Whistler 'eco-friendly' ? Asphalt plant. Need help please

[ip1_zone]

Well fellow whistlerites I have seen the "Sabre File" and no matter what you think about Asphalt Plant the process of this un-zoned business is troubling. For example no zoning, applied for zoning in 1998, closed file due to fact that a bridge needed to go in and a road. He Also was upset due to all the hoops he had to go through such as an environmental assesment { that didnt go to well} plus there is a memo from city planner to by-law on june 1st 1998 to keep an eye on the site as they may try and operate illegally. Zoning is black and white just because in 2005 RMOW spent $650,000 to alpine Paving, $800,000 in 2008 and soon we will find out Millions in 2009 that may be the reason this un-zoned Asphalt plant was allowed to sit there for so long??? time will certainly tell. By the way IP2 zones as the Mayor stated " were created to not allow for asphalt plants so IP1's can..is a false statement as IP2 and IP1 zones clearly both exclude Asphalt plants and clearly say what you can do on the land and all other uses are Prohibited...BLACK and White..Why didnt council see the file? The history shows it isnt suppose to have been at W7 or W6 and they tried to get re-zoning but didn't. For more up to date information keep an eye in the papers because more truth is coming soon!!

[Whistlerite]

Yes, actually this would still be an issue. The plant operates illegally and has been allowed to do so for decades. The land is not zoned for asphalt manufacturing. It has been polluting the air -- ALL OF WHISTLER's AIR -- for a long time.
And by the way, disclosure statements also said the RMOW was in discussions regarding moving the plant. AND ... the disclosure statements failed to state that the plant is less than 300 metres from the homes, children's playing fields, etc. AND ... the disclosure statement failed to mention the constant noise, smell and toxic fumes. This isn't NIMBY. We don't want the plant ANYWHERE in Whistler. And neither should you.

[RichD]

Your and the other NIMBY's arrogance is as discussing as the bad air you claim exists.

Have some respect, its just a discussion. Don't be a troll, cause that'd be disgustin'.

[mararmeisto]

...[t]he land is not zoned for asphalt manufacturing...

There's special zoning for asphalt production? More likely the land is zoned for industrial or heavy commercial.

Well fellow whistlerites I have seen the "Sabre File" and no matter what you think about Asphalt Plant the process of this un-zoned business is troubling...

The "Sabre File"? Is that a government document? I ask because the government usually uses more pedestrian titles for its documents, like "The Application for the Use of Land in the Whistler Resort area", or something like that. The "Sabre File" sounds like a another slick moniker for a special interest group that is trying to curry favour with the masses.

Is the plant actually within the boundaries of the Resort Municipality of Whistler, or is it instead situated on provincial land? Because if it's outside the municipality's jurisdictional boundaries, then you're all barking up the wrong tree (which is what I would hazard a guess). You'd have to complain to the province, not RMOW (which could be why they're not so productive with your 'case'). Sounds like someone is a little too close to the forest to see the trees.

If you want to live in the 21st-century and enjoy its luxuries along with the rest of us, then you have to accept the cost of production. Now, I agree with BCDelica: maybe there is now a better way to capture emissions, cleanup the process somewhat more than it's current state. I would be more interested in approaching the whole issue from that angle. But in the end, asphalt is made with oil, and it's made with chemicals, and it's a dirty process. Until somebody comes up with a different product that doesn't use those ingredients, there will be asphalt plants and they may be located somewhere not everyone is happy with.

It's kinda like airports: people buy a house near an airport and then complain there is an airport near their house. "Gawd, the planes make all this noise, what with their taking off and their landing. I mean, who builds an airport next to a city anyways?!? What's that honey? Yes, our flight to Milan is at 12h30, and we should probably leave now so we're on time. I know, I know. The show is tomorrow - we won't miss it!"

@Whistlerite and @ip1_zone: this isn't a Whistler forum - it's for Delicas and Pajeros and JDMs. This thread has already got two complaints against it. The usual way to get people involved is to direct them to the appropriate forum for further discussion, not to squat here and rant. Post a link to your forum and be mature about it.
@jfarsang: thank you for posting external links.

[manic29]

...[t]he land is not zoned for asphalt manufacturing...

There's special zoning for asphalt production? More likely the land is zoned for industrial or heavy commercial.

Well fellow whistlerites I have seen the "Sabre File" and no matter what you think about Asphalt Plant the process of this un-zoned business is troubling...

The "Sabre File"? Is that a government document? I ask because the government usually uses more pedestrian titles for its documents, like "The Application for the Use of Land in the Whistler Resort area", or something like that. The "Sabre File" sounds like a another slick moniker for a special interest group that is trying to curry favour with the masses.

Sabre is the contractor operating the gravel mine/pit just up the hill from the Athletes' Village. I assume "Sabre File" refers to the RMOW Planning department's documents for this property.

This plant is no secret. Everyone knew about it.

[jessef]

Facts :

- Plant has been operating illegally

- Plant is located within municipal boundaries

- Current major has previous financial history with current plant owner/operator investing the the plant

- all residents signed a disclosure statement accompanied by a written document planning to move the plant before the residential move-in date (this is important)

- Current major / municipality proposed (before the olympics) in writting plans to move the plant effective June 1,2010

- right after the olympics, major/council held closed door meeting and overturned the proposed June 1,2010 plant relocation and instead proposed in writing to re-zone the area where the 'temporary' asphalt plant resides for future heavy industrial useage.

There is no such thing as having your cake and eating it too, however there is no justification for this plant to continue operating within a residential area.

Specifically one that is promoted as BC's top eco/green friendly city.

The muni spent a ton of cash before the olympics to promote this including replacing the entire bus fleet with hydrogen fueled buses.

The 'hydrogen highway' endorsed by Schwartzenegger goes from CA up to whistler. This was another eco-friendly push to promote whistler.

There are already eco law student and lawyers looking at the best solution.

To those who are critisizing me, please understand the facts from all sides beforehand.

[mararmeisto]

The 'hydrogen highway' endorsed by Schwartzenegger goes from CA up to whistler. This was another eco-friendly push to promote whistler.

Too bad it's going to be a 'dead' economy before it even gets up and going: more energy is used to produce hydrogen than is provided by the amount of gas produced. This is scientific fact, not some nay-sayer's wishful thinking.

[maxpowers]

First off, unfortunately whistler being green is a bit of a show. They try really hard, but anywhere that relies on hundreds of thousands of tourist visits a year, most of whom, fly and then drive or just drive across the country. cannot be "green". Nevermind that every second home sits empty most of the year. and is disgustingly huge.

If whistler didn't use asphalt to pave the new day lots, the highway, the meridian on blackcomb way, or anywhere else. then maybe they wouldn't need it.

I grew up in squamish and, have worked in whistler my whole life. I new it was there, you could sometimes smell it mixed in with the ever present sewage treatment smell and landfill smell when you arrived in town.

but something I found even more interesting then jesse's article/letter (sorry man I cant remember what format it was), when I read the pique last week, was the canadian snowmobiles dude talkin about the old growth they were going to take out of the callaghan.

I mean hesus, they took out 10 times the amount for the green olympics, then the paved it, mostly with asphalt, probably locally sourced
And that guy lives there, so he has probably seen the houses along crabapple and up kadenwood, that must have nearly used a whole forest to build and they just sit empty.

So, If you are really going to be green in whislter but really won't locally source products then how will you lead us all into the shiny green future?

the irony is unbearable.

sorry, I wouldn't want to live next to the plant either but if you use asphalt, then the best option is to make the air clean to breathe, not, to let it pollute in another location. Its not just whistlers air it is everyones.

[RichD]

The 'hydrogen highway' endorsed by Schwartzenegger goes from CA up to whistler. This was another eco-friendly push to promote whistler.

Too bad it's going to be a 'dead' economy before it even gets up and going: more energy is used to produce hydrogen than is provided by the amount of gas produced. This is scientific fact, not some nay-sayer's wishful thinking.

Since you are a moderator off-topic, I'll take liberty to reply off-topic.

When you say "scientific fact" you should quote sources. If you took the time to google the subject, you'd find your statement was a somewhat incomplete characterization of the state of hydrogen fuels.

Predominate methods of generating hydrogen are not carbon neutral, granted. But we won't get to carbon neutral production without creating a market for it, and the technology is already on the way. Pushing for alternative energy options like hydrogen is a step in the right direction.

Analogy: recycling paper is more or less pointless. Paper is biodegradable. Most paper is produced from small softwood trees grown for paper production. The carbon impact of transporting recycled paper is tremendous, horribly wasteful. Burning it to heat our homes would make more sense environmentally. BUT paper recycling is easy and cheap and it was the first step in a broad recycling program which now includes plastics and especially glass and metals. Not to mention the secondary effects of promoting awareness.

The infrastructure comes first, the improvements come later.


Speaking of infrastructure, Whistler needs pavement...

[jessef]

If you were to purchase property with a written agreement from the municipality to move the asphalt plant located beside your property before you move in, and then turn around a week before the move and tell you they will rezone it for industrial use, would you simply take it up the tailpipe or would you do something about it ?

Most residents chose the latter and they have every right considering the lying the municipality has done including violating their own written agreements.

[mararmeisto]

When you say "scientific fact" you should quote sources. If you took the time to google the subject, you'd find your statement was a somewhat incomplete characterization of the state of hydrogen fuels.

http://203.199.213.48/9/1/331.pdf

Part of the fallacy is included in the second part of your assertion that "if we build it, they will use it" - that will only be true with the collapse of the oil industry simultaneous with the implementation of a hydrogen economy.

And you're correct - recycling paper is a loss industry as well, again because of the amount of energy to used to re-use the paper. It's actually cheaper and more productive to cultivate and utilise a renewable resource instead.

Re-using plastics, however, is beneficial because it can be more easily re-constituted into another product a couple of times before it becomes unrecyclable. Same is true for most metals, like aluminum for example, although it can be re-used many, many more times than plastics.

Maxpowers states a very very valid point: it's difficult to come off as 'green' when, unless the tourists were to walk to the resort, any carbon footprint or eco-saving or greeny-feel-goodiness they get while they're at the resort is completely mitigated and/or eliminated by their getting there in the first place.

@jfarsang: yes, you're correct. If as a home-owner or new purchaser it was in the arrangement that some industrial complex was going to be moved or re-defined or whatever, and the city/municipality didn't follow through, raise hell, show up at council and hold them to account.

[maxpowers]

yes i agree, thats bad.
but don't green wash the whole thing, thats just bad taste.
being green also demands a certain amount of responsibility, that means recognising the massive ecological footprint whistler has, and saying yes we use this plant, and therefore we need to keep it local, but much cleaner. not just running it out of town because whistler is so "special"

I mean, they could instead of asphalt to pave stuff, use an army of monkeys to hand chisel basalt paving stones out of local rock. but there are no roads in whistler made from these.

[mararmeisto]

se an army of monkeys to hand chisel basalt paving stones out of local rock.

This is the question that has plagued tradesmen for many years. It seems monkey are able to bang out Shakespeare on a typewriter, but none can wield a hammer to save their life. "If only we could teach them! If only they had the capacity to learn masonry! Why won't they learn?"

[manic29]

I was not aware of this contract.

Facts :

- Plant has been operating illegally

- Plant is located within municipal boundaries

- Current major has previous financial history with current plant owner/operator investing the the plant

- all residents signed a disclosure statement accompanied by a written document planning to move the plant before the residential move-in date (this is important)

- Current major / municipality proposed (before the olympics) in writting plans to move the plant effective June 1,2010

- right after the olympics, major/council held closed door meeting and overturned the proposed June 1,2010 plant relocation and instead proposed in writing to re-zone the area where the 'temporary' asphalt plant resides for future heavy industrial useage.

There is no such thing as having your cake and eating it too, however there is no justification for this plant to continue operating within a residential area.

Specifically one that is promoted as BC's top eco/green friendly city.

The muni spent a ton of cash before the olympics to promote this including replacing the entire bus fleet with hydrogen fueled buses.

The 'hydrogen highway' endorsed by Schwartzenegger goes from CA up to whistler. This was another eco-friendly push to promote whistler.

There are already eco law student and lawyers looking at the best solution.

To those who are critisizing me, please understand the facts from all sides beforehand.

[jessef]

That's what is in the works.

Offtopic, what is up with your white L400 ? Carrying a few sumo wrestler's in the back ?