Having had numerous discussions with a large cross section of full-time and part-time locals over the last few years, I have come to the realization that there are a myriad of reasons for people to be either against or for the Jumbo development. It appears that those for development are typically quiet (save a few), because if the development is cancelled, they do no look any worse for the wear and are under the assumption that they may benefit in some way if it is approved.

However, I do find this silent support somewhat lacking backbone. If you can truly make a strong argument, then why not be heard? If the rare arguments are going to resort to the shockingly simple “what does wild mean anyway?” as we saw in a recent letter to the editor, then I would argue that this reflects on the entire pro-development group and in not a very good or intelligent way. As for those against, it appears that the battle continues and could have much larger numbers on this side. However, it appears that typical human nature is to drift over to the side that may appear stronger at any given time. This allows these individuals to revel in success, no matter what. Also quite spineless. We are in the 11th hour (although we've been here for a while). Now is the time to get louder. Bring your arguments to the forefront. Are you truly willing to just accept whatever the outcome may be?

So where do I stand?

For the record, I am and always have been against the development for a myriad of reasons.

Environmentally, it just does not make any sense at all. But let’s look at the numbers and stats (which seem to resonate more with a good part of the population).

Here are the facts; the majority of the population is aging. With more time on their hands and greater disposable income, they are skiing more, golfing more, hiking more, etc. However, this will change. As the population continues to age, it will have less ability to ski and do other similar sports because of creaky knees, hips, etc. Demand will drop for ski resorts as a result.

Let me put forth the biggest elephant of all in the room and it is called fuel costs. Does anybody really think that the population, at any age, is prepared to pay the costs to drive long distances or fly long distances when options exist closer to home? Of course not. It would be foolish to consider. We are already seeing the bulk of the population reduce their travel distances (27 airlines have gone bankrupt in the last six months worldwide). Further, despite the best optimism one can conjure up, the world economy is in for a rough ride for the foreseeable future. Sure, things are pretty bad now and will likely rebound somewhat, but fuel costs are not going anywhere but up in the long term, which will make everything more expensive. This means less spending on non-essential items like ski vacations.

If approved, Jumbo will end up like many of the ill conceived resorts in South America that were built in prosperous times. They now sit as ghost resorts, complete with dilapidated buildings and broken windows, all within beautiful pristine areas.

Jumbo Resort will fight to the death because it has to. It has put too much time and effort into this and walking away now just does not make any sense from an ego point of view. If you are for it, you are supporting the dream of a wealthy European national who could not care less about the local population. Jumbo Resorts fully expects the local population to pay for road upgrades. If you think Victoria will pay for this, than you must truly have some rose coloured glasses on. Remember that locals would have paid through the nose for a local high speed Internet network had it not been voted down and the Ministry of Transport is trying to sell local MOT-owned land in order to pay for local projects including the building of intersections in dangerous locations.

The legacy of Jumbo Resort will be this: a remotely situated group of dilapidated building and lifts in an area that has been working hard up to this point to rebound from previous destructive activity. All of this complimented by a sub tax on all locals property tax statement for road upgrades etc., that will be there for decades to come (until Victoria gets its money back).

Meanwhile, Jumbo Glacier itself (the ice) will be long gone and summer skiing will be something of a fable. So, ask yourself, is this the legacy you want to support or do you want to support a legacy of protection? Really, quite a simple question.

Scott Berry,

Windermere