By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: April 20, 2012
A wave of supporters, and a sprinkling of detractors, took to the mike to voice their opinion at the SLRD public hearing on the Sea to Sky Gondola project at Britannia Beach on Thurs. April 19.
Squamish locals, and representatives of Squamish hotels, Tourism Squamish, Downtown Squamish Business Improvement Association (DSBIA), overwhelmingly supported the gondola proposal.
There were a few critics, some notable ones, but they were far outnumbered by the gondola supporters.
SLRD planner Ian Hall said although the SLRD board had heard concerns about the removal of land from the park, the gondola project won’t set up a precedent for that.
“Land has been removed before for transmission lines, recreation use, and Sea to Sky Highway Improvement project. This is not going to be precedent setting project,” Hall said.
In his opening remarks, proponent David Greenfield said the gondola would create 30 to 80 jobs in Squamish, giving locals the option of working in Squamish rather than commuting to the city.
“Right now, 50 per cent of our workforce commutes to Vancouver. We need to diversify that and tourism is a key element in that,” he said.
The tone that he set for the evening echoed in the hall, as speaker after speaker came to support the gondola.
Squamish Nation Councillor Dale Harry said the gondola had the backing of the first nation community.
“We opposed the earlier gondola to the Chief, but our community will support this project,” Harry said.
Jared Sissons from Tourism Squamish said the organisation would overwhelmingly support the gondola project, a view also shared by the representative of the Executive Inn Hotel.
“This is a fantastic addition to tourism and will help promote Squamish as a destination in its own right,” Sissons said.
Squamish local James Retty said he has been involved in tourism operations in Switzerland, and knows how entire town have prospered because of the gondolas.
A gondola would draw visitors, create jobs for locals, and help Squamish become a destination, was the common refrain for gondola supporters.
John Harvey, Kristin Clausen, Nancy Hamilton, Jill Carter, Rod McLeod, Scott McQuade, and Auli Parviainen spoke in favour of the Gondola.
Peter Harker, the president of the Squamish Downtown Neighbourhood Association, was the first to take a jab at the gondola proposal.
“Is nothing sacred? It would be a tragedy if we cut the park into half.
“There are tonnes of other places where this gondola could go. Putting it here would be sacrilegious,” he said.
Speaking on behalf of Friends of the Chief, Anders Ouroum said he doesn’t oppose the gondola per se, but its location.
“What’s the point of having a park that is not protected? We want that land should not be removed for the gondola.”
He also said the process for a gondola hasn’t been very inclusive.
“It hasn’t been much of a public process.”
Frank Baumann said he opposes the gondola because the Stawamus Chief park is a “unique and a special place”, whose sanctity must be protected.
In a press release issued after the meeting, Trevor Dunn, the proponent of the gondola said he wanted to thank those who came to express their views.
“We have hosted close to 100 such meetings and information nights since the project was announced last summer. Tonight was a strong indication that those efforts have been well received,” he said.
Paul beevh says
I think gangadeep should jog up the chief and have his time posted in the squamish reporter each week!
Jasprit Bhatia says
And your point is?
jasdeep says
I support the project.
1. It adds some jobs.
2. A tourist attraction is added to the town. Some local businesses may benefit.
3. Success of the project may stimulate some other investment.
In my opinion Squamish needs some projects which create jobs. Environmental issues are important but growth of our town should not suffer because of these.
Dave Colwell says
Kind of fed up with the whiners. parks are for EVERYONE not just the super fit and young. This venture is minimally intrusive and of great benefit to our community.
Take a look at Switzerland to see what they do regarding multiple land use…a model for us all! So the park is sacred Frank…then I would like to have free access to it..I pay my taxes but I am getter older ..maybe too old to hike in there, at least to the higher altitudes. Time for the climbing elite to step back a bit and share our great environment.
Robynne says
I all for it……..IF……it does not allow ill-equipped tourists to go wandering in the wrong clothes and footware etc, getting lost and costing us tons of money in rescue efforts!!! As well………who’s going to clean up all of the garbage this will create from people who don’t respect nature the way most typically outdoorsy types do??
Wolfgang Wittenburg says
As someone who is generally sympathetic to the idea of a gondola in Squamish, I find it all sounds perhaps too deceptively easy and too good to be true: All we have to do is build a gondola to nowhere and people on the way to or from Whistler will stop in droves to ride it!
Has anyone thought about what ‘our’ gondola will offer that Grouse Mountain’s or the threesome in Whistler do not? The panoramic view over a great city south of us and the Alpine vistas to the north? In contrast, the ridge at the upper terminus of our planned gondola is nothing extraordinary and neither are the views. Firstly, you can only see snippets of Squamish from there, and secondly you get great views of Squamish, Howe Sound and mountain scenery just driving the Sea to Sky Highway.
Put yourself into the shoes of Mr. & Mrs. Tourist, on a tight holiday schedule and maybe an equally tight budget: Be honest, what would be your choice of gondola ride among the three on offer? What would be your reason to choose the Sea to Sky Gondola over the others? On that note, what if the proponents’ projections should prove to have been too rosy and the venture fails? Will it then fall into the catgory of “Too important (or embarrassing) for the Outdoor Recreation Capital of Canada to fail”, with the taxpayer picking up the tab?
My concern is that our product on offer will be found wanting compared to our competition, I see nothing unique or “proprietary” about it that would attract the tourist we are trying to court.
Jaspera says
While it would appear that the Gondola proposal is supported by the majority, I would contest that. By the noisiest, most vocal, pro-developer group “yes”, but by the majority of all Squamishians, not necessarily. The article seems biased, based on its language usage: why are those who support the gondola just called “supporters”, while those who are concerned about its environmental, economic and social impacts are called “detractors”, or “critics”? Why are those who support the proposal merely said to be in support of it, while someone like Peter Harker is deemed to have “taken a jab” at the proposal? Overall why hasn’t the Reporter done a bit more investigative reporting about the impacts of this proposal and ascertained why those who are opposing it are so concerned? Why hasn’t the Reporter looked into the Covenant in the original contract between The Nature Conservancy and aan unnamed buyer-developer, which specifically stated that no gondola was to built in the Class A lands, and which the subsequeent buyer ignored while the District turned a blind eye to this stipulation? Why hasn’t the Reporter noted that those who support the gondola proposal are mostly linked to the development/developer community? One comment mentions Swizerland, a well-run, forward-thinking, disciplined country – perhaps the Reporter should contact others who have been to other countries where the footprint of gondolas have had a calamitous effect on their surroundings, and where excrementaldevelopment has followed the gondolas. Will the gondola really bring in all the purported benefits when it is surrounded by gondolas, such as Peak-to-PeakWhistler-Blackcomb, Grouse, Seymour, etc.? When downtown Squamish has little to offer in its present state? Who will really benefit dollar-wise from this gondola? The proponents/developers – I would hazard a guess. And who will foot the bill if the project goes bankrupt or otherwise go awry ? Squamish, I suspect. Poor Squamish – more piece- meal development. And still no integarated planning or vision!
Jaspera says
Following on from Mr. Wittenburg’s comment, with which I agree: I was yesterday up at Quest University, at the top. What views of Squamish, Howe Sound, and the surrounding mountains! And it occurred to me that IF people so desperately wanted a gondola, why not think outside the box and come up with another option, for instance, why not run one up from below Quest U., say from the renovated Garden Centre, up to Quest. It would not be disrupting new lands or wildlife, it would be where roads, parkways, and sidewalks already exist, so it wouldn’t be out-of-place (just a bit more concrete ), and, most importantly, it would offer outstanding 360 degree views of this whole area. At the top there already is Quest’s excellent cafeteria and coffeeshoppe, and sometimes on-going lectures and concerts or sports events, which gondola riders could take in while enjoying the views. Then, if gondola-riders wanted an option, infrastructure already exists which would allow them to walk down or take the bus down to the shopping environs . With good transit, they could thenn go to downtown or the Railway Museum, And all without once again intruding on Class A parklands! Meanwhile Squamish could apply to the Canadian Commission for UNESCO for designation as a world heritage site, which in and of itself would be a major tourist attraction without the disruption that will occur under the present gondola proposal. Once the gondola goes up Squamish will lose that opportunity. So think about a Quest U. Gondola!!!!!
MichaelL65 says
Yeah, Jaspera we hear your nonsense. As a disabled member of the community, and who has the most awesome respect concerning Frank Baumann as my fave high school teacher, I think you are both wrong in opposing this project. I cannot hike the Chief trail anymore due to an injury. I would love to be able to access these areas and this Gondola makes that possible. So, shut up and let those us us that are disabled access this area.
Christopher says
Squamish spends too much time bickering and not enough time moving forward. Get the gondola going! 🙂
Marion von Dehn says
I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that the Squamish reporter was very biased. Using language like “wave of supporters” and then juxtaposing with :”a sprinkling of detractors” does not create an objective take on the situation. Why are those who are opposed characterized in such a negative way? I agree with Jaspera that there are several gondolas within the North Shore and Sea to Sky corridor with much better views to offer than the gondola proposed here would provide. I also believe that this gondola is a detracted to other intentions that developers have for that back area (much like the GAS development with skiing as the trojan horse to a huge housing development project). We should be questioning this project and those who oppose are asking very good questions that none of the developers have answered adequately. There are also environmental assessments that have not been made public at this time so why are we pushing something through without proper vetting? I don’t like this process and I don’t like that those opposed are being labelled as “whiner, detractors, or taking a jab” We have a right to question this and not to be bullied for our points of view. Name calling isn’t going to stop me from opposing this project.
Marion von Dehn says
Sorry, I meant a distraction not a detracted.
Wolfgang Wittenburg says
Jaspera and Marion, yes the way in which language is used matters, and the choice of a word or phrase does sometimes have the power to color a simple statement and suggest more than what was said or written.
Not having been at that information meeting, I cannot comment personally on whether there were any “waves” or “sprinklings” in the room. However, judging from the ‘Chief’s’ piece on this, and beginning with the title ‘Outpour of support…’, only to be followed by ‘flood of support’ further into the article and finishing with the statement that 40 of the 54 speakers spoke in favour of the project, indicates to me that there was indeed a “wave” and a “sprinkling”. If this were an election, we would call it a “landslide” for the supporters!
If someone puts a proposal forward for discussion, you can either support it, oppose it, criticize it, detract from it, or, more colloquially ‘take a jab’ at the proposing party’s arguments. What are the nouns for the verbs mentioned?
I can see no bias in the usage of language here, let alone a belittling of the detr… ah..opponents (?). If only for clarification, you may perhaps want to share with readers what your choice of words would be to describe the facts observed at that meeting.
On summary, we should not get hung up on this to the point of polarization, but a healthy and informed debate has its own rewards, regardless of the eventual decison taken.
Jaspera says
Sadly, language does matter, especially when it is emanating from the news media, who can help to sway opinion one way or the other just by the use of certain words or juxtaposition of certainn phrases. It is obvious from the article where the Reporter stands on this issue, even though all the facts, studies and analyses are not in. Anyway,moving on, why not think outside the box and consider a viable alternative? What about A gondola from the Squamish Golf Course or Garden Centre up to the top of Quest University? Infrastructure is already in place to catch a gondola at the bottom or top; winding paths exist for bikers, hikers, and even those in wheelchairs; bus routes are there and appear to be increasing for students,residents, and tourists; no Class A Park will have to be destroyed; few or fewer wildlife will have to be disrupted, and ultimately killed; few or fewer trees will have to be cut down as most of that clearing has already occurred for the University and residential areas; additional concretization of the outdoors will be minimized; the overall footprint of such a gondola will be lessened; parking for cars, busses and bikes is already ample; an excellent cafe and restaurant already exist, with tastey ethnic dishes. And did I mention that one of the most stunning 360 degree views of Squamish, Howe Sound and its far-reaching waters, the Tantalus Range, and a host of other spectacular mountains greets any visitor/tourist, resident, athlete, or even dog-walker, of any physical ability . Sitting on the high balcony of Quest University sipping on one its libations, one can indulge in an awe-inspiring view, all the while knowing that a Class A Park with its unique flora and fauna has not been destroyed just to satisfy a momentary lust for an “experience”. The experience already exists. Just go up to Quest U’s outlook and enjoy. And think outside the box!
Wolfgang Wittenbur says
And who would invest in the venture you propose? How could something like that be profitable, considering there is good road access to Quest anyway? Sorry, Jaspera, your proposal is flawed in more than one way and makes the comparison with Whistler and Grouse even worse. Your gondola would make no sense at all.
Meg Fellowes says
The proposed gondola deserves the most wide spread discussion, all radical direction changes do. The proposed gondola will compete with existing facilities in Whistler and Vancouver – maybe successfully, more likely not. Quest U, too, was a radical departure for Squamish, AND the Sea2Sky corridor, BC and Canada. Quest U makes Squamish a leader in education, a major growth sector, with excellent long term economic growth prospects. The shaky gondola is a high risk venture in a saturated market, not a good bet.
Meg Fellowes
Squamish
Wolfgang Wittenburg says
I agree with you Meg about it being a ‘high risk venture’ as is amply demonstrated by my earlier comment. Maybe it’s our brand as the ‘Outdoor Recreation Capital of Canada’, which makes us always look in the wrong direction.
When Squamish overwhelmingly rejected the Stawamus Peak Gondola some years ago, which really would have been a tourist attraction to compete with the other gondolas, people demonstrated in my opinion that they are not so keen in accepting all that would follow from this brand.
Quest University – and the District and its residents supporting it – now that was thinking ‘outside the box’ and a move into the future. We should build on that foundation.