Home »
District forwarding resolution to AKBLG opposing Mountain Resort Municipalities
A fear about a lack of democracy spurred District of Invermere council Feb. 14 to unanimously approve a resolution opposing Mountain Resort Municipalities, as currently structured in legislation, to the Association of Kootenay-Boundary Local Government (AKBLG) annual meeting in April.
The district wants the provincial government to re-visit Bill 11 – 2007 Community Statutes Amendment Act (Sections 16 & 17), and in order to get its attention, it must first get AKBLG support on its resolution. From there it would go to the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) for potential support before finally ending up in Victoria, with the full clout of all provincial local governments.
It would be “lobbying with a collective voice,” noted Mayor Gerry Taft who read the resolution.
The resolution reads that the current Act “allows the provincial government to establish an area that is not a mountain resort improvement district and potentially has no residents and no development, as a new Mountain Resort Municipality, and allows the province to appoint the council and a direct the development decisions of that council through letters patent and exemptions from the Community Charter; AND WHEREAS: A Mountain Resort Municipality may never grow to have a large enough permanent population to have an elected council, and could remain an unelected and Provincially and developer controlled “municipality” forever; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The AKBLG oppose the concept of an undemocratic municipality controlled by the Province and developer, the AKBLG urge the Province to consult with UBCM on creating reasonable criteria to guide the establishment of new Mountain Resort Municipalities.”
Taft said the resolution “is somewhat related but not exclusively related to the Jumbo (Glacier Resort) proposal.”
What concerns him the most is the possibility of creating “an instant town with no people” that would have the province and developer/promoter of a given resort as unelected councils.
Taft pointed out that the District of Elkford and District of Sparwood are two regional examples of towns created by business (coal mining) and the province, but they rapidly became happening communities with healthy populations.
It is doubtful that Jumbo would ever feature many full-time residents, he said, noting Jumbo Glacier Resort’s master plan even notes that.
“There is a very small likelihood there will ever be a permanent population,” he said, pointing at Panorama Mountain Village as a current example, where there are roughly 60 to 80 residents after decades of existence and “the vast majority” of the property owners at that resort are “from out of province.”
Creating a situation where a developer and the province have municipal controls and powers wouldn’t be good for democracy, Taft said. “To me it raises some red flags.”
Coun. Greg Anderson echoed Taft, noting the resolution is asking local governments to “look at the big picture. We’re not talking about Jumbo specifically. We should be looking at it provincially,” he said, adding if the AKBLG doesn’t support the resolution, “it dies on the vine.”
“It’s an excellent resolution,” said Coun. Paul Denchuk. “To me, it’s (the Act) the province going around the democratic process.”
Coun. Spring Hawes added, “There would be local governments functioning in B.C. that have not been elected. It seems very unacceptable.”
Above photo: The site where the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort village centre would be located.
Ian Cobb/e-KNOW
