, , , ,

Whistler Election FAQ’s

Where and When do I vote?

Advance Voting Day 1: October 5, 2022, at the Whistler Public Library.

Advance Voting Day 2: October 8, 2002, at the Whistler Public Library.  

General Voting Day: October 15, 2022, at Myrtle Philip School.

Mail Ballot Voting: mail ballot packages will include a Registration Form for Residents and Non-Residents Property Electors. 

Can I Vote by Mail?

Yes!

All electors are eligible to vote by mail ballot if you are either a resident or non-resident property elector.

Requesting a Mail Ballot Package

In order to obtain a mail ballot, you must submit an Application to Vote by Mail to the RMOW no later than 4 p.m. on October 12, 2022. Applications are available here and at the front desk at Municipal Hall during regular business hours.

Your application can be submitted in person at Municipal Hall during regular hours, by email to election@whistler.ca, or delivered by Canada Post to the following address: Chief Election Officer, Resort Municipality of Whistler, 4325 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC, V8E 05X.

The Resort Municipality of Whistler will start sending out mail ballot packages on September 29, 2022. To be counted, your mail ballot must be received by the Chief Election Officer no later than 8 p.m. on Saturday, October 15, 2022.

 

Who is allowed to vote?
To vote as a resident or non resident property elector, you must meet all of the following qualifications:
-18 years or older on voting day,
-A Canadian citizen, a resident of B.C. for at least six months before registering, and not disqualified from voting under the Local Government Act or otherwise disqualified by law.
-As well, to vote as a resident you must have lived in Whistler for at least 30 days prior to registering; to vote as a property owner, you must be the registered owner of real property in Whistler for at least 30 days prior to registering, and if not the sole owner of the property, you must have the written consent of the majority of individuals registered as owners. You may only vote once regardless of how many properties you own in Whistler.

I own a Property in Whistler but I don’t live there, can I still vote?

YES. Non-resident electors must currently own property in Whistler.
To register as a non-resident elector you must meet the qualifications to vote and provide evidence of your identity and place of residence. You must provide two pieces of identification: one piece of identification must contain your identity and place of residence and at least one piece of identification must contain your signature. Examples of acceptable I.D. include a BC Driver’s License, automobile insurance, I.D. card, or BC Care Card.
If more than one person owns the property, only one owner may register and vote and that person must have the written consent of a majority of the other owners. You can only register in relation to one piece of property.
Click here to download the Non-Resident Property Elector Consent Form
You must also be prepared to sign a solemn declaration of your place of residence. If you do not comply with this requirement, you will not be registered to vote. Property owners whose property is registered in the name of a company are not qualified to vote.

How do I register to vote?

A person may register as a resident elector or a non-resident elector on general voting day or at any of the advance or special voting opportunities. To register as a resident elector you must meet the qualification to vote and provide evidence of your identity and place of residence. You must provide two pieces of identification: one piece of identification must contain your identity and place of residence and at least one piece of identification must contain your signature. Examples of acceptable I.D. include a BC Driver’s License, automobile insurance, I.D. card, or BC Care Card

Do I have to vote for six candidates?
NO, you can vote for as many as six but there is no minimum.

In the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) qualified voters will vote for 1 Mayor, 6 Councillors and 2 School Trustees (unless one or more of these positions are won by acclamation).

What do I need to bring to the polls?
You must provide two pieces of identification: one piece of identification must contain your identity and place of residence and at least one piece of identification must contain your signature. Examples of acceptable I.D. include a BC Driver’s License, automobile insurance, I.D. card, or BC Care Card.

Is my name on the current register of electors?
If you are not sure, you can find out by calling or visiting the Resort Municipality of Whistler Municipal Hall, 4325 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC, (604) 932-5535, or toll free at 1-866-932-5535 The office is open from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (excluding holidays).

/by
, , , ,

Myths About Municipal Council and Some Frequently Asked Questions

Originally published in the Whistler Question November 9th 2017

 

When my boys were little, they would always groan when we went to the grocery store, “how long is this going to take?” they would whine, “do you have to talk to every single person you see?”. I would respond with “Well boys, you know people like to talk.”-“No dad… YOU like to talk!” they would correct.

So, here dear taxpayer, is a compilation of frequently asked questions I’ve fielded over the years.

Term Limits: There are no term limits for Council or the Mayor in Whistler, or any other municipality, in fact there are no term limits for any elected office in Canada. Constitutional scholars and decisions by the Supreme Court suggest that term limits would be a violation of section three of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The most famous example would be “Hurricane” Hazel McCallion who served as mayor of Mississauga Ontario for 36 years, her record was bested last year by Gord Krantz of Milton Ontario. It turns out that Canadians like experience in their politicians.

You can’t run for both Mayor and Council… Think about it. What if you won both seats? You either go for it all, or not. Strangely though, at least in British Columbia you can run for Mayor or council of multiple municipalities! Anyone remember Jag Bandari? In 2008, he ran for Mayor of Whistler and for a council seat in Surry (he lost both). You also, don’t have to live in the town you run in, sounds crazy but it actually works, a great example would be Pemberton’s former Mayor Jordan Sturdy—he lives in the SLRD, not Pemberton.

Financial things the RMOW can and can’t do: The RMOW (or any Municipality) can’t lend or give money to businesses, can’t run a deficit, and can’t charge a sales tax.
Municipalities only have two basic sources of revenue, property taxes and user fees. The RMOW already has a third source-the hotel tax. When the resort was incorporated, the province endowed us with our own act (The Resort Municipality of Whistler Act) which allows the RMOW to collect development charges, and Tourism Whistler to levy assessments on members who reside on resort lands. It really showed a lot of foresight by the Province to permit these tools to control development and enhance tourism.

The most frequently asked questions and the ones that community members have the least understanding of-surround housing. First, and let me be emphatic—the RMOW does not build housing— the RMOW does not use your tax dollars to build someone else a house. The next time I hear someone say “just take the money from the soccer fields and build housing” I’m going to scream! Here’s how employee housing gets built: a land owner has, let’s say a 10 acre plot, but it’s only zoned for a single family house, said land owner thinks “gee I could make some more money by subdividing this lot and building more houses”. When he takes this idea to council, council will say great, we’ll rezone the property but we’ll need you to build some employee housing units on the site as well. It really is that simple, and there is no cost to the taxpayer—unless you count the staff and council time to handle the rezoning application—but hey that’s their job. I’ll save all the multitude of other ways to build housing, for another column, till then dear taxpayer, if you have any other questions about politics and how it really works, next time you see me in the produce aisle… ask away!

Ralph Forsyth is an entrepreneur and ski instructor, he served as a Whistler Councillor from 2005 to 2011, He’s never been accused of being the smartest guy in the room or the calm voice of reason.

/by
, , ,

Should we Scrap the District Energy System?

My favorite economist, Milton Friedman, used a handy little quadrant to explain four ways to spend money: One, your money on yourself- you spend to gain the highest value. Two, spending your money on someone else – say a gift, you still look for value but remember, it’s the thought that counts. Third, spending someone else’s money on yourself; value is going to be a lot less important. Lastly, spending someone else’s money on someone else – no concern about price or value. This fourth way, dear reader, is the way the government spends your money.

That’s why taxpayers are often left out in the cold. A perfect example of this is the District Energy System.

Let me first say mea culpa. I was on the Council that approved the District Energy System and I was on the Whistler 2020 Development Corporation Board that developed Cheakamus Crossing, which by the way was the most talented group ever put together to work on a project in Whistler. You can’t blame that group for the problems with the DES. You can blame the Council that approved it, but ultimately it’s the council of the day that is responsible for it now.

Here’s how councils make these decisions: they blow a lot of hot air and make statements like “were going to be the greenest town on earth!” This is music to the ears of a seemingly endless parade of environmental consultants that tell you about this amazing technology that is going to save you tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save millions of dollars. It’ll cost you a fortune up front but that’s okay, you’ll have huge savings later. This gives councilors a warm and fuzzy feeling and they can brag about their green credentials, so they approve it. The list is long of underperforming extremely expensive technology that’s supposed to save you money down the road… but, it’s a dead end! These schemes rarely, if ever, provide the cost savings that are promised.

The aftermath of these decisions leads to the sunk cost fallacy; the idea that people are likely to continue with a project if they have already invested a lot of money, time, or effort in it, even when continuing is not the best option. Chillingly I believe this is the case with the DES. The residents of Cheakamus Crossing never asked for the greenest, fanciest, most complex heating system in the world. I think they just want to turn the heat up or down depending on whether they’re hot or cold. It’s time to call an electrician, rip out the DES and put in baseboard heating; at least you’ll know how it works and if there’s a problem you can call the electrician back and tell him to fix it.

After reviewing the 20 page Council report on the DES, I’d say it generates a lot of heat but no light, my takeaway from the report lies in the final paragraph, “We feel the RMOW is doing a good job running and maintaining the DES system.” I’m sure they are, the problem is that the RMOW is spending your money running and maintaining something they shouldn’t be… It should make your blood boil.

Ralph Forsyth is a local entrepreneur, Ski Instructor and Bike Guide he served on Whistler Council from 2005 to 2011 He’s an eccentric who likes to wear suits, quote Machiavelli and throw down big tricks in the bike park.

This Column was originally printed in the Whistler Question’s “Off the Record” on July 12, 2016

/by
,

The Trouble with Normal

No, there is no dog sh*t fairy.

What do dog shit and junk mail have in common? Besides the fact that they’re both super irritating they’re both excellent examples of cost externalization. If you’re not familiar with the term, Cost Externalization is a socioeconomic term used to describe how a business can maximizes its profits by off-loading indirect costs thus, forcing negative effects and costs on to a third party. In both cases dear taxpayer, the third party is you. Your ire should be piqued by the fact that the “government” (Local Provincial and Federal) are the enablers of this behaviour.

 

Recent letters to the editor and some fine local reporting provide the backdrop for both. First is the case of Canada Post (and to a larger extent their political masters- the federal liberals) they’ve had to cut their costs despite the fact that in the most recent Canada Post segment report shows that direct marketing contributed almost $1.2 billion in revenue. Direct Marketing volumes rose by 0.2 per cent or 10 million pieces compared to 2014 while revenue fell by $11 million or 0.9 per cent. Canada Post however is way off side of its pension plan liabilities, the solvency deficit is estimated at $6.2 Billion. The result: no more on site recycling, you have to take the junk mail home with you to recycle it.

 

Second is the constant irritant of dog feces as a coach, nothing makes my blood boil more than having one of my athletes leaving the field crying because he’s covered in dog shit! I was shocked to hear from one of the managers of our playing fields that he had removed over 100 Kilos of dog waste from the Spruce Grove Fields alone! In this case however it’s not a business (or even a crown corporation) that’s externalizing its costs- it’s our fellow citizens, and the externalization is in reverse proportion, it’s a very small cost in time effort and supplies to clean up after a dog, versus the cost to Municipal Taxpayers for the added time and energy of removing dog feces from our parks and trails– imagine how long it takes to clear 100 Kilos of dog waste from a single park, now multiply that by 12 parks.

 

In both cases, picking up after your dog, and doing your own direct mail recycling aren’t such onerous tasks, but the nanny state has made people feel that they shouldn’t have to be responsible for these tasks. You’ve become conditioned to think the government should do it for you. When the government steps into the domain of what should by all rights be the purview of the common citizenry community mindedness atrophies. The result is that leaving dog waste and recycling for others to clean up is anti-social behavior, that has become normal. And as Bruce Cockburn sang “The trouble with normal is it always gets worse”.

 

Not that I’m nostalgic for a more libertarian past, but back in the day, my grandfather had a not so elegant but very effective solution to the problem of dogs shitting on his lawn… He would shoot them. There was very little dog shit in grandpa’s neighbourhood, he didn’t call his MP, MLA or his city councillor about the problem of dog excrement. He took care of things himself. Now I’m not advocating vigilantism, but in the absence of any kind of policy from local government it may be a last resort. Because this type of transgression individually is relatively small, conventional wisdom suggests that it warrants neither serious bylaw enforcement nor punishment, as result, nothing is done about it. I would suggest adopting a zero tolerance policy towards any littering and hiring more bylaw officers to enforce it. The problem with instituting a policy like this in Whistler is that it would be political suicide, let’s face it Whistler is likely the most dog crazy place in the world. This issue -which has been around for years, and drove me crazy when I was on council- will continue as normal, with the players involved hoping to provoke change without ever having to take responsibility for it.

 

 

Ralph Forsyth is an entrepreneur and ski instructor, he served as a Whistler Councillor from 2005 to 2011 He always dances as if everyone is watching.

 

 

 

/by
, , ,

Social Media and how it’s ruining politics

It’s a lot harder to say nasty things to people if you have to say it to them face to face.

Originally printed in the November 28th 2017 edition of the Whistler Question

In 1841 Abraham Lincoln, a masterful orator gave an address to the Temperance Society in his hometown of Springfield Illinois, he warned the crowd that that if they continued to denounce both sellers and drinkers of alcohol in “thundering tones of anathema and denunciation their cause would accomplish nothing. He encouraged them to take the approach of an “erring man to an erring brother”, and reminded them that “a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall”. Lincoln was famous for being able to see both sides of any issue, and his leadership was masterful because of his incredible empathy towards his fellow man.

Even after the incredible cost and bloodshed of the civil war Lincoln used his second inaugural address to encourage a sympathetic understanding for the nation’s alienated southern citizens: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

 

Currently this kind of understanding is in short supply, and the culprit could be social media. Most of us have, to some degree, an instinctual empathy towards others, yet according to Molly Crockett a PHD at Yale University social media’s influence may be enhancing social divisions and indifference to our fellow man.

 

In a paper “Moral outrage in the digital age” Dr. Crockett explains that because of the homophily inherent in social networks, people are only willing to share their views with people who already agree with them, so its’ difficult to see how we can overcome divisions, or move forward when confronted with contentious issues that require collaboration. On line discourse it turns out may not be the best way to come to understanding with people you disagree with, the reason is the reduced dimensionality of social media. It’s easy to type vitriol to a two dimensional avatar. It’s a lot harder to say nasty things to people if you have to say it to them face to face.

 

As a councillor I was a heavy user of social media from its infancy, it connected me to an audience that I never would have otherwise met, but it was incredibly inefficient, and left no room for nuance. I certainly endured some nauseating moments on social media, but in retrospect it seems pretty tame to the contemptuous commentary I see today. I’m so glad I don’t have to engage with social platforms as a councillor now. For a local politician the face to face contact is what you crave, it’s certainly the part of the job that I miss -epically the ski days talking politics. Lucky for you dear taxpayer it’s easy to access your local councillors, and in fact Jack Crompton and Jen Ford regularly host coffee talks with constituents.

 

Remember dear taxpayer it’s okay to have arguments, we all understand that most public issues involve trade-offs, and in most arguments, there are two partially true points of view. But rather than taking to twitter or freaking out on facebook, talk to someone, share a beer, a coffee or a few turns on the mountain, do something that activates the empathy which is essential for bridging political divides.

 

Ralph Forsyth is an entrepreneur and Ski Instructor, he served on Whistler Council from 2005 to 2011 He’s not the best skier on the mountain, but he’s got tremendous style.

/by
,

The Gamblers Fallacy (and how Council can avoid bad decisions)

Originally printed in the December 20th 2016 edition of the Whistler Question

Despite the immense intuitive appeal of providing you, dear taxpayer, with a naughty and nice list of council decisions for the last year, I thought it would be more interesting to explore the decision making process more generally. Recently I read a great New York Times editorial by David Brooks Does Decision Making Matter? And listened to a fabulous Freakanomics podcast How to Make a Bad decision It seems that there is growing research in to, and appetite for, the science of decision making.

 

Brook’s editorial is about Michael Lewis (Money Ball, The Big Short) latest book: The Undoing Project it chronicles Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman Economists and intellectual giants who’s work illustrated the biases in human decision making Many of the biases they identified are now commonly understood — loss aversion, endowment effect, and hindsight bias. Brooks’ conclusion is that life –like the lives of Tversky and Kahneman for example- doesn’t hinge on big decisions, it’s more a matter of following your nose and succumbing to the things that you find compellingly engaging.

 

I’ve always agreed with that philosophy, I was pleased to see that there is some science behind the sentiment. In life -if my life is any example- that’s how you wind up teaching skiing for 30 years, it’s just too compelling -my mother, untill her death last spring would always ask “When do you think you’ll finish your degree Ralphy?” There’s no big decision it’s just following the path of your passions.

 

The recent Freakanomics Podcast focused on some amazing research by economics professors Tobias J. Moskowitz Kelly Shue and Daniel L. Chen their research is about decision making and the gamblers fallacy. If you haven’t heard of the gamblers fallacy it’s basically the mistaken belief that, there is a pattern in situations that are truly random, Let’s use the rationale that if a slot machine hasn’t paid out a jackpot in two years, that it’s due to pay out soon. This belief, though appealing is false. The fallacy can arise in plenty of practical situations but it’s most strongly associated with gambling. Some of the jaw dropping results of their research was that: when using video replays to review close calls Major League Baseball umpires had their decisions overturned almost half the time, eight percent of loan applicants in India were declined simply because of the sequence they were reviewed in. You also don’t want to be in the wrong line if you’re an asylum seeker entering the United States as Professor Moskowitz describes; “just by the dumb luck of where you get sequenced that day could affect your probability of staying in this country by five percent, versus going back to the country that you’re fleeing.”

 

Given the research a good question would be: How are we to evaluate the decisions made by council? A lot of their decisions would be that you might call casino decisions- Are you the third re-zoing application of the night? What number in the sequence are you if your applying for a Community Enrichment Grant? Is it better to see council before lunch or after?

 

The best way for council to make decisions is to follow their own Policy Direction, listen closely to Public Input and seek Professional Expertise. Voters can be quite critical of councils that disagree and have many split decision, but trust me, far more sinister is the council that agrees on every vote every time.

 

 

The best politicians (especially local ones) are the ones enthusiastically engaged in the conundrums facing thier constituents. Politicians like this will succeed not for their decision making skills but because of their capacity for earnest engagement. They follow their passions and decisions big or small are just steps along that path.

 

Ralph Forsyth is an entrepreneur and ski instructor, he served as a Whistler Councillor from 2005 to 2011 He’s not the best skier on the mountain, but he has the most style…

/by