Idiots want to build gondola, conference centre and casino in Canmore

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by peter12

What is Sliver doing?

He thinks bears are just big dogs.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There is a difference between having a house to live in, and building a gondola, a casino and a conference centre as big as the BMO centre. Is that hard to understand? It also matters when you are building on a shared resource for private benefit. If it is a net loss to the community, should they not have a say?

No, there isn't really. Shades of grey.

Just admit it. You're already "inside the fence" when it comes to Canmore development and therefore just straight up don't want any more changes to your surroundings. This is exacerbated by the fact you grew up there.

It has nothing to do with traffic congestion (a gondola in to town will probably alleviate traffic if anything), wildlife impacts (the whole town affected it), loss of trails (you live in the middle of freakin nature with a thousand other trails at your doorstep), or selfie-stick safety on Mt Lady MacDonald (LOL). You just don't want it because NIMBY. Full period stop.

I won't make fun of you for that. I get it and I sympathize. I mean, it would hold low value in my evaluation of if this is a good idea or not, but I'd at lease get it. But a bunch of bluster with silly transparent justifications is just going to generate eye rolls.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No, there isn't really. Shades of grey.

Just admit it. You're already "inside the fence" when it comes to Canmore development and therefore just straight up don't want any more changes to your surroundings. This is exacerbated by the fact you grew up there.

It has nothing to do with traffic congestion (a gondola in to town will probably alleviate traffic if anything), wildlife impacts (the whole town affected it), loss of trails (you live in the middle of freakin nature with a thousand other trails at your doorstep), or selfie-stick safety on Mt Lady MacDonald (LOL). You just don't want it because NIMBY. Full period stop.

I won't make fun of you for that. I get it and I sympathize. I mean, it would hold low value in my evaluation of if this is a good idea or not, but I'd at lease get it. But a bunch of bluster with silly transparent justifications is just going to generate eye rolls.

Give me a break.

[Joborule]

I fail to see the issue in building a convention centre in a town that has grown tremendously, gets a lot of visitors, and will continue to do so based off their latest municipal development plan.

The draw of Canmore is not only it's access to natural recreation, but also it's trait of being a tourist town. It can do the latter, while still overall respecting the former. It's not like this development is gonna turn the town into a city like Kelowna. And it can't anyway, since there's not enough available land; that's not already designated as a wildlife/nature reserve. Plus, mountains.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by peter12

Give me a break.

Why? I could tell from the minute I read the original post that this was another NIMBY argument well before they indicated they grew up there. It's alright for you to work/play/live somewhere but not someone else? Makes no sense. If it wasn't for the tourism industry and people with oil boom money deciding they wanted a recreational place closer to the City, Canmore doesn't exist in the fashion it does today. So now that they are all setup and established there, nobody else should be able to do the same thing or have a chance at starting a business there? Ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the people in my neighborhood throwing a huge fit about them building one oil well on the outskirts of our community despite the fact that 70% of them work in the O & G industry and have no problem telling Quebec, Ontario, and BC what they should do with pipelines.

I can see why people would be upset with the casino, and I honestly don't think Canmore is the right place for one either, but save me the sanctimonious BS about the animals, the land, etc... These people didn't care about it when they first bought homes/condos and started businesses out there. They are looking out for their own interests, plain and simple.

[getbak]

I don't see the problem. Casinos with gondolas are really classy.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Anyone whose purchased a home/condo etc in Canmore in the past 20 years was well aware of the risks of having many developments such as these, or at least they should have been. It's the sole reason the Town of Canmore has developped the way it has to date. Can't build it in the National Park, so you build it on the doorsteps to that park.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be upset if I had property there (I probably would be), but you had to know this day was coming, and to sit there an say that once you are in, that no one else should be able to is pretty hypocritical.

[northcrunk]

Why is the thread titled "Idiots"? Tell us how you really feel!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

but you had to know this day was coming, and to sit there an say that once you are in, that no one else should be able to is pretty hypocritical.

Classic NIMBY

[Fuzz]

You will probably find that most of the people objecting to it have been in the valley far longer than 20 years and have watched again and again, the interests of developers trump the interests of the citizens of Canmore. But it's easy to think NIMBY, I guess.

If you care to read a little bit, this article has a bit on why I distrust developers to do things properly in the valley:
https://albertaventure.com/2009/09/the-canmore-crash/
But there are many examples of them lying to get what they want and leaving the town holding the bag. So you will excuse me if I have some skepticism towards the plan. It is not unfounded.

[Muffins]

Have they asked what Mike thinks of it?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You will probably find that most of the people objecting to it have been in the valley far longer than 20 years and have watched again and again, the interests of developers trump the interests of the citizens of Canmore. But it's easy to think NIMBY, I guess.

If you care to read a little bit, this article has a bit on why I distrust developers to do things properly in the valley:
https://albertaventure.com/2009/09/the-canmore-crash/
But there are many examples of them lying to get what they want and leaving the town holding the bag. So you will excuse me if I have some skepticism towards the plan. It is not unfounded.

Continuing with the thinly veiled sarcasm in this thread....yes I'm quite certain the Three Sisters development in Canmore was the only real estate development on this continent that went bankrupt in 2009!!!!! You're still mad about that?

[Fuzz]

I just posted it to show there is a history of developers not doing what they plan, and leaving a scar on the land. So ya. Relevant.

[TheAlpineOracle]

It will be interesting to see Canmore's reaction to an Olympic Bid. A negative reaction would be pretty ironic given that's what saved the town short term in the early 80's when the coal mine closed.

[Fuzz]

I think they would generally support it, but it would come with much bigger challenges than '88.

[Bill Bumface]

I enjoy the outdoors and think it's important to preserve natural habitats.

I hate to say it, I do see the other side.

Everyone loves to go on vacations and be tourists, but they hate it when it happens in the areas they like.

We overrun tons of areas for fun all over the world, and I'm sure the associated development really pissed off a lot of locals and environmentalists.

All the people in Canmore live in a town that disturbs the valley they are trying to protect. Their house, road, sewer and water systems all were of great impact to the area. But that was ok, as long as they are the last one in and no one develops any more.

I wouldn't say a casino and convention centre are necessarily more inherently evil than the massive amounts of housing development in the area.

I think we need to be smart about it, but trying to say no more development anywhere pretty just doesn't work with an increasing population and increasing tourism.

[Fuzz]

That's the thing though, this isn't to serve an existing tourist issue, it's to drive demand.
This is a good article on it:
http://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/2017/...rence-facility

Turcotte says the goal of the project is to receive a share of the luxury tourism market, particularly in the area of providing world-class space for meetings and conferences.
“That’s always been the market niche that I wanted to go after,” he said. “We believe our project here, focused on that market, will be successful.
...


“But we’ve come to one conclusion — we have to build this place all in one go for us to succeed and compete on an international basis,” he said. “If we can build this in one go, it will deliver an entertainment, leisure, meeting experience like no other in the Canadian Rockies right here in Canmore.”

They actually say it will double the population of Canmore. So, uhm, at what point is it to much? I think this is to much. Do we want to induce that kind of demand?

[GGG]

Developers in Canmore should have to pay onto some kind of Orphan wells program and some kind of reclamation bond if their projects don't succeed.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You will probably find that most of the people objecting to it have been in the valley far longer than 20 years and have watched again and again, the interests of developers trump the interests of the citizens of Canmore. But it's easy to think NIMBY, I guess.

If you care to read a little bit, this article has a bit on why I distrust developers to do things properly in the valley:
https://albertaventure.com/2009/09/the-canmore-crash/
But there are many examples of them lying to get what they want and leaving the town holding the bag. So you will excuse me if I have some skepticism towards the plan. It is not unfounded.

I hear ya. I genuinely sympathize. It must suck, especially for such a long term resident.

However, as I'm sure is obvious, I don't see that sentiment as weighing heavily against this specific development. It is a gondola and a large development on/near an already developed part of the valley. We are not talking about building a dam and flooding the valley. As a resident of Alberta and an occasional Canmore visitor, my first reaction is positive in nature. I value the potential economic benefits more than my impression of the consequences voiced by detractors from the community.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You will probably find that most of the people objecting to it have been in the valley far longer than 20 years and have watched again and again, the interests of developers trump the interests of the citizens of Canmore. But it's easy to think NIMBY, I guess.

That's exactly what NIMBY is. You sound like a Lakeview resident right now.

The interest of the citizens are generally myopic. My interest right now is to have a view of the mountains from my 20th floor condo in downtown calgary, and I can guarantee that the entire building (hundreds of residents on that side) share the same interest. However, they're planning to put a 40 storey condo on the parking lot that will block my view within the next five years.

Is that "acting in the interest of the developers"? To me, it only takes a short moment of thought to realize how silly the citizen's interests are. So is the City of Calgary never allowed to put anything that blocks anyone's view of anything ever? Frankly, it's far too close to that already and that's why our development process is absolutely ridiculous. We consider things like shadows and wind noise so much that nothing ever really gets done.

To apply this back to your situation, it's silly for the citizens of Canmore to think that things are going to stay the same forever. When something changes, it isn't that people are acting in the interest of developers. It's just standard development processes.

I would suggest that you constructively make suggestions that would specifically address your concerns with the project. Developers actually compromise a ton with the local community contrary to popular belief. The community just doesn't have a straight veto when it comes to projects like this.