Editor,
There are times when I simply don't understand the people of Squamish. Obviously now is one of those times, or else I wouldn't be writing to the paper. Why 75 per cent of our voters of this "recreational capital" city voted no in the Feb. 26 referendum is beyond me. When I heard that the referendum lost, I was pretty choked about it, but when I heard that three out of every four voters voted against it, I said no, this isn't right.
Unfortunately for me, I have to wait another year until I can vote, so all I could do was sit back and watch another painful Squamish vote go through. 'First the Liberals win , and now this?' I thought. Voters said that council didn't give enough information and that we didn't need the facilities, but if you ask me, I don't think the problem was that they didn't have enough info on what they would get, but they didn't know enough about what they would miss if the referendum was shot down. I can confidently say that probably around 95 per cent of voters had absolutely no idea exactly how badly we needed the facilities, such as the hockey rink, track, and artificial field.
To me, it wasn't just like "Duh, sweet, another rink"; I actually knew the increasing problem that just one hockey rink had. My hockey team, for one, has 23 players on it, and five players must sit out each game, not to mention an obvious decrease in ice time for the team.
We couldn't make two teams because there were no ice time slots open for the season, which really sucked. Just now, we were going to play a couple exhibition games to wrap up the season, but were refused because of the lack of ice time. To make it worse, we have to practise at horrible times, including early morning before school, and Tuesdays at 9:30 p.m.. Our late-night practice only goes for a dismal 55 minutes, and factoring the 20 minutes before and after to get changed, and then warmup, it's hardly worth it. A new rink would have eliminated these problems.
The track and artificial turf soccer field are more beneficial than most people think. The track at Don Ross is gravel, and anyone who knows the difference between a gravel and synthetic track could tell you that a rubber track is dramatically better. I mean, my 1500m times are like 5:30 on a gravel, and 4:40 on a rubber track! Quite the difference, not to mention the better ankle support on a softer track. Maybe there would actually be more kids coming out to track and field.
The soccer fields (yes I'm talking about the all-weather fields) ironically aren't for all weather. They were made wrong, so even in rain there are large puddles and games have to be called off. My soccer team this year missed about 10 scheduled games, mostly from weather, which is ridiculous considering we play a game a week, and may have even lost our season because of it. An artificial turf doesn't have this problem, not to mention being way better to play on. There's the obvious fact that you can't play football on an all-weather field, and school fields just aren't good enough.
Clearly we've been shafted yet again, and though I probably wouldn't be in Squamish by the time these things would have been built, it's a shame that sports players now and upcoming must suffer because 75 per cent of voters decided they have to. However, I am not 100 per cent negative toward the referendum results: God bless the 888 voters who attempted to "stick it to the man", but clearly corporate Squamish just doesn't want to change. Next time just try and think about exactly what you're voting for and against.
David Metzler
Squamish
Mayor should practice what he preaches
Editor,
Re: Council Corner article of March 4, 2005:
It was with some interest and appreciation of irony that I read Ian Sutherland's March 4 Council Corner missive. In this article, Mr. Sutherland addresses several issues including: the promise to build facilities, Coun. Corinne Lonsdale misrepresenting facts, Mr. Sutherland and his group being described as terrorists, and dealing with issues based on "fact rather than personalities, innuendo and hearsay."
Regarding the promise to build a seniors' centre, an arts centre and a second sheet of ice, Mr. Sutherland claims that he and his running mates tried to do that. I assume Mr. Sutherland is referring to the recent referendum. That referendum, however, didn't promise to build any of these facilities; it only inferred or provided "innuendo" that these would be built. The only fact presented was that council wanted a $20 million free hand for undefined facilities.
Mr. Sutherland then goes on to chastise Coun. Lonsdale by stating that she misrepresented the facts when she said that council approved the Squamish Adventure Centre (SAC) without council "ever seeing an operating budget for the facility".
I understand that Coun. Lonsdale actually said that council did not have an operating budget in place when the SAC was undertaken. The question, then, is did the approval for undertaking the SAC take place before an operating budget was in place? If the approval took place before the operating budget was in place, who then is misrepresenting the facts? I understand that the 2005 SAC operating budget has yet to be approved.
(Editor's note: the SAC's 2005 operating budget was passed by council as part of the District of Squamish 2005 budget this past Tuesday, March 15).
As to Mr. Sutherland's professed umbrage with regard to being described as part of a terrorist group, I have never actually heard that term in reference to Mr. Sutherland and his cohorts. I have, however, heard several people, in private conversations, refer to Mr. Sutherland as a dictator. This issue has even been alluded to in a council meeting (Feb. 1).
Finally, Mr. Sutherland expresses the hope "that people base their opinion on fact, rather than innuendo and hearsay" and that they "focus on issues rather than personalities."
If you want to focus on issues and not personalities Mr. Sutherland, why did you mention Corinne Lonsdale by name in your Council Corner column? It appears that the one personality you do not want people focusing on is your own.
If you want people to focus on the facts, why did you promote a referendum mostly based on the unknown?
It is all well and good to advocate virtues Mr. Sutherland, but it also helps to practice what you preach.
Larry McLennan
Garibaldi Highlands
Tree-clearing for recycling hypocritical
Editor,
Am I the only one who finds it absurdly hypocritical to clearcut a stand of trees in order to put up a recycling centre? Surely there was some vacant land that could have been used for this purpose.
Richard Lynch
Squamish
