Good Luck with that! No amount of constructive criticism by the folks at large (who are expected to be quiet and just pay their taxes) is going to overcome the established inertia and unwillingness of some of the *deciders* to do a bit of mea culpa and admit that mistakes were made, that some recent decisions should be re-visited and that more educated and reasonable decisions must be made in the future!

The usual response of those who manage (and mis-manage) is always to dismiss criticism as negative interference by the uneducated and misinformed!

The AAP is the tool of choice for city council. Why, because it is solely driven by the citizens of PG. It is because of this the city is able to move (pet) mega projects through with little to no opposition or discussion. Until the city looks to actually representing us we will be faced with continued taxes, increase all the while getting less and less services provided.

“the City currently has to pay about $16 million a year in “debt servicing costs” (on a city debt of about $100 million).”

Yes, that is likely the foigure to pay down PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.

The interest alone on $100 million is likely around 4% since the money is lent from the Municipal Finance Authority.

Current rates vary depending on the application.

[url]http://www.mfa.bc.ca/marketrates.htm[/urtl]

4% on $100 million/year is $4million which would go a long way to paying for road maintenance.

BUT, in the meantime, we would not have those facilities.

I am not sure how long it would take to not build anything until we have the debt paid off. 10 years or so?

And then we have to start saving for the infrastructure we have to build to service the city.

It is certainly possible to do. In the end, it would save us the $4million per year.

Waht does $4 million mean in the bigger scheme of things? I believe we have a combined operating and capital budget of around $200 million/year.

So, it might save us around 2%. So, over the ten years, our taxes should drop on average about 0.2% per year.

That’s my rough calculation. Maybe someone else has a better one.

Thanks for informing us Peter. We as current residents often are quick to blame current council and Mayor but forget about the decisions made in the past.

With that said, its nice to know that our current group continues the poor trend of ill-informed or willing neglect of managing city finances.

But in all honesty, what would people expect? It seems like all we hear about are people of this province and Canada swimming in debt in their personal lives. Is it unreasonable to think that the people we elect to serve us are also going to display the same tendencies to financial management as the norm?

Does PG municipal government have a (wait for it) byWAYS and MEAN-Streets committee?

I guess saving for a rainy day is just a quaint memory from the last century, as is living within one’s means and doing without.

Okay, so you are in a jam (sugar and fruit). Where is the pectin?

Financial planning takes planning. Where is the plan? Fiscal management not only has to make reasonable priorities a reality, also tough but rational decisions. Any kid who has played Sim-City on a computer can tell you that there are certain essential line-items that cannot be chronically ignored before the whole thing starts falling apart. There is a tipping point of neglect that cannot recover the status quo, a point where something has to change radically. It sounds like PG is approaching that point.

Radical change sounds scary, eh?!

Valemount recently reduced their speed limit from 50 km to 40 km for concern about public safety (with a 30km zone in the shopping area). At first I thought they were nuts, but it appears to be working well. I offer that if PG did something similar the slower speeds would extend the service life of the roads, and might well result in unintended outcomes such as reduced ICBC rates reflecting the realized reduced frequency and severity of in town acciDENTS. Over time I expect there would be a reduction of road rage, and pedestrian injuries. I project the reduced speed limit would likely have a positive effect on public transit ridership, especially if the speed limit remained 50km for public transit and licensed taxis.

On the “stick” side of the motivation ledger, non-compliance could contribute financially to the filling of pot-holes by offenders paying their fines. After all, my circular logic comes full circle if we can assume that speed is a factor in the pot-hole continuum.

If the speed limit were reduced then bicycle use would increase with the increased sense of public safety, and perhaps, just perhaps small electric cars would not be uncommon or golf carts like in Patrick McGoohan’s 1960’s TV series, The Prisoner could be made street-legal.

Maybe, just maybe the taxpayer could turn out to be the elusive “#1”.

There are ways to stop the maddness. First the City has to back off on these mega projects, then the Province and City has to work to-gether and channel some money into infrastructure rather than Wood Innovation Buildings that serve no useful purpose. Thats just one suggestion.. There are many others.

So first things first. Sign the petition to force the City to go to referendum on the huge expenditure on a dike that may or may not work. In fact it there are sufficient petitions signed to force the referendum, I would suggest that the City drop the project.

If they want to go to a referendum, then maybe they should put their jobs on the line if it fails. Remember that this Council refused us a referendum because of the cost. Ie; $70,000.00. If the petition gets the signatures, the cost of a referendum remains. Should the City then go forward with it???

This petition is as much about the taxing policies of the City of Prince George, and the spending policies, as it is about a dike, and the City should take note, that taxpayers have had it with continual increases, with little or no benefits.

There was a huge message sent to the Provincial Government when people won the HST referendum. The message was quit jacking us with tax increases. It seems that the message did not get through as they are still assessing the tax, even though they lost the referendum. This is a blatant disregard for the democratic process, and these people can not be rewarded for ignoring our demands. To re-elect the Liberals would be the end of democracy as we know it.

I suggest that every riding run an independent candidate so at the very least we will have a third option to vote for, and we can send a message to the established parties that the **game** is over.

Have a nice day.