Imagine the trail system we could have around this city that everyone could use for just the operating budget alone of this sports center....

I figure the big promoters of the sports center were huge federal liberal supporters, combined with the mayors attack on our federal conservative MP's, and it is no wonder they struck back nixing the hostiles pet project. My bet is Dawson Creek and Fort St John will still get their funding, and PG will have to wait for another government before we recieve federal funding consideration of any kind.

PS If the city can afford $900,000 operating budget for the sports center than why not a few thousand to plow the trail systems (ie Cottenwood, Wilson ect) in the winter time.

Don't forget the replay T.V. at the Multiplex also. I understand it is now worth $1,000,000.00 and not just $800,000.00. Another waste of our money. I wonder who will use it when the Cougars leave.

Boy that's some effective MP work by Jay and the Dick. First they claw back pine beetle funding and now this. Why did PG vote Conservative again?

Plato said,Unless you take an interest in your Government you shall be governed by those worse then youselves.

Cheers

You know, something here does not compute.

The question was asked at City Council on Monday - "Can we start the Cameron Street Bridge without funding assurance from the Feds and Province so that we can get the thing going?"

George Paul answered in a hesitant fashion that they will not provide money after the fact.

So here we have a project that started some time ago and we still do not have federal money. When did we apply? Who has the right answer to the question posed at Council? Or is transportation infrastructure different from recreation infrastructure?

Do our MPs have the answer to that? It appears that we can still get money if the project is accepted. Otherwise one would think that the MPs would let us know that we cannot because it is after the fact and we have shown that we are prepared to go it on our own.

If I was in charge of handing out money, I would say to myself that obviously the community can do it on their own. So I would give the money to a community that could not do that. It looks like at least one of the other projects that have not started yet will have to be cut back. So, I would then turn around and give it to that project.

Communication seems to be at a minimum.

"why not a few thousand to plow the trail systems (ie Cottenwood, Wilson ect) in the winter time"

A great way to remove the wax off X-country skis.

;-)

"Why did PG vote Conservative again?"

Because they conserve? Because we conserve? So, it is obvious for those of us who conserve money, rather than spend it, to vote for the party that is most likely to conserve money.

;-)

Since when did it become standard practice to start huge construction projects without having ALL the funding in place, in WRITING & signed?

Obviously newly elected governments think that previous verbal committments do not have to be honoured.

Promises are worth only the paper they are NOT written on.

Are all the affairs of this city (and possibly others) mismanaged in such a lamentable fashion?

Perhaps this will teach us a lesson not to allow those in charge at the City to play Russian roulette with our present and future tax dollars!

>"Why did PG vote Conservative again?"<

Beats me. I haven't voted for Hill since he switched sides in midstream and did not support the democratically elected leader of the Reform Party.

These guys were all talk in oposition but when the rubber hits the road they have done less for us than when we didn't have a governing MP to rep the region. Harris is probably one of the least effective MPs I have ever run across. Why do you think both he and Hill wield little power or influence with the party. Even their own leader doesn't have much faith in them. When you consider that they are long term MPs, it is ironic that they have not been given more resposibility. I guess it goes to how effective they were in the past. Oh well, Dick is hasppy as a clam as he can sleep thru the next few years, comfortable in the knowledge that he has slept thru enough sittings to get his pension. Way to go Dick.

The real question should be **Why did we build this Sport Complex** The answer of course is that it gave us an opportunity to spend the $20Million that was available from the Provincial Government. If it wasnt for 2010 then this money would not have been there.

The whole idea behind the Sports Centre is suspect, and is a good example of this City consistantly chasing different levels of Government for funding, and then having the taxpayers pick-up the difference.

My understanding of the Centre was that the BC Government would kick in 20Million the University and the City would kick in 5Million each. I wasnt aware that the City intended to get its 5Million from the Feds. or where UNBC would get their 5Million. (Tax Dollars?)

My understanding of the **business plan** is that the cost to operate this facility would be $942,000.00 per year, and that they expected to generate $944,000.00 per year in revenue., and therefore it wouldnt cost taxpayers any more money.

Part of the revenue to operate this facility would come from (projections) 4000 students at $25.00 per semester $200,000.00 per year, and 500 facility memberships for $70,000.00 per year, public use $160,000.00 etc; etc; etc;

These projections are much like the following;
(1) Civic Centre *Conventions from all over the world* Never happened.
(2) CN Centre, 5000 hockey fans at 32 Games per year would mean that the Centre would make money. Never happened it loses $380,000.00 per year.
(3) Art Gallery. Attendence would generate enough money to be financially viable with a few grants. Never happend. *Attendence numbers are non-existant and are stacked by using School Children to inflate numbers*
(4) Cameron St. Bridge. Cost to be shared with Provincial/Federal Government. Never happened. City taxpayers will end up paying $7.5Million for this bridge, when we could have repaired the old one for $750,000.00

You get my point. This is what will happen with this Sports Centre. The projections for generating revenue are highly optomistic, and as a result the City and UNBC (Who are the owners) will pick up the operating shortfalls. In other words the taxpayers.

Civic Centre, CN Centre, Art Gallery, Aquatic Centre, Bridges, Sports Complexes, Universities -- none of them make money. Neither do roads and parks and performing arts centres and sewers.

That's because they're not supposed to. If they made money, private enterprise could build them. But we build them because they make us money.

Huh? Isn't that a contradiction? Nope.

These investments are the infrastructure that supports the money making and diversity. We need the investments.

Civic Centre, CN Centre, Art Gallery, Aquatic Centre, Bridges, Sports Complexes, Universities -- none of them make money. Neither do roads and parks and performing arts centres and sewers.

That's because they're not supposed to. If they made money, private enterprise could build them. But we build them because they make us money.

Huh? Isn't that a contradiction? Nope.

These investments are the infrastructure that supports the money making and diversity. We need the investments.

Bohemian. You miss my point. When these facitlities were proposed it was the City and the people who were pushing the proposals that said they would generate revenue and cost the Taxpayers little or no money. It is only after they are built that we then find out that in fact it will cost us money.

Taxpayers are entitled to make decisions about how their money is to be spent, and in order to do this we need honest, accurate information on these projects. We didnt get it on the CN Centre, nor did we get it on the Art Gallery, in fact most people in Prince George were opposed to the Art Gallery, and they built it anyway.

When they proposed the New Civic Centre to replace the old one which was located across the street from Days Inn., they stated that this Centre would attract Conventions from all over the World, and as a first class facility would generate all kinds of revenue. In fact the opposite was true. I suggest that this new facility has less Conventions etc; than the old one had.

They are now feeding you the same BS on the Sport Centre, suggesting that we will have World Class Atheletes training here, and that because we have this facility that we will attract students from all over the world, etc; This is all based on optomistic speculation and is not based on any facts at all, and therein lies the problem.

If the Provincial Government hadnt offered us 20 Million to keep our mouths shut while they enjoy the 2010 Olympics, this facility would not be built, because it would be far to expensive to fund without the Provincial Money. Just because we built it doesnt mean it is a viable or sensible way to spend tax dollars., and if fact could just as easily be construed as a total waste of money.

People have to somehow get back to the reality that all this money belongs to the taxpayer, and Politicians do not have the right to spend it willy, nilly, on anything that suits their fancy.

Those that benefit the most from these types of projects, are the Construction Companies who build them,., and City Hall staff who work in the facilities at nice cushy salaries. There is little or no benefit to Joe Taxpayer.

The civic centre has signs designating it is a "no-idle zone". Across the sreet, the entrance to the parking lot has about a dozen idling cars and trucks waiting in line to purchase their double doubles at the drive-thru. Lots of thinking went into that scenario. Someone at city hall getting a kick back for paying for useless signs? Maybe the city will eventually put up "hooker free zone" signs on Queensway one day. Could happen.

"When these facitlities were proposed it was the City and the people who were pushing the proposals that said they would generate revenue and cost the Taxpayers little or no money. It is only after they are built that we then find out that in fact it will cost us money.

I agree with that. The real question is whether those who proposed them and agreed to the "business plans" actually thought that they were viable.

Perhaps they could be viable. Perhaps those individuals assumed that those who were operating them on a daily basis would be able to make money or break even. If so, then those managers put inot those postions need to be assessed on their performance and some changes made if they do not perform as agreed to by both parties upon hiring them.

Then again, perhaps those Councillors who thought these things could make money are not successful business people and really have no "feel" for what makes a business viable.

Finally, it could be that most figured they could simply go with some pie-in-the-sky business plan, pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and know full well the venues likely will never pay for themselves.

As far as I am concerned, those venues highlighted by diplomat typically do not "make money". In one way or another they are subsidized. I believe they should be if they cannot be provided privately.

There are, of course, many examples of theatres which are owned by private non-profits and private entrepeneurs even. But if they are properly built to a high standard, they will typically exist in large urban areas or regions which have several medium sized centres close by.

Read the intro on this page about Mirvish in Toronto:

"The Princess of Wales Theatre is a new, 2000-seat playhouse built by the father and son producing team of David and Ed Mirvish, who also own and operate Toronto's historic Royal Alexandra Theatre. The Princess of Wales is the first privately owned and financed theatre built in Canada since 1907 - and the first anywhere in North America in over 30 years"

That is the reality of Theatre. It is the reality about many facilties.
http://www.mirvish.com/OurTheatres/Princess.html

I went there in 1993 for a few days just to see Miss Saigon. Took money from this city and spent it in that city.

Imagine the traffic jam with free hookers being offered .....

Hookers on Third and George, and in the lounges in the late 50's and 60's were commonplace. House of ill repute was located on 1st Avenue just below the hill from the Radio Station on 3rd,in the late 1940's early 50's.

Prince George has never been a Hooker Free Zone, if anything just the opposite. We are now getting heavy into **out of sight out of mind**
Check your local newspapers for the latest listings.

Tom Sizemore liked them when he was here.

Whatever happened to Black Orchid?
Which one of her houses obtained the licence?
Was it the one on the corner of Westwood and Range, or the one near Costco?
Amazing how the publicity evaporated so rapidly.
Guess the city felt the $3,000.00 licence fee was worthy of the flack.
Even the residents in the area learned
acceptance! Turning a blind eye ended the fight.
I, for one, am in total agreement with those who feel the "ladies of the night" should be entitled to operate from safe establishments.
Also keeps the "johns" protected.
I also think they should have regular check ups by the medical profession.
And, by all means, their income should be taxed.
Why should they get off the "hook?"

Just thought I would mention getting tax off hookers!
After all, it may help to pay a few bills on that Sports Center.
We are going to have to start looking for extra dollars, and just maybe johns are generous, and they could donate the money it cost to run the "john school" to the centre also.
There is so much which can be done-and so many resource areas which should be investigated.
And is it true the money seized at "busts" by the cops is used to pay legal aid lawyers to defend the crooks, who are entitled to legal expertise to defend them? Lots of money around we kind of hear about-but lose sight of!
Anybody know?

It doesn't really matter whether the Feds, the Province or the City provide the money for the Sports Complex.

It all comes from us. All of it. It's the burden of taxation and debt that is strangling all of us. And yet we continue to spend money we don't have.

Does anyone in charge have any knowledge, experience or wisdom in the stewardship of our resources? It appears to be lacking in may areas.

And then we have a bunch of criticism when one level of government trys to use more discernment in the use of our money. (Feds) Appears to be a can't win in most instances. Chester