Signatures 71 total
Page: 1, 2
-
1
Name: John Avery on Mar 30, 2010Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Colin Watson on Apr 3, 2010Comments: I oppose GAS.Flag
-
3
Name: Gary Watson on Apr 4, 2010Comments: A ski hill was onething this proposed development is ludicrous. Keep the area open for everyone to enjoy,not just the weathy.Flag
-
4
Name: Anonymous on Apr 4, 2010Comments: an unnecessary blight on the local environmentFlag
-
5
Name: Sonia Tremblay & Leonard Scott on Apr 5, 2010Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Andrew Stainer on Apr 5, 2010Comments:Flag
-
7
Name: Gavin A. Brackett on Apr 5, 2010Comments: I believe that it is a horrible idea to create a ski resort in such a location. This would have devastating effects on wild life and the Eco system. There are already plenty of beautiful ski resorts in the area and i do not believe that we need any more. I believe if you want to go skiing on those hills you should have to hike up them by foot and actually work to be able to enjoy mother natures wonders. Save the Park and screw the companies! Save our Planet EarthFlag
-
8
Name: Anne Bright on Apr 5, 2010Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Doug Smith on Apr 6, 2010Comments: We recently moved to Squamish to get away from development crazed Richmond. We've been enjoying the our new natural surroundings. Recently I became aware of the GAS proposal and starting asking about it and looking into it. From what I have been able to learn the proposal it's economically a non starter. The local economy doesn't need it, the people don't want it and the only people who benefit really are the developers. I have long been puzzled by developers thinking they can improve on nature by ramming a few thousand houses into sensitive areas and also the notion that a golf course is a "natural" setting. At any rate the GAS proposal strikes me as bloated and utterly unnecessary. Let's stop it! Regards Doug SmithFlag
-
10
Name: Melissa Nelson on Apr 6, 2010Comments: This proposal is the worst thing that could possibly happen to Squamish and Garibaldi Provincial Park. Not only would it be a massive contributor to the growing issue of Climate Change, but it would destroy the community of Squamish and the surrounding areas. Brohm Lake and Cat Lake Recreational sites are beautiful areas and by putting in a ski resort with golf courses, if would drain the lakes because of over-consumption of water and cause incredible disruption to the ecosystems. Why would anyone even come up with an idea like this when Whistler is already only a forty-five minute drive north? This proposed development would be more of a detriment to our world than a benefit by far.Flag
-
11
Name: Daniel Dorres on Apr 7, 2010Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Neville M. Gosling on Apr 7, 2010Comments: I am totally against this development, especially the proposed use of Brohm Creek which is important juvenile steelhead habitat.Flag
-
13
Name: Ashley Nelson on Apr 7, 2010Comments: Whoever came up with this destructive plan clearly hasn't experienced the wealth and beauty of nature. Garibaldi and Squamish are a huge part of what makes British Columbia beautiful and it sickens me to think of everything that will be lost if this proposed idea falls through.Flag
-
14
Name: T. Carroll on Apr 9, 2010Comments: The GAS proposal is indefensible and should be rejected by the Province and Squamish District Council given that it largely negates the District's and Province's alleged or vaunted concerns, and even some policies, over climate change and environmental destruction. It will impact negatively on water supplies (water table,lakes,streams), wildlife habitat, wildlife/biodiversity, parks, air quality, soil quality, and the overall quality of life for residents of Squamish. We do not need another 2 golf courses which poison soil, water, air with their pesticides, herbicides, etc. or a low-lying ski resort which depletes natural resources as well. We already have a top-notch ski resort 30 minutes away. Despite that, it has had financial problems, so why does GAS think it will do better? Unless it expects to through what amounts to a land-grab & a huge housing development, both of which are contrary to the wishes of the majority of local residents in the Sea-to-Sky corridor. Neither the Province nor District Council should condone what amounts to a land-grab, which will emasculate the environment and the overall quality of life in this area.Flag
-
15
Name: Daniel Mitchell on Apr 9, 2010Comments: It is simple, we have 1 major and 3 smaller ski/resort areas that have a hard enough time filling the slopes. Why would the area need another? This is not needed and is something a small group of people want that have money which means power. Let's hope the people we put in place to make good choices for the entire community do want the wants right.Flag
-
16
Name: Meagan Roberge on Apr 9, 2010Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Chantal Limoges on Apr 9, 2010Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Kimmie Gourlie on Apr 9, 2010Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Line Gillespie on Apr 9, 2010Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Russell Ritchie on Apr 10, 2010Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Tammy Drury on Apr 10, 2010Comments: This must be stopped. The Squamish area needs not to grow anymore nor have a sister resort almost the size of her. We already have Whistler Blackcomb to the north and the three other ski hills to the south. I lived and worked in Whistler for many years and at times Whistler struggles to keep the businesses going there. To add another huge resort so close would surely doom Whistler and Garibaldi, never mind the environmental impact which is the most important issue on the area and surrounding areas.Flag
-
22
Name: Ben Boyko on Apr 10, 2010Comments: The development will be the biggest downfall to the essence of the sea to sky. Let me know what I can do to help. Ben.Flag
-
23
Name: David Yates on Apr 11, 2010Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Magdalena Angel on Apr 11, 2010Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Sarah Bradway on Apr 12, 2010Comments: We do not have the water resource for this.Flag
-
26
Name: Vello Erics on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: J. Smith on Apr 12, 2010Comments: Greedy f@#*ing developers.Flag
-
28
Name: Maysa Tsang on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Mina Kavia on Apr 12, 2010Comments: Please leave our natural environment so our future generations can have a little nature left.Flag
-
30
Name: Anonymous on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Scott Farnham on Apr 12, 2010Comments: Reject this ill conceived plan.Flag
-
32
Name: Maria Turner on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: Kaitlyn on Apr 12, 2010Comments: NoooooooFlag
-
34
Name: Kimberley Funk on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Inis LeBlanc on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: Veronica Galvin on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Elena on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Jonathan Hill on Apr 12, 2010Comments: I outright reject the proposal. This area has intrinsic value far beyond dollar value. BC doesn't need another playground for the rich people. Our steelhead population doesn't need you meddling with it's water levels. Get out and stay out!Flag
-
39
Name: Anonymous on Apr 12, 2010Comments: With Whistler going broke, and another half dozen ski resorts accessible in a 2 hour radius, where do they think the market is going to come from? besides the social, economic & environmental impacts of this massive venture, I am interested in seeing their business objectives and determining 'how sound' they really are.Flag
-
40
Name: Brad Klemola on Apr 12, 2010Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Alexander Kennedy on Apr 13, 2010Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Anonymous on Apr 13, 2010Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Alana Bliss on Apr 13, 2010Comments: This Garibaldi at Squamish proposal is wack! It's hard to even take these developers seriously. I really hope we can save this area from irrational development, and set an example of how no more of this planet can afford to be developed without careful (and logical!) consideration of both social and ecological effects--not elusive profit margins.Flag
-
44
Name: Megan Myles on Apr 13, 2010Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Julia Sombrin on Apr 13, 2010Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Ben Reach on Apr 14, 2010Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Darcy Greiner on Apr 14, 2010Comments:Flag
-
48
Name: Krysyna Engler on Apr 14, 2010Comments: To destroy our beautiful natural environment to serve only the very rich is a shame. This is a widely used area...leave it alone.Flag
-
49
Name: Andrew Vit on Apr 16, 2010Comments: Squamish has unique value in its natural environment, and the enjoyment of Brohm Ridge and the surrounding trails and lakes would just be destroyed with a development such as Garibaldi at Squamish. There are better plans on the table already underway. A proposal such as the Squamish Oceanfront is compact, resource friendly, and doesn't impact a sensitive natural ecosystem, and would attract higher quality jobs to the area by promoting to high-tech knowledge-based industries rather than resort services.Flag
-
50
Name: Carla Rawlinson on Apr 20, 2010Comments: I strongly disagree with this proposed development. It is environmentally unacceptable and irresponsible. It flies against Squamish residents' desires and plans to contain our town's footprint on the earth. This proposal contributes nothing to the collective body of work to reduce the destructive impact of human development in our province. It represents a continuation of the irresponsible, backwards and unnecessary model, 'urban sprawl'. It is unconscionable.Flag
Page: 1, 2