With Dan McLaren being treasurer, and heading up an investor group buying up lots in the downtown, wouldn't that be considered a conflict of interest?

I believe the prerequisite to be a member of the DBIA, and those who have votes, is to be a property owners. I am not 100% certain since the byulaws of the Association is not posted on their web site.

It is essentially a ratepayers association. Those who resigned are also property owners.

Basically they have asked the City to collect taxes for all those who own property in the defined area so that they can use it for the benefit of the Association. The limits are spelled out in the Community Charter:

(a) carrying out studies or making reports respecting one or more areas in the municipality where business or commerce is carried on,

(b) improving, beautifying or maintaining streets, sidewalks or municipally owned land, buildings or other structures in one or more business improvement areas,

(c) the removal of graffiti from buildings and other structures in one or more business improvement areas,

(d) conserving heritage property in one or more business improvement areas, and

(e) encouraging business in one or more business improvement areas.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't virtually nothing happened in the downtown core in the last 11 years? Truth be told, hasn't the downtown gotten worse over that time period? How do we know that the folks who are resigning weren't part of the problem with downtown revitalization? Maybe their leadership in moving the downtown forth should be questioned?

I don't know a heck of allot about McLaren, but at the very least, he seems to be actively pursuing projects that are changing the downtown core. A new facelift for the old casino and the acquisition of all those lots is probably the most action the downtown has seen in 20 years. Maybe the "old guard" were the ones holding progress back?

Now, now NMG ... you keep on being too rational, objective and obviously have powers of keen observation and recollection that few seem to possess.

Such groups typically do not suddenly appear on the horizon to the strength they appear to have without a bit of pre-planning. They also do not typically show up because things have been going smoothly and they want to get in on the action.

I believe this is a case of a group that is made up of LOCAL people (and please do not forget that) who are more than likely a bit on the frustrated side that nothing has been done, and want to give it a try themselves.

Whether they succeed is another story. But at least there appears to be a “we can do” attitude that is showing through and through. That in itself steps on a lot of people's egos.

They need a $100,000 communicator to make sure public opinion is not going to derail them. :-)

Let's see what happens after the "public" forum that is planned to take place next week. We heard the gospel according to the last group about 9 years ago when they hired Urbanics for a tidy sum of money. Nothing has happened with that.

Maybe this group can make something happen.

So they want the 40 year tax exemption so that they can develop 36 lots that will require infrastructure needs, but will not pay any taxes for 40-years. They want the rest of the tax payers to pick up the expense for their developments, and want to use the DBIA as their personal slush fund to get a consultants report that agrees with their tax exemption strategy.

Personally I have a house that costs me $2500 in city taxes this year. I have no curb and so my lawn gets flooded with rocks from the ditch above my house when it rains, I have no city sewer and the city wants $30,000 from everyone on my street if they were to provide this service, I have overhead power lines that ruin a great view... if I want any of it 'fixed' I have to pay for it over and above my $2500 tax bill... but they want a tax exemption for 40-years to receive the very same services that I am denied....

As a tax payer I have serious issues with using the tax exemption to promote financial investments of a group not required to pay any taxes. Tax favoritism breeds corruption and shouldn't be part of any package that doesn't include the same exemptions to all existing rate payers in the city. The city has no place in picking winners and losers through taxation policy.

"So they want the 40 year tax exemption so that they can develop 36 lots that will require infrastructure needs, but will not pay any taxes for 40-years."

Yes and no.

1. They need provincial approval and a change to the global provincial legislation to get more than 10 years. Chances of that would be slim to none in my opinion.

2. Just because they "have" 36 lots does not mean they will develop any of them. I would assume that they may develop some, keep some, and sell some.

3. Any lot that they develop by putting a substantial building on it, they will still have to pay development cost charges. The exemptions, if any, are for taxes, not for DCCs. So, just as you will have to pay for improvements to your city infrastructure, they will as well.

4. If they develop housing and it is for rental units, then the tax exemption will be in the hands of the building owner. If it is a stratified building, then the exemption will transfer to the strata unit holder and will not accrue to the original developer. The developer may be able to sell the units for more if the purchaser is convinced that the higher price is worth it in order to get a tax exemption for a number of years.

5. I believe the exemption is only for the City's portion of the tax, not the SD, hospital, and RDFFG portion.

What I am unsure of, and what the writer of the report to the City does not appear to cover is what happens to developments by the province.

We have heard of several provincial development possbilities - BC Housing, Wood Innovation, UNBC Housing, UNBC and other education building(s), Social Services. Over the next 5 or 10 years we might see a provincial investment of $50 to $100million.

Provincial developments pay grants in lieu of taxes. If private developers have a 10 year grace period, would government get the same advanage?

I find this whole thing very interesting.

To me it shows that this city has had such a dearth of development that we are no longer used to how development in large cities happens.

Battle of the Dan's?

McLaren vs Rogers?

I dont think there is much doubt over who would win this battle. Lets hope Mr Rogers has somebody in the wings to look after things.

The fact that he and his investors buddies (private investors) shows there is confidence inn the downtown future. Hope they get a good development plan for these properties.

No one looks at it that way.

Many seem to look at it as a bunch of private investors going after the almighty dollar at the expense of the taxpayer.

Then, when the taxpayer picks up some properties such as the CKPG/Bamboo Restaurant + properties, Norgate, PG Hotel those same people complain that the City should not be spending that money but fix the roads.

Which do you want? City or Private? City or Private? Take your pick.

We know the province is interested. Whose properties are they picking up? From the sounds of it, they are the ones with the biggest plans. Are they picking up properties independently and quietly?

Everyone has been smelling provincial money being potentially invested in the downtown. Both Dans are interested in that. What will be interesting is to see whether both will be left out in the cold if the provincial money will actually be invested elsewhere.

There is little certainty in the development game.

There is no doubt that Dan McLaren is frustrated in his attempt to dictate downtown policy. He wanted his 30-40 year tax exwmptions in place to justify his proposed developments. The economy won't support them without it. He started some time ago by supporting a "slate of Candidates for City Council" that would support his objectives. Although not totally successful in that task ...he picked up a few. He was however successful in taking over control of the DBIA Board. This included the election of his buddy Hugh Nicholson (Publisher of the Citizen) who, as Dan would say, "buys his ink by the barrel". What better way to spread the "gospel according to Dan".

For those that think these investments in downtown revitalization are being funded by a group of well intentioned local investors, check out the numbers. Chances Bingo Hall Project has receive $1,000,000 from the Federal Government and another $1,000,000 from NDIT, so that is taxpayers dollars invested and not the "private investors". The purchase of the Prince George Hotel Property was made with bridge financing being provided by NDIT to allow for the "Flip" of the property to the City of Prince George at a considerable profit. That my friends is private investors using taxpayers money to re-sale the property to the same taxpayers.
That deal was done before anyone had to put up a nickel of their own money. Good luck in finding documentation as to who these "private investors are" as the investments are hidden thru "Trust Agreements".

"The economy won't support them without it."

I think it won't support them with it at the moment. To me, depending on such a small margin in a location where housing has not been tried and commercial retail is dead and commercial office has a high vacancy rate would be far too risky.