and the agencies should be forthcoming with information requests. Without all the information being exposed to the light of day, public support for or against the project is based on opinion rather than establishment of findings through an evaluation based on codified procedure.
Facts come later in this battle of speculation and hyperbole... when and if, the judicial system takes charge.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2012 - 11:21pm PT
|
I admire the principled stand MH and others who continue to fight the gondola battle on many fronts-but i would suggest that placing themselves in the role of business analysts might not be their strongest suit
Which gets to the heart of the alternative locations issue.
That some other location may be less offensive to one's personal aesthetic says exactly zero about whether it ought to be considered by the developer. While the developer will consider a great variety of things, that consideration will only be given to sites that pass the first test of commercial viability.
This may lead to a stand-off between developer and FOSC (or any number of other groups/individuals), but it is a pointless waste of time. From the point of view of the FOSQ, the best place for this gondola is probably at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. For the developer, the best place may well be from the Chief Parking Lot to the Middle Summit. But neither of those alternatives is worth wasting any thought on, because neither is ever going to happen.
The developer can only consider sites that will allow a profit, so the discussion has to center on those sites. FOSC can reasonably take the position that none of those sites should be allowed, and that therefore the gondola shouldn't go ahead at all. But if they (FOSC) do take that position, then the matter is in the hands of the government.
Which is where it seems to be now.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 12:16am PT
|
Well I don't know about obsessed, but yeah I think when someone is actively pursuing an organized agenda to influence public policy I do expect something more persuasive than inexpert speculation.
That is a choice an individual and/or an advocacy group is allowed to do and it is up to the proponents and the agencies to produce the requested information or deal with the fallout. Public policy can and should be influenced by the public; upholding that policy is exactly what MH has chosen to do. It is how you would be able to take to task something you found to be against your interest that was suppposedly subject to a formal review process. While the gondola project is what is being discussed here, it serves a a proxy for other proposals that have similarly been able to avoid a full and public review process at either the provincial or national level.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 12:49am PT
|
The "were alternative locations properly considered" question is simply one example of the flaws in the process. That is, an example of possible non-compliance with the policy and natural justice, and of the Ministry failing to do its job and provide independent scrutiny. If that isn't the case, let's see the studies and reports that show that all alternatives were objectively examined, that there really is no viable alternative outside the Park, and that the Ministry did its job properly. (If there is a viable location outside the Park, even if not ideal to the proponent, the policy is clear that locations inside aren't acceptable.)
Yes, there are larger flaws in compliance with the policy, and the process.
FOSC raised this example (and others) with the Ombudsperson to illustrate the problem. We have limited resources, but a retired park planner and an engineer looked at the Gonzales Creek location. (I won't provide the naysayers with their names.) They told us that they didn't see any reason that a gondola couldn't be built there. The proponent, with far more resources, and under the supposed scrutiny of BC Parks and the policy, hasn't disclosed so much. It should be disclosing everything, and BC Parks should be independently scrutinizing and reporting on what it claims.
Apparently, though, there's a double standard, with everything the proponent says taken at face value, but those who question its plans and the process subject to intense scrutiny. Although perhaps Bruce, ghost and others are grilling BC Parks and the proponent, and just not telling us...
It appears, though, that the Ministry (and others) simply take the proponent at its word. Double standard. The Ministry has for practical purposes been missing in action - all it's done/said was (briefly) a link from its website to the proponent's. I don't blame BC Parks - they've been gutted for years. It's entirely consistent with the Liberals' agenda that they'd starve BC Parks, and then privatize parks to "save" them. Which is pretty much what seems to be happening. If they can get away with it at Squamish, they will elsewhere.
FOSC has been clear from the start that alternative locations outside the Park, such as that at Gonzales, are acceptable to it. They'd still have to go through the process, but would not bisect and directly affect the park, and so can't be ruled out on that basis.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:10am PT
|
Although perhaps Bruce, ghost and others are grilling BC Parks and the proponent, and just not telling us...
Anders, I'm not grilling anybody. I don't give a rat's ass whether the gondola goes in or not. I just get kind of aggravated at your inability to see both sides of this issue.
A perfect example is your statement that you've got evidence from two knowledgeable people (a retired park planner and an engineer) that the Gonzales Creek site is a better location... But you won't provide their names.
Why not?
If I were opposed to this project, and had credible experts willing to support my position, I'd be trumpeting their names in neon lights. What kind of stupid bullshit is "I've got evidence to show I'm right, but I'm sure not going to let you see it!"
You persist in seeing this as a black hat vs white hat showdown: Anders and god's holy angels on one side, vs. Hamish Fraser and the evil developers on the other. But that's a cop-out. A simplification of a not-simple issue. It's the eight-year-old's way of dealing with adult problems.
Hamish is not blindly pro-gondola. Nor is Bruce. Read their f*#king posts. Bruce has said repeatedly that if there was credible evidence of illegal goings-on, he'd jump onto your bandwagon. He's asked repeatedly for you to show him evidence that something illegal is taking place. And what do you say? "I've heard some retired guys think another site is better, but I'm not going to say who they are."
Meh!
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:20am PT
|
Using the media and public exposure is a common method of getting agencies to be more forthcoming with information they have been not disclosing. Similarly, demanding information from the developers is best done in the public forum by press releases and interviews.
It is not as though the developers did what they have done to this point without shaping public policy to meet their needs.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:27am PT
|
"Illegal"? Non-compliance with a policy, and lack of procedural fairness, aren't that.
Sorry - perhaps due to familiarity, you are applying a double standard. Try contacting the proponents, let alone obtaining information from them or discussing their proposal with them.
I'm not naming the professionals I mention because I haven't asked them if I can. They exist.
As for black and white hats, if the proposal is properly considered under the policy, with independent scrutiny by BC Parks, compliance with the Park Act etc, full disclosure, an open, inclusive process for presentation of information and then public debate, and a transparent decision-making process, and if it is then approved, that'd be the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If it was built through the Park I'd never use it. I'd probably experience a little schadenfreude if the proponent's non-gondola promises turned into smoke, and wouldn't be surprised if it went broke.
It would be a sad day for the Chief, Squamish, parks and B.C. if the proposal simply went ahead without the required process and scrutiny.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 01:52am PT
|
^^^
Haha ain't that some shlt.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2012 - 02:13am PT
|
As stated several times upthread, the Elders' Council for Parks in B.C. put considerable effort into looking into this during the summer. They met at length with the proponent and with BC Parks. They concluded that the role of BC Parks in the process had been very limited. The proponent would not disclose much more than it had already. The Elders' Council concluded that the policy had not been complied with, and advised the deputy minister accordingly. The Ministry made no change to the process.
The Elders' Council is a group mainly made up of retired government parks employees, including some quite senior. It takes no position as to the proposal, but is quite concerned about the precedent that would be set by the process.
http://www.elderscouncilforparks.org/
Other groups that oppose the process are Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., Federation of Mountain Clubs of BC, and others. None necessarily oppose the proposal per se, but as one said, it's chicken and egg. Without an open, fair process, how can you make informed decisions? All are concerned about the flawed process, and the precedent.
Bruce and Dave will now demand the names of my "imaginary" friends at the "imaginary" organizations listed... They seem to suspend their critical facilities when it comes to the proposal, and this thread.
Holy crap! I got #1,900 or something.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 - 04:30pm PT
|
Bruce and Dave will now demand the names of my "imaginary" friends at the "imaginary" organizations listed... They seem to suspend their critical facilities when it comes to the proposal, and this thread.
Not at all. I'm sure your friends and their organizations are real. And I personally am not interested in their names. All I said was that if I were as passionately opposed to the project as you are, I wouldn't keep their names secret. As long as I felt they were credible, I'd be shouting their names loudly and often.
For what feels like the five hundredth time, I am not pro-gondola, and I don't understand why you keep acting as though I were campaigning on behalf of the developers. I'm not anti-gondola either, which may -- in your eyes -- mark me as Satan's right-hand man, but that's more a comment on your eyesight than on my position.
Keep on pointing to me as one of the evil ones if it makes you feel good, but you're far off the mark.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 - 05:30pm PT
|
Ya, what he said.
I'm not promoting or pushing it iether. I believe, if done properly, the gondola could be a great asset but that's about it. I'm most certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2012 - 11:18pm PT
|
Bruce, thanks for posting your concerns. This is a universal situation and really frustrating for those expecting to be involved in land use decisions by following the rules.
I hope all is well up your way. The schnee gods are being bountiful down here in the Baker convergence zone. Maybe a ski some day, eh?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 12:13am PT
|
Bruce, great post. Glad to see you looking at the coin from another angle. Gondolas, heli skiing, IPPs, pipelines, all this sh#t has something in common- as citizens it is being done at our expense.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:17am PT
|
Speaking of which, I wonder if they've found some sucker to buy/finance the thing?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 04:43am PT
|
Bmacd this thread has missed you dearly......
Edit- u gonna wager some dough here or what?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2012 - 02:35pm PT
|
Holy sh#t I just drove by the gravel pit & there's banners up on the fences & a f*#king gondola cabin perched in the middle- no bike racks! This is a shame, Anders have u heard anything about this? Am I out $50??
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2012 - 02:54pm PT
|
Haha it's a virtual gondola! Get in line!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2012 - 09:37pm PT
|
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2012 - 09:51pm PT
|
In Ryand's picture one of the signs reads "Adventure by Nature"
Does this mean there will be sushi? Doug? You planning a sushi fest on the patio of the gondola's top stop? I hope so.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!