Clear Full Forecast

Councillor Glen Moose Scott Would Have Us Believe It's Only Money

By Ben Meisner

Monday, November 03, 2008 03:45 AM

Last week  Glen Moose Scott (seeking re election for his third term in office) took me to task for suggesting that the economy was heading for the ”tank” in BC. He said that was not the case and he would pledge that during his term in office he would see the construction of the new Performing Arts Center, hire 6 new police officers, and  install surveillance cameras in the down town area.

I raised the matter that after we had built a new Performing Arts Center, where would we get the money to maintain it? After we hire 6 new police officers at $117,000 per year each, where would we get the 90% that we as taxpayers need to pay every year. I also asked where we would get the money for the new Performing Arts Center?

I could see by the time that the interview was nearly over that math was not Scott’s strong suit. So for his benefit here we go.

6 police officers @ $117,000 less 10%, cities cost                              $ 631,000.00 year one

Surveillance Cameras, “Moose” the city already has purchased the main frame, they did that while you were in office, they also have the fibre in the downtown, Please, Oh please don’t go out and buy a new system. You already have one. This may be a novel idea, but you could put the system that you already own into the police station to allow them to see what’s going on, thereby eliminating the need for those six new cops.

Now the Performing Arts Center, the price you should know Moose is between $42 and $51 million dollars. Now I know that you think the economy in BC is Okay, but Premier Campbell has announced that he will freeze the assessments in BC at 2007 levels, and will also allow residents to delay paying their home taxes for a two year period which the province will guarantee. That somehow suggests to me that the Province doesn’t think things are going to be quite as good as you suggest.

Even if the city receives support from the province of $10 million (which would be a long stretch) and even with private contributions (and you will be hard pressed to get the woods industry to come to the plate when they are in many cases already on work share) you still need Oh let’s say $ 35 million at the very least.

$35 million at 3.2% interest..... Cost per year (interest only)               $1 million

Now you chided me Moose for suggesting that there would be operating costs as well. Let’s use the Performing Arts Center figures.

With 57% of the costs recovered by the facility, it still works out to $625,000 in 2012.

So where does that leave us Glen Scott?  Well we need about a 6% increase in taxes to cover off your promises to me the other morning and oh did I forget,  we also have to allow for increasing costs for another 2.5 % increase per year.

So where does that leave us?  Well if you get your way Glen Moose Scott, we will face an increase in our taxes of at least 13.5% in the next three years.

And I nearluy forgot to mention, you have also approved a new police station at a cost of $30 million. I suppose we could always try and get a new credit card, or one with a bigger credit limit.

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


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Right on, Meisner!
Unfortunately, this is just another example of irresponsible financial management. The people selected to manage the finances and future of our city must be fiscally responsible in their decision making. All of the things people want cost money. It's up to the taxpayers to influence Mayor and Council, guide them or replace them if they continue to make poor choices. Short term decisions have long term consequences, as we are finding out. Let's not continue spending money we do not have.
These people with the will to spend whats not there, need to be tossed out on their butts.
Good job Ben!
How sad it is councillor Scott comes out with statements before he does the required homework. 6 more police officers will give us 2 officers on the street 24 hours a day for about 5 days a week.
Councillor Scott is supposed to be the voice on city council for the little guy. I wonder how many little guys Scott talked to, to come up with the conclusion he should support a PAC.
This council really needs to go. Over the past 3 years we have had the airline guarantee fiasco, dumping water into the Nechako to create more ice, the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to investigate the ill planned bio-energy plant to be located downtown, the River road mess. The list goes on and on.
In nearly 40 years of living in Prince George I have never seen such collection of incompetent people get elected to city council.
JUST LIKE BARACK OBAMA SAYS, "TIME FOR A CHANGE".
Resident; It seems that you have failed to realize that Scott's sports broadcasting background fully qualifies him to make financial decisions on your behalf.

Just a word of caution though I don't think we want change such as jugears OBama is planning. If you think the U.S. is in a mess now just wait until he, Pelosi and Reid are at the helm for a year or two.
Netsurfer is trying to be funny (..."Scott's sports broadcasting background fully qualifies him to make financial decisions on your behalf") and it worked: I am sore from all the laughing!

Thanks for the joke of the day!
Netsurfer.
You are probably correct in the fact being a past sports broadcaster qualifies one to handle multi-million dollar budgets. South of the border we have Sarah Palin who also comes from sports broadcasting background running for political office and ready to handle trillion dollar budgets. My vote would go to Sarah because she is much better looking than Scott. Who knows, maybe we will see some of our councillors on SNL eplaining the new found PG laws of thermodynamics.
Have any of you taken the time to understand that "Moose's" horizons may be broader than that of a "radio broadcaster"?

He is has also been:
1)On the board of directors for the Spruce Credit Union for close to 20 years.
2)Spent several years of his career in financial planning.
3)Is president of the WW5 committee which has brought a professional rodeo back to PG for the last 3 years.
4)Spent about 8 years with the BCLA as Vice President of administration.
5)Not to mention the past 6 years that he has been a voice for the people on city council, thus been involved in a variety of financial decsions on our behalf.

I haven't even touched on his volunteer work with PGARA and the PG Senior Lacrosse League.

I personally am encouraged to see a councillor that isn't afraid to stand up and ask questions regardless of the rank of authority the answer has to come from.

It's easy to critize from the sidelines instead of stepping forward and allowing your name to run for city council.
We are all aware of Glen's commitment to the community and his involvement in sports in PG. His activities in these endeavors were probably the deciding factor in people originally voting for him. The point being made by Ben is with the additional expenditures Glen is in favour of. Average household taxes will increase by more than 13%. Raising taxes 13% or even being in favour of projects that would raise taxes by 13% by any politican spells defeat at the polls. Glen Scott has to stop equating the tax payer with an american express card with no fixed spending limit.
If one has the background and experience to make financial decisions that directly affect the public purse - one should be able to back them up with real life facts and figures if one has made the proper research.

Ben asked the right questions and if he had gotten sound answers he would have let us know.

A sportscasting background alone does not make one fully qualified.

Now I am beginning to wonder how qualified the other councilors are to make that kind of decision.
"Raising taxes 13% or even being in favour of projects that would raise taxes by 13% by any politican spells defeat at the polls"

That is indeed true, however, how refreshing would it be to actually have a politician come out and say:

"Well folks, you see that big wish list you have (PAC, fix all the roads, improve policing, etc.)? It's going to cost XXX and we currently only bring in XXX. Either approve cuts to some other program we all enjoy, take things off your priority list, or agree to an increase in taxes to cover it all off"

That's the reality. It's also reality that people don't usually think about government spending in that manner. They usually want everything they've always had (plus new things) for what they've paid in the past. Unfortunately, it simply can't work that way.
If as you claim, that you are the voice of the people Glen, then try answering your e-mails for a change. They are part of the voice of the people, not you.
These days when speaking names like Councillor Scott, one has to look at the connection with "LET'S GO PG!"

This group has made strange bedfellows.

Bruce Sutherland? Bill Lynch? Murray Sadler?

In the same breath as Scott & Skakun?

And MaryAnne (who?) Arcand? Garth Frizzell? Shari Green? (Isn't she the one who wants to expand her downtownpg boundaries so she can pick up more forced "taxes" yet supposedly runs under the "lowest taxes possbile" banner? Who is gullible enough to buy that?)

Tough times when we have those thought to know better be so void of ideas. What's the real story?
Its time for Glen and all the incumbents to go. They have outlived their welcome.