Of all the cities I've lived in, which includes Edmonton, Calgary, Vernon, and now Prince George. Prince George is by far the worst for potholes. Edmonton, which is in a comparable climate has far better roads. It's a disgrace, and an embarassment.

putting the matter to the voters will not happen as the city knows it then would not fly. Another project paid by the lunch box workers for the chosen few.

I totally agree. Thank you Ben.

Dan Rogers promised in his campaign for mayor that he would put the PAC up for referendum. He better keep this promise.

I have an idea. I read the other day of a town in the US south that came up with a unique solution to their pot hole problem... apparently it was near $100,000 per mile of road to re-pave, but only $10,000 to revert the road back to gravel.

Why not find out what streets the people that want PAC live near and revert those roads back to gravel, so they can pay their own way with the roads they use... problem is its like spiting into the wind for a solution, but if this Performing Arts Center goes ahead I'm not sure we'll have much of a choice in the matter....

Another acid test would be to submit the whole PAC expense to the Federal Infrastructure Funding Plan. If there really is such an urgent need (and there is NOT!) for the new PAC that we MUST have it now, that we absolutely can not put the whole idea on the back burner for now, if the old facilities are worn out, unsafe and beyond repair - surely most of the cost would qualify for the stimulus grant and some compassionate matching provincial funds, with us carrying the burden in perpetuity with the substantial annual operating and maintenance funds!

The ones that relentlessly keep pushing for this thing are not going to pay for it with money out of their own pockets - they intend to put ALL of us on the hook for it!

Let's have that democratic referendum that would give some respect for the ones who would ultimately pay for it!

While we are at it we might as well put another issue on the ballot: the madness of adding the controversial accumulative poison fluoride to our supposedly clean drinking water!

I say let them have the PAC as long as 75% of the funding comes from private funding.

As for the roads in this "town",any person who thinks infrastuctre comes after enjoyment for the few,should move to somewhere more in line with your thinking.

There are only 3 things any government should be interested in keeping up and running,Education,Hospitalization and Infrastructre,once they have taken care of those then they might look at other area's.

This is of course my opinion
mileage may vary

"There are only 3 things any government should be interested in keeping up and running, Education, Hospitalization and Infrastructre"

Interesting notion......

We'll allow the following to be provided and/or regulated privately if private enterprise should be inclined to do so, otherwise I suppose we will be s.o.l. ....

- armed services
- justice and corrections
- environment
- forest & range & lands
- mines, etc.
- social services
- economic development
- tourism, culture and arts
- health (there is public health which has nothing to do with hospitalization)
- labour (employment standards, etc.)
- sports ($72 million budget + $23 million is sitting in tourism and that is not including funds for capital projects)

Then, of course, we do not know what you include under infrastructure ... such as museums, art galleries, theatres, libraries, pools, softball fields, soccer fields, ice arenas, parks, tennis courts, lacrosse boxes, playgrounds, trails, arenas, convention facilities …..

Well said Mr. Meisner!
Thank You.

If it isn't potholes it would be something else. Was there this much chatter when builing soccer fields or other sports venues????

If it isn't potholes it would be something else. Was there this much chatter when builing soccer fields or other sports venues????

"Was there this much chatter when builing soccer fields or other sports venues"

No there wasn't. I can only presume that's because rednecks don't see those as some sort of threat to their masculinity. If there are two things that really get rednecks going it's the arts and messing with their trucks, hence all the foaming at the mouth over the PAC and potholes . . . LOL.

Hmmmm NMG, you have taken to a level never before dared by anyone on here I believe.

I think it is worthwhile pursuing that. I think you have made a good point that people seem to be afraid to admit.

I mean, opera, ballet, symphonies. What kinda trucker is gonna wanna even promote his son to show an interest in those airie fairie things.

Why do rednecks need a PAC? After all, there are plenty of pubs with Karaoke for entertainment and NASCAR races, and kick boxing on the LCD screens. *smile*

This has nothing to do with so called rednecks. It has to do with fiscal responsibility, and need.

There are a lot of blow hards who support this PAC without having a clue what the cost will be, or how many people will actually use the facility. You can rest assured that the Performing Arts Society will come up with some rosy numbers to support their proposition, however these numbers will not be worth the paper they are written on.

Its about time people in this town grew up and started to realize that they are being played for a bunch of fools.

This town has a huge tax base, and the local Government, and some others in this community are making sure that they spend every bloody dime, and also borrow to the max.

Nothing these fools have done in the last 15 to 20 years has turned out the way it was supposed to, but people still continue to beleive that the City and some others have their best interests at heart.

Its time to get your heads out of the sand, and to call a spade a spade.

Only in Prince George will you find, that when projects do not meet their original forcast that they are still considered successes. Some examples.

(1) The CN Centre and especially the Cougers franchise. This facility costs the City approx $600,000.00 per year. This makes it a failure. If the original forecast of 6000 hockey fans had held true, then it would have been a success. However it now averages 2500 fans per game, and therefore by definition is a failure. Apparently this is the fans fault.

(2) The Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre. This facility was originally going to have revenues of $900,000.00 per year and costs of $900,000.00 per year, and no extra cost to taxpayers. Last year it generated $600,000.00 per year, which was not enough to pay its costs, however through **creative accounting** it gets a total of $600,000.00 from the City and UNBC, and therefore by using VooDoo Accounting, it claims to make money, when in fact it costs us $600,000.00 per year to run the place.

(3) The now famous and very expensive Cameron St., Bridge, that could have been repaired for $750,000.00 was projected to cost approx $8.5 Million. Indications are that this number will be closer to $15 Million before they are finished. Especially if you factor in the cost of the Roundabout. This bridge will handle the same of less traffic than the old wooden bridge, and therefore is a failure.

(4) The Airport Authority has spent millions on the upgrade to the terminal building, and the parking lot, and of course $36 Million for the extension of the runway. The terminal building expanded area is only used 12 weeks of the year for direct flights to Mexico. The rest of the year it is a showroom for the car Rental Companies. The parking lot has a least 300 empty spaces at any given moment, and the runway is not being used because their are no wide body cargo jets interested in using it. The excuse is the recession, even though one would think that if you can save money by using it during a recession this would be the best time.

No doubt there are other **failures** however you get my drift.

I fully expect that some on these posts will continue with their diatribe, and accuse me of living in the past, being negative, wanting to go back to wooden sidewalks, etc. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is we are being hosed by the City, and others, and they will do everything in their power to build this PAC and the new Police Station, because it will be good for business, and contractors. The fact that taxpayers have to pay for it has little or no bearing on the situation.

The real issues are; do we need PAC now? can we afford it and finally, do the majority support it? I believe the answer to all three is no. So, why are continuing to pursue this?

"There are a lot of blow hards who support this PAC without having a clue what the cost will be, or how many people will actually use the facility"

I'm glad you said that because ironically enough, your logic would be identical to someone who said:

There are a lot of blow hards who DON'T support this PAC without having a clue what the cost will be, or how many people will actually use the facility.

If you are finding fault with "blow hards" who are for the project, regardless of whether they know the details or not, would it not follow that you should find just as much fault with "blow hards" who are against the project, regardless of whether they know the details?

Realistically, aren't those details rather critical to the entire process? If not, why? Is it because people have already made up their mind that they don't want to support a PAC? Again, without having any details, how could they possibly arrive at such a conclusion? Could it have something to do with their personal bias instead of the facts? Is that really what the City of Prince George should be basing its decisions on?

I've said all along that we NEED the details before we can make a reasonable decision on the matter. To me that is the common sense way to proceed. I can't help but assume that if people are willing to look the other way on something without having the details, that there is another agenda at work. If that makes me a "blow hard" then that's fine. I'd rather be an informed "blow hard" than an ignorant "blow hard".

Just calling it how I see it gus :)

Palopou said: "There are a lot of blow hards who support this PAC without having a clue what the cost will be, or how many people will actually use the facility"

Guys says: "There are a lot of blow hards who do not support this PAC without having a clue what the cost will be, or how many people will actually use the facility"

So who is right????

Palopu said:
"The CN Centre and especially the Cougers franchise. This facility costs the City approx $600,000.00 per year. This makes it a failure."

Interesting.

Here is Prospera Place agreement in Kelowna which is run by a Property Management firm.

Multi-Purpose Facility Public/Private Partnership

The City has, under the terms of the Preferred Share Agreement between the City of Kelowna and RG Properties Ltd., purchased $6,000,000 of preferred shares in RG Arenas (Kelowna) Ltd. at a cost of $1 per share. The terms and conditions of the purchase are subject to the terms of a Tripartite Agreement between the City of Kelowna, Royal Bank of Canada and RG Arenas (Kelowna) Ltd., RG Properties Ltd., Prospero Canadian Land Investment Fund Ltd. group of companies.

The City has, under the terms of the above noted Tripartite Agreement, committed to the annual purchase of community use time at the Multi-Purpose facility, commencing with Substantial Completion, on November 10, 1999 on the following terms:

(i) $1,330,000 per annum for Years 1 to 3 comprised of a payment of $1,180,000, which for Years 2 and 3 is subject to a minimum CPI increase of 1% per annum and a Maximum Average CPI Increase of 5% per annum, plus an annual payment of $150,000 without any adjustment for CPI;

(ii) $1,180,000 per annum for Years 4 to 7, subject to a minimum CPI increase of 1% per annum and a Maximum Average CPI Increase of 5% per annum;

(iii) $1,180,000 per annum for Years 8 to 10, subject to a minimum CPI increase of 1% per annum and a Maximum Average CPI Increase of 5% per annum, minus $150,000 per annum;

(iv) $980,000 per annum for Years 11 to 20, subject to a minimum CPI increase of 1% per annum and a Maximum Average CPI Increase of 5% per annum; and

(v) $550,000 per annum for Years 21 to 30, subject to a minimum CPI increase of 1% per annum and a Maximum Average CPI Increase of 5% per annum.

So, are we better of at $600,000/year operating cost for a $16.8 million dollar 6,000 seat facility built in 1995 or is Kelowna better off at the payments of double that for the first ten years in return for community use (non-commercial I assume) for a $21 million 6,007 seat facility built in 1999?

Few, if any, of these facilities in medium sized communities make money. Thus, they are all failures according to Palopu.

But, highways do not make money either unless one puts tolls on them. So, the question is should all facilties that governments build be net money makers? If they are not net money makers, are they failures.

If they set out to provide a transportation system and they set out to provide a facility for hockey, conventions, concerts, trade shows, etc. then they are not a failure. If they were intended to be money makers as a primary goal, then those who set that up should never have invested in those kind of facilities in the first place.

Sorry NMG. I had not refreshed a window which was still open to this site and made a post which had the same notion. :-(

In a letter to the Citizen today a person expresses an opinion about how badly (in his view) a new PAC is needed right now, if not sooner!

He claims that the 41 year old Vanier Hall is unfit for a city of this size and not much more than a lecture hall.

Not too long ago I attended the performance of Mozart's opera "The Magic Flute" at Vanier Hall.

Not only was it a terrific performance but thoroughly enjoyable! The facility was more than adequate and then some! It was comfortable, the acoustics were great and I did not see any shortcomings of any kind!

It was magic. Who cares how old the building is?

How old are La Scala or the Metropolitan Opera building?

We are in a bad recession, many people have lost their jobs, taxes are too high already and some luxury items on our wish list can be postponed for a while until we have survived the worst recession since the Great Depression!

Stop pushing this new MegaPAC idea as if it was an emergency of some sort!

The person is Bill Russell who probably is the best stage technician there is. he provides the scenery, lighting, sound, etc.

It is because of people like him that places like that are still working as well as they are.

We do not NEED many things to survive. We do not need swimming pools, libraries, ice arenas, galleries, museums, parks, etc. etc. There are people on this earth who have none of these. Many of them actually live on this continent and not in some far off land. They survive without and some even live longer lives than we do who have many of those things.

We do not even need potholes fixed all that often.

What we need is clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, access to good nutritional food, shelter from the weather, safety from others who might want to take our lives, a medical system that works, and a government that can keep all that functioning properly with an infrastructure to support them.

The thing is, we are a consumer society that has long ago surpassed our ability to provide what we need and has grown an economy based much more on what we WANT rather than what we NEED.

I am old enough to remember the serious debates around what we would be doing with all our leisure time created through our ever increasing production efficiencies.

There were those who said that whole new service industries would be built around leisure time. Boy, were they ever right on the money.

What they did not predict is that it would be a viscious circle, more leisure time = more WANTS to spend on the leisure time = less leisure time due to increased NEED to make money. So, we end up with these great swings of economic booms and busts.

You are right. We do not NEED a PAC. We do not NEED an ice arena. We do not NEED a library. We do not NEED cable, satellite or any kind of TV.

However, we WANT all these and many, many other things. And those are what turns over the dollars multiples of times and that is what keeps the economy moving these days.

If you want to stop it, and I would agree it would be worthwhile looking at that, then it must be done on a large scale with knowledge of what the consequences may be. A single city doing that without suffering a major blow is extremely dangerous since the city will soon depopulate to one which is more successful at providing not only the NEEDS, but also the WANTS. And believe me, they exist.

Gus, good post and I basically agree with most of what it says.

Many things are WANTS rather than NEEDS and we could certainly do without them, especially if the money to pay for them must be borrowed since we don't have it.

Potholes. Do we want them? Do we need them?
No, on both counts. And we are already paying taxes to get them fixed - yet there they are - all over the place! Why?

Do we already have venues where our performing arts events are taking place?

Yes, we do.

Can we postpone the WANT for a new PAC because we are in a recession with high unemployment, high taxes and the decision to build a new 40 million dollar RCMP shop?

Yes, we can. Over and out. Cheers!

Diplomat.

I think if you were to compare productions of The Magic Flute and la Boheme on the small Vanier Hall stage to productions on a Broadway/opera sized stage it would be like watching formula 1 race cars race on the PGARA speedway site.

"Potholes. Do we want them? Do we need them?
No, on both counts. And we are already paying taxes to get them fixed - yet there they are - all over the place! Why?"

I aggree. Intuitively I think there is something wrong that we cannot do a better job of prevention and fixing. There are other cities with worse or similar situations as we have. At the same time, there are also many others with much better roads in communities our age and older and with similar or even worse weather conditions.

We should find out why that is and fix the system because we will otherwise continuously drop money into the holes with no real results.

Good point, Gus!

I virtually grew up with classical music, opera and theater.

I have seen The Magic Flute performed on larger stages in cities 20 times the size of Prince George. But I did not expect a production of world class dimensions in Prince George. That would have been unreasonable, wouldn't it? Yet, the music was as enthralling and beautiful as anywhere else and the acting very commendable.

There was another performance put on in Fort St. John (?) at the same time - did those who attended it not like it?

During Mozart's time his operas were performed in many different towns in many countries.

Were all those venues as big as Vanier Hall?

This is Prince George, not New York or Rome.

Of course there they have had the population numbers and wealth to afford the biggest and finest that money can buy for as long as anyone can remember.

We are not in competition with them, are we?

Would a new PAC change that aspect? Of course not.

"During Mozart's time his operas were performed in many different towns in many countries. Were all those venues as big as Vanier Hall? This is Prince George, not New York or Rome. Of course there they have had the population numbers and wealth to afford the biggest and finest that money can buy for as long as anyone can remember. We are not in competition with them, are we? Would a new PAC change that aspect? Of course not"

I somehow doubt that any PAC built in PG will be to the same standards as a PAC built in New York City or Rome. In fact, the portion of the consultants report that I read seemed to be quite clear about designing a facility for a city with the size and trading area of PG.

If anything, such a facility would put us on a level playing field with other communities of a similar size or dare I say it, it may even put us significantly AHEAD of other communities of a similar size. Stuff like that is going to become increasingly important as we look to grow the city and no, I'm not of the belief that we're going to shrivel up and die within a decade. Just my opinion of course.

Oh and I agree with you about the roads diplomat. There has to be a better way to approach it.

The construction of the Prince george soccer fields is an unfair comparison to the proposed performing Arts Centre. The combined budget for the men's Ladies and Youth soccer fields was in the order of $3,000,000. The soccer fields were a true community project, with generous donations of building materials (sand from the Hart), generous donations of trucks and equipment by local contractors, and the sweat equity of local service clubs to plant the trees, and sow the grass seed. The community soccer fields are one of the finest and least expensive soccer complexes in Western Canada. The soccer community includes over 4,000 men, women and children, representing over 3,000 local families. Every day, from May to September, the soccer fields are used for fun and recreation.

The Performing Arts Centre will also benefit significant segments of the local population, but the price tag of $51.3 million is presently not affordable.

Diplomat ...

We do not have smaller ice surfaces in Prince George, nor smaller 50 metre pools, nor shorter 10 meter diving towers, nor office buildings with 7 foot ceilings instead of 9, or hospital beds that are 5 foot 6 instead of 7 feet long.

An orchestra pit has to be large enough to seat an orchestra, not just a quartet, otherwise we'll call it a quartet pit.

Washrooms have to be large enough to accommodate 800 people in 15 minutes and stalls have to be large enough for adults.

Dressing rooms have to have seating to put on makeup, green rooms large enough to accommodate waiting actors.

Loading docks actually have to exist, which they do not at Vanier Hall, so that scenery can be loaded onto the stage, and wings/backstage have to be large enough to accommodate scenery or, preferably, towers have to exist to fly the scenery.

Believe me, diplomat, companies will choose where they go based on the quality of the facility not from the audience's point of view, but the performers and producers points of view.

"Of course there they have had the population numbers and wealth to afford the biggest and finest that money can buy for as long as anyone can remember."

Not quite true.

New York was loosing its theatre district in the early sixties as old buildings with theatres were torn down and new towers were built with virtually nothing on the ground levels to encourage people-on-the-street activities that had evolved over time.

The city enacterd the Special Theater District Zoning Amendment which gave building developers bonuses for building new theatres into thier buildings. One Astor Place was the first building resulting from that.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=35915

Decades later, in 1998, a new ordinance was adopted which allows listed Broadway theatres to transfer excess development rights to specific receiving sites.
http://www.beyondtakingsandgivings.com/nyc_ny.htm

Effectively this provides a property with a theatre on it with an income from the sale of its air rights to another property owner nearby. In Vancouver a similar plannng tool is used to encourage the preservation of heritage buildings.

Is this a form of subsidy? Of course! Many people on here would be surprised on what types of things we actually subsidize in our daily lives that we are really unaware of.

Moral of the story? There are many, but one is that things are not always what they seem to be.

I read all the posts and agree with the well thought out comments.

It is my opinion that this is not the right time to add another 100 million to the debt of the city (PAC+RCMP).

It is NOT my argument that PG should NEVER have a new PAC in the future, which hopefully will be more prosperous than the present.

If the promised referendum happens I will vote against the PAC.

"Believe me, diplomat, companies will choose where they go based on the quality of the facility not from the audience's point of view, but the performers and producers points of view."

Well, that is their choice, isn't it? I wish them good luck wherever they choose to perform!

For now I want the hundreds of potholes fixed (just in my immediate neighbourhood)and I want the stretches of road that are totally beyond patching properly repaved.

Not a too unreasonable request, I would say!

"and I want the stretches of road that are totally beyond patching properly repaved."

Did anyone notice they are repaving first avenue west of Victoria to the new bridge. I do not recall that this was an area that needed repaving. There are plenty of other areas that need it much more and will not be seeing any new pavement this year.