People have spoken, but will the listen?
Like everything else probably not….
or will they pull off one of their reverse referedums… they seem to like those

I think the city council will try and leave a legacy cost to the next council. Right now time is running for them to sink enough into this project without bringing it to the tax payers of PG, so as to make the argument they already have the land and paid the planning costs, ect, ect… we might even get a promise of a referendum during the November 2012 civic election campaign, but the referendum date would be years off and they hope the PAC would be built by then.

I don’t see much if any of the PAC being above board in the open with tax payers.

Of course there should be a referendum and not the use the AAP which only if enough signatures are collected leads to a referendum. I am sure city council will take whatever back door approach works to satisfy the PAC society and saddle the taxpayer with additional unwarranted debt.
Welcome to Detroit North.

YES REFERENDUM and RECALL all counselors for the 60% budget increase.. That management is out of control.. balance budget, not squeeze the tax payers..

No, Referendum. Its just going to get shot down forever than. Build it for maximum price of $20 million. Than we can finally put a check mark on it.

“I am sure city council will take whatever back door approach works to satisfy the PAC society”

We have to get the correct sequence for this.

City Council and Administration have tried on several occasions to get a PAC built for this city after the master plan generated for the “cultural district” in PG was provided with the required functions and became the subject of an architectural competition whose winner was to be awarded the contract for the first piece of the grouping, the Library, or book warehouse as Harold Moffat preferred to call it.

That takes us back to what I consider to be the start of the most recent attempt to get a number of facilities into PG, 1979, I believe it was, not 1991 as stated in the revisionist history of the current directors of the PAC Society.

After that, there were attempts by building committees of City Council as well as an unincorporated group who promoted UNBC as the site of a PAC.

The City was “gun shy” but, after two studies, one done by the RDFFG to look at how to structure cultural activities and facilities throughout the region, and the other, a $140,000 or so study of how to activate and market downtown, identified that a PAC downtown would be a key piece which would assist with marketing the region as well as the downtown.

The powers that be sat on that for something like two years (my recollection) when IPG was prodded by the City to activate the project by promoting the creation of an independent Society which could push the City’s wishes forward. A town meeting was called by IPG which gathered over 200 people. That culminated in a smaller group coming to a second meeting at which time the formation of the PAC Society was started.

So, that is a more appropriate sequence and the background for those who were not watching this since 1979 or so. It is, in fact, the City that is being satisfied. The PAC society is simply a bunch of people interested in the project who were set up to be the scapegoat.

Revisionist history well played, City Hall!!! And you did not even require a communications officer for that!! ;-)

One thing is certain. All those on the PAC Society are now well over the age of 55, most over the age of 65, and quite a few over the age of 75. I don’t think that they have very many members that are younger.

Soooo. Like the Moose, Eagles, Elks, Legion, etc; all these groups are getting older and are NOT attracting any younger members. The PAC Society would not be very different. So once again one has to wonder where they will get sufficient people to support this project to an extent that it will not become a huge burden on taxpayers.

We know that the Port Theatre in Nanaimo has an operating cost of some $450,000.00 per annum, and they are much better placed to attract people from surrounding areas. So I would expect the PG PAC to need at least the same amount of money per year to operate.

Another fallacy that keeps getting bandied about is that somehow back in the day the people of Prince George agreed to build a PAC.

What in fact happened was they were given a list of projects to prioritize such as.

1. Civic Centre
2. Swimming Pool
3. CN Centre
4 Art Centre
5 Pac Centre.

Not sure about the listing above other than the PAC was dead last. NOW. It was dead last because the majority of people in this town DID NOT want a PAC. This hasn’t changed.

The City, IPG, the PAC all know that this project would be dead in the water if it went to a referendum, if for no other reason that it is way to costly. Much like the overbuilt, overblown, overrated, Police Station.

We need to stop the madness of these huge mega projects.

Posted by: He spoke on November 27 2013 8:34 AM
No, Referendum. Its just going to get shot down forever than. Build it for maximum price of $20 million. Than we can finally put a check mark on it.

—————-

Build it for whatever they can raise privately. They claim they can raise 10 million dollars; then that’s their budget.

Dump IPG and give an extra couple hundred grand to the Chamber to market PG, take the rest of the funds and put it in a bank account and in 5 years once you have the funds from government squared away the account will have over the 10 million dollars needed to build it.

Then when the PAC society comes forward another 5 years after the place is open seeking relief from the 10.6 million (they had to borrow) the account will have enough to cover that too without a single nickel of extra taxes

“the PAC Society are now well over the age of 55, most over the age of 65, and quite a few over the age of 75.”

There might be one over the age of 75.

I think there are at least 2 who are under the age of 55.

So, as normal, you exaggerate Palopu …. for what reason?

If one asks people in what order of priority they want facilities to be built and they do not get to say no to any of them, how does one know that they do not want all or some not to be built?

Question:

There are 5 facilities the City does not have that are under consideration to be built.

For each, identify how important it is to you to get the facility built with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest, and 0 meaning you do not want the City to provide such a facility within the next 20 years.

But, that is not the question asked, was it? So, it is not a fact then, that the survey was intended to cull facilities on the list.

Raise as much money privately as they want. And then build it.
Simple.
End. Of. Story.