First Mayoral Debate a Packed House
Prince George, B.C.- Standing room only at the Prince George Public Library for the first debate for Mayoral candidates in Prince George.
Many of the candidates for council were in attendance as well and they were jostling for position within the room, while campaign people handed out brochures and buttons for their respective candidates.
Both candidates, Lyn Hall and Don Zurowski were asked to prepare an opening statement that would reflect their vision 
(at right, Don Zurowski and Lyn Hall prepare to take questions -photos 250News)
Hall was the first to speak, calling for a Mayor’s round table that would bring together all stakeholders in the community.
Don Zurowski says he’s running on three pillars, the first being let’s get Prince George growing. He pitched pushing the population to over 100 thousand in order to spread the tax base. Needs before wants is the second pillar, maintaining existing infrastructure instead of building news. The final pillar is rebuilding civic pride. He says civic pride has eroded because of annoyances like rough roads.
The first question came from the P.G. Chamber of Commerce who wanted to know what each would do to help in recruitment and retention and improved the image of Prince George.
Zurowski said he would put up a sign outside the city limits declaring Prince George is open for business and would post the Mayor’s phone number on that sign. Hall said if people could come here to see the amenities Prince George has to offer, he is confident they will stay, but said promoting the City is not something that is entirely the responsibility of Council, that each and every resident has a responsibility to share a positive image of P.G.
Katherine Kendall of the VLA neighbourhood, who has been an advocate for that neighbourhood wanted to know what the candidates would do for that neighbourhood. Hall was the first to respond, saying the VLA is a partner at his table, “it’s that partnership, which has started with providing some equipment to clean up yards. It’s a work in progress and it takes time.”
Zurowski said he was happy to hear the blockwatch program was being put in place, “Crime is not acceptable in any neighbourhood in the community” says Zurowski, he called for targeted enforcement, saying it is essential, along with working with other levels of government to manage the variety of issues facing people in that neighbourhood.
Hall says while the majority of police and fire calls are to the VLA there doesn’t seem to be any connection from that front line to a social agency that would offer assistance. Hall also talked about bringing in bylaws or actions that would strengthen the opportunity for bylaw enforcement officers and the RCMP to have the tools required to deal with landlords who are allowing their properties to be home to criminal activity.
Lheidli T’enneh representative Jason Morgan asked about how the City will recognize that while P.G. is 100 years old, it is a history that marks the relocation of an entire community. He is referring to the relocation of the Lheidli T’enneh.
Don Zurowski responded saying this is as much the Lheidli T’enneh home as it is his. He touched on the 2002 protocol between the Lheidli T’enneh and the City and said he would like to remove barriers to work closer with the Lheildi T’enneh.
Lyn Hall spoke of the need to work closer with the Lheidli T’enneh and his desire to address issues that would bring the two levels of government working collaboratively. He said he would make it the first order of business with Council.
A Student from UNBC asked what would be done to improve safety downtown and revitalize the core? Zurowski says he would like to see student residency in the downtown, and is a proponent of private investors building in the downtown core. He supports the permissive tax exemption that gives a ten year break to developers.
Hall said in order to revitalize downtown “we need people living there” he also referenced the RCMP downtown enforcement unit, but said there are a couple of buildings downtown which could be used. He says there needs to be an examination on the busing needs of students to move them between downtown and the college or the university. He says Mayor and council need to push the envelope to get more development, he also says there needs to be something to “incentify” students to move into the downtown core and suggests the WIDC building may have a floor or two that would start the migration.
The Library entrance came up as an issue. The entrance was to be a funded project ($2.5 million dollars) but was taken off the list . Both Zurowski and Hall stated support for the Library and the need to improve the entrance. Hall says the entrance is an eyesore, and needs work “We’re gong to have a vigorous discussion with Council on the work that needs to be done here.”
Zurowski says he is not prepared to make any capital commitments without looking at the details “in balance with other projects.”
What are their greatest achievements?
Zurowski takes pride in the reduced costs of the Cameron Street Bridge by using the existing pillars, which saved $8-$10 million dollars. Hall was most proud of the efforts to find more dollars to improve Prince George roads.
On the matter of a Performing Arts Centre, Lynn Hall says he supports a PAC but “There is no money” he says it will take a commitment from three levels of government, and that is not on the radar. “Will it happen within the next three years? at this point I don’t think it will.” He says it is clear, the longer it takes to start a project, the higher the cost. If we’re not going to get the federal Provincial governments to be a partner in this, its a really tough go of it, we just can’t go it alone.”
Zurowski says while he is a supporter of the Arts, he would not support the Performing Arts Centre in his first term as there is no funding, but would support construction in his second term as he is confident the population base will have grown enough to support.
In closing remarks, Don Zurowski says he is in recruitment mode, calling on everyone to assist in improving civic pride to get Prince George growing.
Lyn Hall, wrapped his presentation saying he has the leadership to connect with the community and work with council “And that’s why I’m proposing holding council meetings in the community on a quarterly basis.”
Comments
After attending the debate I still don’t know how don plans to get the city growing. I found his propositions quite vague. Lots of garnish, where is the meat! Great summary done by 250 news.
JFK would be disappointed at all the people asking what the government can do for them.
Promises, Promises! Remember the Green wonder child? Need I say more?
I like don but continuing and supporting the ten year tax break for downtown improvemts is foolish.
As for Lynn, he’s been feeding at the public trough for far too long.
Dons the better choice. Lynn needs to work in a real job.
Signs saying Prince George is open for business with the Mayor’s phone number is a campaign promise?
This is deep. I need more time to think.
A ten year tax break for downtown means home owners pay higher taxes. This is made more foolish when current zoning allows for the majority of commercial development to occur outside of the exemption zone, which means these are neglected while the city itself is implicitly saying that those properties are not a priority for development. If you support that idea, don’t complain about paying higher taxes.
dow 7501…..think he probably meant City Hall number on that sign..
Where was this meeting posted??? Musta missed it somewhere somehow
Let’s keep in mind what this current Council hasn’t done, other than waste our money and time. I certainly won’t be re-electing any of them, or in Hall’s case promoting him to Mayor. This City can’t take another 4 years of indecision and outright stupid decisions.
It was on both the Lyn’s and Don’s Facebook pages also CBC.
Like Halls commitment to give more responsibility to council members, which allows for more direct action and accountability. Much better than City administrators calling all the shots and reporting their decisions after the fact to Council with little public engagement.
lildigger. Hall has a real job in addition to his work on the School Board, and his 3 years as a Councillor. So not sure what you mean by feeding at the public trough. What would you call Zurowski’s 9 years as a City Councilor??? Feeding at the Public Trough???
Are any of the two candidates for Mayor able to do the work without a mayor’s assistant, as was the practice before Green? That would have been MY first question! If they can’t and won’t I wouldn’t vote for either one!
Don votes yes to a secondary tax to the businesses downtown when the dbia got in. Now he is saying he is in favor of a 10 year tax brak for new businesses.
Make up your mind Don Ziroski. I wish there were more people running for mayor.
Two very good candidates for Mayor!
I think Don has the edge, with has business experience, but I am excited that we will have good representation in the Mayor’s chair whomever is elected.
GREAT FOR PRINCE GEORGE!
Honestjo if you are insinuating that Don is Green’s wonder child you are dead wrong. I think when you find out who is backing Hall you might want to change your tune.
JFK: ” Ask not what your country can do for you, instead ask what you can do for your country!”
Big difference!
There are many things I personally would do for my country which I would not do for the government!
oneup482. Don’t keep us in suspense. Who’s backing Hall, that would make someone change their tune????
PG, the point I was making was that it takes engaged people to improve the community. Waiting on government to solve problems is a futile exercise.
One of the points that I heard Lyn Hall repeat a number of times last night is that he will take the council meetings out into the larger community on a quarterly basis. He said Blackburn, College Heights, the Bowl and the Hart and he spoke of stronger engagement with marginalized areas such as parts of the VLA. That says to me that he will try to engage more with people than what is the current situation.
What I heard from Don Zurowski is more a law and order approach. Use the law, be it the RCMP or bylaw services and include the firefighters in that, to get at some unacceptable situations in parts of our city. Great idea, but I am interested in prevention.
I like the approach Lyn Hall took better. What I hear from him is that he wants to get at the root of issues.
Both are kinda like the local radio stations, same tune over and over again. Time to drop $15 bucks and buy an iTunes card, the music need to change across the board.
Having to run all over the city to take in a council meeting is just a waste of time for so many who already attend these meetings (needless expense). Everyone knows where city hall is, it isn’t a trick question.
Mr Hall had the opportunity to get to the “root issues” when he was in council, why now is it important to get to the root issues? I am assuming the lips were broken or laryngitis for the last 3 years was an issue.
Mr Zurowski with granting tax breaks to developers, that’s what is causing the issue we have now as the tax breaks to these jokers. By the way taxes are a business write off for developers or any business for that matter. So why the break when it can be claimed by the developer as an expense???
I want to see these guys “bring it”, this was just a warm up (I hope).
Going into specific areas to hold meetings might work if there is something on the agenda specific to that area, otherwise people can go to the meetings at City Hall if they so choose.
Last night was the first salvo in this campaign. Most shots were across the bow. Hopefully before its over both sides will have all guns blazing.
We need to eliminate the vague phrases, promises that cant be kept, and the hype.
We did get some clarification on the PAC /. Both candidates were not in favour of building it in the first four years. That should give people time to sit down and look at all the needs of Prince George, before we spend millions of dollars on a PAC.
I watched the debate, and it was pretty evident the cheering section for Don was the same group I saw cheering for Sharry Green 3 years ago. As many have stated, don’s money Is coming from the same pot as sharrys did. Lyn’s had a raw deal having to sit on a distinctional, divided council thanks to mayor green, I think he would do a much better job of running this city than don would. Nothing personal don, but I was fooled 3 years ago, won’t happen this time around! Lyn Hall is getting my vote!
I really don’t understand the logic in saying that giving a permissive tax abatement for 10 years for new development is forcing homeowners to pay higher taxes!
If a piece of property in the downtown core remains undeveloped (Vacant) or remains unimproved then that particular piece of property is going to continue to pay taxes at whatever rate it is paying today based on it’s current assesed value.
Now say a developer takes a vacant piece of property that is assesed at say $500 Thousand and invests $10 Million in a new building 2 things happen. 1) He continues to pay taxes based on the $500K land value for 10 years, 2) In the 11th year he pays taxes on the entire package.
The city has not lost one penny in taxes, and makes huge gains in it’s tax base 10 years down the road.
If this is waht it takes to get investors building and by extension revitalizing our downtown I think it is worth it!
Lets stop worrying only about today, and start to plan strategically for tomorrow.
It seems like Don has invested too much time into marketing and not a lot into substance. His 3 pillar approach sounds great, but he seems to not know how to execute his theories. Lynn seems to have a real strategy to complete his objectives. I was undecided, but I am heavily leaning towards Lynn Hall now. Even without the groundbreaking “PG is open for business” sign haha.
“PG, the point I was making was that it takes engaged people to improve the community. Waiting on government to solve problems is a futile exercise.”
Great comment JohnnyBelt. Why would anyone wait for government to solve problems government creates? I find I can agree with you on that one point; waiting for “government to solve problems is a futile exercise”! I think that is what PG was suggesting, as was JFK. Your implied question; what can engaged people” do to resolve (local) government created problems to improve the community? You provide such good lead in’s answering your own suggestions. The PG solution is in the question; Government created problems can be solved through the efforts of “engaged people”, ending forced fluoridation. Did you notice none of the candidates was asked the fluoridation question? CBC is avoiding that topic! Fluoridation and its problems, were created by local government removing everyone’s right to say NO to Fluoridation (non-binding referendum confirms that fact). The City (local government) admits to not knowing anything about fluoridation ingredients. They don’t know the source country the hazardous waste we pay for comes from. Local government adds hazardous waste to clean water without obtaining individual informed consent! Do you support dilution as the solution to someone else’s pollution problems? On the other hand, are you OK with becoming a walking-talking (blogging!) hazardous waste dumpsite? The local government has information confirming fluoridation harms people and the environment (years of it). They do not care to accept those public facts provided by engaged, caring, respectful, educated people who are well qualified and know the harms from consuming the fluoridation chemical cocktail! (Lead, arsenic, fluoride, mercury, and more toxins). JohnnyBelt, thank you for supporting; “engaged people to improve the community”. Will you be engaged enough to read and seek to understand the facts and help end forced fluoridation? Alternatively, are you waiting for the government to tell you it is OK to think for yourself? Do you still think government’s introduction “Hi, I’m from the government and here to help you; now drink your fluoridated water and do what your told”, is more than “a futile exercise”? I thought you were smarter than that!
Did not like the lack of concrete plans and vague statements of Don, Lyn was much better at articulating his plans and how to get there. I think Lyn has always been a fair and open politician (with a full time job) and will stand behind his words with action. I think that the entire Sherri Green years were unfair to everyone of the councillors that had to endure it (along with the rest of the citizens of PG) Lyn definitely has my vote!
FFPG, can we at least keep the anti-fluoride alarmism and misinformation in the fluoride threads? Thanks a bunch.
Fluoride Free PG: Get you’re point, but please use the odd carriage return so your post is easier to read, that or take the odd breath when typing….lol thanks
The only thing I’m clear about is someone’s pipe dream that we are gonna grow to 100,000???
And a PAC in the second term?
No thank, it’s gonna take at least 10 years to replace existing water mains, sewer pipes etc. Too much time on council and catering to the same old crowd.
I’ll stick with Hall.
JB:”PG, the point I was making was that it takes engaged people to improve the community. Waiting on government to solve problems is a futile exercise.”
Well, I agree! But having 500 people come out to a candidates’ forum is a darn good sign of local citizen being engaged. Where you there?
Another sign of really engaged people is the citizens’ volunteer effort in the upcoming referendum. Don’t disrespect that effort, as tempting a target as it appears to be! Right or wrong they have a right to express their opinions and convictions without being ridiculed ad infinitum!
Thank you for acknowedging your position as a ‘conviction’, PG. That is what I have been saying all along.
And yes, FFPG’s post is a good example of the ridicule that shouldn’t be tolerated.
JohnnyBelt. So, you are OK with local government creating and not being able to resolve problems we and our children pay for?
You don’t want “engaged people” working to resolve futile government problems? So are you giving up? Spoiler Alert! The non-binding fluoridation referendum question is on the election ballot. Surprise, it is an election issue! Guess you would not have known that unless you stopped playing ostrich and because the City has not posted that question on their elections Web page (for the last 17 days of the 45-day advertising period).
The City would prefer the non-binding No to Fluoridation question is a surprise to everyone (all 28% of the voters who might care!) Who knows what might happen if fluoridation was to end, maybe save $100,000 for a performing Arts center, or how about fixing some old pipes? That way the newly elected representatives can keep doing things the way they have always been done… ignore the issues, raise taxes, pay for expensive Core reports they don’t need to listen too, keep dumping hazardous waste into our water, forget to maintain infrastructure.
That way underpaid City administration won’t have to deal with forced, unethical fluoridation for the next four years either or any other public issue! Let’s just keep paying them more tax dollars for their great ideas… like billing us for the rain that falls on grass, and the snow they pile-up on peoples lawns, because they forgot that the old pipes need replacing. How about we make Fourth Avenue one way going West this time… that way it will help the business on the north side of the street!
Forgive me if I misunderstood some of the comments on the web pages of people suggesting a change in government was a good thing. You know where elected people might actually represent the common people and work on basic community needs; like ending forced medication, snow removal, not to begin until after the snow event ends! A snow event might not stop for 3 or more days. Then they can put the equipment out and have the same problems as last year. So your OK with ignoring those elections too?
So I take it your answer is no?
I have to give you credit FFPG, for sticking to your ideology despite a mountain of scientific evidence collected over decades, not to mention the world’s health and dental organizations that say otherwise.
OMG FFPG – there will be a referendum on fluoridation on voting day. Ranting about it here only weakens your case.
Yes it would be nice to have population growth at 5% however it is foolish to make plans based on anything more than 1%. That is why we have four lane one ways when a single lane would suffice. The politicians of the past always counted on growth that never comes. We need a mayor to plan and be realistic. Tell us Don how do you plan to get us to grow 20k when we have failed to do this in the last thirty years. Prince George is not going to grow like Kelowna because we are not and thats ok. Have you noticed our house prices are also more affordable and stable. We need stable growth not boom bust BS.
I was unsure about Don this time around because I couldnt remember his politics. He reminded me why I didnt vote for him last time by this display.
JB:” Thank you for acknowedging (sic) your position as a ‘conviction’, PG. That is what I have been saying all along.”
Well, you have a right to have convictions and so do I !
Your convictions are based on evidence (convincing to you, but not necessarily so to others) which you assume to be as truthful and free of any bias as can be! I propose to you that you not only refrain from ridiculing others, but that you first examine your evidence if it is entirely truthful and free from any manipulations in order to preserve professional pride and the possibility of being subject to being sued in court.
Also I would suggest that you examine your evidence/sources to determine if they are entirely respectful of ethics, human rights and the Canadian Medical Associations Code of Ethics requirement that each patient MUST be informed and be given a choice of consent before agreeing to the administering of any medication whatsoever.
You will find some very troubling discrepancies as far as legality and ethics are concerned.
So what you are saying FFPG is that if the city votes no in the referendum we won’t need a storm water tax?
The vote on the plebiscite has no bearing on who gets elected for mayor or council or their platforms
JohnnyBelt..thanks for providing me with credit on my interest (ologies… not something I like to by into. My credit line is not high enough with the risks being too high! JB – Are your interest rates comparable with the Banks or better (I might need to move my investments!)
Always good to have a healthy discussion on fluoridation and the opportunity to bring forward some documented facts that some people may consider rants.
I would like to assure you, the information I am carefully and respectfully sharing are well from well researched, documented,experienced information, supported by around sixty years of local Prince George fluoridation history (And FOI requests – so consider the sources, City of PG,Northern Health, Minister of Health, Provincial Chief Medical Health Officer to name a couple sources). It is important, so I use my 24 hours carefully, I also share the documentation so others can rant.
I suspect some people will have issues with those documented fluoridation facts and on how we got to be the only City in BC where fluoridation is forced on us.
The challenges becomes one of trust. Who do you believe if those who you once trusted confirm they have made a mistake in their own documents? If the City provided documentation is honest and truthful… we are in trouble with consuming hazardous waste.
Why would responsible people want to take the fluoridation risk without connecting all of the dots?
PS. Fluoridation, may have begun in 1954 with the best of intentions… if local news archives are correct. However, Hansard documents confirm other issues. Good discussion, thanks for engaging one more time! I am sure there will be more to discuss and share.
slinky… I am suggesting if we end fluoridation, we wont need to pay the annual purchase cost of the hazardous waste (between $4,000 and $72,000 according to FOI info from the City over sixty years plus the operating, maintenance and infrastructure costs, around $1.09 million (1998 City FOI documentation). The fluoridation system was upgraded around 1998 and is ready for some new upgrades in the near future.
The savings from ending fluoridation could be allocated to other City priorities (purchase a new grader every couple years, help repair a few more pot holes, purchase some new pipe).
Mayor and Council, working with City administration could reallocate our tax dollars to important basic work, without raising taxes. That would take some planning and a whole lot of cooperation.
Where the fluoridation dollars move to, something we as a community could discuss with a more receptive Mayor and council.
Proper planning to set aside money for “home maintenance” is something many of us try to plan for, and hope other crisis don’t appear. If we fail to plan, we plan to fail! The proposed Storm tax is a failure to plan!
I agree with you, FFPG! These jabs and taunts provide for a really great platform to share information!
I remember when it was allowed (by the medical profession as harmless!) to chain smoke in hospital rooms and ignore the complaints of the other three non-smoking coughing occupants! Look at the situation now! What a difference!
There are numerous other issues where the so-called experts had to eat crow and make a 180 degree turn to the opposite, usually as a result of up-to-date research results!
Enjoy the evening!
The fluoridation ‘savings’ will be insignificant compared to subsidizing those with low incomes to get their teeth fixed. Fluoridation is a cost effective public health measure and it’s too bad a vocal interest group is attacking the very system that is there to protect them.
Same mantra as in the paper today, without any proof of course, no statistical evidence for communities in B.C. or elsewhere!
Most of Western Europe has not fluoridated its water since the early seventies and WHO statistics show that there is virtually no difference in cavities between countries which do and countries which do not. Cavities have been declining equally everywhere. Brushing and flossing.
Sorry to be citing such an unreliable organization as the WHO, the World health Organization.
PG, you must be aware that the WHO called fluoridation one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century? Thanks for bringing them up.
I challenge you to show me one piece of credible evidence from an accredited health organization which shows that fluoridation at approved levels causes any harm. Links that ignore the concept of dose don’t count. Good luck.
I know we’re not allowed to post links on here, but there is plenty of information on the WHO website for those who are interested.
From the site: “Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span. Fluoride in drinking water acts mainly through its retention in dental plaque and saliva. Frequent consumption of drinking water and products made with fluoridated water maintain intra-oral fluoride levels. People of all ages, including the elderly, benefit from community water fluoridation.”
Its absolutely amazing that people who are opposed to fluoride can take so much time, and effort, for such a useless debate.
The fact of the matter is very few people actually care one way or the other. As someone in a previous post said. **Show us the bodies**.
I would be more concerned about, sugar, ice cream, alcohol, tobacco, canned goods, soft drinks, etc; than I would be about fluoride in water.
Not only is it a non issue, the subject is boring as hell. Cant wait for the referendum to settle this one way or the other.
Stop fluoridation and use the injection infrastructure to add fertility drugs and Viagra to the water and then maybe in 20 years we will have the 100,000 residents Don needs to justify the building of the PAC. ☻
JB. Good of you to provide confirmation fluoridation is looked on by some as a great public health achievement. And we all know the CDC never makes mistakes, well maybe a couple, sometimes. So, your satisfied their statement confirms fluoridation is a medically approved public health treatment acceptable to all scientific and practicing medical professional and all people?
Just wondering who the prescribing physician is and why some professionals seem to disagree with you? You know, the good Doctor who does the individual health inspection, then prescribes a specific medication for a specific aliment. When we were in the Hospital, the Dr. asked me to sign a consent form before treating my children. Just wondering who forged my signature consenting to the fluoridation public health treatment for me and my children?
If you check the MSDS for the hazardous waste the City uses, as a condition of sale the City MUST provide a copy of the MSDS to all end users. Since we store most of the toxic chemicals in our bodies, we are the end users. Has the City ever sent you the MSDS? I suspect no, because they never provided me a copy either. Check the City, Utilities web page, MSDS ClearTech. And you’re welcome as it is a new FOI document the City added to their web page in Feb this year. Before February, the document was not made know to residents.
There are lots of records and documents and many aspects of this debate, all contributing too many peoples’ confusion and frustrations. So, JB, why do you want to be fluoridated and add to the confusion? Maybe you just like to yank people’s chain! Do you have your own teeth? You should be more like Hartly2 and his great example of thinking outside the box! Probably should add lithium to the mix too, calms people down!
If the many experts can’t get it right, don’t use it. I think that’s called the precautionary principal. Be respectful to everyone and have some fun.
Comments for this article are closed.