IPG Begins New Strategic Plan in 2011

Sunday, January 02, 2011 04:20 AM

Prince George, B.C. - While 2010 was a busy year for Initiatives Prince George, it's full-steam ahead for the agency tasked with "enhancing Prince George as the sustainable knowledge-based resource economy connected to the world."

President and CEO, Tim McEwan, says that's IPG overarching goal in its new three-year strategic plan.

But first a look back, as McEwan offers some highlights of Initiatives' 2010 accomplishments:

the creation of the Tourism Prince George Society, which triggered a local hotel tax that will add $500-thousand dollars in funding to the $327-thousand provided by the City. McEwan says the society now has significant funding in place to move forward on tourism product development for PG
the closure of the deal with Terasen Gas for the purchase of IPG's 2nd Avenue call centre building. For IPG, the deal has allowed the agency to extinguish all its debt. For Terasen, the utility will create 100-125 jobs at its new customer care centre after a $4-million dollar upgrade to the building
the Boundary Road Connector which is underway at the air logistics park near the Prince George Airport. McEwan says, "By September 2011, there will be a new road right through the middle of the 3,000 acres of light industrial land there that's ready for development and that will allow us to continue to build the product at the airport."
the continued increase of volumes along the transportation corridor from the port of Prince Rupert, through the CN intermodal facility in Prince George, and on to Edmonton. "We are very pleased that within the space of about eight months, it (the intermodal facility) is at or near its designed capacity." McEwan credits Forests Minister Pat Bell and forest company CEOs with opening up the Chinese marketplace for dimension lumber...pushing 1500 containers per month through the intermodal.
the continued movement forward on the Heavy Industrial Land project. McEwan says by the middle of 2011, IPG expects to be market-ready with 200- to 500-hectares of heavy industrial land at Hart North and Isle Pierre.
the top place ranking of Prince George, out of 13 cities, in KPMG's biennial report on most competitive business locations. "So Prince George is a highly competitive place to do business and we're going to continue to use that study as a way to get the word out about Prince George as a preferred place to invest, work, and live."

For 2011, the IPG boss says work continues along five strategic "thrusts" tied to the overarching goal of the new strategic plan:

Key to creating a sustainable knowledge-based economy, says McEwan, is moving forward with an engineering program at CNC and UNBC. He says it's based on the same precept as the Northern Medical Program -- those trained in the north, stay in the north.
McEwan points to the developing industrial land strategy as a step towards a sustainable resource-based economy. And says IPG will continue to be very pro-development in terms of projects on the provincial land base -- projects like Enbridge, Site C, and Terrane's Mount Milligan mine -- provided they meet a social licence test of addressing environmental and First Nations concerns and provide long-term community benefits.
The third thrust, being sustainably connected to the world, says McEwan, "Is all around ensuring we have the infrastructure, marketing, and policy that will advance the northern corridor and Prince George as a key hub within it." Many of the initiatives on this front are distant goals, but the work begins now on advocating for things like: Fairview Phase II, to provide additional container capacity at the Port of Prince Rupert; the Prince George Airport needs additional infrastructure to fully capitalize on cargo jet traffic; the CN intermodal facility is doing resoundingly well, so McEwan says, the question needs to be asked if more capacity is needed; and IPG will continue to push for the twinning of Highway 16 from Hinton to Prince Rupert. "We have the opportunity on this corridor, because it's the shortest distance between China and the U.S. Heartland markets, we have the opportunity to be the supply chain of choice or, as those export volumes grow, we can become a bottleneck," says the IPG CEO. "So we are going to be laser-focused on ensuring that we're getting the infrastructure in place over the coming decade that will meet the demands and provide economic benefit to the north."
Downtown development continues to be a key goal. IPG is co-lead with the City on implementing the recommendations of the Mayor's Downtown Task Force. McEwan says they'll continue to aggressively market the downtown core.
And the final prong in the strategic plan falls to McEwan, himself, to continue forging partnerships and marketing the city. He says he will continue to work with business, political and opinion leaders in the south, key trade associations, and senior levels of government "to get what we need in Prince George."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2011 04:20 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Resident on January 2 2011 7:31 AM

Certainly appears IPG is excellent at helping to creating more taxes for the traveling public and patting themselves on the back for spending more taxpayer money downtown, boundary rd, etc. Remember these people are funded with our tax dollars who think the HST is a great idea.
And just what new industries did they bring to PG? Seems with the closure of Rustads, Clear Lake, and law firms, things are not quite as rosy as IPG would like us to believe.

Posted by: chrislivingdowntown on January 2 2011 8:21 AM

Bottom line is my brother while here said that the court house is the best thing he saw in the downtown and thats sad. It shows where the money is going and it is a slap in the face to the folks that go downtown daily.

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on January 2 2011 8:42 AM

The folks at City Hall did their best for many terms and many years to foster, encourage and rubber stamp new development away from the downtown to other areas.

It's called de-centralization. The new efforts to direct new life to the core area won't bear immediate visible results for a while yet!

The Court House and the Ramada are good anchor points. City Hall looks somewhat...well, fiftyish and George Street pavement and side walks are...hmm...can't find a kind word to to express my dismay.

The Keg so-called construction site: Another semi-permanent eyesore, together with the seemingly abandoned service station.

How many years time does the City give to businesses to accomplish a renovation?

Posted by: Retired 02 on January 2 2011 10:47 AM

Shut it down before they ruin our City with their great plan.
Cheers

Posted by: seamutt on January 2 2011 11:05 AM

So just why are we trying to develope, or re-develope or what ever downtown? There is just only so much money to go around so why spend it there. Over time return the downtown, closer to Queensway into parkland and its past natural state and put more support into the outlying neighborhoods, devoping into the neighborhood concept. Encourage industry to move outside of the bowl

So why spend time and money for downtown?

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 11:31 AM

"moving forward with an engineering program at CNC and UNBC"

It is nice to acknowledge CNC, However, they are a two year post secondary institution which cannot have an engineering program. That is the role of UNBC.

CNC can and should have engineering technology programs. In fact they had them in Electronics as Building/Civil some 25 years ago. They were run on a shoe string and eventually died through lack of support by the CNC decision makers and the philosphy of the Mininistry responsible for post secondary education that BC does not have to educate its population since we can improt them from elsewhere in Canada where they do educate their citizens to levels appropriate for the needs of industry.

Over the last ten years the BC government seems to have changed that strategy, has been funding the development of thousands of additional seats and is well on the way to doing what should have been done some 40 years ago as a continuation of the development of the 2 year college system.

Maybe this time they will do it right and re-develop 2 year engineering technology programs that will be properly supported by everyone - Victoria, CNC, and the industry.

What is IPG's part in all of this? Stick to strategies which will maintain existing industries and draw new industries to this region that will support the programs being developed, otherwise the grads will have no choice but to move from this community.

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 11:36 AM

Seamutt ... you got it. Notice how the City is totally silent on the industrial area to the east of Queensway. It is all lying below the 200 year floodplain. The same goes for the CN yard.

What is the long term plan? Instead they are spending time and money on replanning the golf course. That should be the responsibility of the Golf Club. They are the ones who decided to move rather than taking care of their property. Why are we paying for the planning of that?

Posted by: lonesome sparrow on January 2 2011 12:45 PM

"projects like Enbridge, Site C, and Terrane's Mount Milligan mine "

I guess that if they name drop every big project in the area, even if they had nothing to do with them, it helps them justify the tax dollars that they are getting.

If someone built a solar energy plant, I'm sure IPG would release a statement that they are "laser-focused" to ensure that the sun comes up each day.

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 1:39 PM

I think the frustrations experienced by Cities are the engines of our knowledge economy. Four out of five Canadians choose to live and work in cities, yet cities have the governance sovereignty of small children in a patriarchal family.

That is what Alan Broadbent has written in his book “Urban Nation? Canada needs to wake up and stop starving the geese that are laying the golden eggs. It is time to provide cities with the powers and fiscal resources to do their jobs properly. Otherwise the entire nation will suffer.

Broadbent proposes cities have an equal seat at the federal and provincial governing table since city-level government is the body citizens encounter most regularly and the one that most influences their lives. Cities generate a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth and are home to the vast majority of Canada's populace. Yet, they lack essential financial and governing clout with which to exercise any real control of their destinies. The result is crumbling cities and disaffected residents who quickly realize municipal government - or any government for that matter - cannot or will not listen to them.

Many of the things that are important to city dwellers are not under the control of the city government. Homeless people on the streets, especially those who have serious psychiatric problems. It is the province that provides the assisted housing. Cities cannot even decide on the length of time between elections. In some cases, such as Metro Toronto in 1997, officials and Councils have been dismissed and forced to run under new circumstances.

We have limited ability to support initiatives such as a BIAs. We are given facilities such as the sports centre at UNBC and then have to put in $300,000 per year to help maintain it, even though the citizens at large do not use it. A PAC would get more attendance from the general population.

As the Broadbent says, we have 21st century challenges with 19th century tools.

Pat and Shirley have been doing well with getting PG on the map in the province. However, we need more than that from all the MLAs who are associated with the urban areas of BC. We need a round table discussion on urban issues with the intent of rewriting provincial laws in order to give cities the pencil. Without that, most of this City Council’s and IPG’s strategic plans are useless since they are relegated to lobbying the province and the feds. That is NOT how cities should be governed, by the whims of the senior governments in power.

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 1:45 PM

From the IPG strategies .... "the Prince George Airport needs additional infrastructure to fully capitalize on cargo jet traffic;"

It NEEDS the thing that they should have provided in the first place when the new departure lounge and arrival gates were built .... jetways!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 1:56 PM

IPG is a waste of millions of home owner property tax dollars. They try to play the role of a provincial economic development agency and corporate advocate.

The role of facilitating economic development in the city should be an in house function of a city hall clerk that assists in cutting through red tape for potential developers, or setting up contacts, but not acting as a private agency advocating for industry.

Biggest problem PG has is we have no opportunities for young families, which is why our population of the generation between 25-40 has declined by over 70% in the last ten years. From nearly 30,000 to under 10,000 today. If it wasn't for the growth in seniors from the outlying areas moving to PG we would be considered a failed city rapidly shrinking. The jobs to support young families have all disappeared, and it is structural and political more than anything.

Who wants to invest in a city where its youth have abandoned it because of a dysfunctional political class that is only about special interests and bending over for monopoly capitalism? A city with the highest crime rate in Canada and the most out of control spending at city hall.

Developing heavy industrial lands outside the city airshed should be priority number one, but that should be developed by the regional districts, NDI, and the provincial MLA's... the city home owners shouldn't be funding that as worth while as it is. The rest is simply name dropping, using tax payer dollars to make appearance of economic development, and trying to take credit for every small development that would have naturally came this way anyways.

I think the stats on the massive decline in the 25-40 year old generation in this city says it all about the record of economic development in this town and its near term future.

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 2:06 PM

I disagree Gus... most wealth is generated in rural areas from forestry, mining, energy, and farming. The cities at best provide support services for these industries.

I think what need to be looked at is the connection to who is taxed and how they relate to the expenditure of those taxes. Should a home owner be funding regional economic development, or special interest functions like a PAC. Hell no. These should be funded from a source that is more directly accountable, or a general source that is equitable to all.

Why should people that rent be the ones deciding what the city budget will be at election time when they don't pay the taxes? Wouldn't it be better if cities were funded by a regional sales tax instead, so that all that vote are including in the funding of that votes implications?

The home owner has been taxed far and away above and beyond what the minimal services to that home require. Roads, water, sewer, planning, and snow clearing. The rest should find another source other than the home owner who is captive to the taxation whether on fixed incomes or not.

If the cities want more revenue then they should cut the obscene compensation those managers in city hall make or find another source of revenue that is more equitable and generates more accountability to the realities of the private sector of the economy.

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 4:01 PM

You forget about people, Eagleone.

Eagleone. The major mistake made by most people is that the greatest resource we have is us. We. The people. People are the greatest assets we have.

In fact, we have set up our political system in such a way that the locations which have the greatest number of people, have the greatest number of votes, and thus wield the greatest power when it come to governing ourselves. It is not the area with the greatest so called "natural" resources that dictates where we go. It regions with the greatest number of people that dictate that.

Without people, there is nothing. The animals in nature do not need forestry. They need forests. They do not need mining. They need salt licks. They do not need energy beyond that which they derive from food and the warmth of the sun. They need food, which is provided for them and if it disappears, they disappear.

If there are no people there is no forestry, for instance, because the products of forestry are not needed or wanted. If there are no people, there is no one to figure out how to best utilize the products which can be created from the forests. Throughout history, when that knowledge was not there, and population increased exponentially, whether Egypt, Greece, Rome, and even England with its ship building needs to expand and protect its almost global empire, the forests or portions of them disappeared. In some areas, they never grew back.

Look at farming. 3 or so percent of the population employed in direct agriculture today. At one time it was more than 50%. The same is happening in forestry, mining, oil and gas. We have to get more from less and with less physical (grunt work) manpower and more mental manpower.

If it were not so, then the move to urban centres that has been happening since the onset of the industrial age more than 2 centuries ago would not have happened.

As I keep saying, the more people keep their heads in the sand about how we actually obtain what we have, and that it is our wants that are driving us, not our needs, the more we will be kept on the sidelines. Which is fine for some. We do not all WANT the same thing.

Posted by: pgguru on January 2 2011 4:02 PM

take out high cost building like the four season witch are bleeding big red ink,aging infrastructure,shut here down and add on to the aqautic

Posted by: pgguru on January 2 2011 4:03 PM

need to look at the citys bottom line and start cost cutting now like every other jurisdication in b.c

Posted by: gus on January 2 2011 4:18 PM

"If the cities want more revenue then they should cut the obscene compensation those managers in city hall make"

Actually that means less expenditures, not more revenue.

The managers make that kind of money because that is who gets compensated these days - managers, people with so-called expertise. It works no differently at corporations such as CANFOR. Union and management. Skilled trades.

Cook food and serve it to people in restuarants, and even manage restaurants, and you are SOL. You are also SOL if you write for news services, other than the biggest ones in the country, assemble newspapers, do advertising graphics, etc. unless you are in the top of your field.

Take care of the elderly? Generally SOL as far as compensation goes.

As far as natural resources go, we are exploited because we have no laws to protect us.

If we are to grow as a city and even have the hope of self supporting, we need access to the region's natural resources in exactly the same fashion as First Nations are after and are partially getting, for exactly the same reason. or we have to become smart enough as a community to develop our people to help us become self sufficient.

But, neither of those two scenarios seem to be sinking in. And there is certainly not a strong enough political leader in this part of the world, nor in the rest of small urban BC and Canada who has the understanding of that, the vision of how to go about making change, and the guts and diplomacy to go after it.

Like India and the other colonized parts of the world, we are stuck with the cards which were dealt us.

Which reminds me. Quite frequently on here we have people shooting off their mouths about street people needing to get up and stop being so lazy and take responsibility for their own destiny.

Well ..... I see not difference with our lot as a "colonial" region. If anything is going to make it change, it will have to be us.

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 6:01 PM

Gus I see what you are saying and can only argue the degree of it.

The people you call SOL are the people that are having their influence taken away from them. Monopoly capitalism, monopoly bureaucratic empire... its all the same thing with its roots in greed and control over other people. When the system fails from their own largess, it will be them that will become SOL as the world learns from its mistakes.

Most of this so call growth of the ingenuity emanating from the growing cities you talk of is in most cases almost entirely enabled by the trickery of monetary and government fiscal policy that transfers wealth from the people that generate it to the people that control it.

Take Harper's $50 billion dollar stimulus package. That was all borrowed money that created the biggest fiscal deficit in Canadian history. This money originates because the central bank prints the money into existence thereby devaluing in real value the existing currency in circulation or the things like commodities that are valued in real terms (or should be if it weren't for bankster derivative trickery)... the point being that this 'funny money' is what is responsible for most people in cities working (the completion of the wealth transfer through monitization and government spending)...if one was to take away the borrowed economy (borrowed ironically against the savings of the baby-boomer generation, they just don't realize it yet), take away that borrowed money and real unemployment would easily be over 20% and there is no way today's managers in government could justify what they make for salaries today. Soon their legacy costs will bankrupt the system anyways, so they are living on borrowed time.

When the ponzi scheme collapses its not the university researcher, or the myriad of city dwelling middle managers offering a service that will have any real value in society... it will be those that control the production of basic commodities.

So the cities today grow and prosper on the trickery that is out of sight and out of comprehension of most of the rural parts of the country... but the cities are less and less sustainable every day for when a ponzi scheme bubble does collapse whether it be financial, war, environmental, morally, or a combination of all the above.

Always focusing on monopoly capitalism of the 'wise managers' is a sure way to diminish sustainability as it takes us further and further from the free enterprise of many competitors providing a variety of different services of value to the whole. Look at the North American economy today as a prime example it has been gutted. The people in the city miss this with all the distractions and opportunities from shear numbers, but in the rural part of the country that is what is killing its sustainability and that is what will one day take the cities down as well... as the wall that insulates the city dwellers world become a mile high and an inch thick.

That's getting off topic though... my point was to not tax the home owner out of his home to subsidize things that are better done from another source of funding. In that we could probably agree on the need to decentralize how taxes are collected and allocate... and better yet tie them more firmly to the actors involved in the purpose of the tax. But to say that a place like Vancouver is better than rural BC as a result of being more ingenious than the rural parts with their well earned management... I disagree with that and one only has to look at where tax dollars go to see the influence that has, which has purchased those results.

Controlling our economy because the urban majority have the political majority has never served us well, nor has it ever served anyone anywhere well... its why the Americans have federally and at the state level a Senate that protects both regional as well as representation by population... its why IMO if BC is to survive in the future as a 'just' province, than BC too would also need a small Senate of say 12-14 Senators coming equally from 6-7 regions of the province. They would be elected and not appointed, and they would speak for the likes of IPG when it comes to government policy (and they would likely cost us less then IPG with the province paying the bill and not the home owner in PG).

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 6:13 PM

Gus's argument summed up I think goes like this. Vancouver has the population majority and thus the political majority, so they get to use the resource revenue from all parts of the province to fund their own unilateral agenda... and if we don't like it we can pay additional taxes on our homes to pay an unelected 'professional' to lobby them what we would like for policy? And lucky for us since he is unelected he can speak for all of us too because our horizons are to small to grasp it all anyways. I think that's what Gus is saying... I'm sure he will correct me though.

:)

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on January 2 2011 6:36 PM

We need people with good (better) ideas to go into politics and not just to stand on the side lines and get totally frustrated with the shenanigans that those with lesser capabilities keep inflicting on the poor spectators who got them elected in the first place.

Posted by: NMG on January 2 2011 6:36 PM

Honestly Eagleone, I think your argument is illogical. For it to hold any value, at least IMHO, it has to assume that people living in the rural areas of the Province own the resources that they extract (and remember that's all they do, but I'll get to that later).

The truth of that matter is that the people living in these areas DON'T own the resources. These resources belong to every person living in BC. Living in Prince George gives me no more inherent right to prosper from the extraction of a pine tree than it does someone living in Abbotsford. Same goes for any resource or any economic driver for that matter. The economy is here to serve ALL British Columbians, regardless of where we live and regardless of what job we contribute to that economy.

Getting back to forestry for a moment though, how exactly do you determine who should get the wealth? Does it go to the person who chopped the tree down? Does it go to the guy running the processor? What about the person who trucks it to the mill? The person who runs the mill itself? What about the bank who financed the ability for the mill to be built in the first place? What about the folks working in the ports who enabled the product to be shipped? What about the exporters who found a product for the wood? What about the MOF employees who work to ensure that we even have a functioning system of forestry? Where does it start and where does it end? You can just say "Billy in PG lives near the trees so it's his money", when Billy in PG may only form 1% of the entire process that creates that wealth.

As an aside, of course the bulk of the population should drive the political agenda for the Province. It would be sheer stupidity to have any other system. Are you honestly suggesting that the overwhelming minority should dictate to the overwhelming majority how their lives should unfold? What gives one person living in Burns Lake any more inherent rights in BC than one person living in Kelowna or Surrey? What if that person in Burns Lake doesn't even work in forestry, do they still get that special status? For that matter, what if forestry is in the tank? Do the rural areas now get their rights completely revoked?

I think common sense dictates that the economy of BC belongs to all British Columbians and has to work for the benefit of all British Columbians. Whether that is happening can certainly be debated, however, I don't think you solve anything by creating a class structure. What you are saying I think only has merit (although I think it would be a complete disaster) if the current Province was to be split into 7 or 8 different Provinces, however, until that occurs, we're all in the same Province and we all have to go at it together.

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 9:03 PM

NMG you read a lot into what I said and took it to the extreme.

I hadn't said 7 or 8 different provinces, but rather 6-7 different Senatorial regions.

Every state in America has a bicameral legislature... meaning one house represents the will of the majority and the other house represents the various regional peculiarities of the state. There is nothing new at all about this type of sharing of power so Surrey doesn't tell the whole province what policy will be, no different than PG or Vancouver could.

To take it to the nth degree and call it class warfare and splitting the province into 7-8 provinces is to make claims so as to not even argue the merits, but rather try to ridicule them with hyperbole. Classic defeatism.

That said if we don't in the near future have some kind of bicameral legislature solution to the regional inequities of the province then it makes sense for the North to go it on its own as an independent province maybe with the Yukon... and I have no doubt it could do this on its own and diversify far more than it could remaining a part of BC.

Time will tell....

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on January 2 2011 9:16 PM

Money is borrowed by governments during tough times to keep things from getting even more problematic and there is nothing wrong with the idea as long as the debt is paid down when things get better again.

It's the lack of determination to pay the borrowed amounts back during good times which is wrong.

Harper/Flaherty did the right thing.

It is a drop in the bucket compared to the many of tens billions of Euros bailouts that had to be done in Europe (with borrowed money) to keep Greece, Ireland and Iceland afloat.

Splitting the province into smaller parts and appointing even more administrators and high paid government minions for each part will create even more red tape and make efficient government even more impossible.

It will accomplish nothing.

Posted by: jales4 on January 2 2011 10:14 PM

What a great debate. Educated opinions, respectfully submitted and discussed.

THIS type of conversation is what makes Opinion250 great.

Thanks for 'teaching', NMG, Prince George and Gus.

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 10:40 PM

Who is spiting the province into smaller parts? Appointing more administrators... that is the last thing we need.

We just expanded the legislature by 6-MLA's, so having a second quorum of a dozen Senators is hardly a huge cost to ensure every part of the province has fair representation and ability to prevent dictates from the Premiers office on a compliant legislature. If we didn't have to fund things like the IPG and NDI Trust, then that alone would fund a dozen Senators that would be more qualified to represent the rural parts of the province on these issues.

I am always puzzled by those that are hostile to representation and the bed rock values of democracy by calling it inefficient and separatists and creating administrative bureaucracies... I guess totalitarian regimes is the model some people are really after... they've always been efficient?

Posted by: Eagleone on January 2 2011 10:49 PM

princegeorge, I didn't say whether what Harper/Flarity did was right or wrong... I was saying it skewed the real health of the private sector economy when funny money is used to plug the hole and taking up a greater percentage of GDP than it already does (most everything IPG proposes is about spending funny money). It was just an example of that being how government uses funny money to manipulate the real economic market place.

Its only one of the problems that this is in effect borrowing from future generations and the value of savers and those in the commodity business... to subsidize smoke and mirrors in the real health of today's economy for political purposes. Funny that you get the so called conservatives defending this kind of debt financing of a manipulated market though. Real market capitalists... or not, you be the judge.

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on January 3 2011 7:11 AM

Somebody did make a suggestion about 6 or 7 smaller regions and a dozen or so senators. Obviously, if the special needs and special circumstances of a number of new units are to be evaluated, addressed and at the end of the day re-evaluated as to whether results have been achieved or not then there will have to be whole teams of new people to do all that dedicated work.

That is my opinion, of course and I do not insist on being more right than anyone else here stating their opinion.

It's just my view of the thing.

Priming the pump during downturns and high unemployment has been something done everywhere there are the resources to do it. When a country is totally broke and has no credit obviously it would be impossible.

Canada is not totally broke, so most economists would agree that a stimulus such as done by Flaherty is something to consider during bad times because that is the only time it is needed.

When I say that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances - again, it's my opinion and I am not picking on yours.

Posted by: NMG on January 3 2011 10:17 AM

"That said if we don't in the near future have some kind of bicameral legislature solution to the regional inequities of the province "

What regional inequities are you referring to Eagleone? I honestly don't think there are that many when you get right down to it. Everyone in BC pays the same tax rates, we all have "similar" access to healthcare, we all have publicly funded educational systems, for the most part we all have clean drinking water, etc.

The only "inequities" that I see would relate directly to population and density differences. For example, it would make no sense whatsoever for the Province to invest in a 60,000 seat stadium in the Peace Region because there isn't the population to support it. I think we do quite well in PG, however, we also have to be honest and realize that a city of 75,000 is hardly "rural", at least in the conventional definition of the term. Does a city of 6,000 in our area receive less than a city of 6,000 in the Kootenay's or on the Island? On average, I would say no.

When it comes to certain aspects of living, people up here may actually be better off than their urban counterpart. Take PG or many of the small communities around here for example. A wage of 40-60K a year here will likely get you into a modest home if you plan appropriately. That same wage in the LML and you will be renting for the rest of your life.

I guess I just don't see the huge regional disparities that you refer to. For the most part, I think the average person making a middle class wage in PG, Vanderhoof or Kitimat, faces the same challenges as a person making a middle class wage in Surrey, Chilliwack or Victoria.

Any differences between regions, IMHO, just gets down to population density issues and these are nothing new. Large centres are always going to attract the most commerce, they will always have more career options for people and they will always have more services for people because it is more cost effective to develop them when they are being used by a larger population base.

I realize that you never suggested multiple Provinces were the answer. The reason I brought that up was that it was the only way I saw your proposal as being workable because then the areas would have legal control over those resources as smaller units and thus the wealth generated from those resources could be "retained" in each area more specifically. The problem with that though, is that the economies of the areas would likely be extremely volatile and I think it would be incredibly challenging to manage those areas for long-term sustainable growth. In these regards, such a model may actually be worse than what we currently have.

I'm also not sure that adding additional political representation will do all that much to solve any problems. What we need to do, IMHO, is try to develop the economies of all areas of the Province. If we are able to do that, then areas will naturally develop and expand, populations in the outlying areas will increase and with that, additional benefits will flow.

Just my opinion. Like others have said, I don't have all the answers but I do enjoy these types of discussions.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 3 2011 12:07 PM

I wonder if Hizzoner Danno took the time to think out Finance Minister Flahertys ode to rising interest rates? Maybe he just dismissed them out of hand. Methinks if he cared for the welfare and wallets of taxpayers in PG he would be working (with others) on a plan to downsize and change his way of thinking and budgeting. Raising taxes every year and buying real estate is making me wonder how long I will be able to keep my desire to live here. They say that politicians can't see past the next election. And the first job at hand after being elected is to get re-elected. Wanna be re-elected Danno? ( I know you are reading this) Just take a page or two out of Toronto's new mayor Rob Ford playbook and then run with them. I think your popularity with the taxpayers supersede those of yer cohorts. IMO.

Posted by: gus on January 3 2011 2:41 PM

On a national scale, Alan Broadbent is of the opinion that one of the ways to get from a 19th century governance system to a 21st century governance system federally is to create a combination of super city "states" along with some super provinces. His division would create 8 provinces outr of the existing 10.

1. Vancouver
2. Toronto
3. Montreal
4. BC (excluding the GVRD)
5. Prairies (Alberta, Sask + Manitoba)
6. Ontario (excluding GTA)
7. Quebec (excluding Metro Montreal)
8. Maritimes

All would have the powers that provinces now have.

With a little tweaking for the Island and the larger interior cities, that would likely give the smaller cities more clout banded together.

I doubt any such radical change will happen in my lifetime, but I think he is right on the money that if the dads and moms of confederation had a country populated as it is today to develop a governance sytem for, they would not have developed a system as we are now stuck with.

http://spacingtoronto.ca/2008/05/02/book-review-urban-nation-by-alan-broadbent

Here is a passage from the above site:

"In effect, the struggle between big cities and the politicians representing the rest of the nation is the worst kind -- a struggle between two victims. Big cities see their complete lack of political power, their utter subservience to the whims of provincial governments that do not understand their complex needs, the massive amounts of tax money drained from the city and given to the rest of the nation.

But those outside big cities see a dominant economic force, bustling with activity and high incomes, full of specialist services unavailable elsewhere, dominating the media and culture, drawing massive amounts of private money to banks and head offices.

How is it, they think, that these people want even more money and power?

The problems of big cities won't be solved until we can understand and address the point of view of those who live outside them."

I think we see that division in the discussion on this site. The GVRD likely does see the proportion of both the federal and provincial income tax going to the "rural" areas of the province to build transportation, health, education, social services and other infrastructure and fund programs which are more expensive per unit population than in the denser populated areas.

And, of course, we have this notion that we have all the real wealth on which large urban centres rely and we are not being compensated for it.

And it appears that never the twain shall meet.

Posted by: socredible on January 3 2011 2:59 PM

Prince George:-"Money is borrowed by governments during tough times to keep things from getting even more problematic and there is nothing wrong with the idea as long as the debt is paid down when things get better again.

It's the lack of determination to pay the borrowed amounts back during good times which is wrong."
------------------------------------------

The "lack of determination" figures into it very little, Prince George. It's more like a "lack of financial ability" that's the real problem.

In the economy as a whole, as things now stand, you can't pay back what has been borrowed unless as much again can be borrowed to do it.

Posted by: gus on January 3 2011 3:03 PM

"Just take a page or two out of Toronto's new mayor Rob Ford playbook."

I predict Ford will be a one term mayor. He is a throw back to the Neanderthalers in the human race ... He does not have a new idea in his body ... he is simply a contrarian and bully ..... :-)

Posted by: gus on January 3 2011 3:16 PM

Socredible ....

A new idea, which of course will not fly because everyone wants something for nothing, especially the majority who post on this site.

Given that the average house in PG has a price tag or even assessment of around $250,000 and that a similar house in Surrey has a price tag of say $550,000 and both have municipal property taxes in the upper $2,000 to low $3,000 range it would be quite possible to double taxes for residences over the mid price range in PG and still come away like a bandit in monthly PIT payments for those who have proportionately similar mortgages (say 50% of assessed value on average) on their houses.

That extra money for the more remote and northern city would go a long way to make up the lack of service due to a smaller population base, and will also pay down any loans over say a 5 year period so that future loans for infrastructure and program improvements would be a small fraction of the loans taken out now.

But, of course, no one would be intrested in that kind of community spirit and community improvement. Instead, we do not recognize that we have a higher cost of pavement per person, and a higher cost of virtually every other thing per person, and we make no accommodation for such things.

We continue to campare apples to oranges, without recognizing that is what we are doing. And if someone points that little, but very important fact out, we dismiss it because we think those people are idiots and in cahoots with the governing elite.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 3 2011 4:47 PM

...he is simply a contrarian and bully... I'd like to have a guy like that to keep the taxman away from my pockets. Bully being the same as strong willed who won't tolerate any crap from his dissenters? If it saves me a buck, he's the man! Clone him and save me from paying the interest on our city's debt (which will certainly rise pending Mr. Flahertys warnings) and the potential debt of the new cop shop and PAC.

Posted by: gus on January 3 2011 5:37 PM

"Bully being the same as strong willed who won't tolerate any crap from his dissenters"

No. Not that kind of bully. If he were that kind of bully, he would know that it his his crap versus their crap.

Cities require people who understand cities and how they operate and so that they can distinguish between someone who is talking BS to them and when someone is making sense.

They also need people who can get their point accross diplomatically and when to stand down and let something go.

This is Rob Ford in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EpSdyB0zY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOi2wIUCTnA&NR=1

The mayor of the largest and most dominant city in Canada.

First Lastman, now Ford. The world of city politicians who crawl their way to the top is getting worse and worse. IMO.... (I drop the H part because it is redundant)

Posted by: gus on January 3 2011 6:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZQ4oQjxgc&feature=related

Another Fordism .... he stands up at Council and suggests he should have a public lynching for the homeless rather than a public meeting to discuss shelter locations in various wards.

Sort of borders on hate speech I would say. Note that he can't even speak without notes even with a tirade such as that.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 3 2011 6:57 PM

Hmmm? Tax me, Danno. I'm Canadian.

Posted by: supertech on January 3 2011 9:09 PM

Back to PG. This City Council (and the last one) make it very clear that voting here is a useless waste of time. They will do whatever they want and most of this city follows along with their head in the sand. You know who's running this city?? Dan McLaren, John Majors and Don Kheler. That's MY opinion.