Grouse for sale

Just a thought.

Let's assume that with the current trend of investment in Vancouver Grouse Mountain is sold to offshore interests, with no consideration of the local effect (aptly demonstrated with housing). Let's assume further that the money is being laundered and is either: illegal, profiteering or hiding of assets. Offshore interests (and most likely the conglomerate will be multiple investors) Grouse is sold to a non-local buyer. It will not be bought by the same company that bought Whistler. Why? There is less snow on the coast as in the interior, and for 1$B you could get far more in the interior.

But speculators and investors are not interested in local concerns, only their money. On this thought:

What prevents the very said purchasers from hiring a management company to see to their interests? Obviously being litigious from the start, and wanting anonymity, exclusion of ALL users would be a plan, since it would avoid ALL litigation from private land, thereby not bringing the "legal" owners of the land to court. After all, if 20 year old college students are buying multimillion dollar houses in Vancouver with no proof of income or whatever, why would someone trying to hide 1$B want any light. No legal issues from land use means no court cases, thereby no disclosure.

This means no hikers, bikers or anything. Moreover, if I have not hit home hard enough already, consider this folks: Mountain Highway goes up to the gate, and there is a nice gravel road up that all us folks use to get to the said trails. Do you not think a foreign investor, thinking of money not trails, sees this as a road to an exclusive private community that could be developed fast, with only foreign investors involved? Does it not occur to anyone that IF Grouse is sold to foreign interests that all the trails, land access and further development could be severely changed. Listen in Monica; your precious frogs in Mountain View Park would be someone's new pool, and you left to wonder how this all happened.

Consider further that if it is sold to foreign owners (most likely given the economic climate, as I don't have a 1$B to spend) there is going to be COMPLETE DETACHMENT from the community. They will NOT CARE we lose trails or land access. Think putting up a fence to keeping people out is not real? Think like a lawyer. If I just dumped 1$B into Grouse and I was trying to HIDE I would want not one bit of litigiousness out of it….not one. This means total exclusion. Of all. Not just bikers, but hikers, dog walkers….

And with new owners not so informed of local needs and wants, don't expect understanding. Don't expect public hall meetings (with the understand the farce of public consultation on the Cypress Plan being considered; they are going to develop all they can and trust me, bikers are the last consideration on private land) or any public input of any meaning. I thought the development of the first 2 switchbacks on Fromme to be 20 years away, guaranteed. But I suspect it will be sooner and far further.

Call me alarmist, but with public tender on the land, whom knows whom we get as new owners. For all we know, this could be the beginning of the end. And if it is foreign, as I suspect, to hide assets, in order to avoid full disclosure, limitation of all liability would be the first inclusion. And it would be enforced somehow given the money involved.

Cause and effect could really rear their ugly head here.

Anyone up for a funding drive to try for a public purchase?

Selling out, indeed. It remains to be seen but if you enjoy Fromme now, remember it. It very well could be the newest development for laundering money seen. And if bought oversees, there is nothing you or I could do about it.

Too bad it wasn't purchased as government land and made a Park, out of private ownership. I don't think many realize how bad this could go or get, especially with our property demands. Think the foreign buyer's tax makes a difference when you could double or triple you money on development?

I sure hope this does not go where I think it might.

Anyone feeling Religious? Praying might help.

Just a thought.

Well sheeeeit. I didn't realize that the land that far down was actually privately owned, figured it was licensed or something (despite that little chunk in the pit of the switchback). So your thought might not be so crazy.

There's also 5 acres for sale further to the east, only $130K! http://www.rew.ca/properties/R2001084/0-grouse-mountain-north-vancouver

I think there'd be a mutiny if all that happened (which maybe it will). Hell, I'd buy an E-bike.

blackfly is always a bundle of laughs

I can't imagine that anyone interested in buying a ski hill would be afraid of risk and litigation.
That's like a vegan buying a McDonalds franchise.

That lot is probably a steal! If I recall correctly, the price has stayed the same over the years while the rest of the North Shore has gone up how much?

Running water could be pilfered from the fire hydrant up by the 7th switchback….not so sure about power and sewage.

Well sheeeeit. I didn't realize that the land that far down was actually privately owned, figured it was licensed or something (despite that little chunk in the pit of the switchback). So your thought might not be so crazy.

There's also 5 acres for sale further to the east, only $130K! http://www.rew.ca/properties/R2001084/0-grouse-mountain-north-vancouver

The reason that land is so cheap is that it is not zoned for residential. Nothing above the current residential boundary is zoned for residential.

I can't imagine that anyone interested in buying a ski hill would be afraid of risk and litigation.
That's like a vegan buying a McDonalds franchise.

When you purchase your tram ticket from the Owner of the Mountain . You release and waive your liability rights ect.

"We " dont do that when we ride up and down Fromme

When you purchase your tram ticket from the Owner of the Mountain . You release and waive your liability rights ect.

"We " dont do that when we ride up and down Fromme

But in reality, those waivers don't mean anything anyway. The Mountains know that. So do their lawyers.

Does anyone have a link to an overlay / map of the property that is for sale?

Can't seem to find anything on the net.

But in reality, those waivers don't mean anything anyway. The Mountains know that. So do their lawyers.

People keep saying that "waivers don't mean anything"- well at least in BC they really do.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html?autocompleteStr=cougar%20mou[HTML_REMOVED]autocompletePos=1

From the introduction (BC Court of Appeal- Justice Frankel)

[1] The issue on this appeal is the enforceability of a release (i.e., waiver of liability) signed by the appellants, Deanna Loychuk and Danielle Westgeest, before going on a zip-line tour operated by Cougar Mountain Adventures Ltd. The appellants were injured when they collided while travelling on the same zip-line. They commenced an action against Cougar Mountain for damages. Cougar Mountain admitted that the accident was caused by the negligence of its employees but asserted that the appellants had waived their cause of action. On a summary trial, Mr. Justice Goepel of the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the release was a complete defence to the appellants[HTML_REMOVED]#8217; claims and dismissed their action. This appeal is from that decision.

[2] For the reasons that follow, I agree with the trial judge that the release is a complete defence to the appellants[HTML_REMOVED]#8217; claims

I am not sure why the myth of the "meaningless waiver" is so hard to kill but it keeps coming back - often to the detriment of small operators who don't take enough care with them.

The reason that land is so cheap is that it is not zoned for residential. Nothing above the current residential boundary is zoned for residential.

can it be logged? I'm getting into the ssc vibe…

People keep saying that "waivers don't mean anything"- well at least in BC they really do.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html?autocompleteStr=cougar%20mou[HTML_REMOVED]autocompletePos=1

From the introduction (BC Court of Appeal- Justice Frankel)
A bunch of legal jargon
I am not sure why the myth of the "meaningless waiver" is so hard to kill but it keeps coming back - often to the detriment of small operators who don't take enough care with them.

I would think that having two customers on the zip line at a time is negligence? But looking at the date of incident maybe it was allowed then. I base this on a Zip-Trek (The one in Carlton Lodge that lines people up by the Fitz Lift) I did back in like '12 or '13.

Is equipment; harnesses, rope, anchors, cable that isn't properly maintained covered in a "waiver"?

blackfly is always a bundle of laughs

Yeah I thought those peeps who sold Lake Louise (?) and bought into Whistler awhile back did so because they thought the future of snow sports was better where the moisture gets dumped first as opposed to the traditionally thin snowpack in the Rockies?