Last Meeting of Current Council Tonight
Prince George, B.C. – This evening will mark the final Council meeting for the current Mayor and Council in the City of Prince George.
The next Council meeting will be on December 1st, two weeks after the November 15th Election.
Tonight’s final meeting will hear from two delegations. One asking for residents to say “Yes” to the referendum question on the election ballot, that would allow the continuation of adding fluoride to the City’s water supply. Health professionals will make a powerpoint presentation, outlining why fluoridation offers “Health for All” and has been labeled by the World Health Organization as “one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”
The other presentation will be made by a woman calling on the City to make all public washrooms friendly to all members of society, including those on motorized scooters. She says it is nearly impossible to open and close the door on the wheelchair access stalls and automatic opening, closing and locking mechanisms would be desirable.
Council will hold two development variance hearings, one calling for a change in set back requirements, the other to increase maximum allowable height for a secondary building on a residential property.
There are two formal public hearings on the agenda as well. The Prince George Hospice Society is seeking an amendment to the Official community Plan and rezoning. The Society would like to purchase a parcel of land directly north of its existing site at Clapperton and Ferry Avenue, to accommodate a future addition of 10 more units for end of life care. That would double the current capacity.
The other formal public hearing is a rezoning application to allow for an outdoor patio for a liquor primary location on 3rd Avenue.
Comments
Finally!!!
Great timing. I thought this was the election period. Is it ethical for council to advertise for the yes fluoride side during the election period. I guess we know where the neutral city hall stands now.
Not sure they shouldn’t cancel this one to be fair to both sides.
By Council should insist that both sides be given an equal democratic opportunity to attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum!
Or nobody!
It is probably not even legal under BC election laws to give one side such an obvious public advantage at taxpayers expense without having bothered to ask the NO side if it would be interested in making a presentation at the same time as well!
The NO side had the decency to invite a YES side representative to a public debate which was paid for by private donations, not city funds!
The presentation before City Council would be paid for by us, the taxpayers, as the City provides the venue, the equipment and the time of the Council.
PG, The vocal NO side always makes itself heard, whether we like it or not. One more opportunity to spout the same rhetoric isn’t going to change anything. Besides, the referendum is non-binding.
It will be interesting to see the actual number of people who vote on this referendum. My guess is not very many. Is it a big issue?? Not really.
If the no vote wins with a small number of people voting, then I can see the City not discontinuing the use of fluoride. However if they win with a large number of people voting then that’s the end of fluoride.
Agreed Palopu. I have no doubt there are people who think this is the biggest issue in the election, or they are always pushing it to the forefront. The only question is, how many?
“…spout the same rhetoric isn’t going to change anything. ”
Of course you have not noticed that your side never misses an “opportunity to spout the same rhetoric!”
The issue is not fluoride – it is readily available to those who choose to apply it to their teeth with toothpaste by actually brushing their teeth!
The issue is water fluoridation and respect for individual choice, like already established in 97% of British Columbia!
I see the ‘No’ side has peppered the town with signs. I have yet to see a ‘Yes’ sign. Probably because there really is no dedicated ‘Yes’ group,
I have to agree with Palopu’s sentiment. Assuming the ‘No’ side comes out ahead, it might be hard to justify shutting the practice down when only 30% of residents cast a ballot in the first place. Time will tell.
PG: Of course you have not noticed that your side never misses an “opportunity to spout the same rhetoric!”
I only cite credible established science known the world over, PG. I don’t use scare words designed to influence like “medicated”, “neurotoxin”, “toxic waste”, etc.
Assuming the ‘Yes’ side comes out ahead, it might be hard to justify continuing the practice of water fluoridation when only 30% of residents cast a ballot in the first place.
JB, you might decide to disagree with the above logical conclusion, but it wouldn’t make any sense.
Have a nice day!
“Medicated”
Water fluoridation is promoted as delivering a medicine to the public. All you sources insist that it is a medicine. Therefore the water is being medicated.
“Neurotoxin”
Fluoride is identified by science as a neurotoxin together with arsenic, lead and mercury and a half dozen other known neurological toxins.
“Toxic waste”
The scrubber effluent from the phosphate fertilizer industry and aluminum smelters is classified as toxic waste and subject to being transported via hazardous waste regulations.
If any of these realities scare you, so sorry!
“Am by Prince George” I’ve lived in P.G for fifty years. While I have been blessed with not needing fluoride in my water thanks to my parents and other reasons. I don’t think that everyone in this city is as blessed as you and I. For what ever reason. So maybe you should drink your water from other sources than your tap? It could be the reason it’s being done is not to benefit you and I, but others that are not so lucky. Oh and maybe it is the reason I still have teeth in my head. IMO
Not about whether fluoride is good or bad. This is about due process. We would not let a councilor present to council tonight about whether they should be the next councilor so same rule should apply to a nonbinding vote.
What happens next time when the Hockey guys want a new rink and it goes to a referendum and I decide I don’t play hockey so 12 days before the vote, I come to council and try to tell them why, people should vote against the rink.
This would be the same for PAC, clean air or any other group. Council made a decision have a vote to decide to have a vote with no assistance to any group irregardless of the side they were on. The issue for council and administration to allow a group to come before them is not ethical.
If this one is not stopped then anyone should be able to do this on any subject. Yours or my group could be next.
Yes you could call this a scare tactic but when the next arena comes up what will you call it then.
Just seems a bit weird to me.
What is weird to me is that Council is keeping P.G. citizens from getting un-medicated water, the kind of water 97% of the residents of B.C. have been getting for years, some for decades!
Obviously fluoridating the water for decades has not been effective in Prince George (the area with the most fluoride for the longest period of time) as it has the highest incidence of dental fluorosis and other dental problems – so we are being told!
It may be the fluoridation which is creating much of the problem to begin with. Mass medication is not the answer, obviously. Just let people have a choice! Brush, floss and cut back on the cavity causing sweets!
Fluoride is a mineral, not a medication.
PG: “Obviously fluoridating the water for decades has not been effective in Prince George (the area with the most fluoride for the longest period of time) as it has the highest incidence of dental fluorosis and other dental problems – so we are being told!”
By whom?
PG: “Water fluoridation is promoted as delivering a medicine to the public. All you sources insist that it is a medicine. Therefore the water is being medicated.”
As I’ve said many times, PG, stick to the facts. Stay away from the lies and mis-information. Problem is, you don’t have many facts to rely on so you have to lean on ridiculous statements like the one above.
“Fluoride is a mineral, not a medication.”
To me it is not but your sources years ago called it a drug, then they changed their minds and called it a nutrient and now it is a medication, administered to treat an undiagnosed disease called caries.
“By whom?” You should know. Read your sources. Watch the planned presentation before city council tonight where they will say that the sky will fall if we dare to do as 97% of the province does!
Hmmm… Definition of medication. Not sure what goes wrong with the teeth but seems to be some kind of disease to me. Please clarify if I am wrong
: a substance used in treating disease or relieving pain
: the act or process of treating a person or disease with medicine
Here is the definition of medicine:
: a substance that is used in treating disease or relieving pain and that is usually in the form of a pill or a liquid
: the science that deals with preventing, curing, and treating diseases
As you stated stick to the facts
This one is even cooler it says and mineral is essential to life. Fluoride is not essential to life, not even close. I noted Fluoride was not listed.
noun
1.
any of a class of substances occurring in nature, usually comprising inorganic substances, as quartz or feldspar, of definite chemical composition and usually of definite crystal structure, but sometimes also including rocks formed by these substances as well as certain natural products of organic origin, as asphalt or coal.
2.
a substance obtained by mining, as ore.
3.
(loosely) any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable.
4.
minerals, British, mineral water.
5.
Nutrition. any of the inorganic elements, as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, or sodium, that are essential to the functioning of the human body and are obtained from foods.
Honestly the referendum on this subject can’t come soon enough!
I don’t care either way, but I am getting tired of the rhetoric from both sides of this issue.
Hopefully on the 15th the citizens of PG will vote definitively either yes or no and the debate about flouridation can end once and for all!
“Honestly the referendum on this subject can’t come soon enough!”
Couldn’t agree with you more NyteHawwk.
We need to end this ludicrous fluoridation activity and the misleading arguments preventing us from being able to drink clean, pure, life giving water, regain democratic balances and stop dumping hazardous waste into Clean water our kids drink and play in!
Oh yeah… the City doesn’t have to consider the referendum.
They are protected forever because they misinformed (respectful word for what really happened) by Provincial Legislation from any concerns by any residents, retroactively from 1915 to forever.
Ever wondered if accountability was required for Municipal politicians, administration and Health Authorities? Apparently, it not required!
Do you think there might be a reason they are struggling with this topic and they know why?
PG: “By whom?” You should know. Read your sources.
You were the one who made the statement, and you’re telling me I should know who made it — nice. I sure hope you’re not referring to Kevin Millership, the guy who starts frivilous lawsuits that taxpayers have to pay to defend.
No, the sky won’t fall for me if fluoride is stopped. I have access to top notch dental care. Not everyone can say the same.
Your designed to be denigrating comments to not have any effect on me as I consider the source! To me is uneducated blabber.
Every time I question your source or ask you to cite some actual science, you dodge the issue. What are you and the rest of the anti-fluoride contingent so embarrassed about?
I must have been right about Millership, no? No wonder you were embarrassed to mention his name.
Comments for this article are closed.