Disagree with Barratt's approach on Tourist Accommodation Dispute

Having a stimulating debate on important community issues in an intelligent and informed manner, is healthy and desirable. Exchanging differing views is a necessary process to try to find understanding and balance, as well as consensus and fairness. However, the benefit of that process breaks down, if there is no recognition or respect for the rights of others to hold different points of view. For example, a property owner may wish to challenge the interpretation or application of a municipal bylaw in a specific situation. That is their right to do so. No municipal employee should ever trivialize or minimize that right, or act in a way that compromises, or appears to compromise, the rights of a citizen or property owner. Municipal bylaws are challenged all the time across this province and country, by citizens or property owners who take issue with a particular bylaw or application of a bylaw. This is not a novel concept. It is called due process of law in a democratic society.

The above is the context to my reply to the letter by Bill Barratt, the RMOW employee who is "enforcing" the bylaw. There is a right way and a wrong way of conducting public business. In my view, Barratt's methods are not appropriate, despite the motherhood statements, red herrings, and bravado in his letter to the contrary.

My concern is that Barratt has obviously developed a mindset, that the end justifies the means. In other words, it is acceptable and financially more expedient, to trample on the rights of citizens to accomplish his end objective. This is scary stuff. This approach is rationalized by saying the RMOW will save money for other more worthy purposes by doing so. That is the logical extension of his argument. In other words, attempting to use his position to bypass or short-change due process of law and fairness, in order to force compliance on chalet owners who wish to assert their rights to challenge the bylaw. The recent TA court case only dealt with some very narrow points of law, and only applies to one specific property owner. It has no applicability on any other property owner. About 95% of the potential defences or arguments that an individual chalet owner could legitimately raise on the TA issue, have never been argued or tested in court.

Barratt's approach can lead to an inequitable interpretation and application of the bylaw, resulting in a polarized and adversarial relationship with many citizens of our community. Such a result is negative and counter-productive, and merely builds animosity and resentment. I have no doubt that any fair-minded citizen of Whistler would want the conduct of an RMOW employee to demonstrate good faith, common-sense and fair play, and be above reproach. Otherwise, a civil servant could be caught up in an over-zealous application of his job, and in concert with a handful of vocal citizens motivated by raw financial self-interest, attempt to deny fundamental rights to other citizens and property owners of our community, who happen to share a different legal point of view. Some could construe this conduct as being vengeful and punitive. This is the essence of my concern.

My earlier letter was an attempt to raise the awareness of those in our community who do not know their rights, in case they were being subjected to a legal, or threatened legal action by RMOW. Ignorance of one's rights, gives additional power to those who could end up abusing those rights - intentionally or unintentionally. What is important here is the process. It must be fair and balanced, and be perceived as being so. Anything less is unacceptable.

Art Collins
Whistler