Greek mythology has it that Sisyphus, the king of Ephyra, was condemned by the gods to continually push a boulder up a hill only to watch it roll back down. Sisyphus, the poster boy for futility and frustration, would be right at home with the ongoing Squamish Oceanfront Development narrative.
When it comes to the former Nexen chlor-alkali plant site, the transition from rhetoric to results, from tinseled mission statements to mission accomplished, continues to be an uphill battle. In 2006, Qualex-Landmark, the designated developer, walked away after our municipal council requested substantial changes to the deal at the 11th hour. Over the next eight years the District of Squamish lavished $11.4 million on the property to get it up to speed. Despite that substantial infusion of capital, there are still no shovels in the ground.
Last summer Matthews Southwest and Bethel Lands Corp. agreed to buy the land for $15 million. The district also received a 25 per cent limited partnership stake in the venture. Outspoken local developer Douglas Day called the undertaking an “ill conceived, convoluted deal.” Rob Kirkham, who was the mayor at the time, said there were still a number of conditions that had to be met but the process was “well underway” and would “be completed in good time.” The implication was that sealing the deal by early spring of this year was just a matter of crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.
But reaching closure now looks like it will be a more drawn-out process than anticipated. As Mayor Patricia Heintzman revealed in a recent email exchange, “there are many moving parts…they are right up there with neuroscience in terms of their complexity.” Bill McNeney, who recently chaired the Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation (SODC) board, believes the negotiations leading to a timely conclusion of the transaction have bogged down. Larry Murray, the original chair of the SODC, has called for a referendum to reopen the deal because, as he puts it, the community is getting “slammed and dunked.”
Even some council members are second-guessing the process. During a recent committee of the whole meeting, Councillor Ted Prior said he was definitely in favour of moving the development forward but too many gray areas related to financing are clouding the picture. He asked district staff to clear up the confusion “so everyone understands,” and added that he wasn’t happy about making “pressure decisions without the proper information.”
Ultimately, the bylaw and policy changes required to move the project forward will come before council for approval. In a worst-case scenario, this venture could be sent back to square one if the proponent is not satisfied with the outcome of those deliberations and withdraws the purchase offer.
