Tag Archives: Whistler Answers

Whistler’s Answers: April 29, 1982

In the 1980s the Whistler Question began posing a question to three to six people and publishing their responses under “Whistler’s Answers” (not to be confused with the Whistler Answer).  Each week, we’ll be sharing one question and the answers given back in 1982.  Please note, all names/occupations/neighbourhoods represent information given to the Question at the time of publishing and do not necessarily reflect the person today.

Some context for this week’s question: A major recession hit North America in late 1981, with interest rates reaching up to 20%. While some buildings in the Whistler Village were completed, much of the first phase was still under construction. Construction of the Resort Centre (known today as the Conference Centre) began in March 1980 and was still ongoing in 1982. The original plans included an Olympic-sized ice rink, swimming pool, whirlpool, saunas, racquetball courts, squash court, restaurant and more. The proposed budget (not including operating costs) was in the $5.5 to 5.8 million range. In January 1983 the provincial government formed Whistler Land Co. Developments, a Crown corporation chaired by Chester Johnson to take over the liabilities and assets of the Whistler Village Land Company. Under Johnson the Resort Centre was reconstructed as a conference centre without the extra recreational facilities and construction was completed by 1986. You can find more information about the Resort Centre here.

Question: Would you be adverse to having any portion of your property taxes go towards finishing the Resort Centre?

Jim Crichton – Carpenter – Alpine Meadows

Yes. The original plan for the convention centre stipulated that the taxpayer was not to pay for it. Think it will be years before that thing is finished and I don’t want to be subsidizing it.

They should get a private developer to take it over and run it.

Barry Johnston – Social Psychologist – Alpine Meadows

I think everyone would say it depends on how much extra we have to pay in taxes.

If they did use our tax money, the Land Company would have to make a much closer accounting to property owners on how the money was spent.

David Kirk – Whistler Village Sports/Whistler Creek Ski Shop – Alta Vista

I would like to see a referendum held in order that some direction – whether it be positive or negative – be given the Land Company and municipality on this issue.

Charlie Doyle – Commercial Artist – MDC

I would be against having any portion of my property taxes going for that purpose.

It was a mistake on the part of the Land Company in estimating costs. Why should we bail them out? They certainly don’t bail out my mistakes.

The centre means something to them only as developers. If they were really interested in the community, they wouldn’t have made it such an epic of a building.

If we were given some benefit, maybe we should consider it. But we’ll end up paying both as taxpayers and as customers once the centre’s finished.

Mark Sadler – Contractor/Developer – Multiple commercial & residential property owner

That’s a difficult question to answer. My basic answer is yes, I would be against having any portion of my residential taxes used to finance the sports centre.

I would like to see the major users – namely commercial establishments which benefit the most – pay towards the completion of it, and that statement comes from me as a property owner in the Town Centre.

Why should we taxpayers be responsible for problems incurred by poor management, inflation and other factors?

Drew Meredith – Real Estate Agent – Alta Vista

No, not at all. I’ve been waiting a long time to see that building finished and I’d be willing to put out out of my own pocket for it.

The addition of a full ice area and squash and racquet-ball courts will be a definite asset to the community. It’s not going to be any cheaper in the future.

I wouldn’t be against having my taxes go towards it, providing the Land Company repays the municipality in the future when the real estate market perks up again.

Whistler’s Answers: April 22, 1982

In the 1980s the Whistler Question began posing a question to three to six people and publishing their responses under “Whistler’s Answers” (not to be confused with the Whistler Answer).  Each week, we’ll be sharing one question and the answers given back in 1982.  Please note, all names/occupations/neighbourhoods represent information given to the Question at the time of publishing and do not necessarily reflect the person today.

You may notice that this week is missing some photos for those who provided answers – not all of the Whistler Question negatives that were rescued from a fire in 1991 were able to be repaired and so some photographs are still missing. We are considering ways to include photographs when this happens, such as scanning physical copies of the paper, but for this week at least their words must stand on their own.

Some context for this week’s question: Not all questions asked to the public were Whistler specific. In 1981, the Parliament of Canada requested that the British Parliament remove its ability to amend Canada’s constitution. This power was transferred to Canada through the UK’s Canada Act 1982 in March 1982 and on April 17, 1982, the proclamation was signed to bring the Constitution Act, 1982 into force.

Question: Do you think bringing the constitution home will make any difference to Canadians?

Ann Marie Warren – Sales Clerk – Tamarisk

Not immediately. I think the effects are going to be felt in the future.

As with a change in any rules, people won’t be aware of all the implications and finer points until they see how the Constitution fits into the entire picture.

It’s a good thing, though – another step in the emerging Canadian identity.

Hermel Rioux – Waiter – Gondola Area

Actually, it hasn’t made any difference to me. But I think it’s a good idea to have our own constitution and I think French Canadian people feel much better about it.

There are a lot of Quebecois who are French, but still want to see the country together, although they would like it to be bilingual.

I think having the Constitution here will definitely help the country to stay together. I don’t want to have to cross a border to go home.

Curtis Beckon – Bartender – Brio

No. I think the whole thing is a waste of taxpayer’s money. They should be trying to create more jobs for people or encourage new industry instead of messing around with this.

It’s not going to help people out to have the constitution here. As a matter of fact, I think it’s turning things upside down. It’s almost like starting over again.

Dave Sillmans – Ski Tech – Tamarisk

It makes absolutely no difference to me. And I don’t think it will make much difference to anyone.

It’s not going to make anyone prouder to be Canadian. It’s been over there so long that bringing it back isn’t going to make one bit of difference.

Brent Gilker – Seaman – Alpine Meadows

Of the people who are already mature, none will notice or care, except those who are in trouble with the law or their rights.

But for younger Canadians who are studying the constitution in school, I optimistically believe they will take that information and help make this into a far better country.

Rick Chandler – Liftee – No fixed adress

It’s possible. It depends on how many know what’s in the constitution. And you know what? I’d guarantee that 90 percent of the people have no idea at all.

I don’t, and I read the paper.