My name is Fraser Kennedy, the sit skier who went up Spanky's Ladder a few weeks ago. I'd like to thank Cindy for her kind and uplifting words in the letter she sent Pique (Letters to the editor, Jan. 28).
But as I read and re-read her letter I feel a strong need to clarify a few points. The idea of climbing the ladder was not mine but my instructor's, I just said "yes." The climb to the top was only made possible by the Whistler Adaptive Sports Program team, a few good friends, and a host of strangers who carried their gear. It was a piece of cake for me!
Make no mistake, my ski down was unbelievable! But then so is EVERY other day in Whistler. And it's not just the skiing; the goodwill and kindness towards guys like me is magnificent in Whistler.
So it gets me thinking, who's the source of inspiration here? Without the huge amount of skill, kindness and gritty determination of those involved in the WASP program and the warm appreciation that floods from the wider Whistler community, I simply wouldn't have had the opportunity or willpower to say "yes." Without all of these people - you people - that day on Spanky's simply wouldn't have happened.
So thanks to you all, but especially Gill, James, Glen, Sherree, John and all the WASP team. Is there one piece of advice I could give? Easy, say "yes" more everybody and see what unfolds in front of you.
PS: Cindy, I'm coming back in March, come ski with us!
Fraser "Fraz" Kennedy
York, UK
Clothes-minded Whistler
Re: Whistler's exotic dancer ban
With the Olympics coming to town, Whistler has ensured that short of a "wardrobe malfunction" there will be no public nudity at nightclubs, placing a resort wide ban on exotic dancers. They are now in line with former B.C. Premier Bill Vander Zalm, who back in the early 1970s when he was the Mayor of Surrey sought to ban stripping from bars in that city.
What Surrey's council of the day failed to realize was that licensed establishments in B.C. were under the jurisdiction of the province's Liquor Control Board, not municipal governments and that this type of bylaw was unenforceable. Exotic dancing in Surrey continued and remains there today with groups such as Exotic Dancers for Cancer taking it off at various charity events.
It is interesting to note that while Whistler's mayor and council are attempting to ban stripping, they have taken no action to outlaw escort services or erotic massage providers, many of which provide sexual services at a price. I guess these hypocrites don't want to take all the fun out of a visit to the 2010 Olympic Winter Games for visitors from around the globe.
Let's hope that this "clothes-minded" attitude being shown by Whistler's politicians doesn't extend this summer to the nude-friendly dock on Lost Lake that has served this community as its unofficial nude "beach" for decades. They'd best realize that naturism is a "family-friendly" activity, the type they say they're trying to promote at the Whistler Blackcomb resort.
Don Pitcairn
President, Surrey's United Naturists
Surrey, B.C.
We'll get there, eventually
I would like to extend my thanks to all the bus drivers who have stepped up from across the country to get us all around during this busy time. I am sure you will all do wonderfully once you know which way to go.
To B.C. Transit, shame on you for improperly training these drivers and not ensuring they know where to go prior to their shifts.
When I boarded the 99 bus to Pemberton last night I found another local directing the driver to Pemberton. We commuters were fine and thankful for this. I mean it was Day One. But when I found out from the driver this was his first time driving the winding dark highway (at 40-60 km/h) I had to wonder just how safe and more efficient taking transit all month will be?
I hope in the next week, before the real traffic chaos begins and hopefully more snow, bus drivers will be shown how to get us where we need to go.
To those who are drving the highway and sideroads behind a slower lost and/or nervous bus be patient, we will all get there eventually.
Michelle Van Beek
Pemberton
What about March?
I can understand that providing a transportation plan that will move the amount of people involved in the Games up and down the Sea to Sky Corridor is a large task. What I don't understand is the inability to look at the impact on "local life."
My understanding is that the day lots are going to be gone for two months when the "enhanced" bus service is only available for the month of February. Come March, people commuting from Squamish will not enjoy the enhanced bus services but will continue to enjoy NO PARKING in Whistler Village.
Insert solution here. Please.
I hope this is my misunderstanding or frustration over the parking ban starting a week and a half before the Games. Is it necessary to cut off Whistler Village a week and a half before the Games? I understand the need to introduce the enhanced bus services a week and a half early as an opportunity to train new staff and iron out service.
The first day of service brought a lot of frustrated voices. But to abolish the day lot parking and keep one "empty" lot open but charge $20/day when it was free the day before? This only affects local businesses by alienating locals from coming to the village.
It has been a slower than normal winter because of people fearing the mayhem the Olympics bring. I guess it is here in full steam and our lives must stand still for two months while we wait and watch what unfolds.
Andrea Oakden
Squamish Commuter
Giving customers and taxpayers what they want
Max's reasoning in his column last week: "A Senior's moment" makes perfect sense and I agree with him. Introduce the pivotal concept of "giving the customer what they want" however and things change as does the nature of the risk to the taxpayer and I believe Max, and a slim majority of council is mistaken.
The Mature Action Committee (MAC) was offered the right to have their members purchase 16 apartment units and eight townhouse units at Cheakamus Crossing. A quarter of the townhouses went unsold and fully three quarters of the apartments did not sell to MAC members. Although they were very reasonably priced, less than the Rainbow proposal, it appears that something in the concept or designs did not entirely suit the potential MAC purchasers' needs. So they didn't buy it.
The MAC members who did buy into Cheakamus Crossing got what they wanted at a price they could live with. MAC members who held out for the Rainbow project told the developer exactly what they wanted, the developer worked closely with them and produced a product at a price the client could live with.
Max states: "There is also little doubt suitable, if perhaps less refined, seniors' housing can be built, post-Olympics, for well below $370/sf."
Building more of a similar product to what there is no demand for seems a risky proposition for the taxpayer, doesn't it Max? As to the RMOWs clear moral obligation, if not a legal obligation - assume you are a MAC member who was looking forward to moving into an apartment that suited your needs. You'd helped design it through MAC working closely with the developer but what you may now be offered is something possibly less expensive that you'd already decided against once at Cheakamus Crossing because it didn't meet your needs. Or an empty lot where your home was supposed to be... would you be a tad miffed? I'd be well pissed off but perhaps I'll mellow down to simply miffed in the next three years when I'm a fully qualified Whistler senior.
Everyone knows that the RMOW has been through an unprecedented level of activity and capital investment over the last four years. My sense is that the community simply wants us to settle down, not assume new risk or obligations (legal or moral), nor take on large new capital projects and I believe council should give our customers, the taxpayers and residents of Whistler what THEY want of us.
Eckhard Zeidler
Councillor
Whistler
Affordability of the moment
Over recent weeks there has been much discussion in our local media regarding the seniors housing affordability issue at Rainbow. A majority of council, with the very best of intentions, rejected the price proposal for the Lot 10 portion of the development, with the RMOW exercising its option to assume ownership and responsibility for delivery. They suggest that the price point of $370 per square foot (psf) is simply too high compared with resale values for existing Whistler Housing Authority (WHA) restricted resident housing.
As a result this seniors housing product at Rainbow would not meet the need for affordability transition certainty within our community, as our aging population moves from the restricted resident housing (RRH) to restricted seniors housing (RSH).
So, why was there such a price point differential?
The answer is relatively simple. Most (if not all) of the WHA inventory of RRH was delivered under much different conditions, where the Development Agreements (DA) were very specific in terms of a price point for delivery of the RRH both in terms of final price and product. Over the years these prices varied from $120 up to $190 psf, however they did not reflect in any way the true building and development cost of those units, as they were part of a negotiated amenity zoning package.
Similarly at Cheakamus Crossing the $250 psf price point for RRH was only achieved as a result of significant development costs being assumed by VANOC - a really good deal for our community. During the 2009 year the average price for resales of those WHA RRH apartment and townhome units ranged between $245 and $282 psf. These resale prices reflect a maximum value increase over the years based on a relatively low appreciation formula.
Now the DA requirements for seniors housing at Rainbow were far different, with no pre-determined or mandated price point. In fact the DA was quite specific, where the Lot 10 portion of the housing was to be delivered at cost (including all soft costs, development cost charges and financing) plus a management fee, and only excluding the cost of serviced land. There was no negotiated preset price point in the DA for Rainbow.
The developer's proposed price level at $370 psf was attractive to many seniors and was certainly far more affordable than the market housing in Whistler. In addition it was a product designed specifically for seniors, though unfortunately it was not the answer for everyone.
Seniors housing does come at a premium relative to RRH, because seniors do have specific additional needs in order to age comfortably in place. WHA is now exploring options for the delivery of this seniors housing Lot 10 component at Rainbow at a much more affordable level. This will be challenging and we can only hope that they will be successful.
Gord Leidal
President, Mature Action Committee
Whistler
Nice digs
As I pass all the neatly stacked trailers and containers at Rainbow, I'm pleasantly surprised the security camp is not the eyesore predicted (unlike the new bus depot).
With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to see how simply our housing situation could have been solved so many years ago. It's ironic and a shame that we can quickly and comfortably accommodate an army (literally) of workers to protect the citizens but we can't protect our own working citizens from the elements.
The main thing security is protecting is the validity of their $900 million invoice. To put that in perspective, that's more than the cost of the Sea to Sky Highway upgrade. That would translate into housing for a lot of homeless people.
Mike Roger
Birken/Whistler
Still holding it
Not wanting to detract from all the marvellous - and expensive - additions Whistler now has but to say that the homeowners of Alta Lake Road are still waiting for that very basic item of a sewer line.
It appears that neither the government nor municipality have any money - or interest - to provide such an unexciting item. The cost of a couple of fuel cell buses might have covered it.
Perhaps if we could have come up with an Olympic event, say a Sewer Line Super G, VANOC would have flushed some cash into it.
G Cluer
Whistler
Next in line
Congratulations to the RMOW; it was good to read that the upgraded Waste Water Treatment Plant is in order and will eliminate the foul odors of the past.
We ask that you make your next project the installation of a sewer line to the Alta Lake Road homes along the west side of Alta Lake. It is the oldest subdivision in Whistler and the only area in the valley without the service of a sewer.
Andy & Florence Petersen
Whistler
The IPP debate continues
I appreciate Steve Anderson continuing the debate on Independent Power Projects (IPP). Let me respond to his letter and the reader can decide on "accuracy and credibility" as he puts it.
Yes, obviously B.C. Hydro pays more for IPP power than just the IPP's cost of water and land leases. Just like B.C. Hydro, the IPP has to pay capital and operating costs and (unlike B.C. Hydro) income taxes and a profit component.
I did not say that IPP infrastructure reverts to the Crown at 40 years, but that the water rights do and that is correct. Also the land tenure, by statute, expires at 40 years, and the contract with B.C. Hydro usually expires at the same time. It is then up to the Crown, B.C. Hydro and the IPP to decide if they wish to renew the deal, or let someone else take it, or abandon it. Furthermore, if in the public interest, the Crown can require the IPP to remove the facilities. Clearly the Crown has control.
The BCUC (B.C. Utilities Commission) is not a "public advocacy group" but the B.C. government regulator of utilities including B.C. Hydro. Secondly, its July 2009 decision did not say that "these power purchase agreements" are "not in the public interest." The decision is at http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Decisions/2009/DOC_22470_LTAP_Decision_WEB.pdf and if Steve can find that specific conclusion, I'll donate $100 via Pique to the charity of his choice.
I used a five-year-old decision by the BCUC because it is the only one I could find with a project specific B.C. Hydro-IPP cost comparison, and its findings remain valid.
"No meaningful public process" for the Bute Inlet project? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Check the Plutonic Power site, which will guide you to the federal and provincial processes for the project. And no, Bill 30 does not prevent local government "involvement," but, as is the case in other provinces, may prevent local governments' veto of energy projects found to be in the public interest.
John Hunter, P. Eng.
President & CEO
J. Hunter & Associates Ltd.
North Vancouver
