By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Jan. 4, 2014
Coun. Susan Chapelle will seek re-election as a councillor in the November Squamish council elections.
She first announced her decision to run for election on Facebook, but confirmed it later in an interview with the Reporter.
“Three years isn’t enough time to realize the initiative that I want to see.”
“Three years isn’t enough time to realize the initiative that I want to see,” she said. 
“It’s a big learning curve, the process, the terminology and just learning how to affect change.”
Chapelle ran a low-profile election campaign with no billboard signs or advertising, and was sixth on the election ballot with 1601 votes.
From the very beginning, Chapelle displayed none of the rookie’s self-consciousness as she spoke about issues that mattered to her.
As the local transit committee chair, she said she championed for and got another local bus.
She also helped change bus timings on school routes, and advocated for an electric charging station across from the municipal hall on Second Ave.
BC Transit officials and transit experts and advocates were also invited by her to brainstorm ideas on how to change local transit for the better.
“I’m still working on other transit issues, whether it’s regional transit gas tax initiatives, etc.”
She said she also advocated for seniors transit, and for under-represented small business owners in the community.
She also helped nix the double billing for home-based business, she said.
“I spoke adamantly opposed to some motions and then changed my mind which I am thankful for.”
In a reflective Facebook post, she also admitted to making mistakes but hoped to learn from them.
“I spoke adamantly opposed to some motions and then changed my mind which I am thankful for,” she said.
Chappelle first drew attention with her opposition to a commercial development on Garibaldi Way.
The rookie councilor opposed the Tim Hortons/CIBC development on Garibaldi Way, arguing against fast food nature of business and the need for commercial development downtown.
The decision angered citizens who saw the development as bringing jobs and economic development in town.
She stands by that decision.
“One mistake I didn’t make was opposing a second highway donut shop,” she said.
She has been flexible on other issues, changing her vote with new information, she says.
The most recent example was the vote on Lot 509 and 510.
First she voted to remove the population cap that would have allowed development in an area above Garibaldi Highlands.
She later changed her decision and voted against removing the population cap.
“I spoke for development and against our OCP on a big hunk of land and let it get too far before realizing that my job is to defend the OCP, not change it without the communities permission,” she said.
She has also changed her mind on branding, a project which she initially supported.
She also regrets not having argued against the tax exemptions right until the third reading.
Learning how to communicate effectively to the community has been another challenge, she added.
Chapelle is now enrolled in a master degree program at SFU where she is studying community economic development.
City planning, active transportation and local investments are some of the topics she is studying as part of her course.
Diane Sherlock says
I wouldl like to see public transit extended up into ravens plateau.
Susan Chapelle says
Hello Diane,
BC transit will be at the February meeting of the transit committee. It is the first Monday of each month at 6pm at council chambers. Would be great if you could come out to hear directly from the representatives on routes. We no longer have a transit liaison which means change is slow and off the side of a desk, but better with community input directly to BC transit.
You can also contact me directly at schapelle@squamish.ca
Susan
Peter Harker says
How unfortunate.
Lou says
Susan, what would win my vote is having the highway exit at the end of Tantalus Road opened. Developer has been trying hard to accommodate DOS’s requirements but there is more and more red tape, new requirements making any project cost prohibitive. Squamish is getting branded as business unfriendly town. Commercial property taxes keep rising but there is very little coming back in return. I have created five jobs over the last two years for local Squamish residents – it is a small addition but I would like to create more if I could get a little bit of help from DOS – allow the developer to open the exit in an economically feasible way (not sacrificing the safety of course).
Susan Chapelle says
Hello Lou,
Nice to meet you. Would you like to email me at schapelle@squamish.ca and we can talk about the decision. Basically it is a highways not district issue, but we can have influence. I will look into why that has been delayed. Which developer, name and number to find out difficulties and see if there are any policies that are holding the opening up. Makes no sense with the hotel and commercial units that it is not an in/out road.
Susan
Dave says
I agree with you Lou. This has been long awaited. The access to the Highlands is restrictive and becoming congested and we need to use such another exit ourselves. However many on Council seem to be preoccupied with “Branding” and “Downtown” issues right now and we shall probably have to wait again and again! Of course, if you get the exit done and more “strip mall” type extensions or the need for more infra structures result, Susan will not like that…I guess…maybe you are addressing the wrong person 🙂
larry mclennan says
Careful Lou- Chapelle is on record (Squamish Reporter story on the Tim Horton’s / bank development). She apparently thinks there should be limits on whether you’re making “… enough money already…” and doesn’t think banks are businesses. You might be getting too rich. Can’t have businesses making too much money and creating employment.
Susan Chapelle says
Hi Larry, thank you for the productive and enriching comments. I am a business owner, and I respect my OCP. If we want to change the OCP every time an outside developer asks us to, perhaps we should just change the OCP. The OCP was laid out by the community, not myself. Land inventory is an issue. That piece of land is now under-utilised with less than optimal revenue coming in. If we wanted a bank and a donut shop, it should have been densified so that the bank, and the donut / coffee shop could be on the ground floor, and commercial property put above, so that more people could earn more money. Sorry, I didn’t realise you were applying for 8$ an hour jobs. That land could have housed much needed commercial space. We currently have KBI renting from Quest, where they do not pay tax at all. The land as it is currently used will need new infrastructure before it pays for the infrastructure it has. The reserve will also be flooded (already has, we just spent your money fixing it). Buildings only pay tax on the footprint they use. Outside developers pre tenant their land, then want in, out, leaving a small footprint that pays little tax (parking is free). If we want to look at our little land base, and the land we will need for future employment, we must maximise not donut shop our highly valuable highway property. That means people that are local have a place to work, as well as food establishments and financial institutions. As this council has asked for land inventory, it would make more sense for more people to have places to work. Not cheap jobs. The bank just pure went against our OCP. Ya know, the one you all said governs that land, and puts financial institutions in a core. I am a big supporter of institutions that support our local economy, as a mandate, not a gesture. Credit Unions have that mandate. Not big banks. However, there it is. Now the tax payer will be paying for infrastructure before taxes and utilities cover it. Small footprint with big infrastructure on big land. Bad land use. No matter what is put there. Next time perhaps we can have an inventory, and look at what is needed, as opposed to saying yes to every development that is suggested by outside developers who make their money on quick box buildings, not what lives in them after. I look forward to you serving me donuts one day.
Susan
larry mclennan says
Gee Susie I didn’t realize that banks provided $8/hour jobs and that people actually work in banks and donut shops because its better than not working at all. Apparently there were a plethora of” real’ businesses lined up for that space but, because of the big line-up nothing was built on the land for years. I’ve lived here for over 25 years and I don’t recall ever voting for the OCP . It seems to me that that was pretty much defined over a Council/Admin process without ever going to a referendum. When was the last time a thorough review of the OCP was considered especially with respect to expanding the residential/commercial land base? As for people having places to work- I believe there are a number of empty shops in town. This may be a big shock to you but a significant number of businesses located in the Highlands area because its closer to their customer base ie its good for business thus making continued employment more likely. How many other businesses were trying to get this land? I’m guessing there weren’t a large number. You, it appears, are now blaming the new development for flooding on the reserve ? Apparently if there are multi-storied businesses the reserve won’t flood? Indeed , my understanding is that the reserve is subject to flooding regardless of the new development. You are worried about “less than optimal’ revenue coming in. How much was coming in before the development? I’m guessing it was quite a bit less than optimal-but that’s just my guess. I’m also guessing that ,if KBI had wanted to locate there, they would have made a proposal. If they (KBI) didn’t ; that should tell you something. Perhaps you should define all the commercial areas which are “under-utilized” and then ask them why they don’t maximize. The answer might be “lack of profit and greater cost”. I don’t recall stating that I was “…applying for an $8 job…” or that the OCP “… governs the land and puts financial institutions in a core…”. As to Credit Unions having a mandate to support the local economy but banks not-where the hell is your logic path? Are you stating that banks don’t lend money to home owners and businesses in the communities where they are located? Give your head a long over-due shake. By the way, you may mark me down as “doubtful” when it comes to voting for you in the upcoming election.
Susan Chapelle says
The OCP does govern the land Larry, and it states that all financial institutions are to be located in the core. That is why the development needed an OCP amendment and had to come to council, so we could go against 5 other policies that are not in support of that sort of development. I am not stating that banks do not lend money, I am stating that larger institutions do not have a mandate to contribute to the community. That profit of large interest leaves town, unless it is in the mandate, like Squamish Credit Union, to contribute a % profit to the community. Large banking institutions hire part time employees. http://www.sgmlaw.com/en/practiceareas/classactions/cibcunpaidovertime.cfm
That is my cousin that filed that suit against CIBC. Not a great corporate citizen. As well, I don’t disagree that having a donut shop or bank in a larger development that pays land value and good tax in a larger footprint would be a bad idea. I nearly state that the land we have is precious, and should be looked at as a resource not to be given away to development that doesn’t serve a long term need, such as living wage jobs. That could have been accomplished by just giving the developer some density and allowing a higher building. You could still have your donuts and bank, and perhaps others could have worked in space we desperately need, KBI above. Each land use decision is one we are stuck with. How about some imagination. KBI needs space, most are not in the business of development.
Lending money to a community at a high rate does not count as a benefit to the community. Giving back some of that profit in foundation grants is. I employ 25 people with a living wage, we give back 12k a year in charity and provide the community with a day a month of healthcare for those in need. Social entrepreneurship is not that difficult, there are many in town that do a great job of profit and return to the community. We need more land for hubs and higher paying industry and KBI jobs. The more we use our land for fast food restaurants that serve highway travellers, the less land we have for future living wage employment locally. Combining both is a better idea if donuts are what we want.
Dave says
Larry. I must say that I agree with Susan that the OCP should be followed or changed only by the COMMUNITY….NOT by the whims and fancies of whatever developer pops up. Why continue these long diatribes laced with your characteristic sarcastic style?…it really is rather unproductive.
larry mclennan says
DAVEY BOY- I was under the impression that changes to the OCP and, indeed, establishment of the OCP provisions were done under the auspices of the Council and administration and ,any modifications or provisions were augmented by the same group allowing for interested parties to voice their concerns before a final decision was made by, guess who?- Council. As , my understanding is, numerous allowances have been made in the past which theoretically were contrary to the OCP provisions ; I have the impression that the OCP is not set in stone. If what I have written is true how exactly does the COMMUNITY change the OCP and how often are they given the opportunity?
A friend of Larry M says
As a friend of Larry, I can agree with you that his approach and characteristic sarcasm does get tiring…and a little arrogant! Larry give it a rest, and if you aren’t able to debate without childish behaviour, don’t bother!
Rob says
I’m glad Susan is running again. Not that I agree with every decision she’s made, but because she at least appears to be doing what you want a councillor to be doing, and that is to consider all sides of an issue, consider what is best for the whole community and vote accordingly. That also means changing your mind at times, not being unduly influenced by say other councillors or developers for example, and most of all having a degree of integrity and sincerity. Hopefully she also listens: Susan a lot of people agree with this post, which was also send to you directly I believe:
http://www.squamishreporter.com/2013/12/22/dear-mayor-and-council/#.UtQZl8U3PAk
My own suggestion is on the Budget is to freeze expenses and cut some fat until Squamish can get its act together and manage its own resources better to increase the tax base, not the tax load.