Dear Editor,

Re. “Plant foes misguided,” Letters, Question, Aug. 26.

Let me start by congratulating Mr. Mathews on his 40 years as a resident of Whistler. I plan on doing the same. I also want to thank him for his part in creating Whistler Olympic Park, where I have enjoyed many a cross-country ski. I just wanted to shed light on some points where Mr. Mathews could have been better informed and show some areas I agree with him.

• I agree that the issue lacks truth and common sense — RMOW backroom deals, changing stories about historic zoning, and support for entrenching and even increasing industrial use in Whistler, right beside our newest neighbourhood at that.

• I agree that there is a role for industry in Whistler, but not at the expense of health and quality-of-life impacts for residents and visitors. The community is asking for the asphalt plant to be relocated away from residential areas — this doesn’t necessarily mean hundreds of kilometers away from Whistler (or Italy, from that matter!). As we’ve learned about asphalt production, most communities without a local asphalt plant accomplish paving by bringing in mobile temporary plants for short periods. Pretty simple. There is also a large quarry suitable for asphalt production located several kilometers north of Whistler, Twin Rivers, which the owner has partnered in. It sounds like a great solution for keeping materials and production close at hand.

• I agree that Whistler's WHA resident-restricted housing is one of the best things about Whistler and is a great success when viewed from both a local and international perspective. If not for the pricing at Cheakamus Crossing, many local families would not be able to remain in Whistler to work, to raise their families, and to contribute to the success of our resort community. But just because people live in affordable resident-restricted housing doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to the same quality of life as the rest of the community. And it certainly doesn’t mean they should be subjected to broken promises; remember, council did promise that they were going to relocate the plant away from the area... And our recently published legal opinion from West Coast Environmental Law says that the RMOW has every right to ask the asphalt plant to cease operations or relocate, as it contravenes the zoning.

• I agree that asphalt is an important product and I appreciate its uses in my daily life. However, I have researched the toxic emissions related to the production of asphalt — burning hydrocarbons results in numerous toxic and hazardous air emissions that are harmful to human health. Yes, petroleum products are “natural,” but the process of heating/burning them is not, nor is it healthy in any way.

• The CC disclosure statement does NOT say that the asphalt plant would remain; it states very clearly that the RMOW “is currently discussing the possibility of relocating the asphalt operation.” The disclosure statement also does NOT say anything about a massive expansion of the quarry and increased associated impacts (air quality, dust, noise, trucking, etc).

• I have not found any scientific research on wind patterns in Whistler related to air quality and how the location of the asphalt plant will impact the air in Cheakamus Crossing or the rest of Whistler. Anecdotal stories are fun but I’m not willing to bet my health on them as with Mayor Melamed’s quote, “We think the prevailing winds will take whatever comes out of the plant that way.” Comforting! I have spoken to the fellow you referred to as a “squatter” down near my future home and he has a better vantage point than you do from Alta Lake. I suggest you visit him for two reasons, one to apologize for calling him what you did and the other to receive some information on the winds down there as I have.

• Taxpayers will not subsidize Cheakamus Crossing homes; the RMOW made a loan to develop the neighbourhood as an Olympic legacy and will recoup the funds once all of the lots (market and non-market) are sold. The RMOW has expressed no concern about this loan being recouped in a timely manner.

• The legal opinion recently publicized from West Coast Environmental Law clearly states that RMOW has the legal right to evict the asphalt plant from its current location. I believe that the $400,000 that the RMOW is providing to the asphalt plant operator (for legal costs or something like that?) is more money than would be spent otherwise should RMOW choose to exercise its legal right to evict the asphalt plant operator. I would love to see the RMOW save this $400K, what a great opportunity to be more fiscally responsible.

• $20 million to move the asphalt plant?! Where in the world have you come up with this pie-in-the-sky number? Sounds as ridiculous as Councilor Thopson suggesting “dollar signs or millions” during the last council meeting. By the way, Councillor Zeidler says those conversations never were involved in their legal opinion. The RMOW has estimated the cost would be in the range of $40,000 to $60,000 to relocate the plant. Cheaper than the post-Olympic party!

Tim Koshul
Whistler