anonymous - October 25th, 2005
A bed cap is a precedent to fall back on when council finally has the guts to say, "No more market share housing in Whistler!" The last thing Whistler needs is more weekend home owners trying to dictate how we run our community. I’ll use the gentleman who owns that very big home on Nita Lake as an example.
I have toyed with the idea of proposing a change in the property tax structure where weekend home owners who let their place sit empty most of the year take on a higher percentage of the tax, while locals struggling with a mortgage and renting their basement suites to employees get a tax break. If the others wanted in on the tax break they too would have to rent out their homes or a suite inside of it “at a reasonable rate”. The problem with this idea is how do you single out the weekenders that can afford it from the families who live in their home full time that can’t. Any ideas?

Jamey Kramer

anonymous - October 25th, 2005
Other than the fact it's too big already? Only that the creeping bumping up of the bedcap limit has to stop. Even if a whole new council stopped considering any new proposals either within or additional to the bedcap at their first meeting there is still a ton of development in the pipeline and in our future. If we just keep on expanding as we are now we'll never solve the nagging resident housing issue, and we have the opportunity to actually meet the needs of qualified residents who want to make a future here and not just consider their exit strategies - if we have the courage to acknowledge that the growth economy is behind us.
Some folks will possibly now brand me as the no guy, no to growth and more development. I hope I'm seen more as being the "YES to actually meeting peoples needs in a sustainable community and not wrecking this place completely guy".
I've got a lot more to say about growth ... or not, on my website www.eckhardzeidler.ca
Eckhard Zeidler

anonymous - October 29th, 2005
Bed cap

I would also have to agree with you both. Obviously, we will have to grow as a community. We must continue to support initiatives already in place and take a stand for unnecessary developments. The developments that do occur must be done in a way that again does so in a sustainable way even though sustainable development does not really exist. I call it minimize the affects.

McCaul Balmer

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
I believe I've read that the sea to sky population will double by 2020. Where are these people going to go? If you do not allow any more devolopment then rents and housing prices will go up because there will not be enough spaces to go around. You can't have it both ways.

Troy Therrien

anonymous - November 03rd, 2005
I agree with Ted's comment here.

anonymous - November 07th, 2005
The bed unit cap is simply a measure for determining growth like any other community may use. The dilemma for Whistler is that we cannot use census data because our population fluctuates so wildly. So we use this unique to Whistler thing called a bed unit. The challenge to us is to be fair and consistent in the application of it. We haven't done that in the past. For example, employee housing for a long time was not counted in the bed unit cap at all. Another example - the Sunridge Plateau development with houses up to 10,000 square feet and unlimited number of bedrooms, were given 6 bed units, the same number as my 3000 square foot 3 bedroom house in Alpine. Most of these problems have been sorted out but as we get closer and closer to the cap you can be sure that there will be attempts to be 'creative' with the definition and counting of bed units.
Nancy Wilhelm-Morden