May 19, 2021 – The Squamish Camping Bylaw, which is part of a suite of bylaws to help us manage the influx of visitors each summer, was rolled back and given an amended third reading during the District of Squamish Special Business meeting on Tuesday, May 18, with changes being made following public feedback about the Blue Area denoted in Schedule A of the bylaw. The bylaw, along with the Parks and Traffic Bylaw amendments will be considered for adoption in the coming weeks.
“We have received much correspondence about the Camping Bylaw changes currently being discussed at the Council table, and while we haven’t been able to respond to every person, their input has been read and considered,” says District of Squamish Mayor, Karen Elliott. “We have made an amendment to the bylaw to respond to one of the biggest concerns we’ve heard about – the Blue Area – and also hope to clarify some of the misperceptions in order to increase public confidence in the approach that is proposed. Thank you to all who have taken the time to reach out.”
The primary amendments to the Camping Bylaw are as follows:
The District wishes to clarify the following key aspects of the bylaw amendments, the visitor/camping management approach and our approach to supporting homeless citizens:
The bylaws and visitor management strategy will be monitored closely throughout the summer, and changes may be introduced to address emerging needs or issues.
The District has initiated frequent meetings with local stakeholders to address visitor and camping management throughout the summer. Representatives of the Province, Squamish Nation, Tourism Squamish and recreation groups are meeting regularly to discuss issues and solutions.
“The bylaw amendments are designed to support the immediate issues facing us and resident input will be invaluable over the summer to identify where enforcement is needed and hot spot areas to be addressed,” concludes Elliott. “With the proposed bylaw enforcement tools in place, the District is in a better position to help neighbourhoods cope with the historic visitor impacts they have experienced.”
An updated frequently asked questions is available at squamish.ca/visitor-camping-management/faq.
May 19, 2021
We use cookies to help improve our website for you.
Post your comment
Comments
Nicole May 21, 2021, 8:42 AM (3 years ago)
Squamish council, you're not listening to your residents. People living in their vehicles need a safe place and should not be criminalized!
These are people working in customer service in Squamish, owning businesses, or working remotely while recreating in this adventure capital. Squamish is for everyone, not just the rich.
This is an issue that all cities that people flock to for outdoor adventure have to address... most do find a solution such as safe lots, more and cheaper bare bones campsites, or permits. Please don't criminalize van-dwelling and force out long time residents.
Jonny David May 21, 2021, 7:31 AM (3 years ago)
I am not a Squamish resident, I am a Canmore resident who recreates in Squamish typically once per year for climbing and mountain biking. I am also a homeowner in Canmore.
Canmore is also known as "Vanmore", and is faced with many of the same challenges that Squamish is faced with. A massive influx of seasonal visitors due to proximity to a large city and an international airport. Many of those visitors choosing to "camp" in their vehicles. Also, extreme housing prices which force many local workers to live in their vehicles while working full time.
The primary issue here is the disparity between the definitions for what constitutes members of the community. Council & administrations' role is to represent the interests of the community, ultimately to support all members of the community. To work towards an equal opportunity community regardless of socioeconomic status.
There is a major risk in Squamish (as it is in Canmore) that these bylaws and administrative direction continue to lean hard in the direction of disparity. Of funding infrastructure which produces a gated community structure heavily favoring individuals who were privileged enough to afford to purchase property in the past, or afford the absurd rents representing property values in the area. Further, there are not nearly enough reasonable camping options in the valley to offset the demand for access to this limited and valuable resource that is Squamish.
Squamish is home to one of the most historic, accessible, desirable, and impressive testpieces of outdoor recreation in Canada - if not all of North America outside of Yosemite. This is a prized resource that belongs to all members of the Squamish community, whether they be permanent landowners, renters, van dwellers, or visitors. All come to Squamish for the same purpose. To gatekeep this resource to the wealthy few goes directly against Canadian Values, and further towards what amounts to socioeconomic "apartheid" - where the wealthy gain wealth and the less fortunate are shut out.
I urge the City of Squamish to shun policy that further entrenches these socioeconomic divides in the community, and seek out policy which is inclusive, supportive, and represents the needs of ALL community members, no matter what their socioeconomic status.
Beverly Carson May 20, 2021, 10:03 PM (3 years ago)
Who will b policing all this who willdo the cleanup
Thomasina Pidgeon May 20, 2021, 1:55 PM (3 years ago)
In short, Council ignored the 83 distinct letters advocating for inclusive policy (ie: Permit System or Safe Lot/ affordable campground) for both vehicle residents and the more vulnerable homeless population who refuse shelters and/or consider vehicles homes.
We are extremely disappointed that the letters and advocacy work for inclusive policy for vehicle residents went 100% unacknowledged. Meanwhile the stigmatic comments regarding fear around homeless people and tent cities were catered too.
This policy loops too many people into the same bucket and ignores the concerns relating to vehicle residents, which is a separate concern from homeless encampments.
Despite the “intention” to target “visitors,” we have serious concerns with the enforcement policy. Officer initiated enforcement based on observation of behaviour, congregation and unsightliness is direct seeking, surveillance and targeting of anyone sleeping/staying in their vehicles. This criteria is too broad and is open for discrimination and judgement. The language of the policy doesn't distinguish between travellers living in vehicles and year round residents choosing vehicles as a home, nor those folks living in vehicles who are "homeless" in the traditional sense and in need of support.
Either way, this is an exclusionary piece of policy which outlaws anyone who considers and/or needs a vehicle as a home.
The District of Squamish must to do better.
Mike Schlock May 20, 2021, 7:38 AM (3 years ago)
This is a cosmetic repair only and DOES NOT actually address ANY OF OUR CONCERNS.
Joann Daffern May 19, 2021, 10:57 PM (3 years ago)
NO! I believed that The District Camping Bylaw was to protect our forests, waters and land.
Now I'm seeing that it is for more affordable "HOUSING".
Please stop this insanity. Our town needs time to catch up to the growth it has being going through this past 6 years.
As a long time resident of this little bit of haven on earth, we all need some time to breath.
No one has commented on this page yet.
RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments