What a difference a change in mayors makes. Barely 18 months ago, Squamish council was facing what looked like a popular revolt.
The burning issue? Sea to Sky University's future was being threatened before it could even get off the ground. Council - the previous one, led by Corinne Lonsdale - was considering changing the land use designation to allow residential development on three massive lots around the Gar-ibaldi Highlands. With SSU's development to be financed by housing sales on its lands, adding massive tracts of new land for development was seen as a threat to the university's business plans.
The move caused the SSU and its many community defenders to rally support - so much so that a public hearing on the changes was expected to attract as many as 1,000 people - and council hurriedly backtracked on the OCP amendments.
The issue, which came right in the middle of the municipal election campaign, became a flashpoint in what was already a heated battle and led many to believe that the "old" council was trying to stonewall the university.
One leading critic who condemned the District's handling of the issue said at the time: "Once again, through a bad process, we've endangered a very significant project for the community."
He added the District's lack of a plan was scaring off development: "We're never going to become a community that big developers are going to want to invest in as long as we have the reputation of changing the rules all the time."
Today, the same landowners are back to try their luck again. SSU is still up in arms, saying that the changes could keep the university from meeting its 2006 opening target.
But now, the person considering unlocking the door is Mayor Ian Sutherland - the same person who, as a councillor, railed so eloquently against this process 18 months ago.
Naturally, the mayor claims that this time, it's different. Rather than charging ahead with amending the OCP, council is merely allowing an amendment to be considered and charging staff with setting up a review process.
One thing is very much the same, though: SSU found out what council was up to after the fact rather than before yet again. Given the past history, it's little wonder that SSU is concerned.
There's another problem: by even considering this motion, council is contradicting itself. Barely a year ago, our new council unanimously endorsed a resolution stating that "in order to be considered by council, significant amendments to the OCP land use designations will have to demonstrate a significant community benefit (our emphasis)."
According to our reading of that motion, council shouldn't even be considering an OCP change - unless, of course, it believes that there's enough benefit to outweigh the possible risks to SSU.
In addition to contradicting itself and shaking the underpinnings of one of Squamish's biggest developments, council is sending the wrong message to developers at the worst possible time: that when it comes to major land decisions, Squamish is inconsistent.
It's exactly as then-councillor Sutherland said: if we keep changing the rules all the time, we're never going to attract the right kind of development.
We couldn't say it better ourselves.
