I am a Waldorf parent and full-time resident of Whistler. Like many in town, I was caught off guard by the sudden and unexpected decision to not renew the Spruce Grove lease. For me the most challenging and unanswered question is: Who benefits from moving the school? Why is moving the school in the best interest of the town?
Unfortunately, there has not been much official communication from those who made the decision, and I have been forced to work from rumours and second-hand conversation with members of council. Nonetheless, the recurring themes seem to boil down to four primary concerns with the Waldorf school operating in Spruce Grove Park.
1. There is an inherent wrong in allowing exclusive use of public space for private benefit;
2. The school has been there long enough and is not making good-faith efforts to find alternate arrangements;
3. The presence of the school and the use of the field house is preventing other groups from enjoying the park and facilities;
4. The community would be better off if the school was simply not there.
Please allow me to address these concerns.
Firstly, there is a philosophical argument to be made: How should public land be shared and used? B.C. is no stranger to conflicts over land-use claims, and on the scale of issues facing the province, this dispute over a local park is fairly small by comparison. It is not within the scope of this letter to resolve those larger questions. However, I would like to mention that there is a large private user of public park land located in Whistler. Vail Resorts was able to secure a 70-year lease on a parcel of Garibaldi Park for private use in 2017. This alone should highlight that it is not inconsistent with the values of this town to allow private use of public land.
Re: the second argument, the tone seems to be “this has gone on long enough.” This is either a bad-faith or uninformed position. There has been ongoing efforts to find and build a permanent home for 20 years.
The Waldorf board has been working in good faith with the RMOW to redevelop the Spruce Grove site to include the school in its plan. This good-faith effort was cancelled without notice or consultation by the sudden decision of council last week.
Re: the third point, it is very difficult to find a kind and charitable interpretation to this argument. It reads at face value that, “we want the field house for our programs, so kick the kids out.” There seems to a much simpler solution than evicting the school. How about we share it? I imagine the WWS would be agreeable to working out an equitable arrangement for all users. In fact, part of the negotiations with RMOW staff specifically includes shared-use facilities. The idea that instead of sharing with the school, we simply evict the tenants and take over the space seems cruel and heartless.
The entire community benefits from WWS in many ways: it has 60 child-care and early years learning spaces—and more could be provided given the space.
There are numerous studies showing the health and cognitive benefits of elders and youth working and learning together, would the Mature Action Community be interested in participating in educating the next generation of Whistler residents?
WWS also has several partnerships supporting local businesses.
It is recognized and appreciated that WWS does not have a right or entitlement to its present location. However, given that a school is not prohibited on the current grounds and provides a net benefit to the community, and that the school is willing and eager to work with competing interests to find a shared-use solution, I request that the school is not evicted from our current home with a one-year notice and no suitable alternative. Killing the school does not benefit the community.
