Michael d\'Artois for council
Date: Oct 7th, 2005 12:16:13 pm - Subscribe


michael@myseatosky.com
(604) 935-3637
Comments: (5)


Winter Template
Create your own Free Aeonity Blog Today
Content Copyrighted whistler at Aeonity Blog
Comments:
avatar

whistler - October 10th, 2005
As far as I know (see below). I have emailed him to confirm and havn't heard back yet.

Michael d’Artois adds name to council race
Hopes to use position to strengthen community

Published Date: 2005-10-06 Time: 10:51:47





By Andrew Mitchell

Michael d’Artois has been a resident of Whistler for more than 30 years, and almost from the beginning he has made an effort to be engaged in the community.

He has volunteered his time on countless boards, committees and advisory groups, serving as a parent, a businessman, and booster for Whistler, but he has never run for council – "One of the few things I haven’t done," he said.

His main reason has always been time. With his own growing real estate business, a young family, and positions of responsibility within various organizations, he knew he couldn’t commit the time and energy necessary to be a councillor.

That is, until now. D’Artois recently sold his business, and his kids are older – two out of three are in high school, and the other is going next year. He’s still involved with various organizations, but says he now has the time to dedicate to council.

The fact that 2005-08 is an important term for council is not lost on d’Artois, but his approach to governing would be the same now as it would have been two decades ago – that the needs of the community come first.

"It’s mostly timing," he said. "There are compelling issues now, but there has never not been compelling issues for Whistler, which is why we have such a great community. That’s why people have made the choice to be here, and that’s why we have such engagement in the community."

He is concerned with the current economic climate in Whistler, and issues like the Paralympic arena, staff housing, the future of Lot 1/Lot 9, the ongoing condo-hotel tax classification battle, high commercial rents and taxes, and preserving Whistler’s remaining valley bottom, among a long list of other things.

The key to finding a solution, he says, is to understand how all of these issues are connected – or should be connected if council is committed to creating solutions that benefit the community.

"We have to be creative with our ideas," he said.

"I’ve lived here over 30 years, I love Whistler, people know I love and care for the community, and in my mind we absolutely are a community first. And when the resort works the community can be the winner. We are already a winner, but there are always new challenges.

"Developers and landlords want to be here, and Whistler council has the power to make important decision in such a way that they come out as a win-win for everybody."

One example d’Artois gives is the application to rezone13,000 square feet of space from recreational to commercial, allowing London Drugs to build an outlet in Whistler. One solution would be to allow the rezoning, but to require that a portion of the rent go towards recreation to compensate the community – such as funding a Paralympic ice rink or another facility on Lot 1/Lot 9. The landlord could also be required to sell off a number of its retail locations, which will give more certainty to small business.

Similar deals could be worked out to fund the library, retire Millennium Place’s debt, and further other public goals.

According to d’Artois, Whistler has already made a few important mistakes. For one, he believes there are too many retail locations and rental bed units, and the resort is now in the difficult position of trying to attract larger and larger numbers of visitors.

Another mistake was to allow developers to build properties, sell off the condo units and retain ownership of the retail spaces – if they were made to hold onto the condo units for the first few years and sell off the retail, the developers and landlords would be more concerned with making Whistler successful, and small businesses would not be in their current situation.

Yet another mistake was to build Meadow Park in Alpine Meadows instead of Lot 1/Lot 9. If the recreation centre and arena had been located in the village, there wouldn’t be the current debate over the future of the 2010 Paralympic arena.

But while you can’t change mistakes from the past, d’Artois says it’s not too late for council to acknowledge past errors, learn from them, and apply the lessons learned as Whistler approaches buildout. That’s why he’s not running on a slate of issues, but rather an approach to governing based on ensuring the most benefit to the community.

"I’m not running because I have any specific issues near to my heart, they all are. I’m running because I can commit to the process we need to undergo to solve all of these issues," he said. "I can bring to the table a lot of experience, I’ve been involved in the community at all levels. I’ve been a businessman, a tenant, I came to this town with five cents in my pocket and lived on a couch. I didn’t own my own home until I was here for 13 years, and then only barely managed that. I’ve made it a priority to be involved in any way I could, because I believed in this community."

D’Artois’s public service resume goes back to 1978 when he was the vice-president of the Whistler Chamber of Commerce under future mayor Drew Meredith. He later because president, and was one of the first members of the board for the Whistler Resort Association, which he later chaired.

In the ’90s he was a member and director of the Advisory and Planning Commission, and the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission. For the past two years he was working on the Protected Areas Network committee, which will determine where and how all future developments and redevelopment can take place. He was also involved on the housing committee for Whistler 2020.

anonymous - October 27th, 2005
This is the balance of my response in The Question which was edited for length. There is a lesson in this I know!
Question 1:
Should the RMOW approve the London Drugs application in the Village? Why or
why not?


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
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 30th, 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 - November 19th, 2005
i think that Micheal is great i know him and he's trusworthy

Sorry, comments are not allowed on this blog entry.