Two Thirds of Council Steps Up To The Plate on PAC
Prince George, B.C. – Residents of Prince George who care about the future of their city and the way in which it is run will have the opportunity to influence that future direction by voting in the next municipal election this November 15th.
What will the campaign issues be? They might include taxation, snow removal/pothole repairs/year-round condition of our streets, repeated changes to the “official” Official Community Plan, lack of transparency to the taxpayer on questions like, how much did it cost to hire a labor lawyer for contract negotiations, or how much did it cost to fight citizens in court over Haldi Road? An election issue might be the reasoning behind spending $350,000 on a Core Services Review that, arguably, produced little which has been put to use. Or perhaps the mayor's suggestion that if you don't like the way things are done, you can leave town.
You may have issues that you want addressed by those seeking your vote. But that will be up to YOU to press the politicians, either in one-on-one conversations or at the all-candidates meetings, prior to voting day.
One issue which is the source of great discussion and debate around town is the Performing Arts Centre. Now, we don’t know who all of the candidates will be in November so we’ve gone to the sitting members of council to get their responses to two questions. We sent an email to the nine members of council last Saturday, asking:
“Are you in favor of the City proceeding with construction of a Performing Arts Centre?”
And, “Are you in favor of proceeding with such a centre without going to referendum on this November’s civic election ballot?”
As well, based on the premise that what is good for the electorate is good for those whom they would elect, we included in the email the following:
“As is the case with the Alternate Approval Process, in which a voter’s failure to sign and submit an Elector Response Form is taken as approval of the matter in question, those choosing not to respond to the above questions will be taken as approving proceeding with a PAC and doing so without the PAC issue going to the electorate in a referendum.”
We received the following responses:
Councilor Dave Wilbur says “I’ve clearly stated my view that the future of Prince George includes, in my mind, a performing arts centre, not just for the city but also for the region. I’ve also said that I don’t know where the money’s coming from at this particular point in time because the city could never go on its own. There would have to be meaningful partnerships to have that happen."
"And because of that any contemplation of proposing a referendum or anything of that nature at this point is way premature, because as you know when you go before the electorate with respect to a referendum you need the details, you need to know what the cost is going to be etcetera, both the capital and the operating costs. At this juncture that’s a mystery.”
When all of that information is in do you think the voters should have a say in a referendum? “Well the voters always have a say one way or the other but let’s look at our tea leaves and see, for example, virtually all of it, 70, 80 percent of it is covered by either provincial, federal and other partners, LNG or whatever that might look like. At that particular point in time I’m not so sure that that’s (referendum) an absolute necessity. I’ve never been a fan of everything by referendum. There are those out there that you will talk to that would like to create gridlock by referendum for everything. I agree with you if this was a sizeable financial nut then certainly a referendum would be a direction that we would go in, but I don’t see that as a certainty at this point and certainly a mystery in the future so I’m going to keep my powder dry on that one in the sense of looking at what it is, if I’m still at the table in the future. But I don’t see it happening in 2014, improbable in 2015 as well. But this LNG thing on the horizon, you never know what’s going to spin from that. These kinds of events that are really important to a community and a region usually have big champions involved, and there may be one of two out there with respect to a successful pipeline on LNG.”
Wilbur also notes as a matter of full disclosure that he and his wife have both been members of the PAC Society and believe that a performing arts centre is something the city needs in terms of attraction and retention of new residents.
Councillor Albert Koehler notes that a performance arts center would, in all likelihood, mean an expense to the taxpayer which would have to be justified. He says while such a center would make the city more attractive and could well lead to more people moving here, thus increasing the tax base, he wants to see the next report of City Manager Beth James in July, which will provide a financial analysis including financing options. He says the potential burden for the taxpayer will be spelled out and adds that a referendum on finances may very well be an option, but adds that a response to both questions we asked would have to be considered as “depending on more information and circumstances that may evolve”. Councillor Koehler emphatically states that “it is well known that I do not favor tax increases above the cost of living.”
His response to question 1, are you in favor of the City proceeding with construction of a PAC: “Yes, but all financial implications have to be known first, including potential donations. (Example Cancer Lodge)”.
On question 2, are you in favor of the city proceeding with a PAC without going to the voters in a referendum, Koehler says: “A conditioned NO. A referendum is required if a sizeable amount of new tax dollars has to be used to make it work, which is not known yet. The electorate should have a say when it comes to capital projects of that magnitude involving tax dollars not approved and set aside for it. Example: Civic Center, Aquatic Center, Gallery. The city has set aside several millions for general capital projects. Spending that money for the PAC would have to be approved. In other words, questions 1 and 2 cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because we do not have all the required financial options and implications, as well as an updated demand study available, at this time. It is still up in the air. A final decision on the PAC may be a long way out.”
Councilor Frank Everitt states "The Performing Arts Center has been a long term objective of the city. When we first built the Civic Centre the PAC was part of the long term plan. I was part of a working group on the multiplex and I also supported PAC back then."
"What council has said is it continues to be part of our plan. Presently staff are putting together further analysis on today's cost and needs assessment; once this is done it will come back to council. As to your suggestion that we start construction right away, council has not had that conversation, we have only said that the PAC is a priority for Prince George." (Editor's note: There is no suggestion in the reporter's questions that "we start construction right away.")
Councilor Everitt continues "There is also the matter on how we fund it, clearly the time frame is yet to be determined based on when and what Provincial and Federal Government funding is available. Plus, fund raising from the community is needed."
"Council has yet to have any discussions on how we might proceed once the above steps are in place. It could be that a referendum is the manner to gage the support of our community if the right question is asked. I am not in favor of using the alternate approval process on this item."
"We are no further ahead on making a decision today than we were last fall when we last had this discussion. It makes no sense to speculate any further on how to proceed until we have all the required information to make an informed decision."
Councilor Murry Krause says:
1) "Yes I am in favor of the City proceeding with the construction of a Performing Arts Centre. I believe the Pac is an important missing piece of infrastructure in our community. This has been a top priority for Council, but at no time was it suggested that we would proceed without other partners i.e. provincial and/or federal financial support, plus a significant fundraising effort."
2) "It would be irresponsible to give a simple answer to this complex question. This has been referred to Administration for further investigation. I am not interested in proceeding to a referendum unless we are asking the right question. At this point I don't believe we know what that question would be. We still don't even know what is really needed; the magnitude of the project, funding needed from the City, what our partners would be contributing, and how much could be raised in the community through fundraising. We haven't built the business case yet, so I'm not so sure we could be ready for the November election."
Asked if he is in favor of the City proceeding with a PAC Councilor Brian Skakun says "I am in favor of getting more information regarding the total costs to not only build the PAC but to also get an idea of what the operational costs to run the facility are. To be clear I have not voted in favor of spending the money to build the PAC and would consider the decision to build a PAC once we know if we have senior government and private sector support."
Regarding a referendum on PAC on this November's ballot, Councilor Skakun says "I would support a referendum but would hope that if the question is asked on the ballot that the total costs, as well as operational costs, could be included. Not only that, we need to know what the senior levels of government are doing as far as support if this issue is moving forward. I would rather have a referendum question on the ballot than a counter petition later on. If we want to increase voter turnout then the PAC question (being) on the ballot would do just that."
Councilor Lyn Hall responded to our questions with these comments:
1. I have supported the Performing Arts Centre placement on the 5 year capital plan as an unfunded project. There is considerable work to be done before construction can be considered. There has been no financial commitment by Council as there is still a great deal of work to do to identify funding sources from provincial and federal governments as well as private funding opportunities, one of which might also contain national foundation funding possibilities."
"Council further asked administration for a review of the business plan proposed by the Performing Arts Centre Committee."
2. "Given that Council has asked administration to review and bring a report back to Council on the Performing Arts Centre Committee proposal, it would be premature to discuss a referendum question. The magnitude of this project requires Council to first conduct due diligence in reviewing the business plan model, identifying potential partnerships, funding sources, site selection, and understanding what the financial commitment of the city will be."
We have had no response to our request for comments from Councilors Frizzell or Stolz. We did receive responses, last Saturday and again this past Wednesday, from the office of the mayor. In each case it told us that our email had been received and that the Office of the Mayor would reply to us as soon as possible, normally within a couple of hours on work days.
Comments
Those that have stepped up should step down
What’s with all the people having to fix their front-ends? I lived in PG for over 30 years and didn’t no a single person who had to repair their front-end because of pot holes.
Is it just a statistical anomaly that only O250 users drive a Dodge? LOL ;)
That should be “know” . . . Ben, edit function please, LOL!
BaldEagle: You’re right on on getting back to the basics. I think we need to focus more on present infrastructure and operations. The longer we leave that the more it is going to cost in the future. It is something that has been neglected for far too long. After that has been taken care of, then, and only then, can we start to look at other non-necessary projects.
I still say there should be another advisory committee of citizens in this town that could advise the city council on what the normal members of this society’s feeling are regarding their spending. Either that or have voting options set up for all ideas that want to spend funds for say, more than a million dollars.
Just like the unjustified pay raise council gave themselves without any regard for what the citizens thought. The river road dike would have gone ahead too if we hadn’t stepped up and voted it down. I think that any future pay increases should be put to the public. If the people feel that city council or councillors aren’t doing their jobs properly then they shouldn’t get a raise. There should also be a recall process for the mayor and councillors that is fair but easily instituted. The way we were lied to in this last election should be able to be easily corrected.
Wow. that was a quick censor!
Question by reporter:
âAre you in favor of the City proceeding with construction of a Performing Arts Centre?â
Response by Councillor: “As to your suggestion that we start construction right away,…..”
Comment by editor: “(Editor’s note: There is no suggestion in the reporter’s questions that “we start construction right away.”)
===============================
And there we have the crux of the matter of asking questions. What is sent out as a piece of communication is frequently not received in the same way as the sender of the message intended.
The failure here was that the question did not have a suggested time period. I submit that if the question were put in the same fashion to the general population, a significant number, if not the majority, would interpret the question the same way as Councillor Everitt did.
In fact, the others were not as direct about it as he was, but they said as much as well.
For example, Councilor Lyn Hall: âThere is considerable work to be done before construction can be considered.â That was a message from everyone.
So, to the editor ⦠is it your interpretation that Councillor Lyn Hall is in favour of the project? He certainly did not say that, did he? Yet it is obvious that already some who are posting here are making that interpretation.
How about the others? Every single one put conditions on it that state that more information is required such as how much is it going to cost and that others come âto the plateâ as the headline says, to provide financial support.
Perhaps a few articles that would explore some of the issues surrounding performing arts centres in general and one for PG in particular would be more helpful at this time rather than asking questions which are obviously premature.
To all the readers. Please consider this.
1. Referenda are not binding on the elected representatives. So, no matter which way it would go, the elected Council members may oppose it.
2. Promises made at election time are not binding on the elected representatives.
For those of us who voted in the most recent municipal election, we have experience with #2.
I think we need to vote for those who are not afraid to ask the question, explore it further to understand the factual matters around the question, and make decisions based on sufficient knowledge of the matter, and make it in the best interest of the community.
How about this article Gus! We can’t afford to maintain what we have now how can we possibly afford to maintain a PAC?
The reporter suggested one of the questions during election time might be “how much did it cost to hire a labor lawyer for contract negotiations”
While that is a question one might ask, the real information I would think we want to know is, “was it worth it?”
In other words, did the lawyer save the taxpayers money by providing advice which resulted in less payroll costs and/or increased productivity?
Are we really going to be told that? I would think that is proprietary information no matter if such a question were asked of the union or management.
So, such a question would just feed the rumour mill more, rather than providing meaningful answers.
Perhaps we could get a report on what does transparency in government really mean? What are the reasonable limits and why?
That is not an article, that is an opinion, NoWay.
Didn’t hear back from madam mayor? That’s strange. I thought she said that talking to people was part of her plan?
“I think we need to vote for those who are not afraid to ask the question, explore it further to understand the factual matters around the question, and make decisions based on sufficient knowledge of the matter, and make it in the best interest of the community”
==================================
Well said gus. If people are too scared to even have a dialogue or to go into these things with an open mind, how on earth do they expect to progress on anything?
This type of attitude does not begin and end with a PAC and people can’t turn it on or off. It’s like a disease and it will rear its ugly head with every important issue the city has to face. Air quality, economic development, infrastructure spending, crime reduction, OCP . . .
NoWay …. you do not seem to be a person who explores issues before making a decision.
After some 7 years of a PAC Society, we end up at a position of knowing very little to the extent where City Hall has to do additional work to find out the answers needed.
During the time that the PAC Society was active, City Hall really did not care, did not pay attention, did not participate in a meaningful way. They got reports, smiled at Council, said some words like it is great to have you do all this work, but never took it over or worked in proper partnership with the Society that Council and IPG actually caused to be created.
So, here we are, a bunch of wasted years later, facing the same question.
That is the way this city operates with many projects. The RCMP station is another one that took a decade or more.
Did we need such a palace of a building for the RCMP station? A station that is so complex that they cannot even get it to the point of moving in.
And we want to know how much we spent on a labour lawyer. Peanuts! Explore how much we spent on the RCMP building beyond what was necessary and how much more we will be spending every year to maintain it.
Nobody is doing that, are they? Far too complex an issue. The whole project, in my mind, is one that is a project management failure of Administration as well as Council who were involved on the finance committee.
We have the thing staring right in our face and yet we cannot see it.
If they really care what teh peopel thin put referndum on teh ballot…”DO YOU SUPPORT CITY PROCEEDING WITH THE PAC AT THIS TIME?
I am sure a ot of us think the PAC Would be nice to have… but i am not so sure NOW is the right time with all the other more serious NEEDS we have in our fair city
“Posted by: gus on March 18 2014 8:41
I think they discovered that no one had maintained the rest of the units, just like the city does not maintain its buildings.”
So the city chooses not to maintain their buildings or they don’t have the money to Gus? Or is it just your opinion that they don’t maintain their builings?
What issues do I need to explore Gus? The issue that I get stuck going into my driveway in March because Decembers snowfall is an 8 inch slab of ice which turned into 8 inch ice ruts on my street? The issue that our roads are an embarrassing fact that the city doesn’t have or chooses not to spend money maintaining them. The issue that the water from my roof somehow gets in the storm sewer and is wearing out the pipes so the city needs to charge me for that? The issue that it is going to take how long to pay off the RCMP building?
I’m sure others could add some more issues. What were the PAC issues again?
NoWay wrote: “So the city chooses not to maintain their buildings or they don’t have the money to Gus?”
There you go. You suggested two options. You forgot the most obvious one – the City does not know HOW to maintain things properly.
THAT is what I am suggesting.
You appear to be overwhelmed with issues. That is fine. Some people need to take a few at a time. Cities cannot afford that.
Priority lists have limits with complex, multi-faceted operations.
We have chosen to hire a neophyte as a City Manager. She has never managed a city of any size. So far, she seems to be doing okay with that. So cudos to her.
Bates was a disaster. Kinsley was a disaster as a Mayor. The things that are starting to show up more and more now, actually began with him.
James cannot change all of upper management in one shot. She has to take it a piece at a time.
I had a good chuckle at Lyn Hall once again showing that he has no substance whatsoever.
NoWay …. PG has some of the lowest municipal taxes in the province AND in the country.
The data brought out in the open from Money Sense magazine, which is data taken from BCStats, shows that PG is within the lower quarter of 200 of the larger cities in Canada.
It is a fact that few on this site seem to grasp and believe.
On cannot run any operation to a standard level of quality, let alone a higher level, if one does not put the resources to it.
So, forget about comparing ourselves to Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Penticton or any of the smaller communities in the GVRD. We can do that comparison by saying we have lower municipal taxes, but the quality of our infrastructure, our boulevard and park maintenance, etc. shows. AND, we have $5million a year in snow clearing on top of that which most of those other cities I named do not have.
BUT, we have a palace for a police station, a new KinI, the Canadian Winter Games which shows up on our taxes for 3 or 4 years and we never had an opportunity to vote on ……
Lots of things we tend to forget over time.
And then we have a Mayor who says we can leave if we do not like it. LOL
“The issue that I get stuck going into my driveway in March because Decembers snowfall is an 8 inch slab of ice which turned into 8 inch ice ruts on my street?”
That is an issue of the people in charge thinking they know how to handle snow because we have snow and other cities do not. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been shown time and time again that early removal of snow is the least costly approach to snow clearing.
=====================================
“The issue that our roads are an embarrassing fact that the city doesn’t have or chooses not to spend money maintaining them.”
Again, they do not do preventative maintenance. All northern cities have problems with frost. Read the news – Winnipeg, Ottawa …. the problem with PG is that they do not respond fast enough. With all the City vehicles driving around every day, there should be enough info logged in to get repair crews out for short term relief …. with proper tools, the repairs should also last longer.
Again, more a matter of education and proper tools.
==================================
“The issue that the water from my roof somehow gets in the storm sewer and is wearing out the pipes so the city needs to charge me for that?”
Again, it shows total stupidity on the part of people like Stolz and the Mayor who sit on the finance committee. Trying to remove tax collected from general taxation to create a utility tax is ridiculous.
======================================
To me, it show time and time again that we are spending too much money in the wrong places. The KPMG report and how it was managed by the committee that is now disbanded was another case of total mismanagement.
Do I support a PAC with that kind of an Administration and micro managing Council. NO!!!!
Do I support a PAC that would cost the City taxpayers more than half ($18million) of the cost of the RCMP building? NO!!!
Has anyone reached the conclusion yet that there seems to be an epidemic of poor judgment in governments of all levels?
1. Internationally – the dealings with Russia and its march into the Ukraine.
2. Nationally – the handling of the medical marijuana issue
3. Provincially – the nonsensical regulations of liquor sales in grocery stores that basically does not change the status quo.
4. Municipally – the issue with creating a utility for the storm drainage and charging individual property owners with some nonsensical calculation based on how much water “supposedly” drains from the properties. I would like to know the name of the author of that. That person needs to be fired because he/she has been promoted to his/her level of incompetence.
Don’t forget people- the City is still planning to add an additional tax for the so called amount of run off your property creates. The plan is to tax you more by the square footage of your roof to determine the amount of run off that is created. This is still coming down the pipe. No pun intended!
Council declared the PAC a “top priority” project, and continue to expend resources to that end.
Apparently, they’re doing the costing again, because the information we have from 4 years ago is “outdated.” Yet, there is no money lined up for this project? The Building Canada fund has been curtailed over the next 2 years to “balance the budget” going into the next federal election. When, or if they ramp spending up again two years hence, and the very unlikely scenario exists whereby those precious infrastructure funds would be made available for small cities like ours for this type of infrastructure spending, we’re are going to be well down the road again. By the time that they choose a site and commission an architect to do another conceptual rendering, where will we be? The Mayor has herself stated that there is currently no appetite in the senior levels of government for this type of investment. Rightly so, critical basic infrastructure is a big problem right across this big country.
What I’m getting at is that all this work is being done but everyone of the respondents skirted public opinion. They’re not talking about what the citizens of this community want and that’s a concern to me. They’re giving all sorts of logistical reasons why a referendum question isn’t appropriate at this juncture, but it would give a very clear indication of whether or not it is a priority project of this community and therefore justify the continued expenditure of resources and focus on the project that there is apparently no money for on the horizon. This would be way more definitive than a 400 person poll about entertainment appetites, and it won’t cost $20,000 either. We’re already having an election and a referendum question on fluoridation, so this to me is a no brainer. Add the Pac question to the ballot. Simple.
Personally, I find these Councilors out of touch with the pulse of this community and the immediate needs of our City. As a person who is professionally mobile, you know what would attract me to another community? Economic activity and growth potential, combined with affordability. This community is still quite affordable, and we rank poorly in terms of the amount of debt we hold as a percentage of annual revenues. That combined with successive Councils that seem to have trouble with the concept of fiscal sustainability is what concerns me about staying here. If they dig the whole too deep, I will simply leave and let someone else fix the mess. Most other people with options will eventually do the same. Are you paying attention Council?
Perhaps instead of dreaming up pie in the sky projects to attract people to this community, you should work harder on creating economic activity (other than the odd mega project) and focus on the fiscal sustainability of our community. Think densification, instead of bringing more residents to the community to spread the tax load.
I have written “Gus” off site to tell him that he should confine his comments on stories to a few comments, at most, on a particular item. I am posting this for the benefit of everyone who uses this site, to inform you that if you abuse the commenting section by trying to make it your soap box by commenting as many times as you please, I will begin cutting the privilege.
Commenting on 250 is a privilege, not a God Given right, as some would like to believe.
Ben Meisner
Editor
Gee…, only 11 out of 25 comments were from Gus. He was only on his second cup of coffee. ;-)
Once again no one can answer how the PAC supporters think just because they have a new building that it will magically attract more theatre goers when no shows in this town come close to selling out.
And these councilors are out to lunch if they feel a PAC will attract people to move to PG. Its not like its a magic pill that will blind people to everything that’s wrong and needs to be fixed before a PAC should even be a thought.
Don’t get me wrong I’d love to go to a show in a nice fancy PAC but not when I’d have to drive through giant pot holes and huge snow ruts to get there. That is if I even have extra money after being taxed for storm water because our infrastructure is failing.
This is a sticky point for gus as he used to be on the board, think that is what he wrote once before on a separate story.
Considering us as the taxpaying public of Prince George have paid almost the same for the work on the PAC so far as the Core Review – at least the latter had some suggestions (albeit simple ones we could have done internally). The PAC society so far has returned it to council with the nothing solid or substantive – it is now up to city workers to finish the job. This after how many years of meetings of the PAC? We still don’t even have any summary of the figures never mind concrete figures to work with as a public to consider, just shots in the dark.
Did anyone even run a cash flow on the project? First thing when determining if something is viable is a projected cash flow… at least it is in business, or you are not in business for long and a bank will not even look at you. you have to know your numbers and those numbers can’t change every time someone asks what they are.
Debate aside, the PAC is a very long way from coming to fruition.
It has many hurdles to clear, not the least of which getting many levels of government (Provincial, Federal) to kick in huge amounts of money, and there’s not much appetite to do that these days.
The big waste right now is how much local tax dollars are being spent on feasibility studies and surveys.
It is alright for those 3 councillors to state their choice – they are not on a limited income as a taxpayer like many of the seniors in this city. The taxes keep going up but the OAS remains the same.
Lyn Hall will always sit on the fence – he needs to look good – Krause needs to step down and Everitt – just extra spending money( good union slaray).
Sure hope that the 30% or 40% of the voters who do vote in municipal elections don’t vote for those in favour of building a PAC. How many of those who do vote are of the mind, I don’t know and I don’t care? We need more people to come to Prince George and live here so we can have lower taxes. Right, Dave? AND we can make them come by building and financing a PAC. Place a full page ad in a Vancouver newspaper saying we may be getting a PAC. Two weeks later ask the real estate folks if they notice significantly more enquiries from potential future PG taxpayers who may consider moving here.
Posted by: meisner on March 22 2014 9:27 AM
I have written “Gus” off site to tell him that he should confine his comments on stories to a few comments, at most, on a particular item. I am posting this for the benefit of everyone who uses this site, to inform you that if you abuse the commenting section by trying to make it your soap box by commenting as many times as you please, I will begin cutting the privilege.
Commenting on 250 is a privilege, not a God Given right, as some would like to believe.
Ben Meisner
Editor
————-
You’ve lost me here. Threatening to ban the one guy who actually puts some thought into his arguments simply because people complain about the number of times he posts? Odd.
All councillors who stated opinions are a bit wishy-washy except for Skakum. Why all the qualifying statement in regards to a referendum. Seems quite simple and fair to ask the voters.
With a 20% voter turnout in a civic election it should be an easy task for PAC supporters to marshal their troops and stock city council with PAC inclined councillors and generate enough votes for PAC approval in a referendum.
A PAC generating jobs is nothing more than a hollow statement. Is a PAC going to bring back well paying jobs like the payrolls that were generated at Rustad Bros, NCP, Clear Lake, Winton Global, etc, highly unlikely. Dream on Wilbur, Krause, Hall.
Harbinger:
I think voter turnout is 27% in PG. Also 78% of our council are artsy farsy types who of coarse would support a PAC.
Would it be safe to assume with the above math that 78% of the voter turn out would also support a PAC?
I hope to see a better turn out this election or we could very well get run over my a minority of the population of Prince George that support a PAC.
Come on PG show up at the poles this election.
Comment Posted by: meisner on March 22 2014 9:27 AM
I have written “Gus” off site to tell him that he should confine his comments on stories to a few comments, at most, on a particular item. I am posting this for the benefit of everyone who uses this site, to inform you that if you abuse the commenting section by trying to make it your soap box by commenting as many times as you please, I will begin cutting the privilege.
Commenting on 250 is a privilege, not a God Given right, as some would like to believe.
Ben Meisner
Editor
————————————————-
Thank you Ben. I agree with you 100%. I appreciate an opinion but when some people need to write a book on every story is to much.
Axman, Ben did not cut Gus off completely, he just asked him in private to keep his opinions to just a few on any given topic.
Agree with the reasonable amount of comment rule Ben.
Maybe some kind of anti-stalking rule on here as well? It’s a mental health issue more than anything, IMO.
axman: “You’ve lost me here. Threatening to ban the one guy who actually puts some thought into his arguments simply because people complain about the number of times he posts? Odd.”
Like Ben says, commenting is not a right, it is a privilege. He owns the site, he sets the rules. It’s a pretty simple concept, actually.
As far as gus is concerned, there’s no question he is very passionate about the idea of a PAC and he feels he needs to be the one to combat anyone who might see the issue differently.
I personally think he’s wasting his time and that the decision of whether the PAC will be built or not won’t be based on the comments section of this site.
Maybe Ben can mentor little ol’ Gus and help him start up a “250” clone for himself and then Gus can have his own website and then extrapolate into infinity. Opportunity knows no bounds. The journey starts with the first step.
People#1..We’re not a little paranoid, are we? Mental health? Ha ha ha . Look at the whole world. Especially the Middle East for examples of “mental health”. Try and count your blessings in yer life. I do.
@Harb: If some can’t take the heat, they should probably stay out of the kitchen. Just my two cents.
JB…better add two more cents so I can round it off to a nickel. Two cents? Meh.
Good work Ben, Gus needed to be reigned in
So we have been studying the PAC for 15 yrs at least and according to Wilbur all the costs around this thing are a mystery.. So what have they been spending all this money on if not working on costs? Lunches,?
And only 70 or 80% is covered by others rather than the citizens, 10% when you are talking in the tens of millions is a lot.. Wilbur needs to go.
Koehler says people will move to pg because we gave a PAC.. What a rediculous statement. Say bye bye.
Because Gus is the only one that uses this site as a soapbox.
“Agree with the reasonable amount of comment rule Ben” .. priceless coming from someone who frequently gets into tit for tat arguments and totally hijacks the subject of threads. But you aren’t the only one.
Oh I can take the heat, everyone on here from the political right has probably had a turn taking a shot at me, and my lefty comments. I can take as much as I give, and even find the intellectual jousting both entertaining and amusing… it’s just this one obsessive individual that makes this site creepy for me.
Anyway, it’s always a good idea to use monikers, and not your real names, on sites like these. Cyber stalkers are creepy, but much more so when they take that behavior into the real world. Yes, there is such a thing as stranger danger online folks. You never know, some of us could be the next “1 Country Boy” or girl, if you know what I mean!
“,,,,stranger danger online..? Maybe a talk with your teacher or your school counsellor will settle your apprehensions. Be glad I don’t use Facebook. I might defriend you and send you off on a crying jag.
None of the Councilors want the PAC to be an election issue. Hence all the humming and hawing, without saying anything.
Once the election is over they will proceed with the project without going to a referendum, or to an alternate approval process.
The City will get their portion of the funding from land sales, and if necessary from the Federal Gas Tax. They will contribute the land which they already own, and will probably get some funding from the Provincial Government. (Not the Feds) perhaps a little from private contributions.
So the die is cast. The plan is in place, and all that remains at this point in time is to deny that they have a plan, until after the election.
In other words they are playing us for fools.
We need to keep this issue front and centre during this election year. Keep in mind that those elected this year will be in for four years.
Remember also that they have a referendum on Chlorinated Water, and on reducing the number of Councilors from eight to six. Seems they have little on no problem going to a referendum on those issues, however they make the referendum on the PAC sound like it is a mathematical problem that could only be solved by Einstein.
If our population was twice of what it is now, I am sure that most of us would have a different attitude toward a PAC and its costs.
That said, perhaps the current and future city councils should direct most of their efforts to how they can attract new business to the city and by doing so, double our population.
I would vote for the PAC because I would probably get work there in the construction phase. I wonder how many others want a PAC because it would improve their work/business/real-estate situations but, like me, would never attend any performances there (unless of course redneck type comedy acts were offered).
I love the no real answers from some, political mambo jumbo..
I can’t say for sure until someone says soemthing so I can either agree or deny unless it may but not necessarily involve something or not. So as for my position I don’t really kind of not,, hey look a squirrel. Lol
“Remember also that they have a referendum on Chlorinated Water”
It’s a referendum on Fluoridated water, not Chlorinated.
=======
How many of you attended any of the performances of the PG Dance Festival that was held all week long? Or at a minimum, the Gala last night?
Actually I think it’s quite pathetic that there wasn’t one single mention of this event on 250News, even if it was just a photo or two.
Palopu: “None of the Councilors want the PAC to be an election issue. Hence all the humming and hawing, without saying anything.”
It’s not just the PAC. Many of our elected officials have been doing a lot of humming and hawing on a variety of issues, and accomplishing very little, the Core Services Review being another glaring example.
It makes you wonder what they’re going to talk about come election time, or what they’re going to say they’ve been up to the past term.
“If our population was twice of what it is now, I am sure that most of us would have a different attitude toward a PAC and its costs”
===================================
I disagree completely. This isn’t a question of population, it’s a question of demographics. Just my opinion.
JB:”It makes you wonder what they’re going to talk about come election time, or what they’re going to say they’ve been up to the past term.”
That is why you have an opportunity to drill them for answers when they have the all candidates forums! We already know what they have been up to! I want to know what they intend to stand for if re-elected during the next term! I also want to ask the same hard questions of the new ones, of which hopefully enough step forward to give people the option to replace those who are at a loss for new ideas and a new approach to make this city a better place!
Ask hard questions – if you are allowed to step up to the microphone and if you are allowed to finish up with enough follow up questions – just in case they decide to weasel out of giving realistic factual answers instead of the usual stonewalling!
Palopu:”Remember also that they have a referendum on Chlorinated Water,…”
It is a referendum on the practice of adding to the tap water a dangerous industrial waste chemical.
Comment made for clarification of the matter at hand.
@PG: Why?
I agree its fluoridated water. Pretty sure what the vote would be if it was chlorinated.
Maybe city council could explain how having a PAC would bring people to this town. Would it become a retirement community? You know, people of independent means going to the shows? Most people aren’t going to move here unless there are jobs for them or business opportunities that they can get involved in. Economic opportunity is what people move for.
How about a report on how much the shows and plays that are performed here make for the city? If a grand theatre can’t make money for the city, then I wouldn’t vote for it.
Pylot Project on March 22 2014 1:56 PM
How many of you attended any of the performances of the PG Dance Festival that was held all week long? Or at a minimum, the Gala last night?
Actually I think it’s quite pathetic that there wasn’t one single mention of this event on 250News, even if it was just a photo or two.
=============================================
I think that goes to show the lack of interest in the arts is in this town. If you cannot sell out something in a venue like Vanier Hall at $10 for the day, how can you expect to sell out a 800 seat PAC with tickets prices much more expensive than that. And to be honest I probably would have gone at least one day but I didn’t even know it was going on.
Why would anyone of means retire in PG, when there are places like the Okanagan and lower mainland that don’t have winter 7 months of the year. So that makes PG a working town and the type of work that is here hardly would support the arts and culture type venues, let alone a multimillion dollar PAC. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig as far as I am concerned.
Moose…
Judging by the complete disregard and lack of coverage by this so-called news source of one of the largest annual arts events in the city, it’s not surprising you didn’t know it was going on.
IMO, It shows Ben’s complete indifference to the performing arts, and I feel his venom towards the PAC goes way beyond the financial implications.
This site should be renamed 250PACHaters.com
Huh so you consider yourself a step above a PG citizen? What is your claim to fame?
Pylot: “This site should be renamed 250PACHaters.com”
What about “250CondescendingArtsnobs.com”? Probably too long. ;-)
I’ve said this in other threads, I would probably get a bit of use out of a PAC, and I have enjoyed many events at the facilities we have.
But let’s face facts, it is a very expensive project, and leaving the huge capital cost aside (which nobody seems to be committing to), can we afford to operate and maintain yet another major facility? The City can’t even tell us how it’s going to pay off it’s debt, while maintaining the facilities we have, let alone the prospect of having another one.
That’s just my take on it, I know there are those who disagree.
Please don’t limit Gus’ posts. I do not always agree with him but I find his arguments intelligent. There are others in this site more deserving of censorship.
Now to the topic at hand, if the City can find a way of building the PAC without raising taxes e.g. cutting 10% or more of the City’s current costs or more, then I support it. If this PAC raises our taxes, then no way Jose should this building be built.
“What about “250CondescendingArtsnobs.com”?”
Naw… Ben would never allow himself to be associated with the word “arts”. He’d rather sit back think about the good ol’ days when he was the face and voice of Crazy Willy’s.
====
I too think it’s ridiculous to truncate Gus’ opinions. Yes he may take the long and winding road, but he eventually gets to his point.
I might not always agree, but I defend his right to state an opinion in any fashion he chooses, as long as it’s not spam in nature. If Ben is going to clip Gus, then Eagleone needs a trim as well.
Maybe a better name would be 250SelectiveNews.com ;)
Pylot P: I don’t think Ben is indifferent to the arts at all! He is very much in touch with our community’s needs and what we can afford. I would guess you are out of touch with the affordability.
I have lived here since 1952 and have watched the city grow. I would like to see good facilities but first I need to know how our current debt is going to be paid down to zero.
Believe it or not, in this Spruce Capital of the World: The Money just doesn’t rain down on us from the trees.
Just say no and go and tell people to vote. This PAC should be stopped once and for all during this next election. Stop wasting money on it.
Maybe once the city grows, and we have senior levels of government that are willing to invest in PG, then at that time it could be reconsidered, but that is not anywhere on the horizon at this time.
Until then we have 70% of the population that needs to be engaged in PG’s future this next election. It needs to be about immediate priorities and not about those that are dreamers with our tax dollars.
My take on Gus is that he sometimes talks to much, but that’s alright because he is usually well informed. What the 250News needs is some kind of drop down section for follow up to individual comments from commentators. If someone needs to talk a lot to get a point across and others don’t want to read it, then they could just scroll it up out of sight and move on.
When you go to a party do you listen to everything a person has on their mind before moving on to the next person… probably not. One gets a snap shot and then moves along, and if one is interested, or engaged, then they take the time to continue a discussion. So should it be in a free flowing brain storming discussion thread like 250News… we are not all going to agree what is relevant to the discussion on everything.
The linear format is sometimes the problem and not the level of engagement IMO. I know I feel guilty of hijacking a discussion thread from time to time when I’m taken to task, or taking one to task, and I am aware its not fair to the casual reader. If one feels strongly about something what are they to do? Walk away and thus forfeit their position to those who scream the loudest? Sometimes stepping outside the general discussion is warranted, and then people can choose if its something they want to engage in further.. in all fairness to others and the flow of the discussion.
Give each commenter one comment on the main thread with unlimited drop down debate under their comment open to all, and then the dynamics of the discussion would increase substantially. In all likelihood it would grow the participation level for the web site in the process. Everyone gets their full say, but without hijacking the topic at hand.
Pylot, its not just this site. The Free Press site only has a single photo. The Citizen only has a single article that I could find. I think it just comes down to these things are not advertised well. There are many things I would love to attend that I only hear about after the fact.
The biggest issue should be the total lack of accountable.
The backroom deals that they need to come clean on includes the way they dealt with Pine Valley and why they discussed selling off this public land in private. They then told us they decided not to sell by a 5-4 vote but refused to tell us who voted in favor and who voted against. What an insult to the citizens who they are elected to represent. Time to come clean.
Then there is the curious case of the mayor’s expenses for her latest trip around China. She got IPG to cover most of her expenses and of course they refuse to provide details on what that junket actually cost. The Mayor and City Manager approve their budget so for IPG to bury those expenses is unethical to say the least. Time to come clean.
And the most recent example of a mayor and council who are totally out of control is their quiet attempt to buy land outside the city. Here we have a municipal government trying to use public dollars to buy public land off the province and there has been absolutely no decision in public as to why they would consider making such a risky purchase.
Time for somebody to launch an independent investigation to make sure they come clean.
sorry that should be total lack of “accountability”.
Ben, I think it was very unprofessional of you to let everybody on here know that you had written “Gus” in private. When you write someone privately and then proceed to tell the world that you did, including what was said, is no longer private. I think a warning in general on here would have worked, didn’t have to mention “Gus”. I find several posters on here get carried away in length and number of times they post on any given subject.
I myself, for the most part, quite enjoyed reading the comments from “Gus”. He did allot of research to back up statements he made about various subjects. I notice he caught O250 telling a fib on the above article today, and backed it up with what you folks had written.
taxi
Pylot: “Maybe a better name would be 250SelectiveNews.com ;)”
All media (online, print, tv, etc.) is ‘selective’ by nature. All of it can be found to have certain biases. You’re never going to get away from that. Either you accept the bias, or you find another outlet that more aligns with your views. But what fun would that be? :-)
“I have lived here since 1952 and have watched the city grow.”
And then it hit a wall roughly 20 years ago and grew very little since. I know… I lived there for 37 years. Some like to live in 1970’s perpetually, and that’s fine. Some of us prefer move beyond that. Literally and figuratively.
======
JB… it would suck. There would be no point in opinion threads then. ;)
======
taxi, you are dead on correct. The note to Gus should never have been brought to public attention. It was unfair to Gus, and Ben has shone a light on himself that is less than flattering.
Comments for this article are closed.