First you hear the people in the hart complain that all the development is out west, now you hear them complain that there is proposed development in their area. As for the displacement of wildlife.. I am sure there was some where you and the surrounding houses where built M Bolduc..but that’s okay but this isn’t, and why is that ?

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I had heard that some of the land they’re developing is currently greenbelt. I’d be upset too if the greenbelt behind me was being changed by the city so that L&M Engineering can develop it and build more houses.

A city is not very good habitat for wildlife. A city is designed to be habitat for people. People need houses, places to work, services, transport systems, etc.

The forest is designed to be habitat for wildlife. Wildlife require food, other animals of their own kind, a place to live and breed and a place where there are no people.

A city is a city and the forest is the forest. If you want to live among wild animal, move to the forest.

I’m just envious of Margaret Bolduc for seeing a cougar. I’ve seen lots of wildlife but I’ve never seen a cougar in the wild.

The intersection of Austin Road and Dawson Road is NOT a 4-way stop.

NO to this proposed subdivision.

Billposer I have seen a few at Otway but they were wearing crozz country skis ;)

Cross country skis too :)

The font on the diagram is way too small, can anyone read the key?

I wish opinion250 would provide a link to a larger image for these types of things.

“First you hear the people in the hart complain that all the development is out west” .. a subdivision is not development that is positive for a neighbourhood, all it does is add to the congestion and overtax an already over taxed infrastructure.
Streetwise2 … are you serious? Where do you think all the citys all over the world came from? You think they were all here at creation? No, people had to displace other creatures to make thier homes and shops. To simplify it like you have is certainly an unrealistic approach at the issue.

Why? More infrastructure, more services yet no one is moving here…..

Who are they planning these houses for? Are we actually, really expecting an increase in population anytime soon? I swear the city keeps approving new subdivisions because ‘housing starts’ are used as a measure of success and that is the goal.

While there are regular proposals of new business made public, virtually none come to fruition, so the population of PG is NOT growing. I don’t get it, but I certainly don’t want to pay for it either! Developer beware, do it completely on your own dime, don’t be asking for any city contributions to roads, sewers, water, lighting etc. We can’t afford you!

I do not see a spot of a substance abuse recovery centre. Now is the time to locate one while there is no one living there yet.

Vocer has it right.

Why do they need a new subdivision on the Hart. Will it be serviced properly by the City. The City cannot afford to provide water, sewer, and snow removal, paving, etc; for the present residents, how will they service this new sub or the old ones for that matter, if they dont get their act to-gether.

Dont for one minute dispute the wildlife in the area, they are there and have been there forever, including the Cougers. Wildlife is seen all the time through that area right up to and including Hoffercamp Road, and the pulp mill sites.

Do we need more sub divisions?? We have under utilized ones at Lower College Heights, big ones going in at University Heights, Tynor Blvd, we still have approx 130 sites available to be serviced at Aberden Glen, around the golf course, and I beleive another one on the books for the area around Foothills North where the **new** Golf Course was supposed to go in.

In any event if it gets the go ahead, I suspect it will take many many years (if ever) before they have many houses built on it, unless the plan is to build cheaper houses and pull the business away from other areas.

Link to the report which has the plans in them

http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_01_21/documents/BL8439_8440_rpt_MERGED.pdf

Palopu, I agree completely with what you are saying. I hadn’t thought of what it could cost the City to service all those lots, all the while our current infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading/replacing. Good point.

That area of PG is pretty much wild all the way from the Nechako River and it gets a lot of wildlife. Why interrupt that route for wildlife to the river? Do they not have the same rights to the river and bush as we do?

It is a beautiful area of town – nicer than the land out west – but please don’t ruin it with more of those stupid subdivision developments that rip out all the vegatation, including trees, and put in houses which are about 3 feet apart. If that area is to be developed, it should be for 5 and 10 acre lots. That would be the best way to develop that area. Then wildlife and people could co-exist happily.

Wasn’t there a huge residential development supposed to go in across the river from ft george park a few years ago? Seems to me I remember a few of the local realtors selling off speculation lots over there, also up behind the university and accessed from highway 16 west, those already even had the roads planned out and named, but as far as I know it is all still bush.

This is not the time for any new residential subdivision development in ANY area of our city right now. The costs will far outweigh the revenues that will be received. Unless we are just trying to provide jobs and revenue for L&M, I see no reason for more development, given the amount of empty lots we have, and the financial mess this city is in.

They started a sub division at the north end of Foothills ages ago. The roads are paved, power is in but that’s it. Why not finish it?

And just where will the displaced wildlife go when their regular food supply has vanished? Maybe we will seen more deer and moose crossing the highway or making their way down to the golf course, maybe we will see the bears start heading towards the school or down towards Inverness which already has many reported bear problems. A rough count shows that there will be over one hundred homes with backyards on the greenbelt more than enough for a curious bear. What happened to all the pre election talk about the serious need for “Infill” in the city, this does not seem to me to be infill. One truth about the Hart, winter is at least one month longer and it may have the greatest amount of snowfall every winter. With an already difficult to manage snow removal budget does anyone really think this is a good idea. The name L&M seems to popping up on a regular basis lately..makes me wonder.

Agree with other posters here. There is tons of inventory of houses for sale right now in addition to new subdivisions/not completed subdivisions…..hey Council, maybe for once tell L&M “no” – I know you can do it, have heard you say it to your taxpaying citizens time and again.

Further, if this new subdivision does need sewer I hope hundreds of other home owners scream and shout – the ones that have been waiting for city sewer for more than 30 years.

Nuffsnuff: yes, I recall that. Makes one speechless, actually.

If the price of the lots, (if the city collects that money), and the tax levys on those properties cover all the costs for development and future upkeep and maintenence, enough to be self sustaining, well sure then go ahead but if those costs constitute added taxes to all the rest of us, I would say no to it. We already cannot afford what we have here. The remaining city costs are going to continue to go up and up and pretty soon people will start leaving to other more affordable places.

I wonder why Ms Green would be in such a rush to completely sink this city?

I don’t get it (or maybe I do and just don’t like it)

How can a city with a static or declining population continue to expand outward and stretch our limited resources even further?

How can a new subdivision be cost effective while existing, city serviced lots in approved developments sit empty because the market is too soft to support development?

When will this city hall accept a leadership role and start to follow the urban redevelopment principles established elsewhere instead of being led by the nose by short-sighted, profit-for-self land developers?

How is it that the total cost to the taxpayer community (schools, fire halls, ambulance, transit, snow removal, sewage tratment, water supply, power lines, gaslines, telephone and cable service etc.) is not required to be identified and reconciled by the proponents and City Hall? All of these costs come out of the same taxpayers’ and consumers’ pockets; not just the costs of the City.

The development model of the 60s and 70s supporting suburban sprawl needs to be overhauled. It is at least 50 years out of date.

Something else just occured to me while looking at the area, is this not getting very close to waters which feed Mcmillan Creek a salmon being waterway?

Honestjoe:
My apoligies, you are absolutely correct, the Dawson-Austin road stop is not 4 way, I don’t know what I was thinking ( or not thinking) when I wrote that. I travel the road often and know better.
I appreciate you pointing out the correction.

Elaine Macdonald

If I remember correctly the land infill for the city in the last OCP maps did not have Phase 1 & 2 on the map. I cannot find the old OCP on the city website any longer. So I assume one would have to go to city hall and pay for it? Since the new (started working on it 2010-2011) OCP shows the phases, I am wondering why, when the first application was done in 2012? So why would the city put it on the OCP map when nothing was passed or presented to city hall?

Another concern is, if the amendment to the OCP goes through, does this allow other rural areas in the city to be able to subdivide into 1 acre lots? The last time I looked no one was allowed to have a one acre lot with 2 septic tanks and larger fields or a lagoon on it. I would not buy there, as I would not want my water source that close to my neighbours/and own septic.

Have new percolation tests been done? One would think that this would be a requirement before taking it to a public hearing. The last tests were done in 2009 and failed considerably….

The proposal sits right on top of a greenbelt and current multiuse trails. I wonder if the developers are going to reconstruct new trails – from the photo it would appear they are relying on the city to foot the bill for that new trail

If this area is developed and families move in, where are the children going to go to school? Glenview is already at maximum with the amalgamation of the students from closing 3 rural schools and there is already concerns with the children walking down Dawson Road with no sidewalks and they are wondering all over the road with cars driving into the school to pick up their children.
And not sure who on the Hart was complaining that all the development was going out West because I, as well as many I spoke with, were very, very happy to live on the Hart and get away from the develoment and chaos out West!

There seems to be a lot of support for this not to proceed,and some very strong arguments have been raised here on O250 maybe we should support Mrs. Bolduc with her conflict with the city. I am not a resident of that area but do live on the Hart and have no complaints about living in this area and like it just the way it is.

Why dont we take our ideas to a council meeting.
Cheers

People can send letters in support of Ms. Bolduc to City Council. Snail mail or emails; whatever it takes.

“If this area is developed and families move in, where are the children going to go to school”

And what will happen to the school when all the families grow older, stay there, and the school closes due to lack of children?

Recovery centre …… people could then move into the subdivision and walk to the centre every day for counselling and re-training.

We need a ratepayers’ association that can advocate for neighbourhoods the same way as PACHA used to advocate for air quality.

Oh, and of course, also advocate for financial prudence in planning and infrastructure development.

So how do you think city hall would listen to a ratepayers’ association when they do not listen to the people now?

Third reading has already passed. Do ya think city is going to listen to anyone now? LOL

This is poor planning by the city. Its a windfall for L&M that buy cheep land and reclassify it to make a nice flip. No wonder L&M is up to their ears at city hall.

This development would be a travesty for wild life in the Hart. Everyone in the area knows wildlife uses this corridor to travel the McMillan watershed.. which was suppose to be protected and parkland.

I live not far from it and I can say we have a lot of septic issues in the hart with some streets having city sewer and others on septic… changing from block to block. On my street many a house has had septic failure with some houses on their third septic field… the cities response has always been to go stuff it unless every resident on the street is willing to pay $20,000 minimum up front to cover the cost of bringing in city sewer… meanwhile I pay $2600 a year in city taxes on top of the utility bill that will include snow removal now as well… but not even the most basic city service in sewer hook ups.

If they can not service existing houses in the neighborhood and the Hart in general with city sewer, then this project should not go ahead. At least in college heights they all have city sewer and the new developments include city sewer already serviced to lots that have sat dormant for years now.

IMO the Hart should separate from the City of PG and use its property tax dollars to bring proper city services to the Hart.

“So how do you think city hall would listen to a ratepayers’ association when they do not listen to the people now?”

Right now the people are not unified. Haldie Rd. threw the City for a loop. Totally unexpected I would think.

A ratepayers association would be able to work with the strength of its membership to keep pushing the City at every unreasonable turn they make. It will be able to do work to build the knowledge and the skills required to battle city hall and retain that knowledge rather than it being lost by individuals repeating the same thing over and over again.

If successful, it will become an advocacy group which will be difficult to ignore.

http://taxpayer.com/node/13685

Eagleone said: “If they can not service existing houses in the neighborhood and the Hart in general with city sewer, then this project should not go ahead. At least in college heights they all have city sewer and the new developments include city sewer already serviced to lots that have sat dormant for years now. “

To me, that sums it up. No way that new developments IN the the city, should have to be on septic tanks/fields/lagoons, even if the lot size is sufficient. Further, the area is part of natural drainage serving MacMillan Creek, of course there are plenty of existing properties with residential development all along the creek proper, right up to the beginning of the creek, all of which are within city limits.
Despite the precedent of existing residential properties, I don’t think allowing more development along this drainage to a fish bearing stream would be a wise decision.
metalman.

Scap the subdivision and build some more shopping facilities. People on the Hart have to drive all the way downtown or to the city of PG in College Heights to buy a 2×4 and some gaunch.

The only way (IMO) for the city of Prince George to grow is to patiently wait for the “big one” to happen around Vancouver and Victora. Not if but when. Vernon, Penticton and Kelowna are gonna be wringing out wet rags for water in about ten years if they keep growing the way they are now. When Richmond gets shaken so much and sinks into the SILT, methinks all the cheap land up here will be bought up. Presto! Infill, more people and prices to make any developer proud.

Metalman and olddog:

Too bad Mayor Green and company axed the entire Environmental department seconds after getting elected……counter to her election promises and prior to the core review beginning.

bcnorth:
Yeah it is too bad, I suppose the City now hires out any environmental assessment work that is absolutely required, if any.
Contractor doing assessment would toe the line; i.e. not report anything controversial, if they hope or expect to be hired again.
Rubber stamp to development plans?????

The points expressed above are correct, there is currently plenty of developed but unused, or underused subdivision capacity within the city already. At least wait until there are signs of an increased population for P.G. before allowing more, and more development of subdivisions. Said unnecessary developments are only proposed by people hoping to cash in on opportunities. Ordinarily I would say fair game to naked ambition, but not in this case. And by the way, I do not live anywhere near the valley sub. area.
metalman.