letter from CMHC

Many of you probably got the same letter, but I just got this today…

I am responding to your email of October 24, 2016, regarding lands owned by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) located in the District ofNorth Vancouver.
CMHC and the Province of British Columbia are joint owners of 640 acres of federal/provincial land assembly known as the Blair Rifle Range, located in the district ofNorth Vancouver. CMHC, as the majority landowner, manages the property, which was acquired in 1969. In early 2016, we were made aware ofunauthorized trail building activity on CMHC lands which could potentially raise safety concerns and litigation exposure. In our role as co-owner and manager of the land, updated signage was installed around the perimeter of the property given that it is not a public space for recreation.
This action triggered concern among various parties. In response to concerns expressed, we met with representatives from the Province, the District ofNorth Vancouver and the North Shore Mountain Bike Association (NSMBA) to discuss current recreational usages of the property. The meetings were an important first step in establishing an open dialogue with interested parties, and underscoring our commitment to considering all points of view.
As a result of the meetings, and information brought forward by interested parties, CMHC and the Province are prepared, as co-owners, to permit reasonable and responsible recreational use of the property. Users are reminded that persons entering this land do so entirely at their own risk, and that the owners are not responsible for any damage or loss to property, or personal injury.
We very much appreciate the extent to which local groups, citizens and Members of Parliament mobilized to make us aware of the importance of this space locally.
Thank you for writing.

So once again, why has the NSMBA said that they work with property managers? Have they been building structures (and new trails) on CMHC land without their approval? Or is the CMHC not providing accurate information?

Trails have been there, been added to and modified, for a minimum of 25 years and it just came to their attention in "early 2016"?

Now that's the definition of absentee landlord right there.

So once again, why has the NSMBA said that they work with property managers? Have they been building structures (and new trails) on CMHC land without their approval? Or is the CMHC not providing accurate information?

To be fair, the NSMBA claims they contacted CMHC numerous times regarding this issue and received no response. Would you have preferred that, in the absence of a response from CMHC, they decline to undertake any work on CMHC lands? Had that been the approach, I propose that we would not have many of the trails we enjoy today.

To be fair, the NSMBA claims they contacted CMHC numerous times regarding this issue and received no response. Would you have preferred that, in the absence of a response from CMHC, they decline to undertake any work on CMHC lands? Had that been the approach, I propose that we would not have many of the trails we enjoy today.

Big ted: What are doing in my house watching my t.v.?

Dawnchairy: I rang your doorbell five times and no-one answered. So i propose that if hadn't come in, no-one would be watching your t.v..

Big ted: What are doing in my house watching my t.v.?

Dawnchairy: I rang your doorbell five times and no-one answered. So i propose that if hadn't come in, no-one would be watching your t.v..

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing the true legality of the situation. Merely pointing out that the MTB community is probably better off for it in this instance, and maybe shouldn't complain too hard. Not that that should justify such actions in the future. cough Pink Starfish cough.

Besides, had I bought my house and TV with your taxes, I'd not have much grounds to complain about you coming in and watching my TV… ;)

To be fair, the NSMBA claims they contacted CMHC numerous times regarding this issue and received no response. Would you have preferred that, in the absence of a response from CMHC, they decline to undertake any work on CMHC lands? Had that been the approach, I propose that we would not have many of the trails we enjoy today.

I just would like to know why an organization states they work with the landowners when it appears that they do not.

So who exactly is making these decisions to build new trails? Is it rogue builders?

I just would like to know why an organization states they work with the landowners when it appears that they do not.

So who exactly is making these decisions to build new trails? Is it rogue builders?

A worthwhile question to ask at the Town Hall.

Especially in the context of NSMBA 101 presented by Vince (which you pointed out) see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BybBpJdymDJvOUJHQlFfWTVUeWs/view - some excerpts

At this time the CMHC is not an engaged land manager and as a result there is
no policy on mountain bike trails on their land. There is currently no official
permitting for trail building on CMHC land either. The NSMBA does not have any
direct contact with the CMHC.

The NSMBA advocates against the constructions of trails or features which have
not been authorized or permitted by the land managers.

The context of this discussion was the 2014 Townhall when Vince initially presented NSMBA 101. The NSMBA 101 document initial draft was very strong in condemning any work they deemed to be "rogue" and unsanctioned - in particular any work being carried out in the CMHC. When I pointed out to Vince that the NSMBA was by far the largest builder in the CMHC and that they had been actively working on trails in the CMHC since the 2010s, the NSMBA then made edits to NSMBA 101 document to the effect that the NSMBA's negative stance towards rogue and unsanctioned trails were only in the context of lands where "Trails or features built … [where] the NSMBA has a formal work agreement with a Land Manager.

It was never explained or made clear to me why a trail organization purporting to work only on trails in a sanctioned setting and with the OK of a land manager could justify working in the CMHC without permission, yet also condemn independent builders for also working in the CMHC without permission.

Perhaps if you ask the NSMBA this question you can get an answer.

Big ted: What are doing in my house watching my t.v.?

Dawnchairy: I rang your doorbell five times and no-one answered. So i propose that if hadn't come in, no-one would be watching your t.v..

Yeah, except it isn't "their/your" house. They are managing it for the community/public. So, yes, if a manager of a community house is absent(for 20 years), i don't think it's unreasonable imma go in and watch me some ALF reruns.

We very much appreciate the extent to which local groups, citizens and Members of Parliament mobilized to make us aware of the importance of this space locally.

The silent majority found their voice on this one and it was awesome. Drowned out the detractors for once.

Besides, had I bought my house and TV with your taxes, I'd not have much grounds to complain about you coming in and watching my TV… ;)

I hope that means I can go watch t.v. at Jimmy Pattison's place since I bought my last car off him, because I bet he has one hell of a t.v..

Did the NSMBA build all the trails on CMHC land? I don't think that they did. Do many (but not all) 'rogue' builders build trails, then just leave them to erode and rot away while they move on to the next trail? Maybe…. I know LL does shed loads of trail maintenance, but I still don't understand the need for taking pot shots at the NSMBA over taking over the maintenance of largely abandoned trails. When I moved here and rode (and went to a build day) in 2007, many of the trails were a disaster. Personally I'm thankful that a group took the trails on, and I don't watch TV….

Did the NSMBA build all the trails on CMHC land? I don't think that they did. Do many (but not all) 'rogue' builders build trails, then just leave them to erode and rot away while they move on to the next trail? Maybe…. I know LL does shed loads of trail maintenance, but I still don't understand the need for taking pot shots at the NSMBA over taking over the maintenance of largely abandoned trails. When I moved here and rode (and went to a build day) in 2007, many of the trails were a disaster. Personally I'm thankful that a group took the trails on, and I don't watch TV….

I believe he is referring to new trails built in the CMHC zone, not maintaining existing trails.

Did the NSMBA build all the trails on CMHC land? I don't think that they did. Do many (but not all) 'rogue' builders build trails, then just leave them to erode and rot away while they move on to the next trail? Maybe…. I know LL does shed loads of trail maintenance, but I still don't understand the need for taking pot shots at the NSMBA over taking over the maintenance of largely abandoned trails. .

Tom is right. I was referring mainly to new trails. Of which the NSMBA is by far the main builder.

You also miss the point again. In my opinion, all trailwork is good trailwork whether by the official trail body or independents. My criticism is not the NSMBA's trailwork in the CMHC or any of their sanctioned work My criticism is over the NSMBA's "you're with us against or against us" mentality seen in the NSMBA's DNA and which led them to be so hostile to independent trailwork in the CMHC while simultaneously doing the bulk of CMHC trailwork. This meant they could never have a coherent story for doing work in the CMHC without it sounding like a house of cards.

Other local area organizations (SORCA, WORCA, FVMBA, PVTA) have independent builders. None of them carry out unsanctioned trailwork. None of them are so similarly hostile to independent builders.

Moving on and moving forward. It's pretty clear (massive) mistakes were made in relation to CMHC trailwork by the sanctioned North Shore trail organization. Coun. Mathew Bond and the DNV did 99% of the work in clearing up these mistakes. How to avoid those mistakes in the future? IMO a big first step would involve recognizing what mistakes were made. And IMO communication with independents would be a good start. And also IMO adopting ethically defensible positions would be another good start.

i am personally hopeful that the new board can guide staff and the organization to recognize that mistakes were made. At the same time I am hopeful that the new board can move away from the toxic "us against them" mentality and learn from Pemberton, Squamish, Fraser Valley and Whistler as to how to work with independents