EDITOR,
The recent Chief article highlighting the post-Olympic trend in local unemployment levels ("Squamish EI increase tops in B.C." June 3), though not unexpected, remains a cause for concern. If Squamish is to have a future beyond being a bedroom community to Whistler and Vancouver, we need to diversify our economy and create local jobs. Employment creation should be a principle focus of our elected representatives.
I was therefore pleased to see that the district had commissioned a new report entitled Economic Development Recommendations for the District of Squamish (go to www.businesssquamish.com/node/300).
After some comparative economic analysis of similar communities in B.C., the report provides recommendations specific to our community and, at least initially, I was very impressed. The report encapsulates exactly what I, and many others like me, have been saying for the past 10 years. To quote:
"Squamish has a powerful brand as the 'Outdoor Recreation Capital of Canada' that invites people to live, work, and play in Squamish. This brand both differentiates Squamish from other communities, and provides a competitive advantage to its businesses. As the core for why people want to live in Squamish and why businesses are drawn to establish themselves and grow in Squamish, it is essential that economic development activities protect and enhance the Squamish brand and competitive advantage."
Whoever wrote the above (see Page 9 of the report) is clearly someone not burdened by the political bias and convoluted development history of our community. It is written by someone who understands what is staring them in the face, namely the awesome nature and the unparalleled recreation that we are blessed with. It is written by someone who understands why we have the youngest demographic in B.C. and why a steady stream of young, dynamic, well-educated people keep moving to our community.
And then things start to go awry. Page 10 of the report lists the economic sectors "best-suited for achieving these goals and supporting the Squamish brand". The first four in the list, and I assume they are in descending order of importance/viability, are 1) tourism; 2) port and marine businesses; 3) regional service centre; and 4) smaller-scale manufacturing. Even though it is self-evident that tourism is directly related to our brand, it remains, as evidenced by council's inaction to date, a misunderstood economic sector.
The next three on the list have nothing to do with outdoor recreation. They are, quite simply, the favoured economic sectors of those members on council who have either no understanding of or no interest in promoting our brand. In the end, however, it is not what made the list that is important but what is, inexplicably, missing.
What did not make the list are the two sectors of the B.C. economy that have the clearest relationship to the outdoor recreation-based lifestyle we so generously have on offer. It is knowledge-based industries and the high-tech sector that locate where they can attract young, stable, dynamic and well-educated staff. All industry wants to locate near their primary resource. For knowledge-based industries, that resource is people. Their only other locational determinants are bandwidth and the convergence that comes with being in an environment of other like-minded companies and it is this "hub effect" that we have to nurture. With Capilano and Quest universities, we have key components already in place.
It has been said many times that "Squamish will succeed in spite of itself." The growth of Squamish's "mompreneur" movement, the many locals who find ways to telecommute and the large number of small, home-based, web-related companies all reflect the desire to "live, work and play" in Squamish. My fear is that our council still can't see how this should be fostered. Jim Harvey
Garibaldi Highlands
