Two More Properties in Line for Remedial Action
Building on Mytting Road has to go says staff report – images courtesy City of PG
Prince George, B.C.- Two more properties in Prince George are the focus of a call for clean up or demolition.
Prince George City Council meets this evening and will be asked to approve orders for remedial action on a property in the Hart area, and one on Spruce Street.
The report to Council calls for the building at 2444 Mytting Road in the Hart to be demolished, the debris removed and the site leveled by the end of July. City staff report the building poses a safety hazard.
The report on 2221 Spruce Street calls for that property to be cleared of waste and debris. 
Comments
Looking at the one picture of the house you can plainly see the house has shifted resulting in a large crack going up the side wall… no doubt the house should be condemned by the health authorities as too dangerous to live in.
Don’t get me started on the other property’s yard, obviously there is some obsessive complusive “hoarding” going on there! Good job on cleaning up our city Mayor and Council.
When is Prince George City Council going to take action on the construction site by the library? It has bin sitting to long looks like crap and is very dangers’. Or has there been to many hands greased at city hall
Thank you City Hall. Good to see that these problem properties are getting dealt with. I think if you want to be a property owner within City limits then you should have to look after your property. If you want to be a hoarder or make your property look like a dump then live out in the boonies where other people don’t have to live right next to it.
Thank you City Hall. Great Job, keep it up!!
I am sure the people who live out in the boonies appreciate your solution to this problem mwk.
How about keeping your messy neighbors in the City rather than try to export them to the outlying areas.
Great work by City Hall cleaning up some of the properties around town, but I definitely agree with the comment above that they should also do something about the construction site beside the library.
Don’t they have a security deposit or some type of contract with the company that they can use to get that place in order. Either clean it up, or clear it to start a project that can actually be finished.
As Trump and those who voted to exit from the EU are showing the world, there are the elite, connected people in the establishment, and then there are the rest of us.
There is not one law for all and this City is no exception. City Hall could have instituted a substantial fine for every month that construction is delayed past, I believe, a 6 month period. They have not.
There is another property that is an eyesore. At the very end of Laurier Crescent at the switch from 5th to 4th, there is a brown box like building which is boarded up, supposedly unoccupied, and likely rotting away. It has been there for many decades. Why it is still there is beyond me. I would like to have some explanation from the City why that has not received a demolition order.
Yes, gopg! I wonder about that property every day when I drive downtown to work. I have lived in this city most of my life, and even as a small child, 30 years ago, I remember it being a derelict wreck. How has this property been allowed to stand like that for so long? If anyone has any information regarding this property, please share, because it would shed light on one of Prince George’s greatest mysteries, along with the sidewalks that suddenly end on Winnipeg St. near Parkwood and many others.
In regards to the eyesore of a construction site by the library/civic centre… I know for a fact that a few of the Councillors read this site… Maybe it is time for City Council to get us some real answers on what is happening? You (Council) want to take a hard line on cleaning up town, yet we have all been pretending that this monstrousity of a failed hotel site does not exist!!
Frankly, it has gone from being a curious issue to a full out embarassment to our city. This project was started around the same time as the RCMP building. The site fencing is rusting to pieces and the construction crane is nothing more than derelict scrap metal..
I suspect that the “ghost” hotel property has been the discussion at one or more in-camera sessions of Council.
If it has been, I do not think that property owners who have been so disrespectful of the City building bylaws regarding construction time limits should be afforded the privacy of in-camera meetings.
Take it to the public meetings so that we can see the reasons for the decisions by each and every Council member.
Perhaps someone from Council can let us know whether there have been in-camera meetings regarding construction delays of that ghost hotel or whatever the project may be today.
Not sure that Council can have an **in camera** meeting on this type of an issue. In camera meetings are very restricted in what they can discuss.
My guess is that the project is tied up with legal problems, and until they are settled nothing will get done.
I do agree, that Council should be looking at the big picture, and go after all who have derelict properties, rather than just cherry pick the ones they want to go after.
The Community Charter spells out under section 90 what MUST be discussed in camera and what MAY be discussed in camera.
Most do not apply in this case in my opinion. Whether it does or does not could be explained in more detail than is normal. I think in all cases the City simply cites section 90 and leaves it at that.
They could do better. For instance, they could, in each case before them, at least tell the general public that the matter before them CANNOT be brought to an open meeting or that it may be brought to a closed meeting and explain why they have chosen to do that.
The City can’t just cite section 90 and leave it at that. If the business being discussed does not fall under those things listed in section 90, and it is City business that is being discussed, then the City is legally obligated to hold these discussions at a Council meeting or have the meeting open to the public.
I expect some at City Hall might not understand this, however you can rest assured that their legal department is fully aware of the rules and regulations covering open and closed meetings.
This is the notice of meeting for today, June 27, 2016
That the regular meeting of City Council scheduled for Monday, June 27, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., be closed to the public to permit discussion of items relating to:
• personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality, pursuant to subsection 90(1)(a) of the Community Charter;
• the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality, pursuant to subsection 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter;
• litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality, pursuant to subsection 90(1)(g) of the Community Charter;
• the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, pursuant to subsection 90(1)(i) of the Community Charter; and
• negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public, pursuant to subsection 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter.
None of them are listed under 90(2) which requires the matters to be discussed in camera.
Those above are listed under 90(1) which identifies that the meeting MAY be closed.
All they do is cite the wording of each subsection without indicating WHY they feel that the discussion should be in a closed meeting.
So your comment that “the City can’t just cite section 90 and leave it at that” is not quite true in local practice and probably in common practice in BC municipalities.
The question of openness could show an indicator of how often they have had a closed meeting when the charter does not restrict them to having it in a closed meeting.
Tell the public….haha. What’s that $150,000 a year guys name that heads the city communication staff ? Rob Van Absentichem ?
Hey, lets not be so quick to demolish these kind of houses, we may have found a solution to the affordable housing problem!!
The solution to the affordable housing problem is to reduce the price and reduce profits.
In normal financial jargon that is called subsidization or price control.
It is generally good to keep in mind the phrase “you get what you pay for”.
And also “beggars can’t be choosers”…
When is comes to housing you certainly do not get what you pay for. As an example a standard lot which is nothing more than a hunk of dirt with a water and sewer line and some pavement can cost $`150,000.00 My guess is most of the cost is sucked up by a money eating City Hall, and most of the balance goes to profit for the developer.
Tell you what, the chunk of dirt has a value that is dictated by
1. location,
2. the development cost charges to the City which includes the upstream costs of the impact of increased traffic, water distribution to the development that are not provided by the developer, as well as upstream costs of sanitary and storm sewers, collector and arterial roads, the planning of those services, the financial accounting for those services, etc. In other words, the incremental overhead costs, very similar to those overhead costs a large corporation would experience
3. the cost to the developer of acquiring a generally large tract of land, planning layout and other engineering costs, construction costs of services, financial costs of holding the properties over time, advertising, real estate sales, etc.
4.
Like Trump, you oversimplify things which are getting more and more complex in our world.
If you feel that they are overcharging, then I suggest you petition the City to privatize such services so that we can pay less. You might even join up with some savvy investors and show us how it is done.
The City used to service lots in Prince George on City Land and then auction them off. Whatever the lot sold for at auction was the price set for the balance of the lots.
This system worked fine for many years, then along came all the horse s..t we now have from the City, and of course all the crap from the developers.
So we end up paying $150,000.00 for a sand pile with a water pipe, and think we are getting a deal.
If people would quit paying these atrocious prices and costs to the city and the developer things might change, however I wouldn’t hold by breath.
The City is the worst offender when it comes to overcharging its citizens for the various services, and they should be audited by an independent auditor, to determine just how and where they waste our money.
If you continue to support these developers, and the way the City charges for services nothing will change. In fact they may get worse.
Every Government in BC, Provincial, Regional, Municipal can without any problem what so ever justify every decision they make, and every dollar they spend. So can the developers, contractors, etc; etc;. however that doesn’t make it right, it just means they know how to justify what they do.
If you think real estate prices cant change take a look at Detroit.
Average sale price for a house last year was $7500.00. You can pick up a house for $1.00 if you overlook the neighborhood.
With the continued loss of jobs in the greater Prince George area, and the continued lack of any new business locating here, along with the decrease in population in the University, College, Schools, and City, it is only a matter of time before house and property prices in Prince George start to decline.
Comments for this article are closed.