News » Whistler

Letters to the editor


Page 2 of 8

Moreover, a councillor was quoted in the Pique as saying that it wasn't his job to question high-paid muni staff. Then whose is it? This individual was elected to see that the needs of the community are met in the community's best interest. Why bother electing anyone – just let the muni staff decide everything then. Just because Whistler has "world class status" doesn't mean we can continue spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave when it's already too expensive for the majority of employees that are trying to live here.

Larry Miller



Bad government and greed

Having read the decision of Madam Justice Humphries on the Nita Lake Lodge zoning decision I was pleased to see that the salient segments of the decision were reported accurately in the articles and editorial. I was disappointed in the final comments of your editorial that described the taxpayers, developers and community as having lost again and that they deserved better.

As a taxpayer I agree we do deserve better, better local government. The decision of Madam Justice Humphries is not grey it is black and white. The LGA does not permit zoning to be sold for amenities. How is it that our municipal council, their outside legal counsel and municipal staff who deal with this don’t know this? Understanding the LGA is a fundamental aspect of municipal government and it appears that no one is aware that council’s actions were illegal. In any other business were mistakes of this magnitude are made and a significant cost is incurred someone bears responsibility, and I would suggest that the responsible parties would likely lose their jobs. The incompetence of council, their lawyers and staff has wasted a significant amount of taxpayers’ money over an issue that was clearly illegal from the outset. As a community we deserve better government for the money that we pay. The Lamberts did the community a favor by blowing the whistle on this level of incompetence.

At the last public meeting the community sentiment regarding the project was pretty clear to me. The speakers in favour of the project were either paid consultants brought forward by Mr. Haibeck to tell us what a wonderful project this was going to be (no surprise) or speakers that would have a vested interest in the project once completed. Only two local residents spoke in favour of the project. The remainder of the speakers, of which there were numerous, told council that they wanted a park or a small lodge. This was not reported accurately at the time in your editorial. Council obviously doesn’t concern itself with what the residents may want as there is nothing it for them, and they think they need employee housing and a train station at any cost. As for the promoter, Mr. Haibeck, apparently he doesn’t care what he has to provide to build his hotel. This has to tell you that there is a lot of money to be made and he will do anything to get his share. Does he care about the Creekside? I doubt it, he will build the hotel, sell his lots and will be gone with his money. What about the obvious transportation problems from the train station. You cannot currently manoeuvre three buses on the roadway. Where do they expect to park and move 10 or 20 buses when the tourist trains arrive? By the time this happens Mr. Haibeck will be long gone and the problem will be left with the residents and taxpayers. Council and the developers are overwhelmed by greed and all this is going to do is create problems and cost for the residents and taxpayers. It is our money that council is spending and we deserve to have it managed properly.