Susan Chapelle
A significant mistake was accepting developers' arguments too readily when considering variances and land-use changes on Squamish's oceanfront. In hindsight, I believe some variances were unnecessary. I also question decisions that allowed employment land to become housing and land intended for seniors to become market housing. It was giving too much weight to what an applicant said was needed without sufficiently testing the alternatives or the long-term public cost. Once land changes use, the community may find it very difficult to recover the opportunity it gave up. That experience informs the questions I ask now. What exactly prevents the project from proceeding under existing rules? What evidence supports the requested change? What public purpose would be lost, and what enforceable benefit replaces it? A general promise of investment is not an adequate answer. I cannot honestly claim that every past decision was reversed. I can acknowledge my part and apply the lesson to future decisions. In Ward 14, that means scrutinizing employment land conversions and commitments around affordable and seniors' housing. I would insist that the public understand the trade-off before Council votes, and that any promised benefit be secured through tools the City can actually enforce.