anonymous - October 29th, 2005
Here are some comments I posted under Michael d'Artois' section about this topic. At some point Michael you have to answer yes or no. It shouldn’t be about back pedaling or making the older zoning “correct” the developer agreed! The space would not be there and this discussion wouldn’t be dragged on and on if the developer lived up to their AGREEDED terms. Kind of like my spouse got older so I want to rezone the individual for what I need today! I really am having trouble figuring out from your comments where you stand? Firstly from my perspective it is a rezoning application pure and simple, the way that London Drugs and Larco are trying to split the community is despicable and seems below the values of a good corporate citizen. Affordability? The President of London Drugs in no uncertain terms has said that if this store goes forward it would NOT match Vancouver prices. A sound similar to a “Whistler” allowance for workers doesn’t it? Where does it stop! A recreational amenity such as Storeum (which is mainly built underground) in Vancouver has the ability to add value perhaps drive room nights. Remember we are running below sustainable levels for the hotels to exist. Do you or anyone think a guest from an international market is going to choose Whistler because it has the largest drug store of any mountain resort?

Whoever the tenant may be is irrelevant the issue is about fulfilling a promise made. I am sorry for the rant and the fact it is directed at you. The Whistler Question should be embarrassed for the way they have played into the Developer and London Drugs strategy of divide and conquer. This question being put first to the candidates reveals how uninformed and disengaged that publication is. Does the editor really think this is one of the most important issues of the day!

anonymous - October 29th, 2005
I can't be more clear. Extra-ordinary events and clear and substantial Comunity benefits would have to be derived in order for this application to be successful. My first paragraph clearly states my view I believe. I suggest extreme options merely to illustrate the extreme proposal request to rezone.


The request for a zoning change has alot of history to it. It is not a
simple should we or shouldn't we.

Obviously there are many diverse views on this matter. It is not dis-similar
to the arrival of the Golden Arches in Whistler. And what a kefuffle that
was. It is what it represents for some that really hurts. Is it to be part
of the new Whistler reality. Are we undergoing a capitulation to the
"corporate " operator who will bring jobs and less expensive product to
Whistler? Are we throwing in the towel that our Village is really just a
mall, the likes of which one can find in Kamloops or Abbotsford or Nanaimo?
I suppose one positive aspect to this event is that rents may come down
because we will have many more vacancies. What happens to the camera stores,
the hardware store, the drug stores, the toy store,the kitchen store, even
the grocery store? Why not allow them a beer and wine license too? Perhaps
this is the chaos we must go through in order to be reborn for the next
generation of "village". I am not ready for the next generation. I am
willing to stick this out and bring some vitality and soul and Community
into our Village.

Or perhaps we say no to this rezoning and drive the Developer so mad he
throws in the towel. He has had it with Whistler. God knows this Developer
has had ample oportunity to check-out long before this. Remember the hole in
the ground for a year? If he does throw in the towel then let him sell is
commercial spaces to his tenants. Let them morgtgage over 25 years and be
rid of rent uncertainty every 3 years or when the Olympics come around. Let
the tenant become a true stakeholder in his Community, get control over his
own Common Area Costs and not blindly pay a bill because he has to. And when
and if this new Owner wishes to sell or release, he can do it on his own
terms or hand it down to his children.

I cannot bring myself to drop a potful of money into a Developer's mit for
space he was not entitled to in the first place. For every foot he gains
underground perhaps he donates a foot above ground in his many vacant spots
to the retailers he will cause to go out of business. Or perhaps he
contributes 50% of the net rent to the recreational fund in the Community.
This could go along way to paying the operating cost of the new facility on
lots1/9.

I look forward to the ongoing debate.

Michael

anonymous - October 29th, 2005
With the information and public opinion I have gathered so far I do not believe we should rezone the proposed London Drugs location. It is my understanding that the area was built for a specific purpose and my first choice would be to see it used for that purpose.

I do support London Drugs opening in Whistler as I know from feedback I have received, that Whistler residents do indeed drive to Vancouver to purchase London Drugs products. It would be my preference that London Drugs recognizes the uniqueness of our village along with the need for family recreation in the location that they are proposing.

Mike Brew

anonymous - October 30th, 2005
Indoor Recreation History at Whistler Village Centre
• In 1993, the RMOW granted a portion of the parkade to be used for indoor recreation, restricted to bowling, billiards and/or spa with ancillary sports bar;
• Developer landed a tenant 5 years later, Alpenrock, who tried to make a go of it with the restrictions in place;
• Despite a reasonable rent, $25 psf, Alpenrock was unable to operate profitably due, mostly, to a lack of demand for indoor recreation space. They folded in 2001.
• A year later, 2002, Village 8 Cinemas came along with a great concept for 8 small theatres showing first run movies;
• At the same time, there was interest from an established restaurateur to open a high end nightclub and restaurant;
• They were each going to take a portion of the 40,000 sf, leaving approximately 3,000 sf.;
• As neither of these uses was permitted under the existing zoning, an application was made to rezone the property;
• Like now, there were concerns expressed for the loss of indoor recreation space;
• Council of the day, which included the current mayor and half the current councillors sitting today, recognized, with the failure of Alpenrock and other indoor recreation facilities, notably Mountain World in the Conference Centre, that perhaps there was not as big a demand for indoor recreation as originally envisioned;
• Therefore, as part of the rezoning approval for these uses, the definition of indoor recreation was expanded to include video games and the amount of indoor recreation space required in the lower level was reduced dramatically to only 3,000 sf.;
• Without council’s approval, the developer can now put in any and all of the following uses:
o A nightclub
o A restaurant
o Storage
o Offices
o Indoor recreation
• The strict requirement for indoor recreation has been met by the video arcade currently in existence next to the movie theatre. Unfortunately, even 3,000 sf seems too much for indoor recreation, as sales are very low. Rent is a very reasonable in the low $20 psf range.
• The nightclub/restaurant never materialized and there is now 13,000 vacant square feet.


Facts and Conclusions

• There is no demand for indoor recreation.
• Barring a dramatic shift in consumer demand, there will never be indoor recreation in this space, regardless if there is a London Drugs there or not.
• Of the number of uses currently permitted, Indoor Recreation is just one of many, and probably the least viable. This has been proven many times throughout Whistler.
• The Developer/Landlord has met its commitment to provide indoor recreation, by providing 3,000 sf of indoor recreation.
• There will be no economic windfall to the Landlord by allowing London drugs to operate in the lower level: The rent proposed to London Drugs is in the same range as that paid by the indoor recreation user (Alpenrock), the movie theatre and the indoor recreation, namely the low to mid $20’s.

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
Michael. With all due respect, it is a fact that you are the owner of a retail space in Village North and that you are charging market rents. In fact, the same market rents that you are suggesting the Landlord at Whistler Village Centre is charging that "will cause retailers to go out of business". Will you be donating 50% of your net rent to the community recreational fund? Or perhaps will you be building and paying for a proportional number of the 400 parkings spots beyond those required for the development and pay a yearly maitnenace fee to the municipality as the developer of the Whistler Village centre was required to do?

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
Thank you for the factual information on the underground Larco Space. I will assume that this came from a representative of Larco or some other knowledge individual who has researched the zoning and history. I would like to question a couple of the statements:

1. There is no demand for indoor recreation.

To say there is no demand for indoor recreation in Whistler is a stretch. My wife and I have children ages 19, 16, and 11. We have lived here for ten years and have been challenged to find affordable indoor activities for our family especially on bad weather days. We visited Alpenrock on several occasions and found it expensive, dark and poorly laid out. A better laid out family affordable facility would have been frequented a lot more by my family and guest families to the resort. From my experience and the comments I have received over the years from clients and guests I think there is a demand for affordable indoor recreation in Whistler. Using the statement” Rent is a very reasonable in the low $20 psf range” lets assume $22 a square feet for base rent plus approximately $18 for the common expenses, the total cost to a tenant would be $40 a square feet. $40 times 13,000 sq ft is $520,000 in rent and common expenses per year. You have to rent a lot of bowling shoes to pay for that.

If the base rent was let’s say $5 a square foot could a well laid out, well run family orientated indoor recreation facility turn a profit in this town?

2. There will be no economic windfall to the Landlord by allowing London drugs

Rent: The landlord would go from collecting zero on this space to $520,000 per annum.

Property Value: I’m not sure what the capitalization rate would be for underground space in Whistler and I’m not sure whether this space is a stand alone saleable strata lot; so I can’t give an exact dollar figure on what a change of zoning would mean for sale price. I will give a simple formula to calculate the value of commercial property and an example.

Space sq ft times price per square foot divided by the cap rate equals sale price.

Let’s say we have a 5,000 sq ft strata lot which rents for $50 a sq ft and the cap rate for similar type properties is 10%

5,000 sq ft times $50 a sq ft divided by 0.10 {10%] = $2,500,000 sale price

If the landlord can rent out the space under the existing zoning, which is stated to be a nightclub, restaurant, storage, and offices space, for the same price as he can to London Drugs then there is no economic wind fall and the above statement # 2 is accurate. If this statement is true then why has the Landlord not procured such a tenant under the existing zoning?

This is a re-zoning application that will have a major impact some of our long time small businesses in Whistler. Without Vancouver price guarantees it does little to impact affordability in a positive way. Another strong anchor tenant will only increase the potential for rent increases throughout the village and the likelihood that the interesting locally owned stores will be pushed out or not be able to start up. If the property is zoned commercial there is no guarantee that London Drugs will stay as a tenant and if they go the reasons for changing the zoning might go with them.

Finally I love shopping at London Drugs; the convenience of having one in Whistler is very tempting for our family of five. I’ve gone back and forth on this issue several times. I’ve decided we can wait for the Wal-Mart and a possible Costco in Squamish. I think our guests would like to see more stores like the Hat Shop, Beach or Bust and Lulelemon and we owe it to the long time local merchants who helped build this community not to throw a re-zoning curve ball at them.

Stuart Munro

whistler - October 31st, 2005
Note: See how the above comment has ‘More Strength' when signed. I‘m curious as to who wrote the previous posts myself. Duane Perrett

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
The IGA and Nesters Market are both much bigger than the proposed London Drugs store, yet they are not referred to as big box. Big Box usually refers to stores over 50,000 sq feet. Not 15,000. Our tourists complain about high prices and poor shopping, according to Tourism Whistler surveys. Tourism Whistler is marketing value now. Our visitors may well appreciate competitive pricing as much as our residents.

whistler - October 31st, 2005
What about creating the ‘rainy day space’ with a mix, a combination of activities or businesses? Incorporating a local artist co-operative would continue to bring the locals in as well as an activity for tourists. As we all know we need the locals to keep the economy stable. Thoughts? Duane Perrett

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
I do a considerable amount of the leasing and selling of commercial properties in the Village on behalf of both landlords and tenants including but bu no means restricted to Larco Developments. I have no invlovement in the London Drugs transaction but I represented both parties in the Cinema deal. My goal here is to make sure that the facts presented are accurate. Saying the landlord will gain an immediate and substantial gain on the property is wrong. Values of commercial properties are based on a cap rate of NET income. The rate London Drugs will pay is the same as the movie theatre, $22.00 per square foot gross (yes gross). The cost of maintaining each and every square foot of the Whistler Village Centre is $23.36. A substantial portion of this is the property tax payable to the Municipality (considerably more than $5.00). As you can see this will produce a loss on the 11,000 square feet and therefore no gain on the properties value. The gross rent for the 11,000 square feet at $22.00 is $242,000.00 per year. As this is a gross lease there are no additional triple net costs. $22.00 gross per square foot is all the market will bear for this space. This is a loss of $1.36, therfore no windfall for the landlord. Finally, Larco is the only developer that has been required to provide public parking over and above the requirements for the building. 400 to be exact and in 2002 as part of a rezoning approval the amount of indoor recreational space required was reduced to 3000 square feet. This requirement has been met by the video arcade currently in existence.
Bob Hamilton

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
Are the multi-national chain stores currently occupying the above ground portion of this space actually planning to leave Whistler, or will their displacement from their current location cause them to displace a couple of other possibly unique and locally owned businesses?

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
To re-zone or not to rezone! As someone who has been involved in the LBE (Location Based Entertainment), and Family Fun Center industry I do feel it important to mention a couple of thoughts.

While some may argue that demand is there, I would say that "Revenue Generating" demand is not. All around North America, Family centers are a dying breed. Sega GameWorks, filed for bankrutcy as a way to renegotiate leases back in 2004, they're also not growing and same store comps have declined year over year. DisneyQuest has stopped creating new locations (after 2 of them), ESPN Zone will not be expanding, Rainforest Cafe, Canada's Playdium and many others have all failed. The simple reason is that revenue generated per square foot is absolutely horrific, these places require a lot of space, and a lot of capital. the average GameWorks or Dave and Busters (The only remaining somewhat successful company), costs over $10 million USD to build. Mountain World cost right around $7 million ('97 dollars), and that was by being creative with game leases and rev-shares.

As for video games, did you know that the average large screen arcade game (the only type to compete with consoles), costs an average of $24,000 Cdn each? Couple that with the usual built in obsolesence, and you end up with a big ticket item that will rarely pay for itself. Not to mention that most developers would rather play it safe and create cartridge style video games for the Play Station or similar units. So what family entertainment does that leave? Ball rooms, potentially, indoor Go-Kart Tracks, Skate board parks, etc. The reality is that most of these types of entertainment with the exception of movies, require a fair bit of square footage that will never pay for itself.

Above and beyond that the demographics and visitation patterns for Whistler's residents and visitors just does not fit the mould. Our winter guests spend the bulk of their time on the mountains, come down for a hot-tub and dinner, maybe some shopping, but again the reality is that your potential "captured audience" is really only around for a few short hours a day. Very difficult in an industry that has a hard time generating even $10.00 sq/ft and what did we say those rents would be again?

So in essence, unless the developer, muni, TW, WB, or some other large company was looking to subsidize, and I mean in perpetuity a family recreation center I would not even bother with it.

As far as London Drugs, and the developer's requirements towards society well heck that's a completely different argument. Tough for me to judge since I don't live in Whistler anymore, but having just come back from Teluride I have to admit it was incredible to walk through their town and not see one single chain store. Breckenridge is similar although they have some chains but they have been formatted to fit into the historical nature of the town. Still, I remember when I had to rent a car in Whistler just to drive and go shopping, I hope that people remember the seasonal staff who have little transportation and are looking to become a full time community member. Is Function not an option at all?

Hope all is well,

Rob Schwartz
Copper Colorado

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
Bob, thanks for the clarification:

Are you privy to the entire deal?

I understand that the landlord has fulfilled their obligation for indoor recreation. I don’t buy that there is no demand. Why has the landlord not secured a tenant under the existing zoning at a gross rent of $22 a square foot which includes common area expenses and taxes? Is this not a very attractive gross lease rate for a restaurant or a bar?

Not being privy to the deal, I made clearly stated assumptions of $22 base rent plus $18 for common space and taxes, which I thought were reasonable and $5.36 less on the common expenses than the actual $23.36. I don’t understand why the developer would lease out 11,000 sq ft in the middle of Whistler Village at a loss of $1.36 sq ft. Could you please explain?

Stuart Munro

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
Neither Guess nor Eddi Bauer are leaving Whistler. The plan is for London Drugs to take all of the Guess space and half of the Eddi Bauer space. Eddi bauer will then expand into the vacant former Patagonia space. Guess has been looking for another suitable space.

Thank you Rob for your insight. I have been trying to lease this space for Larco since Mountain World went down. The operator of the cinema took 3000 square feet for the video arcade but tells me he may have to throw in the towel as his revenue is not sufficient enough to make a go of it.The only interest for the balance of the space has come from night club operators.
Bob Hamilton

anonymous - October 31st, 2005
No problem, it is truly a shame that family fun centers, etc are having such difficult times, one of the reasons I left the business!

Stuart, you are right of course that there is some demand, the challenge is there is not enough demand. Especially from people who are willing to pay. As someone who was involved in Mountain World, Sega GameWorks (The 2nd largest operator in North America, and a few others, I can tell you that these places have a hard time in huge population bases such as Seattle, LA, Vegas, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc. Given the capital and space requirements necessary I can tell you that these types of facilities must be viewed as far as Whistler goes as an "amenity" and not a business. Now if you could get some incredible long term sponsors to pay roughly 50% of the costs (ongoing) you may have something.

As an example, The GameWorks in Vegas (57,000 sq ft), with a restaurant and bar has a partnership with Coke that works quite well. Both parties are equal partners in losses and gains (mostly losses), but it is a great facility.

Regarding restaurant space, well quite honestly, subterranean (and to a certain extent 2nd story) restaurant space it also a hard sell. Without a great hook, coupled with the fact that the average restaurant sees 10 cents on the dollar well...

Again, I'm not proposing that the best use of the space would be London Drugs, I'm simply saying that there are limited good business models for this type of location.

I believe that the arcade used at the cinemas is a "route" operation, meaning that someone else supplies the machines and maintenance, as well as collections with Village 8 supplying the space for a share of the proceeds. This keeps overhead down for the merchant, but if you still have to pay for the space it can get tough. Remember that even though Mtn World was a flawed model (as they all are), there have been no fewer than 4 arcade type places not including the present one that have failed in Whistler, this while the resort was enjoying its hey day.

I don't mean to be a "it can't be done" type of person, but like other amenities, I do believe that it can't be done without outside support, RMOW, etc. Treat it like an amenity like a park, or "insert your subsidized family program here" and you may have an option. Don't believe for a minute that it's a viable long term business is all I'm saying.

I would love to hear what potential candidates have to say on this thought, or even TW, since everyone is presently clamoring for ways to keep families entertained throughout the year.

Rob Schwartz

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Stuart, there is no demand. I'm sure you have read Rob's comments by now. I have tried to lease the space for years and have had a couple of enquiries but none have come through, other than one nightclub operator. I actually put together a deal but it collapsed when they figured out that the chances of success were slim. Larco is leasing at a loss, as a $1.36 loss is a lot better than a $23.36 loss.

You are right that is a great rate for a night club but we have an over supply and a restaurant with no windows would be a stretch to say the least.

Any landlord will tell you he is prepared to gamble with supply and demand and market rates but when a local government mandates that he operates at an even greater loss I feel we must then examine the process very carefully.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
In a hypothetical situation if London Drugs did exist in the village and did all the things it said it was going to do in the community. Can several retail giants that own large commercial properties in the village set up shop? Would there coporate lawyers challenge municipality and dwindle public treasure funds?

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Bob, thanks for the clarification on the Guess and Eddi Bauer intentions, as well as the ecconomics of some of the conventional recreation options. What about an indoor golf simulator? I suppose a water surf park would have had to have been designed into the initial construction. Was this developer not expected to provide the required subsidies needed to make a recreational use viable in this space in exchange for the size of the commercial building that they were allowed to built above it?

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
We are debating history here. Mayor Hugh put his signature on the zoning change in 2002. They have now met the recreation requirement. Ken, Kristi and Nick were all on council then.

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Thanks Bob and Rob for your comments this thread is useful to me. Bob I have a couple of questions.


1. What would you use as a cap rate for the underground space?

2. Are you privy to the entire deal? If so what is the lease rate and triple net for the above ground portion?

3. Has London Drugs guaranteed Vancouver pricing in the Agreement? If not will they consider it?

4. What impact do you feel this re-zoning will have on rents in the village?

5. What impact do you see on existing businesses in the Village? What happens if London Drugs vacates and we have rezoned 11,000 sq ft to commercial?

6. The cinema pays $22 in rent; does this include taxes and common expenses? If not what are their common area charges? Please break out the arcade and movie theater separately.

7. Is the underground space a separate strata lot? If not what strata lot is it tied to?

As I have stated I’ve gone back an forth on this several times I love shopping at London Drugs; the convenience of having one in Whistler is very tempting for our family of five. My initial reaction was yea bring London Drugs on; I would love to shop there. London Drugs would give second home owners and tourist more product variety in an easily accessible location. The more I drill down on the issue the more I realize that is not that cut and dry.


London Drugs will bring locals back into the Village but at what cost and will they linger to shop at other stores? I shop at Eddie Bauer but I am in and out without lingering in the Village. I like Duane’s idea of an artisan’s village with a gallery row. I think our guests would like to see an artisan’s village and they like stores such as the Hat Shop, Beach or Bust and Lulelemon.We owe it to the long time local merchants who helped build this community not to throw a re-zoning curve ball at them during this sensitive time.

The more information in that is put public domain the better chance we have of making the right choice. What is the highest and best use for the space recognising your difficulties in leasing it? There are strong arguments on both sides; I look forward to the retail study study being conducted by RMOW and I look forward to your response and answers to my questions. Continued dialogue on this important issue.

Stuart Munro

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Sadly Golf Sims have not done well, nor have they really kept up with today's technology. With some good marketing you may be able to make the payments on the simulator. Mountain World had one, and Dave and Busters in the US have quite a few, but most are being pulled due to lack of use.

An indoor Go Kart track could do fairly well during the spring months. They make some cool slick tracks these days!

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Bob, Stuart, and Rob,

Want to thank you all for your fact-based comments on this issue -they have been a tremendous help. And the respectful tone of your communication with each other is very refreshing!

Van Powel

PS Rob, sure miss your smiling face when I walk into Millenium Place!

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
I look at the two issues independant of one onother. the first issue is whether a Larco should get an upzoning for nothing and the second issue is whether we want London Drugs in the village.
Issue 1: Bowling went out in the 60s and indoor recreational spaces have been proven not to work in Whistler. As a matter of fact they don't really work ANYWHERE. Now we have an obligation with the recent Arena decision to provide not only the ice surface but that a facility which provides a recreational amenity post olympics. This is gonna cost us millions, tens of millions and no one has a hard plan who is going to pay for it (other than trying to shove it onto the taxpayer). I think Larco should get the upzoning after a deal has been negotiated that recognizes and puts a value on the financial benefit they would enjoy from the upzoning and develop a formula for their financial contribution to the arena. Simply put, their current space does not work the way the zoning intended. Lets move that zoning to a location where it might actually do some good - the arena. If Larco doesn't want to play ball on that idea then as far as I'm concerned they can turn their basement into storage lockers.
Issue 2:There is concern about the lack of vibrancy in the village. Let's look at Marketplace. I'll bet Steve at the toystore sells more of his wonderful and unique selection of products with the vibrancy the IGA brings to the area. Close down the IGA and many of the businesses in Marketplace would fail. London Drugs in the village will bring more people there, not just tourists but locals - and the valuable opportunity for the community to interact with visitors more. I'll bet most businesses in the village would do better with that kind of "anchor tenant". Yes, the expression "anchor tenant" is a shopping mall expression rather than one associated with a "quaint alpine village" - I lived in Europe for years, and travelled there extensively my whole life. I have been to all kinds of resorts and towns in the alps and Whistler is no quaint alpine village - I wish it was but I think we're beyond that. A decision to put London Drugs in Function defeats any possible benefit to the village that would come from increased traffic. Heck I may even have a reason to go to the village and spend some dough. That WOULD be a change. So I'm a supporter of London Drugs in the village but with one major caveat that I hope some of the other candidates express to Peter Gordon when/if they meet with him: that even as a supporter of London Drugs in the village, the only way to transform me from being a "soft" supporter to a keen and vocal supporter is if London Drugs offers the same price guarantee as they do on the Lower Mainland to make this town a bit more affordable for locals without them having to get in their cars to shop in West Van or Squamish. If they won't offer the guarantee I will reconsider and likely withdraw my support for their store proposal.
Eckhard Zeidler

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Does their unwillingness to make a commitment on pricing have to do with the unknown cost of rezoning? Perhaps if we suggested a modest community donation rather than millions in exchange for lower mainland pricing? Would Vancouver pricing be a community amenity for Whistler. If we ask for millions, that would have to be recovered by the landlord in higher rents, thus higher pricing. As with any developer contributions it’s always the end user who pays.

As far as Function goes, I thought we were trying to get people out of their cars. An hour on the bus? More busses needed? Four lanes highway to Function? We support infill development for housing. Why not infill retail as well?

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Hi Again, its Bob. I'll address the two questions prior to Stuart's first.

There are no retail giants that own space in the Village, but there are some other landlords like Larco that own space. It is all fragmented and suitable only for smaller businesses as it is for the most part not very deep. Bigger retailers like L.D. require spaces that are as square as possible, like the I.G.A and Nestors. To my knowledge there is no subterrainien space that could be used without taking away the required parking for the building.

No, this developer was not required to provide the required subsidies needed to make a recreational use viable in this space. That would require a huge leap of faith which I believe, no prudent businessman would take.

Stuart. The cap rate is subjective but the most recent sale was 6.5%. This has moved from the previous several sales of 8%.

I am privy to the details of the Lease. The rate at grade is the same as Guess is paying, $70.00 per square feet which is actually slightly lower than the most recent deals for space of this size. The triple net at grade is $23.36. The agreement with Larco is a lease, only on the space and does not contain anything else but languare referring to the space. I believe though that London Drugs has guaranteed prices on all their flyer items. This flyer is apparantly identical to the one distributed everywhere and contains the majority of the items they sell.

Just like residential prices the market sets retail lease rates.

As I said my objective was just to provide facts, so you can skip the next paragraph if you like as it is my opinion. Having London Drugs will keep people, locals and tourists alike in Whistler to shop, including those employees who live in Squamish, who will in turn enhance and patronize the other businesses and contribute to returning ownership of the Village to more mature adults and families. Have you not noticed over the last 10 years locals seem to be proud of telling anyone who will listen that they never go into the Village, wearing it like a badge of honor. We must have a balance between affordability and the retail mix. Retailers like Levi’s, the Gap, Le Chateau and restaurants like McDonalds, the Brew Pub, Earls and Milestones are value providers for locals providing goods and services at similar prices to their Vancouver locations. They also encourage or force other businesses to be competitive. London Drugs will fit perfectly into this mix.

Back to facts.If L.D. vacates it will be the same as any other retail unit. As long as the use meets the zoning requirements, the landlord will release it.

The cinema pays $22.00 gross. That includes all common area costs and property taxes. The same applies to the arcade.

The underground space is a seperate strata lot.

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Eckhard, thanks for the response, well thought out and informative towards your views.

Van, thanks for the compliment, I miss Whistler as well (I'm sure you can tell).

For any candidates reading the various posts here, while the decision to leave Whistler was partially due to changes needed to keep my family happy, there is no doubt that we should also be held up as examples of those who left because they simply could not wait anymore. I love the people and the community, earned a good living, and contributed towards the integrity of Whistler, but costs are costs, and simply it was too hard to get ahead in life and think of a family. While the county we presently live in also has similar challenges, there are indeed some areas that contribute to a reasonable lifestyle. Decent sized condos can be had below 250k and we just purchased a house 20 minutes away from the resort below 300. Also regardless of how you feel about London Drugs or Walmart etc, let me tell you, not having to drive 2 hours for a pair of reasonably priced black socks has helped us! Maybe it would help the community of Whistler too!

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Why not just use the space for recreation like its zoned? Invite Great Canadian Casino to open a tastefull blackjack and poker room.Then you would have one more thing to do in in Whistler and something that might even attract more visitors.

Troy Therrien

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Thanks Eckhard and Rob. Special thanks to Bob for bringing the detailed information forward on this deal no doubt with the permission of the Landlord. Could you please answer this question?

3. Has London Drugs guaranteed Vancouver pricing in the Agreement? If not will they consider it?

We could debate on how much of the $22 dollars gross falls the bottom line of the Landlord and the value of the re-zoning has to the separate strata lot and the value an Anchor Tenant has to the Landlord; I don’t feel that would be productive at this time. Needles to say there is a lot less in the deal than I suspected provided there is not a rent escalation clause based on sales or time. The decision to rezone, if approved, will have a profound impact on this resort some good and some bad.

Stuart Munro

anonymous - November 01st, 2005
Hi; Bob here again. Stuart the agreement with Larco is a lease, only on the space and does not contain anything else but language referring to the space. I believe though, London Drugs has guaranteed prices on all their flyer items. This flyer is apparantly identical to the one distributed everywhere and contains the majority of the items they sell.

I'm deviating from facts again as the following is my opinion based on my experience in the commercial real estate business.

I believe that it is dangerous on the Municipalities part to impose restrictions upon a particular business, type of business and or landlord. It will inhibit the natural forces of competition in the market by not only restricting certain types of businesses but by restricting landlords, who have a significant investment here, to whom they may lease their premises to.

The market is telling London Drugs there is a need for them in Whistler as it did for McDonalds, the Multi-plex Theatre, Earls, the Gap, Levi’s, IGA and the original developers of Blackcomb Mountain. Imagine if we would have used size and the need to protect local businesses as criteria for not supporting approval for the development of Blackcomb or the approval of IGA’s plan to build a store. Blackcomb contributed to turning Whistler into one of the premier resorts in North America. Whistler Mountain countered with expanded terrain and lifts. Nesters responded to the competition and expanded their store, so well in fact that they were purchased by a major chain that has replicated the stores in Vancouver and have plans to expand the concept throughout Western Canada. If a business needs protecting, it is not worth protecting. They tend to overcharge, under service and worst of all, become complacent. They would not survive in any other community. In fact, it may be that the so called chains need protection from some of the local businesses. We have one company in town who operate businesses from 15 locations in the village occupying approximately 35,000 square feet and an additional 10 locations in Creekside and the Benchlands occupying another 25,000 square feet for a total of 25 locations and 60,000 square feet.

The retail business has changed significantly over the years as well as the mix and needs of our visitors and locals. Heaven forbid, some people have actually moved here to further their careers and don’t even ski. Let the market evolve. Don’t try to over regulate it and create a false environment. Whistler’s recreational amenities are the main attraction for visitors. Shopping is a bonus sport. Give shoppers the widest selection at the fairest price possible. Don’t try to control the retail market, enable it and at the same time go a long way to promote affordability. In fact this may be a golden opportunity to do something similar to the Good Neighbor Policy that requires the bars to participate in. London Drugs may be a good place to start with a “Sustainability Partnership Program” that would encourage retailers to provide goods and services at or near Vancouver prices.

For the long term, just as a secondary housing market for residents and employees has been created, the same may able to be done for strictly defined local business without affecting the primary retail market. Perhaps Creekside where we have allowed residents along Lake Placid Road to rezone to commercial or Function Junction would be good places to start, but the best place to begin this process may be Mons.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 02nd, 2005
I’m challenged with the concept of a free market anything in Whistler that has to do with Real Estate. The Bed Cap and our strong zoning by-laws have created an artificially reduced supply in higher demand market place. We let the cap of the bottle every now and then when it suites us. The idea of restricted commercial properties in out lying areas is one I’ve tossed around but wondered how this creates a vibrant locals connection in the Village Core.

$600 million in highway improvements, development on our boundaries, First Nation Land Legacies in conjunction with Bill 75 have the potential to blow the cap off our little development bottle and the bottle with it. Is the London Drugs re-zoning is just a tempest in a tea pot or is it just the beginning of a new era of development in around Whistler.

Stuart Munro

anonymous - November 05th, 2005
I’m challenged with the concept of a free market anything in Whistler that has to do with Real Estate. The Bed Cap and our strong zoning by-laws have created an artificially reduced supply in higher demand market place.

now we are gettin somewhere.thanks for stating this stuart.


this is a whole topic in itself.

as far as london drugs?

sure, have the store.............in function or squamish.


stacy kohut

anonymous - November 07th, 2005
function or squamish is not a good option for most of us who don't drive a polluting vehicle, i want to shop in the village for everything i need, bring us london drugs!

anonymous - November 07th, 2005
Bring London Drugs to Whistler! I shop at LD regularly. This currently requires a day trip to the City. While I am down there, hey, I may as well do a bunch of other shopping. So, I do almost all my shopping in the City and next to none in the Sea to Sky corridor. Bringing London Drugs to Whistler would reduce significantly my trips to the City, which would mean one less car on the highway, less gas burned and more money spent in the Sea to Sky corridor. I'm sure that I'm not the only one either. So, like, why are we still discussing this???

anonymous - November 08th, 2005
Attention London Drugs Shoppers ! Do you really save the $ 40 in gas by driving down to the city to buy slightly cheaper shampoo etc ?

London Drugs has already changed thier initial tune from " guaranteed city prices in Whistlker " to " we will honor flyer pricing ". ( AKA NO city pricing on anything except the flyer merchandise ) Does anyone really think that they'll be able to honor " flyer pricing " with the rent in Whistler. I'd expect to kiss ANY special pricing goodbye as soon as they have zoning. So...if this happens.... you'll be able go to the Village and buy everything you need...and it will probably cost about what it costs now ! Unfortunately, I don't hear anyone trying to tie their zoning to guarunteed city pricing.

I'm like most people here and affordability would really help.... but affordability such as employee housing goes much farther than saving 50 cents on shampoo or being able to buy a cheap toaster. I see massive amounts of time this council and community has spent on a well financed London Drugs/ Larco lobby campaign and I really wish the time and energy went into finalizing the Rainbow deal or something similar.

Council holds the key to preserving the small business nature of our village. As much as I'm opposed to gambling, I see a small casino being a far superior tourist attraction than a giant department store. I also really like the idea of an artisans area...a farmers market style area in the winter. Storeyum and similar attractions may also work. There's some smart people contributing here.

Larco made the mistake of building the space zoned recreational. Lots of people expected the go go 90's to keep on trucking. ( ie. Millenium Place ) Larco's mistake for building the space and like the taxpayers with MY place...they should have to take thier lumps on this and find ways to make due with the space as opposed to creating a huge store that is totally inappropriate for a village founded by small boutiques.

It's really 2 issues. Larco would love to have the rezoning as their building value will increase dramatically and they will actually get some rent from their " mistake". If London Drugs really wants to be in Whistler, there's lots of space in Function that's accessible and serviced by public transport.

anonymous - November 08th, 2005
Agreed, its Larco's mistake, not ours. They want free space for nothing.

London Drugs seems to have turned in to some kind of symbol of affordability for the community. Whatever.. We live in a small town. We already have tons of ammenities that you wouldn't normally get in a small town. We're lucky to have such a combination of opportunity, culture, nature and shopping selection. We'll never get everything thats in the city unless we become the city.

anonymous - November 08th, 2005
Yes, and us locals are proud that we never venture in to that part of the village. To quote Bob Barnett, we wear it like a badge of honour. Bring on London Drugs, and breathe some life in the village.

anonymous - November 08th, 2005
Hi it's Bob again. Just making sure that the facts are presented. The anonymous posting of the 7th states that Larcos building value will increase dramatically. Please read my previous postings. The gross rent from London Drugs at $22.00 per square foot will not even cover the common area costs for each square foot at the Whistler Village Centre which is $23.36. About half of this is property taxes. Consequently the buildings value does not increase at all. Also please check previous postings that confirm Larco has lived up to their obligation to provide recreational space.
Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 08th, 2005
London Drugs should get with the Whistler Program. For example it should lead the way in British Columbia by not selling cigarettes. It should have a health food section and maybe even a locals card like Nesters for points or discounts. I think that the store should be allowed to build into any undeveloped space(we are lucky that there is a space that suits their needs) but if they need rezoning the council should hold there feet to the fire and get something that Whistler needs. Let's try to think of what we don't have in the village retail and get them to provide it.
We're not going to need resident restricted housing if the village dies. Locals should be in the village not in strip developments we see in all other communities.
We make this town let's not run away from it.
Bruce Watt

anonymous - November 09th, 2005
Thanks for the response Bob. I don't know much about common costs and calculations but I find it VERY difficult to believe that in Feb 2010 a building with retail zoning will have the same value as a building with recreational zoning.

As well, I looked carefully through this post to understand how the recreational portion of this zoning has already been fulfilled. Below is all I could find. Perhaps someone could expand on how the recreational component has been fulfilled and why it's OK if the rest is retail. I find it very confusing. If that's the case, why is a rezoing application required ? Thanks !


Therefore, as part of the rezoning approval for these uses, the definition of indoor recreation was expanded to include video games and the amount of indoor recreation space required in the lower level was reduced dramatically to only 3,000 sf.;
• Without council’s approval, the developer can now put in any and all of the following uses:
o A nightclub
o A restaurant
o Storage
o Offices
o Indoor recreation
• The strict requirement for indoor recreation has been met by the video arcade currently in existence next to the movie theatre. Unfortunately, even 3,000 sf seems too much for indoor recreation, as sales are very low. Rent is a very reasonable in the low $20 psf range.

We are debating history here. Mayor Hugh put his signature on the zoning change in 2002. They have now met the recreation requirement. Ken, Kristi and Nick were all on council then

anonymous - November 09th, 2005
How much did Larco stand to make per square foot on parking space? We let them rezone for recreation, if they had put anything in that space it would have made more money then parking.

anonymous - November 09th, 2005
Hi, Bob again. Just to clarify how the value of a commercial property is determined. It is simply a function of NET income. If the gross rent is not greater than the expenses (commonly refered to as triple net costs and includes property taxes and all other costs related to the space such as strata fees, management costs and common area costs which are items such as utilities etc.)then the value of the space does not increase at all.

The lease with LD goes beyond the Olympics and the value of the property consequently is based on the same base rent figures. Unfortunatly for Larco the rent remains stable but the costs will increase. As well all leases have a standard renewal clause that state any renewal will be at market rates. As this is far less than prime space, it is my opinion that any increase in the base rate will be minimal at best.

The space is not currently zoned for retail thus the need for a rezoning application.

This is not parking space as it is not accessable to vehicles. The extra parking that Larco was required to provide is separate, beyond the requirements of the project and they are required to pay $10,000 annually to the Muni for maintenance. They in fact are providing public parking for the Village.

The following is how the fulfillment of the community recreational requirement evolved. I was part of the process at that time as the Cinema people are my clients.

• In 1993, the RMOW granted a portion of the parkade to be used for indoor recreation, restricted to bowling, billiards and/or spa with ancillary sports bar;
• Developer landed a tenant 5 years later, Alpenrock, who tried to make a go of it with the restrictions in place;
• Despite a reasonable rent, $25 psf, Alpenrock was unable to operate profitably due, mostly, to a lack of demand for indoor recreation space. They folded in 2001.
• A year later, 2002, Village 8 Cinemas came along with a great concept for 8 small theatres showing first run movies;
• At the same time, there was interest from an established restaurateur to open a high end nightclub and restaurant;
• They were each going to take a portion of the 40,000 sf, leaving approximately 3,000 sf.;
• As neither of these uses was permitted under the existing zoning, an application was made to rezone the property;
• Like now, there were concerns expressed for the loss of indoor recreation space;
• Council of the day, which included the current mayor and half the current councillors sitting today, recognized, with the failure of Alpenrock and other indoor recreation facilities, notably Mountain World in the Conference Centre, that perhaps there was not as big a demand for indoor recreation as originally envisioned;
• Therefore, as part of the rezoning approval for these uses, the definition of indoor recreation was expanded to include video games and the amount of indoor recreation space required in the lower level was reduced dramatically to only 3,000 sf.

Previous postings by Rob Schwartz who was part of the group involved in Mountain World makes some alarming points on the viability of recreational type operations.

Sorry for the length of this.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 09th, 2005
Thanks Bob,

to clarify, that would be "alarming points on the viability of "non-subsidized" recreational space!

best,

Rob

anonymous - November 10th, 2005
Bob, do you know why this space wasn’t zoned retail in the first place? I’m wondering, should other property owners who have “limited use” space that isn’t performing be able to re-zone as well? What about for future developments, should there be restrictions on locations or should any use be allowed, and if there are restrictions and those intentions dont work out should those spaces be re-zoned?

Ian Ritz

anonymous - November 10th, 2005
Hi Ian. The space was not zoned retail as it was not a viable stand alone retail location.

I believe other owners that have "limited use" space that is causing them to hold and administer at a loss should be allowed to suitably rezone. The original zoning on this property was done in good faith by the council of the day thinking that the intended use was needed and viable. It is now evident that businesses such as Alpenrock and Mountain World are not viable and not needed as they were not patronized to the extent required to be profitable.

Of course, there should be restrictions. Uses should be compatible to the area, and rezoning the portion of this property to retail is compatable to its surroundings. Much better retail that would bring locals and visitors into the Village than another nightclub which would bring more of what our guests are complaining about. Whistler, like life is a moving picture not a photograph and we should always be open minded to change. Lake Placid Road in Whistler Creek where the property owners are now allowed to rezone is a good example of rezoning to meet the changing needs of Whistler

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 12th, 2005
Hi,

I have a house and the rent doesn't cover the mortgage and taxes. Does that mean that I should be able to rezone it as a Bed and Breakfast ? With respects to retail space, I could understand rezoning the area in question if there was a large unfulfilled demand for retail space. Unfortunately, it appears there is lots of unused retail space in the village ( some of it in the same area of the village as the proposed London Drugs area )

anonymous - November 12th, 2005
I guess in some ways it's really a simple question. If an authorized use is simply financially un-viable in a changing economy/world then what's the point of having it sit empty? Especially if the leasehold improvements and space can suit a different useful purpose?

Rob

anonymous - November 12th, 2005
Hi Bob again. Just making sure the facts are presented correctly. In response to the anonymous posting that stated "unfortunately, it appears there is lots of unused retail space in the Village (some of it in the same area of the village as the proposed London Drugs area)" Fact; the majority of these spaces are leased or have an Offer to Lease on them.

I assure you, contrary to our less than fullfilled economy there is significant interest in retail space in Whistler with some very interesting transactions completed or in the works.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 13th, 2005
Interesting to see the full page London Drugs ads in the Pique and Question. Also interesting to see the Question turn the London Drugs / Larco rezoning into one of their first election questions. I wonder if there is a connection ? Full page ads and flyer inserts bring in alot of revenue for newspapers. Also interesting to note that the Pique has not tried to make this an election issue.

anonymous - November 15th, 2005
I thought that who ever raised the point last night(at the Art’s Council all candidates meeting) about making the space that Larco wants rezoned into an artisans centre has real merit.

I know it is a stretch but couldn't this be considered a recreational amenity? It would serve quite a few purposes’ providing a venue for tourists and locals to truly interact. This could add animation by bringing local artisans into the village to provide workshops thereby encouraging locals and tourists to interact.

I am not sure if the Arts Council is non profit or not but if it was, and if Larco was willing they could “donate” the space making it affordable and they could receive a tax deductible receipt and truly show that they are trying to make the village vibrant. I think this type of thinking would add much more of a unique experience for both resident and guest than a Drug/variety store. What a win-win situation something like this could be!!!

What are other people’s thoughts? Would people be willing to contribute their time / resources to assist in the improvements to the space? I seem to recall hearing developers / contractors are looking for projects what a great way to get involved and add to the success of the village and get a tax receipt.

anonymous - November 15th, 2005
from another posting:

The Boot:

The preservation of the Boot and Shoestring Lodge is a favourite topic in Whistler. While I think most people see its demise as a foregone conclusion (you can't stand in the way of "progress" there is a lot of passion and a lot of interest in saving it. I think it is short-sighted to bulldoze part of this town's heritage to make room for yet another condo development owned by wealthy foreigners to use on the occasional holiday. And the live music promoted by the Boot is a cultural component of this town on par with any other artistic venture. I think the Ballet is of questionable value, but that's irrelevant.

At the all-candidates' meeting tonight there was talk of both preserving the Boot and of the empty Larco space. Is it feasible to dismantle the Boot Pub and re-install it in part of the Larco space?

The locals' livingroom, especially one that regularly promotes live music (and other entertainment) would bring more locals and visitors into that part of town. Perhaps some of the Boot's character would be lost, but perhaps not.

A fundamental component of this town's history would be preserved, the landlord would make money on rent, and the locals would retain their livingroom.

...

The Larco space full of the Boot Pub, a small London Drugs, and a winter "farmer's market" style artisans' alley would be a great use of that area.

anonymous - November 16th, 2005
The larco space could be a artisans alley to show case a lot of our local talent.as well as alow them a space they could aford to sell their waresIt could also contain a small arcade to keep the little ones busy, while the parents shop.The types of things that would be aloud could be monitered so as not to hurt the the retail above ground.Say no to london drugs!it will hurt small business in whistler. The timeing is not right maybe 2020

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
Do we need another corporate-owned store in the Village? Will it help us retain our unique character? Will it benefit any locals other than a few $7 an hour jobs and slightly cheaper shampoo (and only when it's on sale)? Should we re-zone a recreational space to benefit a large corporation?

Whistler's going to end up looking like a strip mall with a couple of mountains in the background if we're not careful.

From Bob Lorriman's website:

"On page 27 of Volume 1 of Whistler 2020 (the CSP), in bold font it reads “Locally owned and operated businesses are key to Whistler’s innovation, character and success.” So does expanding existing retail space to allow a one-stop company like London Drugs, who sell everything from drugs to housewares to electronics, move us towards our vision?

It also bothers me that if London Drugs believes this is such a good thing for Whistler, why do they need a professional lobbyist to influence our municipal government? I’m also somewhat troubled that this lobbyist is also the husband of our provincial Liberal candidate… it might not be a big deal, but it doesn’t help my comfort level."

I hope nobody in Whistler believes for a second that London Drugs wants to move here for the good of Whistler. It is a tremendous business opportunity for them; and the equivalent of a Wal-Mart for us. And one more nail in the coffin of Whistler's unique and small-town character.

And I'd suggest to all those locals who buy coffee at Starbucks or gear at Can-Ski (Intrawest) that you're sending your dollars out of town to almost the same degree as are those people who make trips to the city to shop. Support your neighbours, friends, and economy: shop at locally-owned businesses.

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
Interested to know why $23.36 in CAM costs are being applied at the same level to an obviously inferior property as it is to a grade property, a large portion of that is tax it's said. I think somehting is wrong with the math

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
Hi, it's Bob again. Bob Lorriman is the one candidate that I am 100% sure I will vote for no matter what his opinion is. Bob, you thought it was bad that Hugh endorsed you. I can't hold myself back from commenting on the above statement from your website. To suggest buying only from companies you perceive to be local is naive. Companies such as Intrawest and landlords such as Bosa and Larco have made huge investments in Whistler contributing to what it is today. Bob, this is what enabled you to successfully operate and eventually hire me to sell your business. Your concept and skill would not have attained the selling price had it not been for the people that these companies helped bring here; tourists to spend and residents to work.

Several years ago the Question printed an article on locals who were moving to Fernie. One guy went on and on about what a bad place Whistler had become. He stated he would never be able to afford a house here and had just purchased two in Fernie for under $50,000 each. He ended his diatribe by stating that although Fernie was great he could not afford to leave Whistler and live there, as there was no work for him. Bob, you and I are able to make a decent living and live in the community that we have choosen. When you get to council and you will, remember we are not Fernie and work towards the things that are best for the majority of our residents and guests. Whistler is a work in process.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
Does Fernie have a London Drugs ?

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
I don't think Bob Lorriman made the "buy local" comments - his views are in quotes, unless I'm reading the posting incorrectly.

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
Hi, its Bob again. I agree with the above post. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I now don't think Bob made the "buy local" comments. I went into his web site and phoned Bob as well. There is nothing on his site suggesting he believes this and he denies catagorically making the statement. Thank you to the anonymous blogger for posting this as it gave me a chance to express my opinion, but you are way of base doing something like this. For whom I believe is the most outstanding candidate for council there seems to be some negative and erroneous postings recently. Could this be the same group of people? I am hearing some disturbing things around town about an Anti Ted Lobby group.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
What's wrong with an anti-Ted lobby group? Many people feel that his election would be very detrimental to Whistler.

The blogger put Lorriman's quote within quotation marks. You missed that. Don't say the blogger is off base for posting their opinion which happened to contain a quote from Lorriman. The reason the quotation marks are there is so the reader knows which comments are the writer's and which comments are Lorriman's.

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
"What's wrong with an anti-Ted lobby group? "

Nothing, as long as it is not run from whistler.ca

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
Yes, and when that group widens it's circle to include other candidates that they perceive to be supporting Ted, there most certainly is something wrong with it. And, they are not restricting their campaign to the internet. I know two candidates who have received phone calls from a Muni employee questioning them on their thoughts for the future. After the call the negative postings on this site started. This is why we need a mayor and council with the skills to be strong managers to carry us through this extremely important period for Whistler.

I believe whom ever gets elected must first do a complete review of all staff's activity while on the job during this campaign and do some house cleaning. We need to ensure that the people we elect are calling the shots not staff.

Bob Hamilton

anonymous - November 20th, 2005
London Drugs will guarantee flyer pricing on products 'IN STOCK'. Well look at that....it's not in stock this week......Sorry, no rain checks!

anonymous - November 30th, 2005
23,000

anonymous - December 03rd, 2005
Guaranteed pricing is something we definitely need to define with the company before anything goes ahead. London Drugs does have a lot of bargains, but they also stock a lot of high end products. Given the fact that it will be one of their smallest locations, it makes more sense for them to stock more high end products than cheap products. We really have to look at the village and admit to ourselves, it's a tourist shopping experience, not a local one. Does it really make sense to put a London Drugs full of bargain laundry detergent, shampoo, toasters and the like in the center of a tourist driven shopping area? I would love to be able to pay less for my household supplies, but I think a London Drugs would be better situated in an area like Nesters or Function.

anonymous - December 13th, 2005
I`m all for London drugs as it will mean less trips to the big smoke which I never look forward to and less vehicles travelling the highway but the village is not the right location. There are other locations like function which is more suitable for that kind of store. The Larco space was meant for recreation so Larco needs to find something that works for that space or it will keep sitting empty!