By Brad Hodge
Published: May 3, 2014
Recently, Squamish council voted 4-3 to allow a new skate bowl to be completed under the Quest University Bridge on district land. The attendance at that meeting was huge and boisterous, and the result widely cheered by the crowd. Squamish got a new skate park. More recreation.
Good news, right?
“The decision to allow a ‘temporary one- year trial’ smacks of arbitrariness, political cowardice and unfairness.”
Well, if you go to build a deck on your house, you need a building permit. That permit is issued subject to compliance with multiple laws. You are liable to see that the work is done correctly. All of this is subject to inspection. This is to protect the public interest and safety. In the case of this skate park, the proponents went ahead and what began as a little ramp under a bridge nobody cared about became a project worth close to $150,000 involving poured concrete. And this on land the proponents did not own: District land.
Eventually, they were found out and a stop work order was issued, along with a fine. Council was debating whether the project should receive a mild slap on the wrists and be allowed to complete, or potentially shut down and dismantled and forced through the proper process as the law required.
Laws are all about consistency. They are supposed to be enforced without friend or favour. Make enforcement selective, and the whole exercise becomes about whom you know or who you are dictating what you can get away with. This leads to more law breaking: why bother going through a potentially long and costly process when you can just do it and beg forgiveness later?
It also deters investment – why invest many dollars and hours of time to go through a process when you have no assurance the goalposts won’t be moved on you?
The decision to allow a ‘temporary one- year trial’ smacks of this arbitrariness, political cowardice and unfairness. Recreation for youth is not the issue here.
It’s not whether we liked skateboarders, skate parks, the proponents, or having more recreational opportunities; it’s about construction without permits and without permission.
The issue was plunging into a new, de-facto district park development without any of the forethought or proper processes followed to achieve it, including liability issues and the buy-ins from the neighbours.
The only correct and fair answer would have been to require the proponents to start from the beginning with studies, consultations and the proper approvals, and pay some fines.
This is not to say the existing structure needed to be torn down in the interim, but until those approvals were in place, nothing further should have happened.
Instead, four Councillors chose populism, punted the issue until after the next election… and opened the doors to more law breaking.
Russ says
Comparing this to the recent covered deck issue is not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, the skate park did not follow the rules. The covered deck applicant was informed before substantial work was completed and he proceeded anyways. The council position on the skate park considered the greater good of the community and any negative impact to the community as well. In this article the author suggest that populism is in contrast to the rules, please sir look up the definition. Populism is in fact in line with the rules supporting the general populations desire, remember the rules are set by and for the community. The deck was opposed by many neighbors and benefitted only one person.
Good job Squamish Council
Brad Hdoge says
Thank you for your feedback, Russ.
To be clear, I did not choose the article title. Also, my mentioning of ‘decks’ was a general example. When I wrote this piece a month ago I was unaware of the Brackendale deck situation.
To reiterate, I am not against skate parks or other rec. I am against the precedent the Council decision sets, the flawed logic used to support it and the use of a ‘trial approval’ to end run the proper processes and avoid electoral consequences.
Tatiana Kostiak says
We have a system that is onerous and a burgeoning population who is more entrepreneurial and all about ‘getting things done’. (In fact, these are the very people we are hoping to attract more of right now.) We have district staff who get mired in process and tax paying citizens who want to be part of the change they want to see. Our systems need to change. I won’t argue the need for rules but the status quo is the root cause. Some people are comforted by rules and resist change. These people are in direct opposition to those who don’t tacitly accept rules and actually invite change. I’m of the latter group so, in fact, don’t see this move as populism at all. I see some of the council is open to affecting change. We have some highly antiquated rules and systems. Not every rule or system makes sense any longer…and we have plenty of ‘who you know’ going on even within the current rules.
MKnight says
Tatiana nobody is arguing the district processes arent hard. but they exist for a reason. we are not talking about planters on sidewalk, which really is kinda minor. we are talkijg about pouring thousands of pounds of concrete on a bridge footing that wasnt originally designed for it, in a dangerous area on district owned land, which leaves the district holding the bag for liability whoch i assure you is no trivial matter. you are acting like these guys made years of effort to get this off the ground with the district frustrating them all the way. not true! they just went ahead and did it. the skate guys were told multiple times to stop and ignored it. and they pulled this ‘stuntwood’ before down in BB. everyone needs to grow up a bit and realize rules exist for a reason and not just to give comfort to old timers resistant to change as you so condescendingly put it. time for some us to grow up a little.
Brad Hodge says
Thanks Tatiana.
I agree the processes here are a bit messed up. I remember making an inquiry on my backyard pool. It took one month and the end result was a photocopy of an old bylaw book with handwritten notes and the staffer asking me if I agreed the notes meant what he thought they meant. (I don’t know)
I’m just not sure how you could expect the process to be short and sweet when it comes to building something substantial on District land. There would necessarily have to be negotiations, meetings, engineering considerations. There’s just no way around that. You see it as ‘some people’ resisting change, I see it as some people not being patient; not even trying. Would the Councillors apply the same ‘volunteer spirit’ rah rah rah if I tried to build a drag strip on District land? Probably not. So what it comes down to then is the personal preferences of individual councillors and what they like. And that is no way to govern.
Tatiana Kostiak says
I really appreciate the your follow up comments MKnight and Brad. My intention MKnight was not to sound condescending at all. I am just pointing out a difference of perspective. Not putting anyone down. I don’t have the power to do that with words. That’s something someone does to themself. Not my intention.
Keith says
The decision to opt for the easy way out is of course short sighted but not unexpected from the Mayor and Council. Based on promises from the same group, oceanfront land was purchased by a prominent post secondary institution only to be met with intransigence and a failure to commit. They are now without several million in their bank account due to the misrepresentation of the District. Based on many similar demonstrations of lack of courage and integrity, other investors will suffer a similar loss. If one is looking to invest, don’t look in Squamish. Look at a jurisdiction where the truth still has value.
Maria says
The skate bowl was opposed by many neighbours and resident living in close proximity. But then what does that count in this community or in Council Chamber (nill). As it was said: ” Just because of a view neighbours……” The truth is that councilor Raiser has already bigger plans on what he wants to happen underneath the bridge, so he could care less about the neighbours. Councilor Chappelle argued by saying that she does not agree to creating problems before we understand what the problems are . She must not have taken to much time, if any at all, to read the neighbours letters or she would know that there are already problems and they will not go away because of the skate bowl. She also says that she does not want parking issues in this area but if the skateboarder are happy to take public transit it is available. Now that was the comment I had a good laugh about. Just image, The skateboarders arriving from Whistler and the Lower Mainland. parking at Brennan Park or the Extra Food or Canadian Tire parking lots and then take pubic transit up the hill to the Highlands so they can skateboard 🙂 Another thought that came to my mind on transit. As said by a supporter of the skate bowl at the public meeting, there is apparently no transit to get the Highland kids to the existing Skate Park beside the High School but they try to make me believe they will do it the other way around. I had never a problem getting my kids to where they needed to be and I stayed with them when they went to the fields. IT IS CALLED: “CAR POOLING” and looking after your family notjust drop them off so they are off your hands for a view hours or all day! So as I understand, it is ok for Councilor Chapelle to make assumption what might not happen under the bridge but ok to assume that Public Transit will be used or for that matter that eventually lots of residents want to keep Backyard Chickens and stink up the neighborhood. Whichever way it fits into her decisions best. I think most of these councilors need a little more then a wakeup call to get back them back to reality!