You could advance an argument that there is a need for small lots in cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, perhaps Victoria, but suggesting that this is a good idea in Prince George just doesn’t add up.

City Council recently gave unanimous  approval  to third reading of a new by law that allows lots less than 9 meters wide (30 feet by the old scale) to have 50% site coverage. 9-12 meter lost can go as high as 45% site coverage .

Did that move improve the urban sprawl that this City faces? No.  If anything, it exacerbates the problem .

We seem bent on making Prince George, the city with the largest foot print in BC. That of course comes with a major cost.

You have to extend water, sewer, roads, fire, and police to these new subdivisions, all at the cost of the general taxpayer. You see the developer who tries to get a subdivision created is facing the cost of the development including water and sewer, but does not have to contribute to the problem they are creating with that Urban sprawl.

As you drive around the city, look at the gaping holes where there could be development. Empty stretches that have no tax base other than the land itself,and there is a cost for those  spaces. That cost is born by all of the taxpayers in the city as services  run  past the  undeveloped  land  to reach the next populated area.

So back to the original thought.

By cutting the lot sizes, we are hoping to encourage people to build in a small area of the city that already is dense enough to cover the cost of services it receives.

Why wouldn’t you look first at how to encourage developers to build on the  bare lots that exist?

So what do we gain by creating a new zoning that reduces the size of lots?  Do you really think that Prince George is short of building space?

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.