This letter was addressed to G.D.Maxwell
Let me start by saying that I look forward to you column each week (except when you file from The Smiling Dog Resort).
I am particularly enjoying the political coverage that you are providing. I do feel I must address one misleading point in your last article (Pique, Nov. 8). In your writing you list three criteria for choosing a councillor for council. I agree with all the criteria you set out and the candidates you endorse, with the one glaring exception of Dave Kirk.
Your first criteria is "We can't afford to elect people who don't do their homework, don't read their materials before they come to meetings, don't come to meetings." Now I don't know if Dave Kirk does his all his homework, but I do know his attendance record. He has missed almost a full quarter of the council meetings. I have no idea why he has missed these meeting, I only know the his attendance record as provided to me by municipal hall. (I encourage all to check these public records to make sure their representatives are showing up.) By your own ruler I would say Dave Kirk is not invited on your hike and suggest Ralph Forsyth as a substitute. (Lots of energy and no campaign signs.)
Well Mr. Maxwell that is it. I hope all of Whistler shows up for the vote. Oh, one last point: I would invite Hugh O'Reilly over Dave Davenport. I would rather dance with the devil I know.
D. W. Buchanan
We have been told much in recent weeks, not always succinctly, and I was glad therefore to read your editorial this week. I write to thank you sir for clarity, brevity and good sense. The new council will quickly be facing a decision between the Callaghan Valley and the alternatives you mention, and I hope and pray the alternatives will have the best of it, even at great expense.
The following are thoughts and questions regarding the two sites being considered as the 2010 Olympic Legacy Land, which need to be brought to the attention of Whistler taxpayers and decision makers.
I believe that the crown land grant was a well-chosen legacy in exchange for support of the Olympic bid. Also, the plan to develop employee zoned housing on it, fits best with Whistlers needs now and for the future.
However, it seems that the decision for the Callaghan location is moving ahead in a somewhat fast tracked manner, and I am wondering why I have not heard about any of the normally required impact studies being carried out, or publicized if they were. Have the studies normally conducted by municipal planning staff and independent environmental consultants been done?