Editor’s note: This letter was sent to the SLRD and copied to The Chief.
This correspondence is regarding the proposed major amendment to the Squamish – Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). Specifically, the amendment that removes “destination resort language” from the strategy and its impact on the Squamish community. I would like to officially register my objection, on the grounds of inadequate consultation in the District of Squamish, for an amendment that heavily impacts the future of Squamish.
Transparency
The SLRD has been less than forthcoming with the public in Squamish – and interested groups in the Lower Mainland for that matter – regarding the purpose of this proposed amendment. However, it is evident that the SLRD is proposing this at a time when both the Resort Municipality of Whistler and Vail Resorts (Vail) have a deep self-interest in preventing the advancement of the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish all-season resort – which I note previously received its Environmental Assessment Certificate from the BC Government in 2016.
It is clear that the purpose of this amendment is aimed at limiting the success and development of a competing all-season resort to Vail’s Whistler-Blackcomb. While both the Resort Municipality of Whistler and Vail have an obvious interest in maintaining their ski resort monopoly in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor, it is not clear that such a monopoly is in the interests of Squamish residents, visitors from the Vancouver- region, tourists to the Sea-to-Sky Corridor or the economic development of Squamish.
In the interests of public transparency, could the SLRD confirm that the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish project did not influence the decision-making process in advancing this proposed amendment to the RGS? Could the SLRD also confirm that members of the SLRD Board were not influenced or lobbied – either formally or informally – by Vail Resorts and their subsidiary Whistler-Blackcomb on this significant amendment; which if ratified would restrict a potential competitor from entering the all-season resort market in Squamish?
Consultation
Consultation by stealth is not adequate consultation. The decision on whether locally significant projects within the District of Squamish – either current or future – proceed should be a decision for the Squamish community. The Squamish community can only make informed decisions about amendments to the RGS if adequate consultation occurs with residents of our community.
Why then was this amendment only advertised by the SLRD – in one Whistler-based publication – over the Labour Day weekend, 2017, shortly before a public hearing on the issue was held in Pemberton? At what point, was there a legitimate attempt at communicating and consulting with residents of the District of Squamish on this issue?
How can the SLRD’s approach be considered adequate consultation with the Squamish community – on an amendment that will most significantly impact residents of Squamish? To what degree has SLRD considered the views and input of the Squamish First Nation in their consultation on this proposal?
Thank you for considering this letter and the residents of Squamish. I look forward to your response.
