Suppressing the voice of the people
August 15, 2009 by CVNews
Filed under BC government, Freedom, Letters, Local government
On August 7th the British Columbia government in concert with eight Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) directors and a Vancouver real estate promoter launched an attack on democratic process and local autonomy. It was an attack from which the region and the province may never recover.
The attack was in the form of a motion put forth at a RDEK directors meeting by Mayor David Wilks of Sparwood. It states that the regional district should walk away from its authority and responsibility to settle the Jumbo zoning issue by sending it to the provincial government for resolution.
It further stated that the province should designate Jumbo Glacier Resort a mountain resort municipality even though there are no people living there. The passing of this motion means the people of the RDEK have been removed from the decision making process.
Cabinet minister Bill Bennett’s role in this travesty is totally unacceptable but, not surprising and the conduct of the eight RDEK directors who voted for Wilks’s motion was misleading and weak kneed. They have done their utmost to suppress the voice of the people. They should be ashamed of themselves.
In the history of the Regional District of East Kootenay, August 7, 2009 is a day that will live in infamy.
Jim Galloway
Brisco, B.C.
August 14, 2009
Dear Jim,
the RDEK and the provincial government has been listening to the voices of the Anti’s for 18 years. In response to concerns about environmentalism, the gov’t and JGR agreed to 200 environmental initiatives.
It would indeed have been a Day of Infamy when the government neglects creating economic sustainability in this region. Our economy locally is not where it should be. JGR might just push it into that category.
Google in “Sustainability 3 pillars” and you will find out that sustainability is a wholistic category including economic, environmental, and social.
The gov’t has an ethical responsibility to create an economy here that provides the hightest standard of living possible. Invermere killed the train and magnesium project which would have been union wages, so they appear to be anti industry.
In lieu of that, the tourism/recreation industry thrives here. JGR will add diversity to what is offered, hence enhancing a sustainable economy.
I question deeply the ethics of the wildsight abandonment of the important pillar of economic sustainability. Wildsight needs to get wholistic. Abandoning the economic well being of the region to me is a Day of Infamy.
As an additional fact, JGR is building housing for 750 staff right at the resort; so immediately upon opening, there will be 750 residents, not the zero you claim.
That might be more people than in Brisco-Spilli combined.
With respect,
Mary Ann
Mary Ann, If you go back to the original Gro Brundtland report – that is who coined the term “sustainability” – you will see that sustainability is all about the carrying capacity of the earth, not about continuous ’sustainable’ profit or growth or whatever. You are using the term in a perjorative way, hijacking it as it were.
Note also that promises of jobs by Jumbo are no better than fish-bait – there is no real way of knowing whether they will even be jobs worth having, especially given the distance from other communities. How many local people will be willing to move or commute that far for minimum wage? How many even could if they wanted to? No one has said how that will be made viable… and therefore I suggest that the promise of jobs is just a carrot at this point. Not solid enough to hang the whole hat of government and community on. Not anywhere near as promising as diversity.
Dear Mi Kai Lee,
What in 20 years has wildsight ever done to initiate, support and uphold a sustainable economy in this valley? Nothing.
If you google in the three pillars of sustainability, you will see that economic, social and environmental are critical. Unfortunately with your thinking, anyone who makes a profit is a criminal. Do you work for no wages?
Again, a big resort like JGR will bring many support professionals into the area to help it function properly; and calling the very diverse kind of jobs that ski hills offer ‘fish bait’ is to trivialize 850 diverse and sustainable jobs.
It appears that you don’t know what you’re talking about in your analysis of ski hill operations. If you like, maybe I could arrange a meeting with Panorama’s management who could fill you in on the diverse array of jobs required by a ski hill.
At your invitation, Mi Kai, I just looked up the Bruntland Commission’s work through which the United Nations General Assembly recognized that it was in the common interest of all nations to establish policies for sustainable development.
Will you call this perjorative and hijacking now?
Where are you coming from? Sometimes it seems you’re out on Mars.
Uh huh, and what does “sustainable” mean in the Brundtland Commission’s report? And what did Gro Brundtland say it meant before the Commission? Certainly not what people like you are insinuating it means.
Hello again Mi Kai Lee,
Jumbo Glacier resort = more and more jobs with a fixed amount of natural resources.
It doesn’t get more sustainable than that.
The bears will be pleased!
Additionally, Jim, no one’s voice was suppressed at the RDEK meeting. All the anti’s got up and spoke and were the first to do so. Due to our error, we did not have as many speakers as we could have to even the count.
Also, the discussion of the directors as well as the final vote was completely out in the open and very transparent. I’d say the RDEK more democratic now than 20 years ago when such decisions were not made in this open fashion.
Mary Ann
Jim Galloway seems to have a very selective memory.
It would appear that the directors really did listen to almost 20 years of discussion on the Jumbo issue.
It would appear that the directors of the RDEK did accomplish their collective task, make a decision.
It would appear that the proponent has listened to the people through the authority of the EAO in that the proponent has agreed to over 200 different reccomendations of which they had already placed in their plans.
It would appear that the directors of the RDEK have made a decision to listen to logic and truth rather than lies and deception and fear mongering.
And you Jim Gallowy cantinue to use fear mongering still in your above diatrabe.
Why, this decision was made almost 15 or 16 years ago with the CORE process brought in by the NDP governement of the time. Stakeholders from across a very wide spectrum agreed by an overwellming majority including environmental groups that the Jumbo area would be absolutely perfect for a resort municipality.
Go figure how you Jim can figure that the RDEK has aborgated their responsibilities.
Go figure.
I am neither for or against Jumbo but it is time to move on – it can be debated back and forth and it can and will go on for ever. At a point in time a desission needed to be made, the RDEK representatives elected by the people, listened to all parties effected, took into account the madate of the province and the RDEK elected representatives voted. If you dont like it, then step forward and let your name stand as a candidate for the next election.
“Listened to all parties effected”? Sounds like you don’t think the common people are affected, as they were not consulted in this decision. And since it was basically a decision to abdicate by turning the people’s power vested in the directors over to the province, I think that affects the people a LOT. Essentially it extinguishes local democracy with respect to this particular case — that has BIG implications for ordinary people.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about… As I recall, there was no debate about Jumbo per se at that meeting, only about whether to exercise zoning authority over Jumbo or to take a hands-off position on land-use regulation. It was by no means a decision about the fate of Jumbo, which will continue to be debated (as we see here) no matter where things are being decided.
Having been a City Engineer I would like to state the Following. The mountain resort municipality is a good Idea. I worked in a City about the size of Invermere.
I had myself and 2 helpers in a growing city. One draftsman and one inspector.
I am not sure how big the publics work staff of Invermere is but I doubt that it is large enough to cover the needs of Invermere and Jumbo also. To oversee construction activities at Jumbo would require the larger staff to travel back and forth daily at about 30 to 35 mph up and down the mountain road to Jumbo. This would take up about 3 to 4 hours every day of nothing but driving. This is inefficent
use of vehicles and a big waste of time. Other member of the staff besides engineers would need to go back and forth. Planning department personell, electrical inspectors, mechanical inspectors, framing inspectors, plumbing inspectors, sanitarians, drainage experts, geo-technical engineers, civil and structural engineers( to handle heavy snowloads) and the list goes on and on. In my estimation it would be much better to have these people on site in at first temporary housing in an integrated unit to work with earthmovers, landscaping, road construction personel and so on. How would the City of Invermere do this and take care of the needs of the City at the same time. ? What if an emergency occured and the City people were two hours away and the road was cut off by an avalance or washout. The only way in would be by helicopter and by it could well be too late. Let the Resort Municipality which is geared up for this type of thing handle this while that work for the City do what they do best which is taking care of the city.
Larry, Why would it be necessary for Invermere or RDEK to supervise construction when in this case the architect is obviously going to be doing this anyway? It’s not like someone building a house for resale where you have to watch for code violations and shoddy construction. I don’t think there is any real need for local municipalities to be involved in this particular construction.
It is zoning that is the issue here – though it’s not really an issue yet because no one has made an application yet. The present issue is that RDEK has given away, or is trying to give away, its zoning powers — and numerous people are expressing concern that giving away such power would amount to giving away the electorate’s power over local development, which some perceive as a violation of democratic principles. This is so even if the regional directors were properly representing their constituents in that vote (which is very much debated).
While things may be different where you are, in this area the architect sometimes does and sometimes does not supervise construction. However an architect is not an expert in HVAC, Electrical, drainage and so on. Normally specialists hired by the jurisdiction check these things out to make sure the plans were followed. While the architect may make periodic punch lists of things to be done the final say is usually with the jurisdiction. I would assume that is the case in your area also.
Fact is, this proposal is on public land. Oberti is expecting to just be given this land so he can turn a profit on selling it off once he has his tenure. Meantime, he still expects that access, roads and infrastructure will all be paid by local taxpayers and public funds. We all know the majority of residents oppose this proposal. 800 minimum wage jobs in a remote area get us nowhere. Another ski resort not operating at capacity gets us nowhere. This is not sustainable development. This is a frivolous land grab by a man clingling on to a desperate dream. I agree it is time to put this debate to rest but let the public decide.
Evidently Steve Tersmette you don’t understand the system here and I certainly don’t know all of it but this I do know :
Nobody is given the land, they purchase the raw land, then they develop it and then they sell it at the going rate.
The land in question is currently a disused logging and sawmill site.
Also, if you had read the proposal, the developer is building the road, not the government, also the infrastructure, and the sewer system and the water system etc etc.
The local taxpayers as you so wrongly state do not pay for this period set piece.
800 minimum wage jobs ? There are many entry level jobs in this and evey resort, yes absolutely. 800 such jobs, not a chance. Nobody in this area is paid minimum wage. Not housekeeping staff, not lawn cutters, not any body. Talk to the lifties and the groomers, Talk with the folks that do the reservations and work in the kitchen staff areas. Not minimum wage jobs by a long shot.
Why would you be so quick to call down this project when the same man did the same benefits for Golden with Kicking Horse Resort ? Your demeaning attitude and words really don’t do you justice Steve.
I have noticed a concern is the effect on wildlife along the road to Jumbo and at Jumbo itself. The road will be a 30 to 35 mph road given the alignment characteristics. It will be a two lane surface road with an average daily traffic count of between about 500 and 1500 (roughly) vehicles per day with the low count at the beginning of the development. This is about what would travel to Panorama at present. Radio collars have been attached to Elk near the Yellowhead highway. Yellowhead highway has vehicles traveling about twice the rate of speed as the road in along Jumbo creek. Wildlife does tend to stay away from the Yellowhead Highway and are hesitant to cross but they do at some risk to themselves. The situation on the road to Jumbo is different. Vehicles have more of a chance to stop to avoid collisions with deer and elk. With the low traffic volumes there is a much greater time between vehicles to find an interval in which to cross. With these two factors ( low speed and greater intervals between vehicles) collisions with animals would be greatly reduced.
In my early days when I was a hunter( I am no longer) I noticed that deer would follow the low spots near streams. Also Elk would be in deep forests near water and wetlands to keep their body temperatures from overheating,especially on the hot summer days.
At present their is some hunting along this road. With the gazzetted road this would be reduced as hunting would not be allowed within 100 meters of the road on either side. While this would not entirely reduce hunting it would reduce the easily accessible hunting and it would require effort and commitment to hunt , especially for the bears. The point is many of the animals would cross the road at large diameter culverts where the streams coming down from the mountainsides presently are.
Where some areas are cleared for ski and snowboard runs at about 5500 feet up to the timberline this would become a feeding ground for Elk and deer in the late spring, summer and fall. Also during the fall hunting season this area around the proposed resort would be off limits to hunters creating a safe haven for the animals. For the most part the animals feed at night and would not be seen. As far as the bear population they hibernate during the winter. During the summer the traffic counts are very, very low and would not create a barrier for them to cross. The argument the road would limit their range to one side or the other does not hold up in light of this. While working for the forest service in Skamania County on the North side of the Columbia River Gorge. I have seen bears cross the lightly traveled graveled forest service roads. When they do cross they crossed them very quickly.