RDEK supports Jumbo mountain resort municipality
August 7, 2009 by CVNews
Filed under Audio, Business, Columbia Valley, Cranbrook, Environment, Freedom, Government, Headlines, Jumbo, Kimberley-Cranbrook, Local news, Recreation
Those who could not get inside listened to the proceedings outside on a loudspeaker as some 130 people attended the regional district's board meeting to consider a motion that would bypass land-use zoning for the Jumbo project by supporting establishment of a mountain resort municipality. (Photo by Loree Duczek, RDEK)
By a vote of 8 to 7 this morning the Regional District of East Kootenay has come out in favor of a motion put forward by the mayor of Sparwood for RDEK to indicate to the province its support for establishing Jumbo as a mountain resort muncipality.
The meeting, which began at 9 am in Cranbrook, heard opinions from a long list of presenters and took place before an overflowing house, as numerous parties arrived to express their concerns.
CVNews will be following up with a full story later today.
Listen to the full unabridged 2-hour audio of the council meeting. (Click progress bar to skip to start of meeting.)
Click arrow to begin. To go back or repeat, click anywhere on progress bar.
CVNews related links:
• Jumbo decision passed along to province
• Jumbo too big for RDEK to handle, director says
• Region asks province to declare resort municipality for Jumbo Glacier
• Jumbo Glacier Resort plan shifts to province
Copyright © 2009 columbiavalleynews.com
Wow! Thank you to the 8 directors who were finally able to vote in the best interests of “all” the residents of East Kootenay. It was becoming very apparent that the Columbia Valley’s own residents, their RDEK directors, and their own MLA, were becoming so clouded by their own inner bitterness and fury surrounding Jumbo Glacier that they probably forgot what they were fighting over. Perhaps now they can begin to ‘get over it’ and begin to embrace the possibilities of what is yet to come. Thanks for letting them out of the box!
If there is such confidence that Jumbo is in the best interest for all people of the East Kootenay, then why shift the decision from being a local one? Allow the residents of EK to vote by referendum. For such a long drawn out issue, local referendum is the only way to know who’ is for or against. There is a lack of confidence in elected representives making decision for the best interest of the people, as decisions are made on behalf special interest groups more so, than those that elected them.
As for becoming clouded and forgeting what there were fighting over is an unfair comment. Do not speak for me or those of Columbia Valley. A referendum would have allowed for those voice to be heard, either for or against.
Yes!
The best news I’ve heard in a long time.
Very good, and just, news!
to put this in perspective. There was only one director that voted in favour of this that was within 200 km of the proposed resort. All other votes for this were NON LOCAL, voting against the wishes of the local directors.
Shame on all the directors who voted against the wishes of the local directors and the local people that will actually be affected by this decision.
And just because it has to be pointed out. A majority of the directors who supported this motion are prominent liberal/bennett supporters….. definitely not a coincidence here…
Bill Bennett is just a pawn for his masters in victoria, and he turned the RDEK directors into their pawns to get their way on this. Disgusting!
Actually, dear Anonymous, Area F itself recently voted for Mark McKee, pro Jumbo, by a margin of 12 percent. So Wendy, area F’s director, voted against her own majority.
The only disgusting thing I see here is your suspiciousness and paranoia about the Victoria government which was also elected by a clear majority.
I find your calling Mr. Bennett a ‘pawn’ and the Victoria gov’t ‘masters’ deeply offensive.
I am so pleased that the directors of the RDEK have approved the concept of handing to the provincial government, the potential to set a Mountain Resort Municipality for the Jumbo area.
I have to think Barb, that you have nailed the point, many people have been caught up in the rhetoric and have forgotten that there also facts that HAVE to take prescendence over rumours, lies and fear mongering. It is so refreshing to see so commen sense prevail.
These RDEK directors have stood up and have been counted and that can only be a good thing. Congratulations for taking a very large step towards helping our communities have the opportunity to heal.
This is a sad sad day for local democracy
Actually anonymous, it the absolute best that can happen for our valley. Pride of place has trumped those that would stiffle love of life by a long long shot.
Proud to be in this valley and not afraid to share with those who are yet to arrive. Proud to want the establishment of well paying jobs for our young and not so young. Proud that our elected officials have stood up to what another lady has called bullyism although I don’t know if that is a dictionary word.
We here in the valley are proud of our elected officials who are willing to stand and do their job.
We all recognize that a small number are disgruntaled by the fact that they did not get their way. As I said before, so is my grand son some times. But the rest of us? Very proud of our directors and very pleased with democracy as it works so well for so many.
David,
In your extreme wording, you seem to be missing the meanings of words like “facts” and even the word “rhetoric” itself. Facts are things like what follows…
63% of those polled oppose the development of the resort.
19% are for it.
18% are either neutral or undecided.
The poll states a 3.2% margin of error.
Those are facts.
“Rhetoric” (of the most overblown form) is saying that those 63% are “those that would stifle love of life .” I don’t think the majority of people want the project to be rejected because they want to stifle the love of life. It’s such a ridiculous claim that I question my use of time even having to mention it. It is also interesting that you say that the majority of people have forgotten that facts prevail over rumours, lies and fear mongering. That is quite a large claim to make. Can you be more specific with that? Without being specific, your replies sound strangely like fear mongering and bullying themselves. I may sound rude with my reply, but I genuinely can’t find anything in what you said that can be interpreted as anything but throwing insults at everyone except the 19% who support this project.
Les, Your “facts” are seriously flawed:
- The poll paid for by WildSight shows most people against Jumbo Resort. If the proponent submitted a poll he paid for what credence would you and the other opponents give it? None and we all know it…the most recent EAO call for submissions found almost equal number of submissions for as against.
- If someone had done a poll and the majority wanted to build a massive open pit gold mine in the middle of the proposed Flathead park would you then say well I guess we build the mine then? Of course not…it’s a two edged sword and a dangerous precedent there.
- CORE was made up entirely of locals and they voted 18-4 to support the Jumbo proposal. It is the 4 that voted against that have never liked that democratic vote and will not accept it.
- Radium Hot Springs council voted 5 – 0 in support, the local Shuswap band supports the proposal and Invermere council only voted 3-2 against. And in every provincial election since Jumbo was first proposed the pro jumbo candidate won the local areas. Including Area “F” in 2009.
- According to the Environmental Assessment Office of BC: Jumbo received less opposition than normal “a smaller percentage of opposition than is typically experienced” EAO pg. 15.
- A 17 year worldwide petition raised 2000+- signatures opposed = this shows there is very little opposition to this proposal. A result which is consistent with the EAO assessment noted above.
- 90% of businesses polled by the Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce supported the Jumbo proposal – then the opponents in response laid out the threat of a boycott of supporting businesses.
There has been no subjective information that proves a majority opposed to Jumbo…which given the misinformation spread about the proposal is somewhat surprising. Considering the “lies” spread that the resort will cause the “extinction of grizzlies” and that the “resort will be larger than the City of Nelson”.
I would oppose Jumbo to if that was true…they should have had a Jumbo quiz with that poll.
Thanks Letitfly for always providing us with great subjective and FACTUAL information. I would also add to your statements regarding the EAO application that the EAO received an inprecidentented 1,500 + letters of support during the process.
Good Morning Les
Losing sight of facts in the veil of lies and fear mongering is easy to explain Les.
The negative side has, for almost 20 years used fear mongering and lies to shape people’s opinions. In this case, one is about how the proponent would be putting a road through Jumbo Pass. This was in the Valley Echo for a number of editions over the years. Only problem was, this was a project that the provincial government was examining to find another route between the east and west Kootenys. This was done about 30 or 40 years ago by the way and abandoned.
Or this ” fact “? from the negative side, “This major project is going to pollute the wetlands of the Columbia”? Only problem is with that fear mongering, is that the project is smaller than Panorama for size and also has a tertiary sewage system planned which is state of the art technology and systems. It even takes out the nitrogen and phosphates. But the negative side does not want to have this fact known.
Now if we analyse the system used by the negative side, the defining words to describe the trend would be propaganda. To paraphrase the definition it might be described as telling the same lies for so long that the public thinks it is the truth.
This is how the public has lost track of the truth and the facts Les, There has been a systemic system in place that has obscured the truth. The above are but 2 of possibly 10 different and systemic “mistruths” perpetrated to hide the facts. I don’t have the time right now to continue with this list of items.
Looking at your staticstics above Les? 63% of 2% is at most all of 1.26% of the population. And yet the negative side states that a majority are opposed to the project? Sorry, my calculator still figures less than 2% are really opposed.
Yes, Dave, 62% of a 2 percent response is 1.26% in opposition to JGR.
What does Les have to say about the fact that ‘pro JGR’ Mark McKee won Area F by a margin of 12 %; and Wendy our director did not listen to that majority, she listened to the 1.26%. Is that democratic?
And what about the ethics of a wildsight anti-JGR campaign which abandons the pillar of economic sustainability? Or is wildsight too self-righteous to consider the ordinary human being who has to earn a living here?
I can’t understand wildsight’s vision. Is it to have us go out in the bush, hack down some logs for a cabin, break ice in the winter for water, and kill deer and moose to eat?
Wildsight has to integrate economic sustainability into their platform; or they will continue to lose credibility.
Thanks to the RDEK for their courageous embrace of a project that is sure to increase the economic sustainability of the region.
Ho ho ho — and if we presume the other 38% were pro-Jumbo that is even less — a mere 0.77% !
The big question is — what about the other 98% who did not participate ? If so many people think they are in support of Jumbo, shouldn’t we go ask them, just to confirm that?
What was the voter turnout in the last provincial election? About 40%? So, using your logic regarding Mark McKee, then 12% of 40% is about 4.8%. We heard from less than half of the population, but yet Mark McKee is in. Reason? Only those who actually vote are heard from. 63% of those who actually took time to respond to the polls were opposed to JGR. Only those who vote are heard from. To me it looks like the opposition wins.
Thanks to Les and Patrick for the facts and for the clarification of them. Perhaps someone out there can explain just what the motivation may have been for the vote by RDEK when there had been no application for the mountain resort municipality designation in the first place?
Good Morning Barrie Hawes
The motivation I would suspect is that as Pacey said in a letter to the directors of RDEK, is that the RDEK does not have the money, the people or the time to handle something that so far has consumed over 17 years of effort and monies. If the RDEK tried to emulate what has happened so far, they would not have time to handle anything else in the RDEK areas of responsibility by trying to do again, that which has already been done by so many other and different agencies.
On top of that simple fact, the RDEK is simply asking the provincial government to use the current legislation when and if the master plan is accepted.
In other words, they are being pro active and recognizing that they ( RDEK ) cannot, without hurting so many other parts of our area’s needs, handle such a complex subject.
And also quite simply, who cares whether Norm or mark were for or against one single issue, an election is about whether that person or party has the confidence of the province, to be able to competently handle the affairs of so many diverse subjects. That election was not about Jumbo. That is such a small issue in the province’s bag of issues, it pales in comparisson to the economy, the finances, health care, jobs etc etc.
Jumbo ? a drop in the bucket compared to what is happening.
Let the directors do what we hired them to do, make decisions.
Thank you