Councillor Dave Wilbur says “This Council has adopted a vision that includes a Performing Arts Centre, and there is no wavering from that.”
So, the opinion of the tax payers doesn’t matter at all? All those low ranking, unimportant folks that voted for you? You don’t care what they think?
It is time for our politicians to stop holding their “subordinates” in such condescension.

“This Council has adopted a vision that includes a Performing Arts Centre, and there is no wavering from that.”
Please remember this sentence at election time…

So I’ve already done multiple repairs to the front end of my vehicle because the unavoidable pot holes in this town are destroying it.

We’re having water mains break flooding private homes.
They want to create a fee to tax the rain because they need money to fix it.

Our streets go weeks without being plowed because of equipment/man power issues that are costing more and more.

And a performing arts centre is a “priority for council?” Are you freaking kidding me? This is getting out of hand, I can’t wait to vote these whack jobs out so this can go on the back burner for another 20 years.

No, no, and did I say no? Fix what is broken and in desperate need for repair and when we have the money to pay for it, then talk about it. Get your priorities straight, a performing arts centre is not at the top.

cmd: “So I’ve already done multiple repairs to the front end of my vehicle because the unavoidable pot holes in this town are destroying it.”

I find this comment interesting. I have lived here for 40 years and never had to repair my vehicle because of a pothole. I tend to avoid driving over them, so maybe that’s where I differ.

To bad Wilbur and council did not have a vision of streets without potholes, adequate snow clearing, a city free of crime, curbs and medians free of weeds, dandelions, and debris.
For the voters it is now clear where Wilbur stands. Remember at election time.

Its good to see some of the Councilors come out of the woodwork so we can see where they stand on this issue.

Wilbur should try not to be so condescending to the rest of us. We so not really need to be referred to as **folks** who do not understand this project, and we need some **champions** to come out and explain it to us.

Who does he think he is??? Its his champions, and some of his Council members and administration that has created this problem, have kept it alive over the years, and continue to push for it, even though there is no stomach for it.

Furthermore, he and his champions do not have the gonads to take this issue to a referendum in the coming election and have it settled once and for all. In fact they will do everything possible to avoid a referendum.

To Wilbur and some others who support this project, I ask. Just what part of NO do you not understand.

See you at the polls.

Ah yes. Dave Wilbur. I remember Dave telling us the space shuttle could land on PG’s extended runway. I guess I just don’t have the same vision as Dave has.

…and another dagger is thrust into the financial well being of this community; council needs to stop putting wants before needs!

It seems to me that, in their eyes, something like the PAC becomes justified and a want becomes a need; so long as somebody, at sometime, wrote in an community plan or wishlist that we ‘need’ to complete a project. I also get the impression that council thinks that if a recommendation has been made in a plan, that means that the residents will have no problem turning out their pockets to fund another extravagant project, all the while letting our infrastructure crumble…

I think that council should get the numbers together for this project and then put this to a vote – let’s let the members of this community make the final decision…

If they can build it without raising taxes, great! If not, DON’T BUILD IT.

Mayor and council just don’t get it

Let’s make sure they don’t get our votes this upcoming election.

First of all you have to remember Dave’s back ground.
Second, few of the council members would dare vote against this. or else.
Very few of the council members are retired and living on a small pension, but then who cares as long as we can go and visit China.

“The PAC has been on the wish list for the city since 1991.”

Seems to me we have lived without it since then and we are still here.

To me it would be like The Two Rivers art gallery. That was a wish list item and myself and a lot of people I know have never been in it.

Being retired and living on a fixed income I would not be able to afford going(City has taken any extra cash I would have had, but they got all of that with tax increases)so why should my tax dollars pay for the minority that have to have this money pit.

Hi retired senior,
It’s a pity that you haven’t made your way down to Two Rivers Gallery over the past 14 years. Come on down this Thursday; we will be open ’till 9pm, admission is free then and so is parking. We’ll have a bunch of entrepreneurs (Startup PG) meeting here and working on all sorts of innovations like 3D printing & robotics. By the way, did you know that we collaborated with the Northern Cancer Centre to use our 3D printer to improve cancer treatment http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/561453E5-5404-4702-B6C5-4D0E784ECE4D/68052/20140103_NR_BCCA_CN_PartnershipWithGalleryFINAL.pdf.

The Gallery is all about developing creativity and innovation in our community, whether it is our outreach to sick kids in the Hospital or helping small businesses develop their innovation skills or promoting the many artists and craftspersons in our community. Isn’t it time you took a closer look?

cheers,
peter thompson
Managing Director
Two Rivers Gallery

Iam not for the PAC. I have never seen who in the arts, dance etc will be renting this space. A couple or so years ago TNW had indicated that they are not interested in moving their production there, so who will they be renting this PAC to. Does the city have a list of interested parties. Does PAC have a list? It would be nice to know who they are.

Way to go Peter Thompson!

When it’s time to vote I’ll support anyone who opposes the PAC

Perhaps Peter Thompson could give us some real numbers as to the number of people who actually attend the Two Rivers Gallery. How much money they generate in a year, and the total amount of the subsidy that they get from the City.

The Art Gallery is built, and is now part of the City inventory, however on the various occasions that I visited over the years which included the free Thursdays, people were conspicuous by their absence.

Are other Art Galleries in the Province involved with entrepreneurs or collaborating with the Cancer Clinic??

Seems to me that now the Art Centre is built they have a real problem finding something to do with their time.

I’m not opposed to the Art Gallery, however it basically sits quietly in a corner of the Civic Centre, Library, Swimming Pool area, and soaks up sunshine and snow.

Charity is a wonderful thing.

Peter Thompson, my point was that the Gallery was pushed through by a small minority of people at the expense of the tax payers of which the majority of people did not want.

As managing director it sounds like your doing a great job and because I have no choice I guess we have to keep keep paying the sunsidy.

CHEERS

Having a PAC referendum should not be hard to implement on the voting ballot in November. There’s already a referendum coming RE: Fluoride in PG water. Just add another Yes/No question.

Then people on both sides can shut the hell up on the subject once and for all. 30 years of bickering about a PAC is getting kind of old. Make a decision and stick to it.

But hold on… they did that already. I seem to recall back in the 80’s a referendum coming out as a NO. PG has barely grown in population since then, taxes have gone up, and infrastructure has aged even further.

I would love PG to have a PAC someday but the tax money have been so badly mismanaged it just doesn’t make fiscal sense until at least 2-3 ducks are in a row.

Hi Peter. I have one more 2 Rivers Gallery event to provide to the 250NEWS commenters and readers.

Last Saturday, the North Cariboo Branch of the BC SPCA had a fundraising event in the second floor studio which I found very interesting. There were a good 50 plus people in attendance enjoying each other’s company, looking at the local art that was donated by young artists for a silent auction for the benefit of the local BC SPCA Branch.

What was striking to me was that while there were a few people there from the older generation of PG citizens who enjoy the arts and supporting local organizations, the crowd was overwhelmingly the under 40’s group with many a decade younger than that.

Not only did many represent people who are interested in volunteering in this community, but also those who are part of operations of private and public enterprises in this community. They are our progeny. They are what will take this community forward.

Contrary to what a bunch of curmudgeons on this site say and think, they are much more connected to the outside world than those born before the 1950’s and even the 1960’s ever were.

I would like to think that those who supported having the event at the Gallery rather than somewhere else, those who donated the art, those who bid on the art as well as those who just came to socialize are the people who will, as others have in the past, push for a better and improved city that embraces all interest groups.

Thanks Peter, for managing one of the finest facilities in the City …… next to the RCMP station … ;-)

“Just add another Yes/No question.”

I agree!!!!

Question:

Would you support a PAC which would cost the City more than $20million for its portion of the capital structure?

I would have no problem with that going on the ballot.

Way too much money for a white elephant.

We have three theatres

Vanier Hall which holds about 800 people
Play house which holds 300 people
TNW which holds 250 people, plastic Chairs.

Now I think the big one at UNBC holds 400 people, plus they have two smaller ones which holds 100 people. CNC has a theatre, I think that holds 200 people.

Maybe what we should be looking at, is who is going to rent from PAC, when they can rent out other theatres.

I am pretty sure, the rental fee from PAC is going to be a lot higher than Vanier Hall. So what does this all mean. Its annual operating budget is going to be subsidized by the tax payer.

What does there business plan say about revenues. Value and from whom????

Only Gus would think that 50 people would be a good representation for a City of 75000 people more or less. I suppose he would think that 300/400 people sipping whine in the lounge at a new $52 Million dollar PAC would also be a good representation,.

Furthermore Gus. You have no evidence or proof that the Cities portion of the PAC would be $20 Million. You are assuming that there will be money forthcoming from the Fed’s and Province for this venture and of course you are assuming that private money will take up a portion. Problem is, you have nothing to back up your suggestion, and until you do, we would have to assume that the Cities portion including land, and other manipulation of funds would be in the area of $40 Million.

So the referendum question should be.

Do you support a $52 Million dollar PAC that will have a $500,000.00 annual deficit
that will be paid for by taxpayers dollars??

The whole discussion of a PAC is a theatre of the absurd.

I wonder if it would be possible to come up with some agreed to definition of theatres ….. a theatre is not a theatre is not a theatre.

The CNC theatre has 100 seats in it. It is a lecture theatre or hall. It can be used for other assembly purposes, such as showing movies.

Vanier Hall is an auditorium, meant primarily for school assemblies … a place to sit and listen to someone speak or a group to speak….. thus auditorium. There is little in the way of services to bring outside productions in with their crews, lights, sets, etc.

The Playhouse is a proper theatre in almost all senses of the word … it has a fly tower, reasonable capacity to bring in sets and assemble them, and reasonable accommodation for actors, etc. Those are back of house facilities. Same with front of house facilities, good for the size of the audience. It is a small theatre good for TNW type of productions.

TNW is a theatre in a found space in an industrial commercial/retail building. It is a funky place for funky artists who can work on stage on their sets because the space is theirs and is not needed to be rented out for $ to other potential users of the space. If the space were not so cheap, they would not have as much freedom to use it as they do. THAT is the key reason why they have no interest in moving into a $50+/sf market price space where they will only be able to use it during their performances. But no one wants to face that reality of discussion. Everyone has a so-called “hidden” agenda which the general population knows little of.

The UNBC are lecture “theatres” or, more appropriately lecture halls with sloped audience floors.

So, PG has many restaurants. Why? A McD or two or more … a Keg …. A hot dog stand or two, in the summer …. A white spot ….. not all restaurants are he same…… neither are all ice surfaces in the City the same ….. neither are all parks the same ……. Each generic word such as school, restaurant, park, ice arena, art gallery, museum, etc. is not different than the word theatre ….. most are variations on a theme, some with considerable differences…..

So, please do the conversation a favour and learn something about theatres and the differences. Just so that you know, there was a group that wanted to build two “theatres” – one for stage performances and another as a recital hall ……

“Only Gus would think that 50 people would be a good representation for a City of 75000 people”

50? That was one event and the PAC was not under discussion. It was PONE event of MANY going on in this city. It was an event at the Gallery. It was in support of the BCPSCA, not a PAC. The vehicle used was art related. It was young people, not the old boys and girls of the elite. Wanna talk about fundraisers at TNW, how about fundraisers for Ducks Unlimited using art?

I am not going to spend time seeking out the carious art/culture related events in this City supported by people of all different walks of life. Get hold of the Community Arts Council. They have a much better handle on that than you and I and others in the peanut gallery on here.

You’re right Palopu, not enough people use the beautiful $5 million Gallery building, attendance was only 19,109 in 2013. That’s why we get off our butts and serve another 10k by taking our programs out into the community; not just PG, but Mackenzie, McBride & Valemount too.

We have a service contract (not a grant) with the Regional District worth $445,000 out of a total budget of over $1.2 million.

Other professional arts organizations in BC also have some innovative programs, but we like to think that we are among the leaders.

I don’t want to hijack this thread; I know there is opposition to a new PAC, but I think that it is more productive to try to imagine how a PAC can serve the community in ways beyond tradition— and work towards a consensus that makes the best use of community resources. Yes, we need to repair the potholes— but having silk smooth roads will not make Prince George into a dynamic successful community. UNBC contributed enormously to that; we try at Two Rivers Gallery to make PG a better place to live, perhaps a new PAC can help as well.

cheers,
peter thompson
Managing Director
Two Rivers Gallery

Since it seems the PAC will be forced down our throat whether we want it or not we should now focus our efforts to find a new tenant when the city realizes the cannot afford to subsidize something the citizens didn’t want. The city simply cannot afford a “want” of a select few and everyone can see it except the city and a few of the “wanters”.

Peter and Gus FTW. /endthread.

“Furthermore Gus. You have no evidence or proof that the Cities portion of the PAC would be $20 Million”

You really do not get it do you Palopu?

I have absolutely no proof, you are right. All I am doing is putting what I consider to be a reasonable condition on the support of the PAC.

If people were to vote yes on that proposition, and the City would have to provide more than $20million, then it is simply not a done deal.

Unlike what people think about my support of the PAC from a financial point of view, no thanks to people such as yourself putting words in my mouth time and time again, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CITY PAYING ANYWHERE NEAR $50MILLION OUT OF LOCAL MONEY TO BUILD A PAC!!!

I am suggesting we set the limit at $20million. In fact, using 2014 dollars, I am prepared to go as low as $17.5 million for design-build on the condition that the number can be increased on an annual construction inflation basis.

I’m glad Gus had the time to clarify what exactly the kind of theatre PG needs. Comparing the others is a non-starter, in particular, Vanier Hall.

The City of PG does not own that facility. SD57 does, and it’s at their yay/nay that it gets utilized.

I want PG to have a nice facility. I really do. I get nervous that Council has been spending money like drunken sailors on furlough and that the pocket cash is getting lean. Baby needs a new pair of shoes but the parents spent the money on beer…. so to speak.

The silky smooth roads is a bit of a fetch when there are so many roads which resemble GM torture tracks.

Those who push for want items rather than need items obviously haven’t been paying attention to the dire talk emanating from City Hall about our aging failing infrastructure like sewer pipes, water pipes, storm sewers….and so forth!

What are the figures? A hundred million? Or more.

An ostrich attitude of burying one’s head in the sand in order to avoid noticing it won’t do a darn thing about the necessity of dealing with this inescapable reality!

Go ahead, build the PAC already! It is an itch which will be scratched no matter what, so let’s get it over with!

After that, without a doubt, another new wish list item will appear out of the woodwork!

Guaranteed!

No PAC!!!! Use the PG Playhouse!!

So if these current venues are too small and unsuitable, why are productions not selling out. I’ve been to many shows in town and not once have I seen a show other than Evil Dead come remotely close to selling out. Large urban cities such as Vancouver (who have the population to use such facilities) are closing PACs and here we are (without the population to support the facility) trying to build one.

Palopu stated:

“So the referendum question should be.

Do you support a $52 Million dollar PAC that will have a $500,000.00 annual deficit
that will be paid for by taxpayers dollars??”

Of course that is the way you want it worded. You want it to be defeated, I want it to have a better chance at being supported.

You have two figures, neither of which may be accurate and both of which leave a lot to interpretation.

Mine is simple. No interpretation required. Here it is again:

1. Would you support a PAC which would cost the City more than $20million for its portion of the capital structure?

If the majority answer NO, then the City can go ahead and build it but not for a cost of more than $20million from City coffers. So, there is a limit on it.

If the majority answer YES, then the City can go ahead and build it as well, but can spend more than $20million of City money.

The effect of the question is that the Centre will be built either way, but the expected response will be that the City has to come up with a plan that will limit the amount we pay as local property owners.

The City

in past posts, I did support a $30 million dollar PAC. Now I am even withdrawing that kind of support.

The actual construction costs are usually bourne by different levels of government and than thru philanthropy.

So why would I withdraw my support. Quite simply because the PAC will be looking at the city to pay for its operating costs.

Like to see what there business plan looks like.

gus: “1. Would you support a PAC which would cost the City more than $20million for its portion of the capital structure?”

If you’re going to word it that way, should the ongoing operating and maintenance costs also be included, so people can get the full picture?

“Large urban cities such as Vancouver (who have the population to use such facilities) are closing PACs”

Vancouver’s PAC is the Queen E. plus the Orpheum. They are far from closing. They are working on expanding the Queen E, depending in part on what happens with the Art Gallery.

The Centre that has supposedly been sold to a church (one of the users of theatre spaces, BTW) is one run by private enterprise not the City. It was called the Ford Theatre when it was originally built for Musical plays by Drabinsky, an infamous name in the Canadian and US theatre scene. It was renamed The Centre in Vancouver for Performing Arts. Thus the confusion. It really is only a single theatre built in a very tight space.

BTW, I keep answering those posts, but many people on this site have trouble taking new information in.

UBC ads to the publicly funded performing arts facilities with the Chan Centre

http://www.chancentre.com

Just think of it as the equivalence to those who are into spectator sports rather than spectator arts as the Boston Bruins coming to play the Maple Leafs in town …. ;-)

JB ….. I understand your thinking.

Here is my thinking on it for the moment.

referendum questions need to be simple. I think mine is quite easy to understand. But someone may come up with a better one with the same intent.

I would not be against a second question dealing with operating expenses but it needs some better wording.

For instance, TNW puts on 4 productions a year and rarely rents out its space to others in the community. Each production is run as long as people support it. Say 15 to 20 or so performances per production.

It has a budget of $933,000 in 2013. It had a total government subsidy of $251,000. The City provides almost half that government subsidy for what is a private theatre operation.

The City also operates the Playhouse. I do not know at the moment of how much that costs the city taxpayer.

Quite frankly, the $300,000 figure used by the PAC Society is on the low side, in my opinion. It ties the hands of an excellent marketing manager who will have some low years and some high years. Facilities like that can be managed through a city department using city staff. That will increase costs right there. Kelowana’s is operated like that. The CN Centre is operated like that. Most are operated through a separate Board. Operating through the City can move that $300,000 up to as much as the $500,000.

So, I am not against such a question, but for me to attempt to suggest such a question right now needs some other answers first.

So Thompson is trying to save his job, of those 20,000 how many actually went on purpose and where not made go as a school trip? Seems not close to being worth the cost.

As for Gus allowing the PAC to be on as a referendum item how kind of him, I am glad he has granted it so. Lol

It needs to be only this..
Do you support the building of a PAC ? Yes or no.
That’s it.. Hopefully anyone voting will have done some research knowing what a long running huge cost this waste of money will be.

“Vancouver’s PAC is the Queen E. plus the Orpheum. They are far from closing.”

Also the The Vogue Theatre (saw John Cleese there recently), The Firehall Arts Centre, Chan Centre for the Performing Arts (at UBC)… to name a few. Theatre is far from dead in Vancouver.

Comment Posted by: JohnnyBelt on March 11 2014 2:25 PM
gus: “1. Would you support a PAC which would cost the City more than $20million for its portion of the capital structure?”

If you’re going to word it that way, should the ongoing operating and maintenance costs also be included, so people can get the full picture?

————————————

Yes they should, but, the people that want these projects built don’t like the complete truth to be included in referendum questions. Deceit is the order of the day for these types. That’s how progress is acomplished.

peterthompson: “You’re right Palopu, not enough people use the beautiful $5 million Gallery building, attendance was only 19,109 in 2013. That’s why we get off our butts and serve another 10k by taking our programs out into the community; not just PG, but Mackenzie, McBride & Valemount too.

We have a service contract (not a grant) with the Regional District worth $445,000 out of a total budget of over $1.2 million.”

This is to service about 60 people per day who come into the Gallery? Ouch.

Some more questions on the ballot

1. do you support reducing the number of Councillor to 6 from 8, which will save in the order of $80,000/year? (put in the appropriate figure … we are allowed to have 6. Council decided not to go that way without asking the people)

2. Do you support putting a new $X,XXX,XXX entrance onto the Library?

Some questions that should have been on the ballot

1. Do you support putting in a proposal for hosting the 2015 Winter Games which will mean raising $X,XXX,XXX through taxes?

2. Do you support building a new Kin1 for $XX,XXX,XXX

I could go on, but that is enough to for some to get the idea that our elected officials do not always act in the best interest of the community when seen from the POV of some of the citizens of this community.

As part of this proposal, why would continued operating subsidies to the various local arts groups not be on the table?

What I’m saying, is that could it not be argued that the city would effectively be providing assistance to all of the local arts groups by offering and operating a first rate facility for them to perform at?

Maybe as part of this discussion, ALL stakeholders in the PG arts community need to come together and figure out a plan so that this will work for the entire arts community. If they have a brand new facility available for them to perform at, perhaps they should expect far less or even no annual operating subsidies once the facility is complete. Or, possibly even phase them out over a set time period.

I think it’s only fair to expect the local users to sharpen their pencils and be part of the solution as well. With a much improved facility, one would hope that they could increase their ticket sales enough to offset any subsidies they currently receive.

From the perspective of the city, if they weren’t providing these annual subsidies, perhaps the net additional operating cost of a PAC over what the city pays now for facilities and subsidies wouldn’t be as significant as what is being advertised.

Just trying to think outside the box here.

Peter, you stated that the Regional District gives you $445,000.00 each year out of a budget of $1,200,000.00. How much do you get in donations or entry fees etc. and how much does the taxpayer subsidize it? I would guess we pay around $500,000.00 a year from our taxes to keep it open.

Dave Wilbur said that if we get more people to move to Prince George, it will lower taxes. How does that work, Dave? PAC gonna help? Be specific.

If one answers yes in the questions Gus puts forward for a referendum, then it can be taken as authorization to borrow, and the rest would come from things like gas taxes and property sales… it would just be a signpost on the road to the full $60 million dollar PAC at the full cost of home owners in PG. It would be nothing more than back door access to full funding.

Clearly the Harper government has said they do not have this on their long range plans… nor does the province… nor has any private money materialized in the 25-years of the proponents trying to sell this project. If this goes ahead selling it as a shared project like the Northern Sports Center, then also like the Northern Sports Center it will be the city picking up the costs of senior governments that were not and are not on board.

So this is not a $20 million dollar option, but rather a $60 million dollar option with a $500,000 yearly operating budget.

Senior levels of government however could easily come forward and commit to their share on a condition of a referendum. This would show they do actually support the project before PG jumps off the bridge so to speak and it would win them the good will… then if PG turns it down through a referendum, the senior governments could then still claim the good will as well as having provided clarity… so voters can make informed votes.

If the senior levels can not commit to supporting this project, then like trying to push a string it should be considered dead on arrival and no further city money should be spent pushing this dead horse. The city alone can not afford $60 million for a PAC, and that is the facts our mayor and council should be responsible enough to understand.

Nor should the city be spending this money simply because of downtown realestate considerations, which is the main driver for the PAC at this point in time.

I oppose the PAC, because the city residents don’t support it and can’t afford it. I have yet to meet anyone personally that supports a PAC. However if the senior levels of government committed to supporting it with 2/3’s of the cost and after such a commitment the voters supported it in a referendum for 1/3 of the cost with consideration for the land… Then that is how the democratic process is supposed to work.

The referendum question is pointless without any solid commitment from the other 2/3’rds stakeholders.

Time Will Tell

PS If I did run next fall it would be in the no camp to a PAC. I would however support enabling city stakeholders to be empowered through referendums and community planning, rather than the top down backroom planning that we have now.

Heres what strikes me as a problem – if everything went to a referendum and needed 51% support, absolutely NOTHING would ever get done.

In civic politics they are taxing a persons right to their home and property. Property taxes are not voluntary and they are regressive to those on fixed incomes or with out income elasticity to keep pace with taxation increases… it can cost one their home. As a result civic politicians have a much higher standard they should meet when it comes to raising taxes to pay for wants.

Senior levels of government however are taxing things like income, consumption, and royalties… all of which have a much smaller sensitivity to the poor, pensioners, and otherwise fixed income working poor. The senior levels of government therefor have a much lower standard of consideration and accountability for taxation and less regressive taxation impact… they can make due without referendums on capital expenditures unlike a municipality that absolutely must get proper authorization from property owners.

So why don’t we just built everything for everyone Interceptor and send you the bill through your property taxes… whether you want it or can afford it?

IMO if cost more than a couple of million and is not part of fixing core infrastructure… then it should absolutely go to referendum. Maybe we should have a dozen or more referendum questions every election cycle? Maybe money should be raised through private sources if it doesn’t have the support of the majority of homeowners?

BTW if it went to referendum we would still have a Kin 1 that has access for the disabled and could be a core part of user groups like Lacross that lack a facility of their own. A stand alone arena would not have cost any more than tearing down the existing Kin 1 cost. Had the question been posed to voters and not made in back rooms I would bet the outcome would have been much better overall for the city as a whole.

Dont get me wrong Eagle, I am against the PAC. But you make my point exactly – how do we decide what we build when there is no way over 50% of the population would ever agree on anything? A dollar limit as you suggest might be a guideline but it would be the end of large projects – pools, arenas, ball fields, stadium, gallery, libraries, etc. As needed and well used as they are, none of them would pass a referendum on their own IMO.

“BTW, I keep answering those posts, but many people on this site have trouble taking new information in.”
I can take in the new information, Gus. Can you take in what others are saying?
I think a PAC would be great. If we were already not so far in debt. If we were already properly maintaining the facilities we already have.
Maybe we could agree to build (and maintain) a PAC once we have paid off a bunch of debt, and we have started doing a much better job of maintaining our existing facilities.
Why can’t it be decided that this, and future councils should get their stuff together and be happy with what we have, until such time as we can afford more.
Can you take in that not so new information, Gus?

When the aquatic center was built in the 90’s that was an approved project by referendum and I’m sure a stand alone Kin1 replacement would have got a positive vote as well. In fact I think the PG public library was also approved by referendum… so its not like it hasn’t happened in the past when the citizens of PG seen an actual need in the community for such a facility.

But to come to the community for $60 million with no federal support, no provincial support, and no private contributors… and then say no referendum… is just playing ignorant on the part of council and those in power with their responsibility to inform and consult for the proper authority to proceed with such a large expenditure.

The PAC is a project that will cost more than the Aquatic Center, Art Gallery, PG Public Library, and the new Kin 1 all combined… with I would argue less then 10% of the potential stakeholders in the community. Why shouldn’t they be held to a standard the other public venues had to meet to get funding?

A stand alone PAC serves only the vested interest people who at best number 600 and more likely number closer to 400. This is a huge expenditure to satisfy the wants of so few people.

I agree with NMG that we need to think outside the box, so here goes.

The Performing Art Centre should be designed to include a fully functional Farmers Market, in addition it should have boutique’s on the ground floor, along with a restaurant. There should be small apartments on the upper floor to accommodate people who wish to live downtown.

Money generated on a year round basis from the Farmers Market, Apartment and Boutique rentals, etc; along with the revenue from the PAC itself would go a long way to make this project self sufficient, and maybe even generate a profit.

This type of facility would encompass a lot more members of society in Prince George,and be a great gathering place.

Everyone in town could get some benefit, rather than a few vested interest groups.

This would be the biggest compromise that the City and the vested interest groups ever made in their entire lives. Do you think they are up for it. Do you think that they could actually think of someone besides themselves.

The whole project would be subject to funding from all levels of Government, private money, and donations, and be subject to a referendum.

That’s the way to go forward. Fully open, honest and transparent.

“if everything went to a referendum and needed 51% support, absolutely NOTHING would ever get done.”

well, interceptor, the easiest way to save money is to not spend it.

A rather obvious statement, but one that needs to be said periodically.

My point: our over taxed citizens have had enough mega project fiasco nonsense.

Let me be clear and succinct:
STOP SPENDING MONEY! ESPECIALLY MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE IN HAND OR LIQUID!

FOCUS ON CORE ACTIVITIES.
LEAVE GRANDIOSE SCHEMES TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

ROAD MAINTENANCE
SCHOOLS
LESS TAXES AND FEES

Gus250news.

I believe someone said from the previous PAC thread that non Art supporters were a bunch of whiners. The support whine is getting rather stale smelling too.

How many people does the greater Vancouver area have? 2.4 million and growing! That’s a far cry from 70,000 or is it 75,000? Weren’t they bragging 83,000 at one time?

The City sign at the junction of highway 97 and 16 shows our population as 81000. Everyone in the City knows this number is high by approx. 8000.

Will they change the sign??? No. They just cannot bring themselves to face the reality of the City they live in,. They will forever live in the City of their minds.

We need a PAC in PG like I need a hole in my head. If they want a PAC then they can come up with the 42 million. Taxes are already out of control and we can’t afford to upgrade our current infrastructure. I will not vote for anyone that supports a PAC.

Dec 31/2012 were the last figures out for the population of PG that I could find. Check the website GUS posted previously. This number is unclear whether or not it includes first nations in the stats.
The Dec 31/2013 should be out soon.

As for not voting anyone who wants the PAC will not be the answer. We all know what type of promises are made by politicians. Be careful what you wish for, the last mayor got in by the seat of her pants because people were fed up and not voting and some wanted to get rid of Rogers.

Put pressure on this council and mayor for a referendum. Email, call write etc -it would be a try.

As for Gus – it appears insulting people in many ways is a way to get his point across – At one time I looked forward to your posts, now, I don’t have any respect for your comments when you use such belittling.

Come election time, I will remember some of the comments by city councillors. No, I will not be voting for anyone that wants to support this while elephant! It seems some of the PAC supporters think they know what’s best for us poor uncouth country hicks. The theatres and other venues we currently have aren’t being filled, so why cram another edifice into the downtown core. We deserve a referendum on this expenditure.

Palopu, the idea has lots of merit if a private partner is found to build some of the other venues.

Probably the best example of such a development, on a bit of a larger scale, is the Distillery District in Toronto. The developer kept the old brick buildings and developed a shopping, eating, entertainment as well as a residential area out of the large distillery site.

The Young Centre for the Performing Arts was originally renovated to house the George Brown College’s theatre program. They partnered with Soulpepper, a theatre company similar to our TNW. They did the tenant improvements which included three different sizes of theatre spaces plus classrooms, offices and student spaces.

Here is a link to the map: http://www3.thedistillerydistrict.com/whats-here/tenant-directory-map
This is a bit of the history of the industrial uses of the buildings: http://www3.thedistillerydistrict.com/our-story

Here are the performing spaces at the Young Centre: http://www.youngcentre.ca/our_venues/index.html
The facility was rented from the owners of the distillery district for around $1million/year some 5 years ago. Between the student plays and Soulpepper performances as well as other productions and renters, the partners had to make enough money to pay the rent. So far, they have managed to survive. I do not know how much government funding they get other than the funding from George Brown College. If you look at the ticket prices, most start at $25 and range up to over $70. So, pricier than TNW.

So, would it be beneficial for PG to have a smaller development like that? Probably. There might be a couple of production companies in PG who could manage the facility, or invite a new one to come to town. The place could be built on the east side of Queensway between 2nd and 5th using an industrial building or two plus links, but close enough to George Street and the rest of downtown to encourage further development there.

There may even be space for a larger theatre once people in PG have started to learn to not be afraid of a bit of an additional cultural venue than pubs with hockey night in Canada on the flat screens.

And yes, the farmers market could go there as could a pub and a restaurant or two plus any other funky places which would be appropriate for such a location. And no, don’t worry about the flood plain, that can be handled. If not, we might as well plan on making a park out of the whole east side of Queensway.

Look at the second video to the right on the top line {young centre tour) to get an idea of the spaces from 300 to 200 to 100 seats.
https://www.soulpepper.ca/videos.aspx

Here is a quick overview of the financials for Soulpepper.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22quickview-eng.action?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dsoulpepper%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue&fpe=2012-12-31&b=869698449RR0001&n=SOULPEPPER THEATRE COMPANY

When you look at those you have to consider that you are looking at a production company – a larger version of our TNW. A city PAC is generally not a production company, although there are some larger centres, such as the Dofasco in Hamilton, that are operated privately. They still get government funding though, just as TNW gets government funding.

Soulpepper has total annual revenue of over $7million with 300+200+100 seats. They get a total of 13% funding from Toronto ($146,500), Ontario ($580,592), and Canada( $196,920}

That is about 13% of their revenue. 30% of revenue comes from donations. 50% of revenue comes from ticket sales and rentals.