Jumbo: what really happened
March 7, 2009 by Grant Costello
Filed under BC government, Business, Environment, Headlines, Local government, Local news, Recreation
Setting of proposed Jumbo resort -- descending from Glacier Dome into the upper Jumbo Creek Valley and the sawmill site (the cleared area in the center of the valley) which is the proposed resort base. (Photo: jumboglacierresort.com)
Jumbo responds to MLA’s press release –
It’s a well-known fact that Norm Macdonald doesn’t understand the situation BC’s economy is in. He should be working towards job creation – not job destruction. When he was Mayor of Golden and the mills closed down, he supported the creation of new jobs at nearby Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in his town, why doesn’t he support Invermere and the community at this time of significant job loss in Forestry?
Regarding the claims that 90% of the local people oppose this development, Norm Macdonald is using NDP math. This is one more reason why we need to make sure we don’t send him back to Victoria. The 90% that he continually refers to misrepresents the results of the 9 year public review process during which 2% of the population of the community provided their input. The fact is that 90% of those expressed some objection to the concept. 90% of 2% is still a very small number.
Over the years, political leaders of all stripes have supported the environmentally responsible Jumbo Glacier Resort proposal, including NDP Premiers Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark as evidenced by the accompanying transcript. It’s apparent that Mr. Macdonald is at odds with both his party leaders and the people here he misrepresents.
Transcript from Legislature Question Period – March 4, 2009
JUMBO GLACIER RESORT
(highlighting added by Grant Costello)
N. Macdonald: The highly contentious Jumbo Glacier resort was scheduled to undergo another environmental assessment this upcoming October. Over Christmas the existing environmental assessment was extended for an additional five-year period. As has become customary with this government, that extension was given despite the fact that the regional district of East Kootenay and the regional district of Central Kootenay specifically requested some time to make a presentation. That was denied. Why was the opportunity for local government input denied?
Hon. B. Bennett: I think we all know in this House that the NDP don’t support the tourism industry. That’s become quite clear over the past four years. They don’t support….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Minister.
Continue, Minister.
Hon. B. Bennett: In 2004 when this government announced that we were going to actually double the amount of money given to Tourism B.C. to market this beautiful province to the rest of the world, the Leader of the Opposition said: “We don’t support that.” She said: “In fact, if we’re elected, we will roll that back, and we will not double the funding going to Tourism B.C. to market tourism out of this province.”
They obviously don’t support the tourism industry. But you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the other side of the House did actually recognize that tourism was an important industry for this province. Let me just read you what they used to say: “I hope that you will be able….”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Bennett: This is a quotation.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.
Hon. B. Bennett: “I hope that you will be able to proceed on this project and that one day we may see this international venture realized.” Premier Harcourt, February 24, 1993.
Interjections.
Hon. B. Bennett: Let me read one more.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
The member has a supplemental.
N. Macdonald: The question was directed to the Minister of Environment for a reason. The last time I asked a question to this minister, he told me about the airport. There was no connection at all, and there’s no connection here as well. The question is clear. It is about the environmental assessment process. The regional district of Central Kootenay asked if they could participate in that process. That was denied, as has happened every time when the local voice wants to have a say in an issue that is clearly important — of fundamental importance.
Andy Shadrack, who is the director, has written to the Ombudsman and said the following: “In relation to that resort, there are changes.” There is the Glacier-Howser river diversion project, which will take five rivers and put them in 16 kilometres of tunnels that never return the water to the watershed. There’s a 90-kilometre-long transmission line to Invermere, and that’s very close to this proposed resort. There is also a government-financed grizzly study, which has markedly different findings than the original study. Both of those are two reasons why this environmental assessment should have been looked at.
One thing that has not changed is that 90 percent of the local people have opposition to the Jumbo Glacier resort, and that’s the fundamental issue. What I want is a clear commitment that this project will only go ahead with the support of people in the Columbia Valley.
Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, Member.
N. Macdonald: I ask the Premier: will he give the assurance today that this project only proceeds with the support of the people in the Columbia Valley? Otherwise, no.
Hon. B. Bennett: Probably only the NDP would think that 18 years of process is not long enough to process a project. Only the NDP would think that. They want to have more committee meetings. They want to have more letters. They want to have more consultations. They want to spend more time before we decide this project. However, there was a time….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.
Members.
Continue, Minister.
Hon. B. Bennett: Now, who was it that said: “Well-designed, self-contained and…”?
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. B. Bennett: Who was it? Who was it?
Mr. Speaker: Wrap it up, Minister.
Hon. B. Bennett: Who said this: “Well-designed…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Bennett: “…self-contained and environmentally sustainable”? I’m not sure if they got that. I’m not sure they heard that.
“Environmentally sustainable destination resorts such as is being proposed here could provide considerable capacity in meeting these outdoor activities, using a very limited land base.” Premier Clark, 1996.
[End of question period.]
CVNews related links:
• Hansard transcript
• Webcast (about 38 minutes in)
• Jumbo Glacier Resort — Significant Changes Introduced Since the 1995 Master Plan Submission
In all his posturing and obviously excessive outbursts, Bill Bennett still never answered any questions. Premier Campbell did not respond to the question and neither did the Environment Minister.
I think MLA Norm Macdonald had a very legitimate question and the fact that the Liberals ignored it, makes me suspicious. As a resident of the area, I would like the government to listen to my voice. Pro or against this resort, the government still has an obligation to take heed of what the residents are saying.
This is such a cantankerous issue that it should clearly be put to referendum. End of story.
Norm MacDonald’s question, like all of his positions on Jumbo Glacier Resort contains a flawed premise ie; ‘The highly contentious Jumbo Glacier resort was scheduled to undergo another environmental assessment this upcoming October.’ Wrong again Mr MacDonald. The Certificate was set to expire not undergo another assessment. Under Section 18(4) of the Environment Act, the Certificate may be extended for up to five years by the Executive Director. Mr. MacDonald’s request for a change in the process and additional reviews demonstrates a losing strategy; when the legally prescribed process gives you a result you don’t like – try to change the rules.
At least Mr. Macdonald is suggesting that the people of this Valley have a say in what goes on in our own backyard. Is anyone else doing that? And yes, it has become a very contentious issue…and it has gone on for a very long time. Major decisions need to take time and maybe if more time had been taken with regards to the ‘building boom’ in Invermere, there wouldn’t be so many empty or unfinished buildings all over the place. But in considering Jumbo, what would be wrong with having another vote? Maybe there are more informed citizens out there now, who would like to revisit the issue. What harm could it do??
I am not tired of hearing about Jumbo and No, Mr. Bennet, 18 years is not long enough to discuss something that is obviously very important to Valley residents in both sides of the Jumbo Glacier. I am totally opposed to the Jumbo Resort and to the Run of the River proposals in the Glacier-Howser watershed. We only have one earth and if man keeps destroying it for capital gain (and rarely local economic gain) we will have nothing to pass on to our children. Please answer Mr. MacDonalds question instead of posturing and avoiding it. The locals do want thier voices heard, acknowledged and respected.
Mr. Costello, you seem to be missing the point. The residents of the area deserve a say in this project. You can’t argue that opinions on this are very divided. If you truly think more than 50% of the public supports you and your ski real estate proposal, what harm would there be in putting it to a simple vote?
Glacier Resorts has followed the process prescribed by the laws of the Province Of British Columbia, specifically the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy under the Land Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. The Environmental Assessment Act was brought in by the NDP in 1996 and revised by the Liberal Government in 2002. Both these regulatory processes required public access to information as well as lengthy public consultation. Anyone living in the area in the last 18 years has had ample opportunity to participate in the public review of the project. If you disagree with these outcomes, you have the opportunity to challenge these decisions in court. A challenge to the Environmental Certificate in the Supreme Court of British Columbia was rejected and the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court decision unanimously in 2007. An appeal to the Federal Ombudsman was also turned down. In the early stages of the process, the project was scaled back dramatically in response to local input. (see attached paper titled ‘Significant Changes’). When the major project approval, the Environmental Certificate for Jumbo Glacier Resort was issued in October 2004, the Director of the Environmental Assessment Office concluded in the Executive Summary that the project was “in the broad public interest.”
I know, lets have a referendum on everything, who can move to the valley, what businesses are allowed and where, what kind of jobs are allowed….we don’t need a process because all those bad old developers will just win. Lets just vote on line every week.
Freedom, yes! The basic principle of common law is that you can do anything you want as long as it does no harm to anyone else or their property.
Problem is… Jumbo would be building on my property, and your propety, and everyone’s property. We are the public, remember, and the Queen pretends that her Crown land is ‘public’ property belonging to all her good subjects. And so it is. And so we have an absolute say in what is done with it.
Jumbo can possibly do its thing, but only if all the owners give them the nod. That sounds pretty simple and fair to me. Maybe we want them to build or maybe we don’t. That is the question that has not been fully answered to everyone’s satisfaction.
Ya ya, I know they’ve followed the government rules and processes, but the government has no moral (or even legal) right to say yes without public approval. By public I mean the people, not the government.
The government has a legal fiduciary duty to consult the citizenry, and that cannot be done through a system of representation which half the population refuses to use because those elected forget to represent them.
And what if the people cannot agree, you ask? Then there is the precautionary principle, a legal principle which says that if there is doubt about whether an action would cause harm or damage, then it should not proceed. And so if there is substantiable doubt in the minds of the people about whether said development may directly or indirectly harm us, or our communal lands (public, Crown land), then the action must not be taken.
Rule of the majority and its tyranny over the minority does not fit with the common law tradition, which is still the basis of our legal system. The precautionary principles does, and it is a higher principle.
JGRL has indeed diligently followed process. Yippe. The only problem is the process doesn’t work. If the government deems this Jumbo Unreal Estate Resort worthy of their Significant Projects Streamlining Act, who cares what the residents think!
I’m sure the Director of the Environmental Assessment Office doesn’t live here.
The residents of the area deserve final say in this discussion and the government seems perfectly prepared to ignore that fact.
Dear Mr / Ms Anonymous
You know, just because you don’t like the outcome, please don’t try to change the rules after the fact.
It never ceases to amaze me on how those that don’t like the outcome of whatever topic always want to change those rules after the fact. i don’t like the results so let’s change the rules and try again.
Kind of like changing history to suit your own desires is it not? Quite simply, most people in the valley are tired of the minority voices over such a little subject. There are so many more things happening in our valley that need attention.
Changing the rules? Not liking the results? What’s that big ugly weapon I can see hidden amongst the rhetoric? Oh yea, it’s the Significant Projects Streamlining Act!
The only thing people in the Kootenays are tired of, is being ignored by their government.
Who is the minority and who is the majority? I think that is what people are disputing.
“The fact is that 90% of those expressed some objection to the concept. 90% of 2% is still a very small number.“
Numbers can be used to express positives to ANY argument, depending on how they are used.
What I’d like to know, considering that EVERY SINGLE POLL EVER TAKEN has resulted in massive and overwhelming defeat to the Jumbo proponents’ messy, ugly and financially unsupported scheme to lease Crown land sales to over-monied world rapers and scent-of-money intoxicated mental weaklings (really, how big of a clown do you have to be to WANT to invest in already dead glaciers in an industry that is dying slowly along with the aging of our collective population), is how SMALL would the above figure be to reflect the numbers for those who support this project, which will never take flight because the costs will be far too large.
What will happen, if anything ever does happen, will be a small 50-100 bed lodge and a few lifts. Something that would have been supported by the majority of people in this region if it had been originally proposed. The monstrous tone of this proposed resort is what spooks locals.
That and the many questions which conveniently remain unanswered by developers following out-of-date ‘how to dupe the unwashed masses’ techniques.
President Obama is leading the way by admitting his faults. Oberti, Costello and company should do the same, scale this thing back to a realistic size and get out of our collective faces and consciences.
This lobbing out of numbers thing has been done to death by the proponents and their seven or eight local supporters over the years, as effectively as the opponents — who outnumber the supporters by a MASSIVE margin.
We need truth and we need clarity in this issue and the proponents have been the leaders when it comes to avoiding both things.
Are all developers lying weasels? No. But most avoid the truth like the plague because it rarely makes them look good.
Who’s backing this project? What non-Canadian money is going to be spent so we can, as the generations in charge of wilderness areas, ruin one of the last great true wilderness areas (in terms of the unbroken Purcell Mountain chain stretching from St. Mary in the south to Glacier Park in the north)?
And who is going to pay for the huge road costs that will be required? Considering B.C.’s enormous highway infrastructure challenges, name me a region that will give a happy thumbs up to several hundred million taxpayer bucks being diverted from their needs so some pie-in-the-sky, outdated scheme (that became passe in the mid 1990s) can be stroked by a government that just surely have been photographed with its pants down at some point?
Are we all just a bunch of buck-toothed sister/brother loving, jug pulling hillbillies who are so eager and willing to GIVE away one of our finest wilderness gems to mysterious strangers so a few already too-wealthy swines can soak a few more of the newly rich out of their dwindling savings? I don’t believe we are.
But Costello and company and the government that is so bizarrely and suspiciously endeared to them do believe that.
AND THAT IS WHY WE THE RESIDENTS OF THE EAST KOOTENAY MUST DEMAND TO BE THE FINAL SAY-SO ON THIS POTENTIAL PRECEDENT-SETTING SILLINESS.
Ya know what is the funniest thing about Jumbo? It’s that all this emotion and debating has been done over the last 18 or 19 years and NOTHING will ever come from it.
Hey Bob,
I wonder which Bob this is…
Same old arguments that were debunked…
Same old insults…
Are these the values opponents are trying to uphold…
They demand answers of the proponent and he answered through years and years of reviews…and never offer anything in return…for 14 years I have asked what, if not Jumbo, will support families and taxes that pay for parks, health,etc …
The opponents attempted to cheat during the reviews when their moles in the MOE were caught faking Grizzly density maps…They were caught trying to “stall the project until the proponent gave up”…
They threatened 90% of the local small business owners with a boycott if they supported the proposal…
In every election since Jumbo was first proposed the pro Jumbo candidate won the local areas…
There is no MASSIVE opposition – despite all the lies – such as the one that the resort would be “bigger than the city of Nelson”…
Nice try but not traction.
You know Bob as well as every one else, that the proponent is tasked with building the road to Jumbo’s Resort just like they did at Kicking Horse ski resort in Golden. So there are no monies from the government as you know but just want to ignore.
But you know Bob, the name calling and fear mongering that are endemic in your comments above are not conducive to any rational discussion about anything.
As to ” Every single poll ever taken ” ??, please allow some room for common sense here. The vast majority of citizens in both the East and West Kootenay’s are in favour or ambivalent at best to this small project. That fact is inherent in the correct comment mentioned a number of times previously and I quote.
“The fact is that 90% of those expressed some objection to the concept. 90% of 2% is still a very small number in fact, it is only 1%.
This is a fact Bob. Every one knows you don’t like it but repeating some thing that is wrong, does not make it right, no matter how often it is repeated. A miniscular number of people are concerned about this small project. We know the vocal minority of ney sayers are just that – Vocal, but that does not make them anywhere close to a majority. 90% of 2% is almost almost always 1%, almost. The facts in and of themselves speak for themselves.
But again Bob, please stop with the name calling and the fear mongering, it does nobody any justice or show respect at all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Can someone out there cut through all this vagueness and tell us what percentage of local residents have expressed an opinion on the project and what percentage have not but may wish to?
All I am hearing so far is that 2 percent have said what they think. I presume that means 98 percent have not. By the sound of it, quite a few of those 98% feel excluded and would like to have their opinions heard and counted.
Bravo! Over the years people seeing some positives in the project have been called many names and we resent that. It has been people against people. Sometimes that happens when one side can’t find enough factual evidence they resort to words such as “greedy” or “fast buck gang”.
The heart of a region is reflected in how we treat “outsiders”. Is a local a person from Canal Flats to Brisco or does it include the areas with just the opposition in it. I think most people are agnostics when it comes another business coming to the area, they find it difficult to be a cheerleader but if the question is posed, Do you want all the grizzlys to be wiped out or Do you want the environment trashed, of course the answer will be no. Referendi is a mentality I am not impressed with. If we take a vote on every land issue, the special interest group of that time will hijack the process. For instance hypothetically in 2 years we could have 20% unemployment here. Does that mean a referendum on employment should be held then? We have a process (that is stacked against the developer), that people, British Columbians, have followed. To change that because we disagree with the outcome of that process isn’t good business.
RE: Anonymous Questions Numbers
Go to the Environmental Assessment Office Website to find all the project review history.
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_18.html
There has been an enormous amount of public input on this project.
See Public Review #1, 2, 3 and the public response summary by following these links:
Public Review Period 1
Public Review Period 2
Public Review Period 3
Public Response Summary
During the final review of the Environmental Assessment less than 2% of the population of the East Kootenay responded in writing with their comments on the project. The vast majority of the community, 98% in fact, showed no interest in responding to requests for comment.
20+ years ago when the idea of Jumbo Glacier Resort was first conceived the world was a VERY different place. Today we need to focus our energies on cleaning up the mess that has been made of this poor old planet.
Rather than build ANOTHER development in a spectacularly beautiful, relatively remote area (that may or may not succeed)and bring the “owners” prestige, let’s encourage the “money men” to use their incredible wealth to preserve and regenerate this world, and make the planet a more sustainable place for the future. Then, in 500 years, perhaps people reading the history info will thank Oberti, Costello and company for their very generous and insightful decision to leave Jumbo wild. Maybe there will be a patch of undisturbed wilderness for people to enjoy right here in the Columbia Valley. Inagine the tourists THAT will attract!! If the glacier has melted, who knows what they will find! None of us will be here to enjoy it but we should preserve it.
Shan, if you’re going to take a legal angle, you should support your assertions with legal authority and tighten your analysis. I’ve excerpted your comments and responded.
>>> The basic principle of common law is that you can do anything you want as long as it does no harm to anyone else or their property.
Response: What about a government’s right to over-ride the common law with legislation? The BC provincial government has constitutional authority to pass laws governing the property and civil rights in the province. Ski resort developers must follow those laws. If you’re suggesting a law was broken, you should state which law, specifically.
>>>Problem is… Jumbo would be building on my property, and your propety, and everyone’s property. We are the public, remember, and the Queen pretends that her Crown land is ‘public’ property belonging to all her good subjects. And so it is. And so we have an absolute say in what is done with it.
Response: Putting aside that the Queen does no such “pretending,” nowhere in canadian constitutional law or convention does it state that a group of individuals can decide directly by a straw poll whether a piece of Crown land may be developed or not developed. That’s direct democracy. Canada is not a direct democracy. People elect members to their provincial and federal governments. Elected officials pass laws. Citizens and governments must abide by laws and the constitution. Again, if a law was broken, please state so specifically rather than appealing to general platitudes.
>>>>Jumbo can possibly do its thing, but only if all the owners give them the nod.
[...]
>>>Ya ya, I know they’ve followed the government rules and processes, but the government has no moral (or even legal) right to say yes without public approval. By public I mean the people, not the government.
Response: Your appeal to “public approval” as a legal condition to government saying “yes” is simply incorrect. Politically prudent, probably. But not legally required. The provincial government can pass laws that within its constitutional competency, which includes laws relating to property and civil rights. That is their legal right. If you disagree with your elected officials, you’re entirely within your right to advocate for a change in provincial government. That is your political right.
>>>>The government has a legal fiduciary duty to consult the citizenry, and that cannot be done through a system of representation which half the population refuses to use because those elected forget to represent them.
Response: Please state your authority. Possibly a fiduciary duty in limited circumstances concerning specific issues not in play here, however, there is no general “duty to consult” The duty to consult is called a general election.
>>>>And what if the people cannot agree, you ask? Then there is the precautionary principle, a legal principle which says that if there is doubt about whether an action would cause harm or damage, then it should not proceed. And so if there is substantiable doubt in the minds of the people about whether said development may directly or indirectly harm us, or our communal lands (public, Crown land), then the action must not be taken.
Response: Please state your authority for this “precautionary principle” as it applies to the specific laws applicable to the facts. The legislature of the province of british columbia speaks by passing laws. Your vaguely defined “precautionary principle” overriding the clear statements (ie laws) of the legislature would be an affront to the democratic process you purport to support.
>>>>Rule of the majority and its tyranny over the minority does not fit with the common law tradition, which is still the basis of our legal system. The precautionary principles does, and it is a higher principle.
Response: The appeal to “tyranny over the minority” is pure rhetoric. To make that line of argument in law, you need to state the prohibited, legally protected ground that is being infringed. And that is….?
Refering to the above comment – This addresses one of the most intrinsic problems of humanity. There have always been those who live like a pack of baboons, with a strong hierarchical pecking order. And there have always been those luvy-duvy communal folks who move in unison like a flock of sparrows. There are those who like to take and hoard control and those who like to give and share control, and the two are mutually exclusive.
I think the ethics of power, of how we use our own personal power and how we relate to the power of others, is perhaps the biggest thing this civilization has to learn and develop.
We see this dichotomy enacted beautifully now in the election, where we have the elitist business-class Liberals, and the communitarian party of the people, the NDP. It is the same with Jumbo, the same with IPPs — the same core issue at the heart of almost all of politics — control by the few versus control by the masses. It is not a problem that will be resolved tomorrow.
There are those who believe in law, in government, in capitalism — but there are also those who believe that in the end the planet belongs to ALL its inhabitants, regardless of the artificial control systems of the ruling class.
Like I say, it is not going to be resolved any day soon. This goes right to the core of the human dilemma.
Kai Lee seems to have missed the point again in his / her political ideology of socialism for the masses. ” …..elitist business-class Liberals ” give folks a break.
We put our socks on like you, we eat our food like you, we conserve our energy like you and we have found the necessity of earning a living just like you. Elitist – hardly. A different attitude towards helping others absolutely.
I have to assume Kai Lee that being of the ” business ” thought process, you would consider that to be a four letter word. It really is not, Business owners work with suppliers and transport companies, waste and bank paradigms We employ people who earn a living through contributions to the system and business contributes to the system as well.
Taxes are paid by all. In fact, BC has the lowest tax rate for Canada and have had since the BC Liberals dropped the rates and have promised more. It is a very valid fiscal stratagy for the betterment of all.
Give up the socialism and your trying to establish a class system in our society MiKaiLee. That went out with the middle ages.
David, there are businesses that are good for society, and there are businesses that are bad for society. To generalize, small locally owned and run businesses are good and international corporate monopolies who put profits over everything are bad, with a wide range in between.
Yeh, you put your socks on like I do, but you dance in them to a different drummer. Mine is not capitalism, nor is it socialism. It is pragmatism and common sense – for all, not just a few.
Very well put David!
Why is earning a honest living such an awful and horrific proposition to you twisted socialists? I like to call it ‘green’ with envy…you are so bent out of shape that someone has made something useful out of their working lives that you apply trumped up ‘eco’ BS to numb your pain! Its disgraceful. Its unnecessary. Its offensive and this and all of your weak twisted views to this end are the fruits of a poorly orchestrated and very, very week opposing argument!
Mi Kai…there are industrialists out there that would sell the last living tree on earth to turn a buck…very true! But to assume that everyone who has the ambition to operate a business that, God forbid, is economically viable is short sighted at best and just plain messed up and stupid at worst. Pull your head from the ground and realize that the vast majority of for profit businesses operate for the greater good of the general population.
A thought to ponder: many large thriving businesses were once rooted in our communities; small independent businesses opened and operated by folks like you and me. Through good business practices and an ounce of motivation they became large and thriving. According to you and the rest of your oh so hard done by cronies, at what point do we turn our backs on these hard working neighbors and label them as perverse as a reward for their community spirit and hard work??
Another thought: when was the last time one of you basement blogging hippies practiced any level of significant philanthropy? Big businesses do it every day..it is yet one more way the evil can walk guilt free amongst the masses…or dare I say, one more way they benefit the community in a way you sing song bums could never hope to.
Speaking of “sing song bums”, what about that wonderful Celgar refusing to pay its taxes? Oh yeah what about those other philanthropic companies getting big bailouts at taxpayers expense? GM? Hey, maybe I can refuse to pay my taxes too and get some sort of bailout just because things aren’t going so well right now. Oh well, I guess I can just rest assured that those for profit businesses are for the greater good and we should just give them whatever they need. We can all dig a little deeper into our pockets to help them out.
hey anonymous,
i guess it’s back to communism then…
the EAO review stated that Jumbo was in the public’s interest…
CORE, ie. the locals, stated that Jumbo would be a very good use of part of the Jumbo Valley…
Hardly just “giving them whatever they want”…
It’s arguments like yours that allowed Jumbo to be approved…
They were baseless…blame yourselves.
Hey, letitfly, the post had nothing to do with whether Jumbo is a good idea or not. It was about the warped concept that somehow big businesses are model philanthropists, which obviously, they are not.
In any case, seeing as how you state that Jumbo has been approved would you be so kind as to enlighten us why it isn’t being built.
Approved…
= EAO certificate
= CORE
Now what we are told is it needs the Master Development Agreement signed with the province. Then it can be built…
…enlightened yet?
Now could you explain this to me; you wrote,
“The residents of the area deserve final say in this discussion and the government seems perfectly prepared to ignore that fact.”
Two responses:
1) This is crown land and theat means that the whole province has a say in its use. They have the “final say”, by way of their elected officials – ie. the BC Gov’t. (Can’t wait for your response…)
2) CORE was made up of locals and they approved Jumbo by a vote of 18-4. Was it a unanimous vote for or against you were looking for?
What evidence is there of massive opposition? None – 18 years for opponents to come up with it and all we got was 2000 worldwide signatures. Which they used to argue for the Resort to be killed.
Now isn’t that strange? They wanted the government to kill it based on non-local signatures? What happened to the keep the decision local idea they had?
I can go on but – back to you…
Mi Kai, again, you missed the point. Your words and your actions prove you to be a socialist in spite of your self denial.
Pragmatist, definitely not, complainer, yes. You appear to be the quintessential glass 3/4 empty type of person rather than half full.
To run down business folks, to continually run down the government of the moment, to run down every system in our society; well, that is your choice in how you want to view life and society.
I like many others I would imagine, am glad I don’t live in your shoes.
I would far rather work from within for the betterment of society. I would far rather help my neighbour both as an individual, as a business owner, and as a recipient of society’s systems with all it’s good and all it’s warts.
I, like so many other ” workers”, senior citizens, business folk, students and nurses recognize that positive can be accomplished by actually being involved for both through personal and societal benefits rather than by standing on the side lines calling every thing down and trying to convince themselves that they are only pragmatic.
Again and from my opening comment: ” Your words and your actions prove you to be a socialist inspite of your self denial.”
David — You are wrong. That just goes to prove that you should not try to stereotype people you don’t even know. I do not fit neatly into any of the boxes you have named above. Sorry…
If there were more articles on this site about local small businesses, family businesses, self-employment, self-reliance and the like you would quickly see my pragmatic side and my support of (small, local, responsible) business.