No Promises for Pine Valley
Monday, April 22, 2013 @ 6:59 PM
Prince George, B.C. –With seven people in the delegation and just 10 minutes to make a presentation, the presenters noted right off the top this was the 3rd time in two years that they have been before Council asking that Council save Pine Valley and not sell if off for commercial development .
“It’s better you hear from the horses mouths, than continually from the other end of the horse” said Don Chamberlain as he lead off the presentation calling for Council to abandon plans to sell off the Pine Valley golf course.
Chamberlain reminded council that most of the land in this area had been donated to the City for the benefit of residents . He asked if Council was acting in accordance to the intent of those donations.
There are 298 vacant pieces of commercially zoned property in Prince George, and Chamberlain says the city’s own studies have indicated the demand for commercially zoned property will be about 19 hectares over the next 15 years.
The Core Services Review suggests selling off the Pine Valley Golf Course could generate between $10 and $17 million dollars.
Representatives from user groups, including seniors and youth, told Council the course is a positive course for beginners, is not too strenuous for older joints, and not too tough for those just learning. One by one they stepped forward to talk about the ease of access, close to schools, a green space that is worth keeping, easily playable which encourages youth to succeed. The course is also credited with being a therapeutic for those recovering from illness or injury as it is easy to walk.
Chamberlain says if Council should decide to defeat a motion to sell the golf course, “The community will applaud that decision.” He said the old adage “Golf is a good walk spoiled is true, but it is still a good walk.”
When Council receives the report on the possibility of selling Pine Valley, it will be dealt with in a closed session because it is a real estate matter. Director of Planning, Ian Wells says he expects that report will likely be presented to Council in a closed session in early June.
The closed session idea didn’t sit well with Councillor Brian Skakun, “I understand it has to initially be looked at behind closed doors, but I look forward to when that item can come back to open Council with an explanation on why we have decided to keep it or sell it.”
Mayor Green noted the sale of Pine Valley as a Core Review item has been supported by Council in a vote of 8-1, “Whatever council decides, you know if we were to decide that we’re not going to put Pine Valley up for sale, that doesn’t preclude a future Council from considering that decision. So this Council has made a commitment to he Core review and this was advanced by Council 8-1 to proceed with this conversation as a piece of opportunity around the land.” She noted she is welcome to spending more time with those who want to offer feedback on this item “We need to have it before we make our decision.”
Comments
Seems to me that it was the Mayor who brought up the question of selling Pine Valley at the Core Review meeting. It was after she brought up the subject that the KPMG representative noted it in his notebook.
So that’s how it got on the Core Review agenda. At that meeting the Mayor was asked why she was making suggestions to the Core Review meeting, when it was a public meeting. She stated something to the effect that she was just trying to get some dialogue going.
So. Who in the City other than the Mayor and some Councilors actually want to sell this property.???
âWhatever council decides, you know if we were to decide that weâre not going to put Pine Valley up for sale, that doesnât preclude a future Council from considering that decision”
On the flip side, if you do decide to sell it, you pretty much handcuff the city from EVER being able to use that piece of property for strategic community development. Oh right, in PG a car lot is considered a strategic community development . . .
Very, very few people want this property sold. In reality, Craig Wood needs this property. I’ll let the rest of you connect the dots… :(
Time for people to stand up and be counted.
If we do nothing we will all be big losers.
Selling off assets, and then building new assets at a later date, may be good business for business’s and contractors, however it is a huge cost to taxpayers.
If the City is broke, its time they stood up and became responsible, and then looked seriously at reducing costs, as opposed to selling the ranch.
Wasn’t this land given to the City by the Federal Government to be used as recreational only.
I want it sold. City should not be in the golf business, we have plenty of those already.
Sheri’s legacy as Mayor will not be a positive one. If she instigated this herself, as a previous post suggests, she is in breach of the contract she promised us before the election. I think it had something to do with the “a voice for people of Prince George”.
This information should be broadcast on every radio station in PG.
Stay in China next trip Sheri.
She IS a conflict………….
Not sure why Shari isn’t considering moving the cemetery for about $10 million and selling the property for $1 million…..oh, and adding pay parking at the new cemetery.
Shhhh, don’t give her any ideas!!
It isn’t surprising our mayor wants to sell pine valley seeing one of the key people on her campaign team, her financial manager also happened to be on the executive of the golf and curling club which is well positioned to benefit from Pine Valley closing.
Which brings up the question as to why Wilbur is taking part in this discussion. As a long time member of the golf and curling club wouldn’t he benefit personally from the closure of Pine Valley? I guess as a lawyer he probably sought expert legal advice and advised himself that no conflict exists.
I doubt the city would be able to sell the golf course for that amount of money. They’ll find a way to botch the sale, like they did the PG Golf & Curling club golf course, multiple times.
Does anyone know the history of the PG golf and curling club? I think the city gave the land to the club for one dollar with the provision that the land reverts back to the city if the club folds or relocates. Is this true?
I’m not a fan of golf to begin with so selling the land IMO is a good idea to get ready cash however that being said the city and council have a long history of making bad money desicions and squandering the money.
Get rid of the land, it should be all commercial anyway. That money will pay for out roads for at least a couple years anyway. I would like to see a big automall there.
Where’s Gus?
So many of you on this site complain continually about potholes and other city maintenance challenges. So why do you want to hang onto a piece of property that generates very little revenue, when it can be sold for a big chunk initially, and then become a very nice commercial tax based revenue source. We have at least two other par 3 courses in the PG area that are privately operated, the city should get out of the golf business and let the private sector have it exclusively. Like Craig Wood or not…once he develops that property and fills it with commercial business, the tax revenue jumps tremendously. I like golf, but I can golf anywhere in town and would rather have good roads instead of a revenue starved piece of property like Pine Valley.
“a revenue starved piece of property”
Can someone please show us a map with all the revenue starved pieces of City poperties.
Once we have that as the negative, can someone identify all the positive values – social, environmental and economic – that those properties provide to the citizens of this community.
I would suggest that those pieces of property which provide the least integrated value to the community be put up for sale first.
In addition, rather than going for a bid type of sale, put a price on the property which reflects the TOTAL value of the property to the community.
BTW, there are no guarantees where any gains made through a sale will be put towards roads.
Also, there are no guarantees that when sold, the property will be developed, when it will be developed, and to what intensity of use it will be developed to maximize the eventual tax and other income to the City.
Let us make this an even playing field between the residents of this city and the business people in this city. We all have to live here.
LMAO ^^^ an even playing field? This council has showed time after time there is no even playing field..They have to go…..
I agree with Gus – there are no guarantees it will be put to the roads..more like the PAC.
In actual fact there is no intention of using this money for roads or other infrastructure.
This is where the problem comes in. People are quick to make decisions based on their own assumptions, which are for the most part incorrect.
The money from the sale of property on Highway 16 West (including the Pine Valley Golf Course) will go to the Capital Projects Fund on an annual basis. This is outlined in a letter to council by the Mayor, and in fact has been passed in a recent bylaw.
So forget about it being used for roads. NOT going to happen.
There is no need to sell off a City asset that is being used by a large number of citizens who pay to use the facility, just to accommodate some business groups, who over time may develop the property and generate some tax dollars. Don’t forget the city gave tax breaks to development downtown, and might do the same for the Pine Valley Property.
Its time for people to look at the big picture, and get rid of the idea, that we as taxpayers are responsible for taking big tax hikes, and revenue hits, to pay for high priced help at City Hall, pay for business that wants nothing but tax breaks at the cost of average citizens.
Tax payers and users of the Pine Valley Golf course over the years have paid for this facility. For all intents and purposes it is a City asset, and should not under any circumstances be sold for short term gain.
Time for the City to **GROW UP**
Interesting that people use the tax base argument for the sale of recreation lands.
I would argue the vast majority of commercial land the city now owns is because the previous owners gave up on PG due to high taxes and the city claimed the land through tax foreclosure. What is it now a third of the downtown properties are city owned?
In a way the Pine Valley situation fits with this scenario… tax revenue is not high enough for council, so irregardless of its social benefit to the community the city wants it so they can be a player in the real estate business on a hope and a prayer it will generate more tax revenue (or a hidden agenda). In the end like all the other pieces of property the city of PG owns it will become derelict for years generating no revenue and no social value to the community.
IMO the city of PG is the biggest slum lord in town, so unless they have a concrete plan they can present to the community, then why are they even going down this road.
IMO Sherry Green is a walking conflict of interest and needs to have some light shone on her agenda.
If the mayor has a letter claiming she is not in conflict of interest then why is this letter not made public so the public can pass judgement on the validity of the letter and the law firm that supports that position.
Its my understanding that a certain vehicle dealership is already planning to move there. Just as in the Haldi Road case, council is just going though the motions to major it look like they are following procedure.
I hope we keep this course. This is a great course for juniors and seniors who can’t do the bigger courses. Don’t sell a city asset.
Comments for this article are closed.