By Brad Hodge
Published: Jan. 6, 2013
It’s baaaaack.
No, not poltergeist, although that would be awesome. No, this is Garibaldi at Squamish, the proposal to develop a ski resort along Brohm Ridge and its environs.
The last time this proposal circulated, people were cranky. It got to a point where I was fearful of even mentioning GAS’ name. People would bring it up in conversation trying to fish out your opinion. If you were smart, you’d utter a quick “Hey, is that bear trying to steal your car?” in response and run away.
On the whole, the opponents had some fair points. The plan was big in scale. There were concerns about water use, sprawl from thousands of new bed units being built (code for hotels and housing), transportation and the encirclement/urbanization of Cat and Brohm Lakes.
I think it’s legitimate to ask these questions. Even I wondered how two new golf courses could survive in competition with the two (now one) we had already in Squamish.
I wondered how a water intensive venture like GAS could manage the sparse water supply in the immediate area. Even now I look at the huge development proposals on the table in the corridor – Porteau, Britannia, and Cheekeye to name the big ones, and I wonder what impact all this will have on the things that brought me to Squamish in the first place: namely being close to nature.
I wondered if Squamish should seek to annex this development, which was nearly two-third the size of Squamish as it existed then — if we could even handle the infrastructure demands.
These and others were all reasonable concerns. The proponents deserved the opportunity to address them in a calm, rational atmosphere.
Unfortunately this did not happen. The lightning rod was what appeared to be the encirclement of Cat and Brohm Lakes.
That was an unfortunate mistake – it struck an emotional chord that played into the hands of anti-development types and NIMBYists who were certain to oppose the development no matter what.
Reasonable people, who feared incurring the wrath of opponents, were coerced into silence or were drowned out by the chorus of opposition.
In the end the province didn’t grant environmental approval, requiring changes, but that did nothing to assuage fears that big money was stealing our land and lakes to build condos.
I have little doubt, however, that the right proposal could do wonders for Squamish. Whistler has gotten very expensive and could use some competition.
We could use the short and long term jobs. But there are legitimate concerns. Responsible water use is paramount.
And I do oppose Cat and Brohm Lakes in any way being encircled or urbanized.
If the proponent and Province can make sure the process is as transparent and consultative as possible, reasonable citizens should be given the breathing space to make up their own minds.
This is our future. Let reason prevail.
Brad Hodge says
Let me first apologize deeply for everyone having to see my face twice on the Squamish Reporter Home Page. I will ask Gagan to provide a web coupon for psychological counselling for the trauma. 🙂
The version of the article above that appeared in the printed paper last week was truncated due to space. I want to be clear that I support responsible, sustainable development and am intrigued by the idea of a ski resort in our midst. However I need to be clear that I am equally concerned about environmental impacts (as mentioned above), and need to be convinced, on any proposal, that those are properly mitigated. The intent of the article was not to take sides but simply ask for a ‘space’ in which all residents (myself included) could consider the proposal on its merits. That requires the proponents being upfront and transparent in their plans and answers, and opponents not resorting to unnecessary histrionics to drive their point home. I hope, whatever becomes of GAS, that it succeeds or fails based on merit alone.
Thank you!
Wolfgang Wittenburg says
Thanks Brad for your very rational approach to the GAS issue!
As to the illusion of double-vision when first glancing at the Reporter’s home page, don’t worry – that ‘trauma’ at least prepares the reader for seeing your face as a set of three when bringing up your article 🙂 🙂
Jim Lorman says
Well put Brad. It will be interesting to find out more regarding the water issue.
Internet Panther says
Brad Hodge says:
“and am intrigued by the idea of a ski resort in our midst”
Then drive 45mins north. It’s called Whistler. Or is that just too far away for you?
Dusty says
One has to wonder how climate change will affect ski resorts. Skiing requires snow. Snow requires cold. The climate is apparently getting warmer.
Skiing is an expensive sport, money is tight and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. How can anyone expect there to more skiers on the slopes? GAS would split business with the others, and the entire industry would suffer.
It isn’t skiing that the developers want, it is property sales. Property sales are depressed in Squamish.
The timing couldn’t be worse.
Cougar says
Brad says: “anti-development types and NIMBYists who were certain to oppose the development no matter what”. -I take opposition to this statement. The people (“group”) certainly have a right to have their voices heard, and to be heard, you must be forthright. The Brohm and Cat Lake people – you imply that these people would be the ‘unreasonable’ (“Reasonable people, who feared incurring the wrath of opponents, were coerced into silence”) You state “But there are legitimate concerns”, implying that the concerns of the others (“group”) are not legitimate. “Let reason prevail” – The Cat Lake and Brohm Lake unreasonable, antidevelopment types, no matter what people, have personal passionate reasons to not wanting another “ski reseort in our midst”; as we have one already 40 minutes north, and two 30 minutes south. If you want to ski, then go skiing. If you want to dirtbike, hike, or snowmobile in our own backyard, then you have Brohm Ridge, Cat Lake area. Have you been up there? If you have, you might change your mind about being “intrigued” about another ski resort.
Brad Hodge says
Cougar: Yeah I worded that badly. I am still getting used to compressing thoughts into so many words. I didn’t mean to suggest all opponents of GAS were ‘unreasonable’. Only that a certain segment were making it impossible for ‘reasonable’ people who could go either way to make a decision in a calm atmosphere. It’s fine to be forthright — and frankly I made clear in my article I share the concerns about the lakes, sprawl, water and so on (and I am undecided about any of it, by the way) — but it’s another thing to intimidate business owners with threats of boycotts for even showing your face at an information meeting. I don’t ski so that aspect of it doesn’t sway me. The article is just a plea for calm to let people consider the facts and make up their own minds without undue pressure from either pro or con camps.
Dusty your comments were things I had intended to bring up but could not compress into 500 words. 🙂 There are legitimate concerns about the long term viability of ski resorts and in addition to weather, the demographics appear at the moment to be unfavorable, as they are for golf and certain other recreational activities. It will be interesting to see what sort of facts and figures the proponent uses to justify the business case for another ski resort.