How odd, that developers who are apparently from Whistler would say something like:
It is a broader conversation, for sure, but other communities have done it, and to have the broader discussion take place while leaving the Squamish component out of the conversation doesn't seem fair
Just how has the "Squamish component" been left out? Quite the contrary! The community has apparently been very extensively consulted, if not lulled into complacency, with regard to what is proposed. And, if the opinion of someone not from Squamish is of less value than that of someone from Squamish, wouldn't that apply to everyone? Even developers from Whistler? Although I utterly reject such an absurd notion - provincial parks are for
all the people of the province. It's even in a statute. All citizens have an equal right to express their views on what happens to a high-profile park. Democracy, eh? Those in Squamish may be oriented toward economic development, as they perhaps ought to be. Others may have other, equally valuable, perspectives.
Given that the majority of the Squamish climbing (and hiking) community live in the area bounded by Whistler - Nanaimo - Bellingham - Chilliwack, I also reject the idea that their views on the future of the Parks are of any less value than those who actually happen to live there now. (Although the traditional territory of the Squamish Nation extended from West Vancouver to Sechelt to Whistler, at least.) There are no drawbridges between Squamish and Vancouver, and Squamish and Whistler - or vice versa.
I've been climbing at Squamish for 40 years, spent a great deal of time in that community, lived there for three years, have spoken and written extensively about climbing there, have relatives and many friends there, led the Access Society for 13 years with all its contributions to Squamish and climbing, helped organize and run climbers' festivals there, and have even taught climbing there. (Perhaps inadvertently, I may have significantly contributed to economic development at Squamish.)Is my opinion less worthy simply because I happen now to live in Vancouver, and may not be up on the latest local gossip?
Sorry, such nonsense has no traction. It might serve the developer's interests, in an attempt to divide and rule, but that's about it.
As far as removing land from parks goes, Ground Effects is comparing apples to oranges. The last time land was removed from Garibaldi Provincial Park was over 20 years ago. There was considerable opposition. The park boundaries were then put in legislation, making it more difficult to change them. A statute would be needed, instead of an order in council. (IIRC, the same applies to the Chief, and Shannon Falls.) Cypress Bowl was clearcut (high-graded) in the late 1960s, which became a big scandal. The provincial government was left with a big mess, and the best they could do in the early 1970s was to make it into a park, with skiing. It was privatized in the mid 1980s, and the new developer was rather territorial about what it perceived as its rights. ("Privatize at haste - repent at leisure.") Skiing on Seymour goes back to the 1940s at least, a very different era. I can understand that former Intrawest executives might think that parks are open to development, after what happened to Garibaldi Park in the 1980s. But that's history, and the Socred days are long gone.
As for promises to re-route the line, and such. Well, I'm opposed to the gondola full stop, however prettified they promise it will be, or it actually is. A development of this kind has no place in or beside the Parks. Sure, they'll make all sorts of promises as to what they'll do - although the reality often differs, based of course on "economic" or "operating" contingencies. And there'll only be a "little" development, and they'll only take out a "little" land - which reminds me of the one about being a "little bit" pregnant.