Common sense prevailed.....well I'll be damned.

Yes Shamrock Girl..
Just as their mandate ends...ironic isn't it.

Whether or not you think there should be a DBIA, wasn't it clear from the election results that residents STRONGLY favoured supporting fixing downtown?

Shari Green, the current president of DBIA and city council race newcomer placed a very strong 2nd in voting, and her platform was unquestionably pro-downtown as a top priority. Clearly the electorate liked her and her platform.

Add to that Garth Frizzell and Dave Wilbur, strong downtown proponents, won council seats. And the new mayor, Dan Rogers, wants a "Better" downtown.

So the current council, in it's last kick at the can, kills the DBIA, because that's what the voters wanted, right?

Clearly not.

And the petition process, which is the same that the city used to its advantage for the Terasen Gas deal, is overturned because of a disgruntled losing side?

The returning councillors are split 2-2 and the rest shouldn't matter.

I'm glad to see so many of these rudderless weenies were kicked off their council seat - but they are STILL not listening to the electorate, as if they ever have.

This thing should have been tabled for the next council to deal with.

Maybe the DBIA should have asked the College Heights shopping centre to join "downtown". Might have been a stretch but still with all those potential bucks rolling in they could have built another Backpacker homeless shelter next to the needle exchange downtown.

Voters didn't vote for the DBIA. Voters expressed a desire for something better for downtown. The DBIA in its current state has done very little in the past couple of years. And they want more money? For what? More flowers? How about a bench for Colin?

If the DBIA is to continue, maybe they should be proving why they should be allowed to do so.

It's going to take a lot more than stealing downtown businesses' money to change the downtown.

I turned on Channel 10 to form my own opinion and wasn't successful. what is up with Channel 10? Not sure what they cover and what they don't cover. If Council is to be open and transparent it should be open to the public. I don't get why we are not included in the process of Council decision making. Channel 10 maybe needs more funding?? I don't know, just asking.

Yes hindsight.....ironic indeed!

Diplomat

The people that voted tonight voted in favour of the downtown. They said that the people in charge so far, basically for the last 10 years, have to get their act together.

To bail them out would have no different than bailing out GM. By going about enlarging the territory the way they they basically acted the same way they have for 10 years, no participation by those who would be affected. That is simply not the way to go about it.

Just think it through. They spend money on Xmas lights, flower baskets, and god knows waht else. The additional money from the newbies will have to go to exactly the same use. The Inn has flower baskets. They pay money to the DBIA via the City tax collector. They will now expect to get baskets hung on their hotel in return for their taxes.

Enlaring the DBIA and giving others more of the same is not going to help. As was stated by Dirk, where are they with real lobbying. Nowhere? Have you ever heard in the media that the DBIA's postion is such and such on a matter? Is it on their web site? No!!!!

We know where PACHA stands with respect to air quality. Do we know where the DBIA stands on air quality? No!!!! Is it important??? In my mind it is. Wanna build residences downtown so that people can live work and recreate within 20 minute walking radius? And do that downtown in the air quality that we have? 24/7 ... yeah right.

Think it through Diplomat. You are smarter than that. You are letting your unfounded biases show. Try being a bit more objective.

I found the whole process to be completely flawed and everyone on all sides to blame. Especially the property owners who were so careless in their accusations of the DPG. But most of all the city for their lack of informing themselves on their own petitions! And as for Mr. Kandola, why were you so ill informed when your son inlaw has sat on the DPG board for the last couple of years?

Labrador. Reminds me of what Flip Wilson once said. Applying it to the current situation: "This reminds me of the DBIA, and tonight's presentations to Council are classic examples of why nothing ever gets done in downtown Prince George. Right here, you saw it live on Shaw Cable."

geeeez ... somehow I keep getting diplomat confused with bohemian I just noticed. Time to go to bed!!!!!! :-(

The issue isn't the DBIA.

The issue is the hijacking of due process by city council.

The facts:

1. This council agrees to a counter-petition process.

2. The DBIA meets all the requirements set out in that process.

3. Administration, looking at the results of the process, as well as verifying the requirements of the process are met, recommend to council the motion passes.

4. Council hijacks due process, ignores the petition results, and votes against the motion.

Now, I'm not saying the counter-petition process doesn't have it's problems. And I'm not saying that more couldn't have been done by the DBIA - more can always be done.

But the facts are the counter-petition, with all it's detractions, was selected for this issue. If this council was not prepared to vote in accordance to the results, then why did they agree to it?

The facts are the DBIA met the requirements set out in the process.

This is what I mean by rudderless weenies. They should have insisted on a standard petition process at the outset if that's the game they wanted played. But they didn't. They set the rules of the game, the game was played, the results were tabulated, and then ignored.

Still not convinced this was the wrong tack to take by council? Let's imagine an alternative scenario:

1. Council insists on a standard petition process.

2. DBIA has stellar communication but only achieves a 25% buy-in by property owners.

3. Council hijacks due process, ignores the petition results, and votes FOR the motion anyway.

Would that scenario get people steaming mad?

Then so should this.

Legalities, precedents and procedures all come about through processes. There comes a time, usually through a specific event, that puts these processes under the microscope and, hopefully, results in a better , "new and improved" version. IMHO, this is what has happened here.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the DBIA has an important role. Nobody wants to see it go away but the manner is which the expansion plans moved forward create an air of suspicion and this is why this process failed and is now under the microscope.

I prefer to take a different stance on this event.

Our civic election placed a strong focus on downtown issues. We all want change - we all want something better - we all want to go downtown and feel safe. Our new council has a strong mandate to find solutions. The undertakings to date have not accomplished the desired outcomes.

The pot just got stirred - BIG TIME - and I, for one, am confident that the fall out of this event will bring new ideas and programs that will bring positive results.

Sometimes you need to throw out the rule book and start anew. People are afraid of change but when staring it in the face, Prince Georgians always come out on top.

I applaud our city fathers (and mothers) for taking the stand they did and the common sense shown to stand up for what they felt was right - popular or not. That's the council that I want to see and I hope our new council takes the time to study the lesson that has been place before them.

Ahh - rational debate with excellent points.

Thanks opine.

Bohemian

Let me put it this way. If the process was the decider, then the thing should never have been required to go back to Council. Fourth reading should have occurred with the motion that the process should have been done by a clerk and the numerical outcome the decider of the issue.

Opine put it very well.

In my view Council took a close look at the process once it was completed. Things started unravelling in that process when they began to look at the equity of the situation. It is why we have judges who look at context when looking at an event and determine who was responsible for the event and degree of intent, etc. etc. instead of having clerks process people through judicial processes.

Unlike Dirk, Councillors typically would not say the type of things he said. However, they can think it and make decisions based on those thoughts.

The thing that got me is when Councillor Munoz asked some detailed questions about how many voted against it from the new area to be attached and also how many of those who voted against were non-resident, the privacy act was cited. The response of an agglomerated number without specific reference to individuals would not have breached any privacy regulation I know of.

The opposition sitting there last night now have some tough work cut out for themselves. They stated they would not be opposed to being part of a DBIA given the right conditions.

Those conditions appear to be an acceptable plan of action for the next five years, a budget which should then generate a rate per $1,000 of assessed value. You know, something that speaks about a group of people who go about their business in a business-like fashion. A new concept for the DBIA of recent note.

Munoz was my last vote in the election and it was through the Opinion 250 forums that I decided to throw that final vote to her.

It was pointed out that takes the time to do her homework and asks pertinent and timely questions...as 'gus' points out above.

If politicians voted more with their conscience and less with a political agenda .....

I guess we'll all see what happens now that the DBIA is dead. yes, I said dead. Why would anyone want to put any effort into anything so it can quashed by a couple of loud opposers who have done nothing but gather money and a city council who doesn't support their own process or their own administration? So much for businesses being part of the solution to the cities problems. It's back to greed and apathy. Well done council!

p.s. Since when is 70% not a clear majority?

Council's negative vote on this should clearly show that they have only ever paid lip service to downtown change and growth. This action has clearly shown what we, the citizens of PG have always known - that they really didn't care what residents or businesses say or want. As GoodCitizen said "since when is 70% majority not enough". Only the old council would be so brazen when they had nothing to lose. As the old saying goes "don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out"!

"Since when is 70% not a clear majority?"

Now there is an easy question.

Since the notion that aquiescence, silence, abstention, etc. is not approval.

If there is anyone who has paid lip service to downtown it is the BIA Board. They have taken it upon themselves to do something and have failed after 10 years. Time for a regime change! Time for a new look at how to do things!

I am sorry that there are some who are so blinded by the words from the BIA Board thatr they cannot see that what Council really said last night was: "This has not worked, and will not work with that many opposed to the WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. Go away, work it out, and come bsack to us when you have fixed your problem., Only then will we be able to, in good conscience, be able to tax everyone in that area and give you the money to move along to what we hope will be more successful."

I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that. The "opposition" so to speak, are now under the gun to produce much more so than those who have been in charge. They have to lead the way to improvement over past ways of doing things and they have to do so with the old guard at the table as well. They cannot walk away. They may not realize it, but they have unwittingly been captured into the BIA fold. If they do not produce, their credibility walks out the door.

Just think of it as a game of poker. Council has basically called the bluff of both sides. Pretty smart I figure. As someone said already, a great lesson for the new Councillors.

The BIA is a lobby group dude! It's funded by the businesses - NOT THE COUNCIL OR TAXPAYER! They don't HAVE to do anything for the good of the public. They only do it to promote their businesses or out of the goodness of their hearts. It's all over now - they've cashed their chips cuz the game is rigged. And we, as the taxpayers, will have to pick up the slack if we want things to change. Council killed the only group that has had any momentum on the downtown. If the new council doesn't pick up the torch, you might as well carpet bomb the whole place. Oh ya - and since the council will be doing it - you and I are paying.