Hum, how do the ladies get to town when on passes, is there bus service in the area, or I know they can hitch hike on the highway of tears. (just saying)
Rehabilitation to me means being able to learn to live back in the community without having to resort to ones old ways. Tiny steps.

At least the building would be used for a good purpose

And the saga continues

This is about the wine and cheese crowd scratching each other’s back at the expense of the taxpayer.

This school and the property belong to the Haldi road residents. If the school is not feasible now it should remain dormant until it is required. If that is not in the near future, then bulldoze it and leave a community park and recreational area. That can remain the home of any school, that would be needed in the future.

If you want ALL residents to respect the neighbourhoods where they reside, then stop acting like the infrastructure is available to promote PC projects for non-residents.

There is bus service, the stop is maybe 200 meters away if that.
The school was not vacant until the proponents bought it. It was sold and converted to a private residence after it was closed. When that residence came up for sale and was sold, the group that bought it was planning on opening a rehab center without any talk with the local neighbours – they had to find out at a garage sale being held by the former residents. No research into the infrastructure. Did not have their zoning in place before gutting the building.
I don’t think that the city and proponents realized just how hard this neighbourhood would fight to protect their identity – they thought that it would be a pushover. Also goes to show us how much respect mayor and council have for the OCP which they seem to think is just a ‘guideline’ and not the legal document that it is.

This fight is no longer about a women rehab center – it is about the city amending the OCP whenever it suits investors. I should mention that Fehr is one of the owners – he is accusing Bell of not keeping a backdoor promise. Makes one wonder how many more deals Fehr has made with local politicians?

One also has to question what this will amendment will allow in the future when this proposed center no longer treats women. Does it open up the door to a halfway house with no further zoning amendments? Senior home? Youth home? Not against any of them in my neighbourhood, but I also live in town. An institute for 30 people just doesn’t fit into the middle of a rural neighbourhood comprised of primarily single family dwellings.

Too many questions unanswered to allow this amendment to go through. City hall should squash this now and start from the beginning.

NIMBY…if I found out that someone was putting a huge sewer lagoon, which this will need with 30 residents, staff, and small commercial activities (they said they were going to run a small bakery, etc), in my neighbourhood I would oppose it.

This facility will need huge amounts of water, not just for the occupents and the commercial activities but to maintain the fire sprinkler system they have to have.

They have said they are going to truck it in. That’s a lot of semis going up and down a rough narrow gravel road. The number of trucks double when the road bans go on as those roads go to 50%. I would oppose that too if it was being proposed for my residential neighbourhood.

The problem is that we won’t be able to oppose this in any neighbourhoods if the City passes their changes to the OCP. This is like pre-approving all this to happen in ANY neighbourhood in this city. They won’t have to consult anyone.

I can see this being in the courts for some time with the city being on the losing end if the residents continue to retain the services of Mr Stewart.

I think the change to the OCP will be struck down based on inadequate public hearings. The local government act states:

“(3) At the public hearing all persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed bylaw must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the bylaw that is the subject of the hearing.”

Was the public notice for the meeting at Vanway school written in such a way so that residents of Lakewood, Blackburn or the Hart would realize that their neighbourhood could be affected? Doubtful? Was one meeting enough for a major chance to the OCP? Definitely not!

One of the letters to city hall states that the water truck will not even be able to make it to the Residential Property for three months a year when the road restrictions are on. They must be installing BIG cisterns.

If they are willing to have this kind of authority, why waste the time and money to even have a OCP. The OCP, is in place to ensure all investors residential, commercial to follow the same plan.

This provides to the investors in the area a bit of stability on their investment, both on the residential and commercial investors.

This authoritive change capacity also stabs its on city employees in the back, in the sense they are given a set of guidlines (OCP) but the council than starts making exceptions for their buddies.

I am not saying you can not make changes to the OCP, I am saying their is due process. We have to follow it, so should council and Mayor.

Exactly He spoke.

If the city won’t follow the OCP, or keeps amending it, then why even have one? Why have a planning department? Might as well get rid of the OCP and planning department altogether and throw that money saved into our roads.

The City does not have a planning department anymore. They do not have a City Manager, they have no planners to speak of.

They are all juniors assumning the position, and it ain’t a pretty one they are assuming.

“follow the $$$$$$$$$$”

We all have been doing that … out of the taxpayers’ pockets into corporate PG’s pockets, assisted by the people we elect on false pretenses.

What does anyone really expect coming from the likes of Green, Stolz, and the rest of council with the exception of Brian.
As voters we have re-invented the Peter principal in electing the most incompetent council imaginable. Hopefully next time around our memories will not have disappeared when it comes time to put an “X” on the ballot.

The way this has been handled, right from the beginning, stinks. I do not live in that neighborhood, but I completely support what they have been doing.
Can more signatures still be added to the petition? If so, where is it? I will gladly sign, and will try to be at the hearing on Monday.

I see that IPG is still in the headhunting business and are attending a job fair in Toronto in early April. Maybe they could branch out a little from trades to the executive side and find us a REAL City Manager.

Its time for the residents of Haldi Road to look for a house next to the Mayors and turn it into a receiving home for the people that graduate from the program. As the Mayor sees no problem with this treatment center in your neighbourhood then she would not have a problem with her new neighbors as they would be only there a short time till the next group comes. This might apply to some of the other elected officials or owner of the property just pick one or two and purchase and return favor as a group. Cost less than the value of all your property will drop. Just an idea

L&M has put a 400 page report sewerage system approval process into the agenda for the Public Hearing. Attached to this is the assesment roll and title search for the property dated Nov.2011. What is conveniently missing from the reportis the covenant. On Dec. 2, 2011 a covenant along with priority agreement was put on the Title to the property in regards to the water well.

In order to get it right,the developer in the new application to city is asking for MORE CHANGES

In the new application to City for December 2012 : it reads

Section 219 Restrictive Covenant

A condition of the previous rezoning application was the registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant

which specified that the property may only be used for a community care facility if the building was disconnected from all wells and connected to water storage cisterns. To date, this covenant is still registered on the title of the subject property.Document Number: 252162

The current Section 219 Restrictive Covenant includes reference to the Z16: Therapeutic Community

comprehensive zone and a community care facility, major use.

As the application has been amended to propose a site specific amendment to the AR2 zone, and the AR2 zone does not allow for community care

facility, major use, the Department recommends that the covenant be replaced with a new covenant that

reflects the current zoning proposal.

Furthermore,

the Department recommends the new covenant include wording that restricts the subdivision of the subject property.

The subdivision regulations of the current AR2 zone require any new lots created meet a

minimum lot width of 70.0 m and a minimum lot area of 2.0 ha. As the area of the subject property is 4.03 ha,

there is the potential to subdivide the lot into two. To ensure the proposed use is limited to just one facility,

restricting the subdivision of the parcel is necessary.

The Department recommends that Final Reading be withheld until the existing Section 219 Restrictive

Covenant has been removed from title and replaced with a new Section 219 Restrictive Covenant that i)

specifies that the property may only be used for a community care facility, minor or community care facility,

therapeutic if the building is disconnected from all wells and connected to water storage cisterns, and ii)

restricts the subdivision of the subject property.

Without regard to the merits of the dispute, it is a mistake to think that the proponents are all members of the “wine and cheese” crowd. I have friends among the proponents who do not fall into that category by any means. Their view is that this should not have been a big deal and that the opposition to it is based on false negative stereotypes of downtrodden women, a group with which they have personal ties.

Billposer – As educated as you may think some are, then look at the facts of the land use issues which none of the proponents have stuck to.

Your position is biased and uneducated on the residents of the Haldi area. Some residents of the area also work with and know “downtrodden women” and yes, even a few have been there……

You see that is one of the problems with the proponents – they have never done any effective communication with the neighborhood.

Nobody knows a neighbourhood better than the people that live in the neighbourhood expecially to those that hold there own water and sewer. Big backers of big businesses and their commitments and ties to the city elite trying to push there way into residential neighbourhoods. IMO too many changes and concerns still after 2 years. The # company should have done there homework first before leasing agreements were signed. The investors sure have put everyone involved in a very precarious situation. Sadly, nothing seems right about the whole thing and the women needing help are waiting.

billposer – it might be a noble idea to help out the women, no one is disputing that fact. The fact that the OCP amendment plus the rezoning of the subject property opens up the door to an institute of any kind in the future is the major issue. The OCP amendment alone affects the entire city.
If their view is that it shouldn’t have been such a big deal, then why didn’t they approach the neighbourhood first with their plans? Why did they have to find out at a garage sale?
Many of the area residents have friends and family with addictions – they also have personal ties.
The city keeps comparing PG to cities down south – if that is the case, then why didn’t they follow the procedures used in other cities? Where the recovery centers have agreements with local neighbourhoods, meetings held more than once a year involving local politicians, police, neighbours, etc.
This whole thing was mishandled from the very start – like I said, squash it now and start from the beginning.

To bad the city website does not show you the mayor and council financial contributors are from the last election. The largest donor to Lynn Hall was one of the owners of the property. I see that the other rag just announced Conflict of interest hiccup hits regional district
posted: February 28,2013

If my memory serves me correct – Green was questioned and Krause, there were also others running for council that were helped by Smith were there not….

HappyInMyWorld….as you seem to know some of the details could you tell us what the sewage report says…in less that 400pgs. Has this been approved by Northern Health? Or will there be backroom deals there too for the approval to go through?

Here is the link
L&M Engineering Sewerage System Approval Process

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_03_04/index.html

guesswhat:

The information was available on the city website at one time. I checked the internet archive but the relevant pages were not saved, could only find Fetterly’s.

Here is a O250 story concerning the mayor’s campaign contributions.

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/23668/1/green's+campaign+most+expensive+ever

IMO it seems Marshall Smith (who was forced to leave but somehow still is learking in the background) made a lot of promises in his wake and now NSRW has been left to pick up the pieces.

The city is having a public hearing and invites everyone interested to see them ram this thing down the Haldi Rd residents throats. That’s nice!

The subject is not about the women shelter for most of the residences of Prince George. It is about the way the city council is handling the situation.

obviously it has been proven by court that it mishandled it the first time around, so wouldn’t it be prudent for the council to handle this with greater care and attention than ever before, instead of finding a sneaky way to get it approved.

Gus.
I was thinking about you reference to Hitler and the objective to get elected at any cost and I immediately thought of this quote from Pastor Martin Neimoller

“First they came for the socialists,and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not
speak out be cause I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Pastor Martin NeiNeimoller

To me it’s the old standard of divide and conquer. I believe that the good folks on Haldi Road are more organized then the people involved with the B.K. Bottle depot. Who is next? Perhaps it’s Blackburn or the Hart or wherever people seem the most vulnerable. This isn’t just about Haldi Road it’ s about you and your neighbourhood. If you give permission to Queen Green and her Goof Troops to do what they want, when they want and who they want to do it to then you have no one to blame but yourselves if they come for you.

In the words of Margaret Meade:

“Never doubt that a small number of people can change the world,
indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

Anyone interested in putting a stop to this nonsense of the city amending the OCP to accommodate an investor, bulldozing their way into the neighborhood with the assistance of mayor and council should attend the meeting on Monday, Mar. 4th at 7:00 pm to voice their concerns and tell City Council “Enough is Enough”…..scrap this deal and start over. This time do it RIGHT!! This is not only about Haldi it is about every neighborhood in Prince George. Once this amendment is passed, Queen Green will have free reign over the whole city!

One would have hoped that the Mayor and Council would have had the brains to back away from this issue. It seems they don’t.

I am sure they have seen the recent poll, that basically confirmed the Cities poll, about what people think of the Mayor, Council, and what they are doing.

Its time for them to start to represent all the people of the community, and not just the vested interests.

Will the Mayor be at the public meeting?? She wasn’t at the last one, nor was Stoltz.
Will they show up this time, or hide until the issue is dealt with.

Much like Christy Clark, being absent from the Legislature, when they had to apologize for their multi cultural fiasco.

If ever there was an issue that required our elected council members to stand on their own two feet and defeat a motion,. This is it.

Lets watch this closely and see who votes for and who votes against.

Furthermore lets all make an effort to be at the meeting to send a message (again) to council that we DO NOT approve of this type of bullying.

Maybe they think we are just going to roll over like they thought with the diking proposal. Well, we have to stand together to show them our displeasure at another bully move by them.

Count me in and where is the petition I would like to sign. I will be at city hall at 7:00 pm on monday March 4th PRECICELY. Ps. could you have a petition to sign at the door? This looks good on our Haldi road citizens–break a neck!

City changing bylaws like their playing the game of ping pong

**FIRST APPLICATION TO CITY REZONING WAS AMENDED AND ADOPTED FROM AR2 TO A NEW Z16**

History:

Rezoning Application No. RZ100387, Bylaw No.8362

Bylaw No. 8362 was adopted by Council on December 12, 2011. The Bylaw rezoned the subject property from

AR2: Rural Residential to Z16: Therapeutic Community to allow for the operation of therapeutic community

care facility.

Following the adoption of the Bylaw, a legal challenge was filed against it. On August 17, 2012, the Supreme

Court of British Columbia ruled that Bylaw No. 8362 was invalid and quashed as inconsistent with the Official

Community Plan Bylaw No. 7281, 2001.

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011

On June, 25, 2012, Council adopted Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw No. 8383, 2011. OCP Bylaw No.

8383, 2011 supercedes the previous OCP Bylaw No.7281, 2001

**SECOND APPLICATION TO CITY.REQUESTING REZONING BACK TO AR2 FROM Z16 (eliminating completely in its entirety the Z16 zoning)**

Section 219 Restrictive Covenant

A condition of the previous rezoning application was the registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant

which specified that the property may only be used for a community care facility if the building was

disconnected from all wells and connected to water storage cisterns. To date, this covenant is still registered

on the title of the subject property.Document Number: 252162

The current Section 219 Restrictive Covenant includes reference to the Z16: Therapeutic Community

comprehensive zone and a community care facility, major use. As the application has been amended to

propose a site specific amendment to the AR2 zone, and the AR2 zone does not allow for community care

facility, major use, the Department recommends that the covenant be replaced with a new covenant that

reflects the current zoning proposal.

Furthermore, the Department recommends the new covenant include wording that restricts the subdivision of

the subject property. The subdivision regulations of the current AR2 zone require any new lots created meet a

minimum lot width of 70.0 m and a minimum lot area of 2.0 ha. As the area of the subject property is 4.03 ha,

there is the potential to subdivide the lot into two. To ensure the proposed use is limited to just one facility,

restricting the subdivision of the parcel is necessary.

The Department recommends that Final Reading be withheld until the existing Section 219 Restrictive

Covenant has been removed from title and replaced with a new Section 219 Restrictive Covenant that i)

specifies that the property may only be used for a community care facility, minor or community care facility,

therapeutic if the building is disconnected from all wells and connected to water storage cisterns, and ii)

restricts the subdivision of the subject property.

Look at Friday free for all for link to the petition!