View or search for all towns »


Update Proposed development for 10 Cabins on Granite Mtn

Would like to open a discussion on how the community feels regarding the Red Resort proposal for 10 private cabins and club house in Paradise Basin on Granite Mountain.

We do have a voice and very much need to write to our city councillors and show up to the public hearing with verbal and written communication with concerns and priorities for the proposal of the said cabins and club house.  This needs to be done in a constructive, effective manner. It's not a done deal and the city needs our voice and opinions as to the best proposals for moving forward.  We need parking issues, lift bottlenecks, temporary facilities at base addressed before the proposed developments are allowed to go ahead.

If we stay quiet we have lost our voice!


Publc Hearing new location at Miners Hall Monday March 12th 6PM

"Crown land is a public asset and the Province has a responsibility to ensure it is managed to maximize and sustain the flow of economic, social and environmental benefits to British Columbians, now and in the future."

For starters, a private entity is authorized to act on behalf of FLNRO. Despite the continuous erosion of public interest at FLNRO, my first question would be. What are the benefits to the people with the proposed private development on Crown Land?

Gotta love the ironic rustic accommodation for the exclusive FTM investors with electricity, Internet, Security system, a quad with snow blower and a helicopter landing area. Watch out if you’re skiing in the obstruction-free approach and take-off areas.

just my initial thoughts :)

Thanks for bringing this up. It's BWB, "Backcountry" With Benefits.

Good questions. Given that this development meets all criteria, it's more or less a done deal. So, we can show up at the hearing and be heard, but from what I can tell, there are no strong reasons to reject this proposal. Otherwise, we can advocate to change the system that brought us this, or stop skiing at the hill because we don't like what's happening there, but that won't even be noticed.

Fight The Man has Funded These Men for such developments, making resale of the hill to The Man all the more attractive. Tourists bring money and service industry jobs, but so much more. Is anyone assessing the capacity of the town to accommodate the implications of all this? Already parking is a problem both in town and at the hill. Long-term rental housing is in short supply. What plans are in place to deal with these practical concerns? I'm ready to be pointed in the direction of where they have been formulated and presented.

A softer concerns for me, is firstly crowds, secondly, crowds on holiday.

I know that this town welcomes business, and that people need jobs, but I question what kind of jobs, at what cost. As an individual, I do not foresee a benefit: my property taxes are not going to be lowered, and most likely they're going to go up with property values, and I'll be dealing with more people in a place that I moved to because it was uncrowded. But, most of all, I really hope that in the face of the coming wave of tourists  we can maintain our small town friendliness. That would be the ultimate price to pay.

Fund the Men who own the mountain.  This is for everyone, even the full time lifties, just scrape together the $7500 to join the club, I know you have a change jar kicking around somewhere, this is for everyone.  What are the issues with that? 


Yes the ski hill will still be understaffed, the chairlifts will still be ancient, the traffic in town will be horrific, the number of motor homes and camper vans doing the around town hustle will increase, petty crimes will rise in frequency and you’ll probably get rear ended at the stop sign on Columbia and Washington but who cares? You bought the man and the man won.


Cash rules everything around us, I heard mother nature likes crisp hundred dollar bills…

Maybe I didn’t stress the point enough, my concern is that this proposed private development is on Public Land, not private land like elsewhere in the village or the mountain activity area. It’s unfortunate that this development already appears to have been conditionally approved by FLNRO. For comparison, what would be your response to the Friends of the Rossland Range if the cabins constructed by volunteers and donors where only available on a rental basis? The reason is, FORR want to be privately compesated for their hard work on improving the outdoor experience for everyone, increasing tourism and business activity, property values, etc.

The public rarely gets heard above a local level of governance, unless you have the money. However, at the local level they can be heard.  The local approval of this zoning of private development on public land may appear small, but it’s just a continuation of the Status Quo. Pay to play. As with so many other areas of B.C. government policy, "public interest" appears to have been redefined to mean "private benefit."

The primary level of measurement used today is what are the short term directly related negative impacts? The application states that, There will be no impacts on the community’s water supply or viewshed. My question again is, What are the social, environmental, or economic benefits to the city from this private development on public land?

There was a time in Vancouver when developers were obliged to create a set number of affordable housing units in mind of low income housing needs if and when a largecale build or renovation (gentrification project) was going forward (think Woodwards building).

Whether this was successful or not, at the time there was adequate political and social pressure to achieve this on some level.

Seems to me that a project such as this (elite, kitted-out cabins atop the mountain), specifically because it is being sited on crown land (PUBLIC LAND), ought to be offset by a land-trade for privately held property at the base area, this in mind of building staff and/or low income housing (note: if the proponent for this development is not Red or one of their subsidiaries, feel free to straighten me out- I know you will). 

Development interests in town have long side-stepped this (building staff housing or accomm) because it has never been required of them. When the affordability and housing task force was operating during the development of the OCP (Visions to Action, etc), adequate input from atop 'the hill' was glaringly and gallingly absent. 

Perhaps there is not an economic case for non-market social housing or a similar undertaking (there definitely isn't), but only a moral or ethical one, and that's why it doesn't fit into the current mission or vision statement of the local resort... an authentic, realized version of actually "fighting the man" might have included an eye to the needs of the community rather than an easily duped and woolen-eyed investor class impressed by a slightly repackaged huckster-style real estate come-on long equated with the area.

Truly, history repeats itself. 



Yeah, and, while we're at it, what is the status of Red, Grey and Granite in terms of public versus private land? In other words are we deep into this already?

...on a more practical note: what size of area does this encompass, what is the square footage of the proposed clubhouse over how many storeys (the illustration shows it higher than the cabins), and when, where and how often are helicopters going to use the pad? Where does this fit in with environmental protection of the area. Same question for the Fortis road and machines taking visitors and supplies up. I intend to ask Stacey these questions when she gets an office.

I'm still trying to fathom the logic of this whole campaign. It's Fight The Man, so very sixties, and look where that thinking has got us anyway. But, it's been a success and now those who ostensibly have fought The Man have purchased  privileges, making themselves The Man, which somehow we're not supposed to see. We really do need to pay attention and look at this broadly beyond a single development and for the long-term.

i understand that one of the proposals for the location of the cabins is smack in the middle of mini bowls. how do the rest of you feel about this.

All the more reason for attending the public hearing and finding out what's going on. The linked information does say it's not sure which side of Silver Sheep the cabins are going to be on.

Seems there is more urgent items that need attention.  Have not heard a plan to replace all the portable building that make up the staff buildings , the farm and day care. Not of which are of adequate  size , have proper heating and ventilation for drying gear and are most likely not certified to have so many people in them . As well as a maintenance shop that is not large enough  and does not even have a bathroom . 

NEW LOCATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING (due to city hall collapse) - Miners Hall - 6pm

Answers to questions.

Location: Not Mini Bowls.  More work needed to determine exact location.  Either on west or east side of Silver Sheep by Southside road.

Size of cabins: approx 300sq ft

Size of Clubhouse: approx 3000 sq ft, Max 2 storeys

Size of area: The zone is larger so that buildings can be located to building code and sited to conform to existing ski runs.  

Helicopter access for emergencies only

Excellent. Thanks so much for even reading this post and then answering questions.