Backlin has been singing the same old self serving tune for years. Shut up already!

Why should tax payers foot the bill for development?
Maybe Its because Backlin whats to sell more realestate. If the devloper wants to develop property let them pay the cost for the infrastructure.

Cheers

People wonder why Prince George has not grown for many many years. Well these development charges are a great way to continue this...
Socialist style taxing has never worked so why does the City of PG still stay closed for business?

Backlin is correct-and those who disagree have obviously never developed diddly squat. Big talkers-little action-if any-other than the mouth working leaving the brain intact.
If this city hits the developers with astronomical development costs-the money will move on, and Prince George can sit back and the Mayor and council will not wonder at what they did wrong. They will continue holidaying and enjoying lucrative payment for no braining the city into the dirty, polluted, unpopular city it has been for many years. Finally there is the hope of some forseeable action to change the city into a prosperous opportunity for growth positive, and what does one hear from City Hall??
Nail those developers who think they can walk into this city and make a buck. Show them who has the clout!
As I have previously stated-I really do not give a tinkers damn, but those who are raising families and will remain in this city better start bucking city hall and their rather obvious
lack of being capable of making at least a few intelligent decisions.
Somewhere along the line people have to "grab a brain"-that is providing one is available!
When it becomes obvious the Mayor does not care about the pollution problem experienced by the residents-I suggest the concentration should be on effecting major changes at city hall, and I don't mean experiencing "hype" over increasing development costs.
Get the message yet?

So tell me free enterprise, what is capitalist style taxation?

I have always considered capitalist style taxation to be a user pay system.

So, if you want to develop a property, under waht I would consider to be a non-socialistic style of taxation it would seem reasonable that the cost of providing the roads, the parks, and all the other services which provide your property with the ammenities that give it its commercial value, would be borne by you, the developer.

As a free enterpriser, I am sure that you will be able to find ways to recoup your costs from your customers (we the people).

Now, if you wish to go to a socialist system of taxation, I would think that there would be no development cost charges so that the developer would be subsidized by the population at large (we the people) through a broad taxation system which does not address the inequities of some users being frugal and putting little strain on the system, and others being squanderous and taking more than their fair share.

Again, whichever way you slice it, it is "we the people" who end up paying for it one way or another. So, as far as I am concerned, socialist, capitalist, "we the people" are screwed anyway.

So, exactly which is it that you want?

So, trusted, it appears that what you are saying: "clean up the city and then people might want to come here".

Once that is done, then we can start upping the development cost charges because companies know they can locate here since there will be a larger pool of people interested in relocating to Prince George. Until then, properties are really not that well serviced, so "we the people" will continue to get stuck with paying for services.

And that is the case because "we the people" keep electing council members who, as a collective, do not see the light quite yet.

If that is what you are saying, I would very much back you on that line of thinking.

In looking something up this morning I found this passage on the linked web site:

"In 1965, three pulp mills were opened within a five-mile radius. In addition to polluting the surrounding area, they also provided arrivees with an unmistakable stench."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George_Airport

I think a lot of people really do not understand how people from the outside view Prince George. By the same token, a lot of people form the outside do not understand why people would choose to live here.

Good find Owl. Sums it up well.

I think the posibility of a container port should require some sort of exemption from the full development costs. Harry is right that you do not charge full development costs to a business that is heavy on storage yards that do not require servicing. IMO a potential for this kind of economic activity should be assisted for its spin off benefits to the community down the road in our added industrial infrastrucutre capacity.

IMO infrastructure can be either a cost or an investment. In this case (primary industry) I would have to say it is clearly an investment. Retail or residentail I would say yes it is more of a cost. A ring road I would say is an investment. Benchlands is a cost. An industrial site out Northwest of town for air pollution would be an investment.

Chadermando ...

If one were to look at the City as a business which competes with other cities as business, and one were to buy into the notion that the opinions of "customers" and potential "customers" should be sought in order to evaluate one's business, then I would not be one to support the attitude of: "if that is the way you feel, go somewhere else".

Those businesses which seek customer opinions and time after time respond to criticisms about the services with the comment that people simply do not understand the operations of the business, otherwise they would not form those opinions, are simply not open to opinions and will eventually suffer the consequences.

So, who are our competitors, how do we compare to them, which areas are we ahead in, and which are the Areas we need to improve on?

We have some geographical and climatic challenges when compared to other cities in BC. We are living next door to Lotus Land, so it is hard to compete. Generally, lower mainlanders do not last too long here.

However, when compared to the rest of Canada, as far as climate goes, we are considerably better off. Almosts anything west of here is no better than PG and most are worse with high humidity, hihg snow falls, VERY cold wintes, etc.

If there is one city I look at that I can imagine PG to be like in say 30 or so years, it is Saskatoon. A very nice small city with a nice downtown, a traditional university, wondrful access to the river and nice older residential areas. All that in a climate colder than ours and quite remote from major centres of population. In fact, Prince George has a greater population:distance ratio than Saskatoon once you go outside the Saskatoon-Regina corridor.

That should be everything EAST of here .... my proof reader went for a coffee ....

;-)

"....Why should tax payers foot the bill for development?..."

On the other hand, why should taxpayers benefit from developers then?

You want better home equity, you want a future for your kids (if you had any that is), you want more opportunites, you want economic diversification? Ya, well... try it with out the developer from now on. See how much you howl then.

Great, Yama came through!
I get rather discouraged with wake up calls, but my faith was now restored when I read Yama's posting.
If we do not learn to appreciate those with money who make investments and develop properties which create employment and increase populations and benefit city coffers, we are truly shooting ourselves in the foot, and howl we will.
Thanks Yama!

I think we all remember what happened south of town with the city charging the ppotentiaql developers a lot of money for extending services up the hill. The whole area south of town lacks services which they pay for. I pay taxes on a property which gets no water, no sewer, and until recently no garbage pick up. The idea that PG should be charging an arm and a leg to developers doesnt sit well with me given their record of nondelivery of services.
As for those who ask 'why should we have to pay for their developement? well maybe you should ask how much Costco pays a year in taxes, or walmart. I doubt they are much for their money.
Also, we need to diversify. Period. It makes no sense when people moan about falldown in one breath and then support moratoriums or high service fees for business in the next. I agree with chadermando when he lists an inland port as an investment. There is a lot of competition for big business or industry . If we dont compete, we lose.

"I pay taxes on a property which gets no water, no sewer, and until recently no garbage pick up"

Those services are user pay. Those of us who get those services get a utility bill twice a year. I assume you do not get such a utility bill, caranmacil. If you do, why do you pay it?

BTW, if you should get those services, you will be paying for their installation, much the same as development service charges. I understand that the services will only be provided if the majority are in favour.

Having not been through that, maybe someone else can describe that system just to make sure I have it reasonably correct.

"....Why should developers foot the bill for development?..."

On the other hand, why should developers benefit from having access to a market then?

All depends on one's viewpoint, doesn't it?

come up with a better one that that YDPC

BTW, I have a perfect property for the new Starbucks and Chapters ...... Red Rock ..... virtually no development charges or taxes .....

;-)

"I agree with chadermando when he lists an inland port as an investment. There is a lot of competition for big business or industry . If we dont compete, we lose."

I have not checked lately, but PG used to have one of the highest cost for light industrial properties in the country, never mind the province.

There are many ways to market a community. There are many ways to pay for the services and infrastructure provided.

If someone wishes to compete, developing less expensive light industrial land from the provincial, regional and municipal "land bank", providing cheaper utilities by building "green", etc, would be a more reasonable way to provide "incentives" for industry to locate here in my opinion.

Why? Three main reasons.

1. Because without that the private landowners get to pocket the change between the “land price + development cost charges” of one city versus the same of a competing city. It is not just the development cost charge which makes the difference. One must include the price of the land as well. There is absolutely no guarantee that if the city continues to eat the development cost charge that the land owner who is selling to a new enterprise coming to town will not pocket the difference. In that case, we would not be any further ahead.

2. If the city does not pick up from the developer the cost of developing regions of the city to service land to the extent that a developer has land which is useable for his or her purposes, then the City will have to increase taxes, which includes increased taxes to the developer. In fact, it should be an increase in the taxes to the business or industrial sector only to make it the most equitable if it is not a direct user pay.

3. There are no guarantees how a developer will develop the property with respect to “green” or “smart” or whatever one might call a more responsible, environmental sensitive development. With the City providing the land they have a much greater say in how it is developed.

So, either we have to reduce the cost of the property, increase the development cost charges, or increase the portion of the City taxes paid by the industrial/commercial sector of the city.

Of course, we can always log beetle killed wood, create high grade paper from it and print our own money with it.

We have all these free enterprise people talking about development costs. How is then that they are looking to government to reduce their costs and want the tax payer to foot the bill for development. Sounds like socialism. At the same time we are preaching free enterprise.

Wake up and smell the coffe you can't have it both ways. If you want to develop pay the costs for the infrastructure and that is what its all about. Because development will drive up the value of my home means dick all. I will continue to live in it regardless of the price. The only people to gain are Harry Backlin from those who will sell their home to live elsewhere.

And that brings up another question and that is the dreames. They can't see the forest for the trees. A new port facility at Prince Rupert and immediatly we think how con I exploit this for my own good. Its called "greed".

Cheers

I think the best way to exploit the new port facility in Rupert is to buy land or land and a building, or open up a Starbucks .... oops, I think one just did ... and a Coles too.

Does anyone remember a worldwide computer service call center that was going to locate here, and how they got chased out of town by the lack of response and how Chilliwack picked them up and bent over backwards for them to get them to locate there, and that they did choose to locate there ?

http://www.stream.com/ourcompany/locations.asp#na

I remember being wooed to a possible position as a Senior Technical Engineer.

Enough said, you want to get stuff for your community, you have to deal.