I think you are right about it being overdue, but the letters and rebuttals I read on that website indicated there is a cat and mouse game going on as to what the investment group and the citizens' groups will settle on.
The investment groups have held to their desire to develop a 7000 bed resort. They have used such deceptive buzz words as 'boutique', and tried to compare it to the development at Whistler.
...They think they are talking to a bunch of FOOLS!!! No one with any sense whatsoever will ever think that a 7000 bed facility is 'boutique'. Everyone realizes that an establishment of this size has a considerable impact on the enviroment at subalpine levels, with potentially devastating impacts on high alpine environments. It is all about these guys thinking they can 'CON' the peoples' government into letting them make a BIG bundle of money selling real estate they don't currently own; to wealthy enthusiasts, as a status symbol. There isn't a soul in Canada who can make a good arguement that this site has any comparisons with the coastal, low elevation developments at Whistler.
What I am hoping to see is a counter proposal with about half the bed base, and no private real estate available. That would put all skiers on the same 'footing' in having access to this unique area. Their wording in the rebuttal letters indicate they are willing to compromise, but they are trying to hold fast to the idea of getting a quick return on their investment in the form of selling publicly owned real estate to private individuals for exhorbitant prices. That is not necessary!
Sunshine Village has proven there is a growing trend in the number of people who will patronize a ski area without the enormous real estate developments; and if properly operated, can be very profitable.
I find the Jumbo Glaciers to be no less valuable than the already protected areas of the national parks. ...This doesn't come down to just human impact, but the issue does revolve around the question of human impact for the sake of GREED.