"That may well change this year, as downtown Prince George has been spruced up, and is in higher demand"
What have you been smoking Ben! I would hardly call downtown "spruced up" - looks more like "pine beetled down' to me. Other than the hole in the ground of the monument to John Major and the sign on Dominion as the failed monumnent to Colin Kinley, I don't see much sprucing up. It is still the saddest downtown in BC and for that matter any downtown in Western Canada.

"That may well change this year, as downtown Prince George has been spruced up, and is in higher demand"
What have you been smoking Ben! I would hardly call downtown "spruced up" - looks more like "pine beetled down' to me. Other than the hole in the ground of the monument to John Major and the sign on Dominion as the failed monumnent to Colin Kinley, I don't see much sprucing up. It is still the saddest downtown in BC and for that matter any downtown in Western Canada.

Speaking of downtown being in more demand, does anyone know what is happening with the Brick when they pull out? Not that it will be a big loss as far as the number of people shopping there and the spin off to adjacent businesses goes.

Any replacement prospects for the "Present Solutions" store?

Well, let us hope the downtown will contibute more in higher property taxes.
If not-the major burden to support this city will once again fall upon the home owner.
It is ridiculous the selling price of some of these mediocre homes.
Many new home buyers can rest assured they did not get what they paid for, and it is beyond me the willingness of the mortgage companies and banks to accommodate them with financing.
The bubble will burst, and those who have financed themselves to their limit and beyond will be hard pressed to make the money stretch far enough to pay the bills. When it reaches the point whereby every dollar will be spoken for, the battles in the home will increase, as is always the case when money problems arise.
God forbid should there be a job loss.
Bankruptcies, foreclosures, broken homes, repossessions, crime, alcoholism,problem gambling, etc.
Why is it apparent there is a great possibility history will repeat itself?
I do not relish depicting doom and gloom-but fools have walked in where angels fear to tread.
Oh well, with more money coming into the city coffers-Colin can certainly take a few trips to search for a way to diversify our economy.
His success rate to date is nil, but who knows, the new city manager may have some answers.
Let's live in hope!
We need a few really good years in this city.
Hope they start with 2007.

It seems to me the downtown property owners, local real estate agents, and the banking elite were the big winners in 2006 as far as assessments go. All based on perceptions they themselves created and profited from.

It boils down to people who have overstretched financially to get into a home, bankers that increased their interest revenue, a city that gets a windfall in taxation ability based on assessed valuation, and real estate agents that sold it to the public and profited from this in the process. Disposable income in PG was too great for some not to get their cut. The cut and run crowd probably makes out the best, and the long time residents will hold the bag when reality sinks in.

None of this was based on fundamentals in the local economy, but rather short term economic gains from pine beetle wood used in conjunction with an organized talking point (container port) of future prosperity propagated by those who benefit.

I think CMHC play too big of a role manipulating the markets. Five years ago I had no less than eight different people willing to buy my house, and all were shot down by CMHC as they felt the valuation was too high for market conditions. I gave it to my brother at the time (40% loss), so I could move back to town and complete my schooling. Today they gladly insured the same house for twice as much as I was asking five years ago.

I think the amount CMHC can insure and how they arrive at valuations should be indexed to inflation from a valuation date on any properties bought with CMHC mortgage insurance. That would have an effect of keeping affordable housing affordable and not susceptible to housing jackpot speculation assisted by government on the one hand, and holding a market down based on downside speculation (softwood lumber tariff fears) on the other hand.

Too much to ask....

PS I’ll admit that I missed the real estate speculation and I’m bitter for it. I gross over $10,000 a month and will not buy a home in PG to get burned twice by this market. I will most likely just build my own house on property outside of town and let the suckers buy into this market. I will not buy a crack shack for $200,000 to keep the real estate agents and bankers happy.

Hey owl. Don't you remember when closing the Brick was announce? Kinsley sure put a positive spin on it. Get a newspaper from when the Brick announced their closure and see fer yerself. Ah, that mayor, what a gem!!

Hey owl. Don't you remember when closing the Brick was announce? Kinsley sure put a positive spin on it. Get a newspaper from when the Brick announced their closure and see fer yerself. Ah, that mayor, what a gem!!

A hot or hotter real estate market always results in higher assessments in any community.

The result, however, is that people who realized no financial gain whatsoever, have to pay more money in taxes. There are also speculators who have property holdings, who will have to pay more to hang onto them.

All in all though, the problem with the entire picture is that we are being tapped into for ever-increasing amounts and they can't even clear the snow off the downtown roads, still.

More money, less realized benefit for it.
I would say there's a leak in this bucket.

"The result, however, is that people who realized no financial gain whatsoever, have to pay more money in taxes."

Good Lord!!!!

How long does it take for people to understand that mil rates are adjusted based on assessments? When assessments go down, the mil rates go up, all else being equal. When they go up. mill rates go down. That is the main reason the mil rates in places like Kelowna are less than they are here.

What does change over time is that some areas become less desirable and others more desirable. As a result, the assessment changes will vary form precinct to precinct. Since mill rates for a certain class of use are consistent for that class, some areas will end up paying slighly more tax than others.

The increase in tax will be determined at the end of the budget setting time. So, that might be 2 or 3%, let's say, not the 20% assessment increase.

I do agree, however, that there is a need to review how well the services of this city are performed for the amount of money they take from us each year. Which City gets better value for the bucks of its citizens?

We need an auditor to review City operations for their effectiveness.

Harbinger ... I do recall that. That is why I mentioned it. I also recall that there were simalr stories floating as before that someone bought it with the idea of turning it inot smaller stores. It is just that I have not heard anything more on that. So, as with many things, I was just wondering whether it is real or whether it is just Memorex.

For taxation purposes I look at the $10 billion in assessed value. I figure its likely 50% of that has debt attached to it. At a mere 5% interest rate it collects $250 million for reallocation of investment by the bankers (a banker tax). A 20% gain on assessed value nets the bankers $42 million a year in interest payments sucked out of this regions economy. An 18% interest rate would net the bankers a further $650 million if all the debt was floating.

I bet if you put the overall employment income numbers adjusted for inflation, number of employed adjusted for population, and mixed the numbers from year 2000 and year 2006, then you would not be able to tell one from the other.

"The increase in tax will be determined at the end of the budget setting time. So, that might be 2 or 3%, let's say, not the 20% assessment increase."

Good Lord !!! An increase is an increase is an increase.

The reader's digest version of the moral of the story (for those of us who have a hard time staying on topic) was this:

Increase in costs to the taxpayer, decrease in services delivered. However you want to dress it up or analyze it.


How long does it take for people to figure out that if a chicken and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, it takes twice as long for a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle ?

A 2% or 3% increase in taxes? I don't think so. My call is twice that. How about 6%? The city is in financial difficulty.

There isn't enough money to go around to fix roads and upgrade the downtown while subsidizing the Playhouse, the Art Gallery, the Library, the Multiplex etc. etc. etc.

Let's face it. We continue to spend more than we bring in. Eventually, the foundation begins to crumble. Chester

It's interesting to note how it is implied how much better we are all off because our homes have increased in value. Well, I haven't seen one extra dollar in my savings account because of this windfall.

The reality is that the only time your home has a value is the day you bought it and the day you sell it. Everything in between is totally irrevelant.

So, for those who have lived in the same home for the past 10 years, will recall the price they paid for it as the real value of it. Are they any wealthier? Chester

I hate to nickel and dime an issue, but how much did the city spend on those "no idle zone signs", especially the one at the civic centre across the street from Timmies with about thirteen cars and S.U.V.s lined up to go through the drive-thru at any time? How about "hooker free zone signs" along Queensway. Now there is an idea someone should jump on. It probably wouldn't be hard to find a sucker at city hall to buy into that idea.

Don't twist information TRM ...

The words you wrote that I responded to were: "The result, however, is that people who realized no financial gain whatsoever, have to pay more money in taxes."

In the context in which those words were used, the increase in taxes related to the increase in assessments.

Guess what. An increase in overall taxes relates to an increase in budget and an increase in per property owner tax in any one category relates to the increase in taxes for that category (residential, commercial, etc) and the number of property owners.

Whether assessment goes up or down is irrelevant until one looks at the geographic distribution.

So, when one looks at it from that point of view, there will be some who pay more, and some who pay less, again, irrespective of whether the total tax burden is increased or not.

So, while an increase is an increase, it is the reason for the increase which is under discussion. Who knows, maybe Council will budget for a net decrease in expenditures. Maybe there will be more property owners, or property owners who have subdivided raw land and built improvements on them for sale to new property owners, etc.

I know ..... too much detail ...

It is much neater to stay with the fallacious notion that an annual increase in assessement of the same property and improvements = annual increase in taxes, especially that they are directly proportional.

An increase in assessment usually means an increase in taxation for the same year, however proportional it may or may not be. I have never personally seen otherwise. Like wise, I have never seen an assessment decrease without a coincidental decrease in taxation. That's what I know for sure. I don't care how it's arrived at or how it's supposed to be or what possibilities lay under the sun, or how well you understand the whole damn thing. Also, I have noticed that we received better municipal services delivery at times when assessments and taxation were low. The assessments and taxation have been climbing for a few years now and the services delivery has declined, especially in the area of roads maintenance.


I know ..... too much detail ...


It is much neater to stay with the notion that :

"Increase in costs to the taxpayer, decrease in services delivered. However you want to dress it up or analyze it."

Let us get some real numbers into the discussion. Generalities get one nowhere fast.

I live in a subdivision in the bowl which was developed in 1977 to 1979. I am the original owner of the house. I have made no improvements to the house since then which would show up on an assessment.

The greatest increase in my taxes payable on the house prior to application of the Homeowner grant was over the period of 1987 to 1991 inclusive. That 5 year period saw a 50% increase in my residential tax. My general purpose city tax increased by about 40% over that time while local school levy increased by 75%.

Since then, my property taxes have increased about 15%. So from 1991 to 2004, a 14 year period, I have had a comparatively low tax increase. The City's portion has increased while the school levy has decreased.

If the residential taxes I have been paying over the years are similar to those of others in the community, then it is easy to see one of the reasons why we may have had better service at one time. I think most will agree that the cost of vehicles, salaries, energy, contracts, construction, etc. have increased more than 15% over the 14 year period.

I get exhausted just reading all of this;

I drove by the Brick to-day and noticed a sign on the North side of the building. **For Lease** This leads me to beleive that at this point in time nothing firm has been decided on this building. The same sign **For Lease** was on the Present Solutions Store.

The City of Prince George is roughly $100 Million in debt with more debt coming this way. We are over taxed and a large portion of our tax dollars are wasted. I agree with Owl, we need to have an audit of the spending at City Hall and this audit should determine where we are now, and where we will be in 10/20 years time.

The people who bought expensive houses in the last year or so and took out 25 or 40 year mortgages etc; should make a big effort to reduce their mortgages as soon as possible because this City could be in for a rough ride in the next 10 years, and heres why.

Major Projects that have been completed, or near completion;
(1) Husky Oil Refinery upgrade
(2) Canfor Co-Generation Plant (PG Pulp)
(3) UNBC Learning Centre and Sportsplex
(4) Bio Energy Plant BCR Industrial Site
(5) Casino and Hotel across from it.
(6) New Brick store on 16 West.


Projects on the drawing board for the next 10 years.
(1) Gaming Centre downtown
(2) New jail 4th and Victoria
(3) Possible small container re-load in BCR Industrial site.
(4) Possible Container Storage Terminal in CN Rail yard on 1st Avenue.
(5) Possible Co-Generation plant East end of 4th Avenue.
(6) Possible Performing Arts Centre located at old jail site 8th and Brunswick.
(7) New double or single lane steel superstructure bridge to replace the Cameron St. Bridge.
(8) Twinning the Simon Fraser Bridge
(9) Relocating the South Scale at Stoner
(10) Some road work 97 South 16 West.
(11) Airport Runway Expansion. $33 Million Majority of cost will be for the concrete.

You can see from the foregoing that the City is finally running out of ways to waste our money, and in the very near future will have to quit building dubious projects, at which time they will go back to working on the infrastructure. There are no big projects planned by private business in Prince George that I am aware of. We will have continued growth in new sub divisions, at the expense of those people who live and stay in the old sub divisions, and the possibility of a few apartment/storefront buildings in the downtown area, other than that **Nothing**

Now the **Crunch**

With the possibility of downsizing in the lumber industry because of the drop in lumber prices, and the lumber agreement, and the dismal projections of new projects for the greater Prince George area in the next 10 years, where will the action be??
(1) Prince Rupert container port Phase (1) and (2)
(2) Alcan rebuild of the Alum Plant in Kitimat
(3) BC Hydro (BC Transmission Corp) building a transmission line from Meziadin Junction on Hwy 37 North to service mining concerns in that area and possible connection with power generated in Alaska for sale to the US. Transmission project would cost approx $500 Million which is 3 times the cost of the Pr Rupert container terminal (1st Phase)
(4) LNG Plant at Kitimat to transmit Natural Gas to USA.
(5) Huge $560 Million port expansion for Ports and Infrastructure in Vancouver.
(6) 2010 Olympics and all the construction jobs etc that are attached to it.
(7) Huge construction and exploration projects in North Eastern BC and Alberta. (Dawson Creek) (Grande Prairie)(Ft McMurray) Billions of dollars to be spent in the next 10 years.

People and especially trademen who want to work for the next 10 years will be going to the above places to find employment and to make some big money. The population of Ft McMurray has doubled to 75000 people in the last 10 years. There is little happening in Prince George to attract new business or people, and in fact they will be leaving to find work in other areas. As a result there will be a glut of housing in Prince George with a corresponding drop in prices, along with a drop in available jobs.

At best we can hope to maintain the status quo, however it is more likely that the population will decline to about 70,000 in the next 10 years.

The rest of the Province is booming or will be booming however the Central Interior has nothing on the drawing board to attract new business, or to keep people here. People will go to where the work is, its as simple as that.

Good post Palupo. The best part was, "and heres why".

I think even Quesnel stands a better chance of achieving growth over the next ten years, than PG. Especially if they position well as a service center for tourism, mining, and new oil and gas developments short-cutting PG.

Since the end of the first world war, beginning with the first census which included a full decade following that war (covering the years of 1920 to 1930) BC has lead the way in provincial population increases 6 times of 8, with Alberta following with 2.

BC placed second the other 2 of 8 periods. Alberta was 2nd 3 times, with Quebec twice and Ontario once.

In 2001 and 1999 BC was first. Alberta came in second in 2001 and third in 1991. Alberta was first for the period of 1950 - 1960 barely beating out BC and 1970 -1980 growing at about 1.5 times the rate of BC. The first growth in Alberta was as a result of the Leduc fields, the second as a result of the oil crisis of the 70’s and the one occurring now is for a similar reason.

We speak about diversity. Alberta’s growth is not based on diversification. However, unlike BC, they have been trying to do something about that, messed up badly the second go-around. So, let’s see if it works this time.

I realize that other than the lower mainland, specific regions of BC do not necessarily reflect the well being of the province as a whole. Thus the much of the Peace is Alberta-like, while much of the lower mainland is more Ontario-like. Then we get the hinterlands, which also can be compared to the northern parts of Ontario as well as the retirement and agricultural zones to the north/west of the GTA.

BC will continue to be a strong entity in Canada. We are part of that province and will continue to benefit from that inclusion for some time.

It is easy to point to opportunities in other regions of the province and the country that have and are taking place. Those opportunities are partially serendipitous partially planned. The planned investments in the tar sands have been going on for decades. With advances in techniques and recent more rapid increases in energy costs the investment is starting to pay off.

So, the question is not what opportunities in other places we have missed out on. The question is, what investments are WE and the PROVINCE making in the PG region so that we can hold our own in this province? We do not need chicken littles.

We need people who can realistically determine what position we can play in the regional, provincial, federal and world economy as the world around us changes. What potential is there in PG 10 years from now? 20 years? 30 years? Which potentials are the best to pursue and how do we do it.

To put that into a bit of perspective, the first reporting by “explorers” of the presence of the tar was in 1778 The first separation plant was built in 1930 with a small refinery in 1937. The Syncrude plant in Fort McMurray opened in 1978 ….. almost 30 years ago.

The MPB is a God-sent in many ways. The problem is, I find that many around here are dumbfounded with how to take the next step because so far everything has been virtually handed to them on a platter since the mid 1960s. For the last 25 years the place has held its own in many ways, but people have also been in a bit of a stupor.

It is high time we learn how other regions in the world have been able to retain and even “improve” their standard of living in the face of seeming adversity.

Hey Chadermando - you stated (I will not buy a crack shack for $200,000 to keep the real estate agents and bankers happy)

I had a friend of mine say that a realtor had the nerve to suggest a price that he thought was low. I asked how low? He said ‘At least $10,000 to $15,000” low. Therefore, my friend listed with a realtor that would list the home for the price he (my friend) wanted. Who is driving the market? It is not realtors or bankers. I have yet to hear someone say ‘I am not going to be part of the rising market, so lets sell my home for less than you (the realtor) thinks we could get’…
Supply and Demand is life. A great book to start with is ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’ by Robert Kiyosaki
http://secure.richdad.com/product.asp?id=E113&cat=Books&keyword=

We all know someone who has left Prince George to work in other areas of BC or Alberta. My point is that if we do not have jobs for people they will continue to leave, and as a result over time this will depress house prices. I have not met to many people in the past 5/10 years who have come to Prince George for employment, and of those who have come most of them work for the various levels of Government, Schools, University, or Police. Few if any tradesmen or contstruction workers.

The Prince George economy has been partially supported over the years by the massive spending by the various levels of Government even though the population has remained the same for the past ten years. The Goverments will continue to spend and suggest great things for this area at least until the next election. Most of the projects in this area for the next 10 years are funded by the Feds, Provincial, or Municipal Governments, and once this phase of Government spending is over, there will be nothing left to build.

This has nothing to do with **Chicken Little** and more to do with **Robbie Real Estate** **Johnny Construction** and **Gabby Government**.

These people will continue to feed you **Hype** because its in their best interest to do so, however for people who are making investments and lifetime decisions they should be able to access meaningful information to base their decisions on. This information is severly lacking in this City. We cant even get the Mayor to admit what the actual population of the City is. We have members of City staff who try to distort the amount of money the City owes. We are constantly being bombarded by projections of growth etc;, and rarely if ever do we talk about the lack of growth. Its not even optimism versus pessimism, its just outright misleading information.

School District 57 is one of the few entities that puts out correct information each year on enrollments, and you can determine from the figures (approx 400 less enrollments per year for the past 5/6 years) that there is a problem brewing in the school district. Its rather obvious if you look at the number of Schools that were closed. On the other hand the Enrollment at UNBC has stalled, and I suggest will start to decline in the next 5 years. This assumtion is based on their enrollments for the past 10 years and where they get their students from. It looks to me like they will be hard pressed to maintain the status quo, however they continue to **Hype** the situation to lead us to beleive that **Growth** is in the future. It is only recently that they have started to drop hints that they may have a serious problem.

PS: There is nothing wrong with a City with a population of 75000 people and all the amenities. The problem with this City is that it is incapable of **telling it, the way it is**. We should be concentrating on building on what we have and looking to a future of slower growth, better air, more tourists, more retirement facilities, and last but not least paved roads without potholes. In the outlying areas maybe we could have some lakes without the **itch** and some facilities that would attract tourists.

"The Prince George economy has been partially supported over the years by the massive spending by the various levels of Government even though the population has remained the same for the past ten years. The Goverments will continue to spend and suggest great things for this area at least until the next election. Most of the projects in this area for the next 10 years are funded by the Feds, Provincial, or Municipal Governments, and once this phase of Government spending is over, there will be nothing left to build."

So ... you are obviously not on the side of those who think that we are supporting the rest of the province and we do not get anything in return.....

"We cant even get the Mayor to admit what the actual population of the City is."

The 2006 census will be out soon. In the meantime, BCstats provides annual estimates which are close enough for me.

For anyone not familiar with them, the table can be found here:
[url]http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/Mu2006txt.pdf/url]

Within the City limits we have the following estimates:

2001 - 75,568
2002 - 75,286
2003 - 76,643
2004 - 77,827
2005 - 77,151
2006 - 77,343

The cities of Kamloops, Nanaimo, and, of course, Kelowna are now all larger, which was not the case 20 years ago.

The census agglomeration, which takes in the immediate outling areas, was 85,035 in the 2001 census. If the same growth rate applies to the outlying areas, then the CA estimate for 2006 should be about 87,000. It is, however, likely to be slightly higher since I believe the rate of new home construction is proportionately higher in the outlying areas than within the city limits.

So, we have two figures such tht one can easily defend one or the other or both. Just as I prefer to use the population for the GVRD when speaking about the socio-economic situation in the lower mainland, rather than the population for Vancouver, I think the same reason hold for speaking about the population for the CA of PG.

After all, the people who live in Beaverly, Tabor Lake, Pineview, etc., work, shop, and carry on the rest of their lives in close economic and social association with the City.

In fact, when retailers look at moving into any community, the regional type retailers and similar service providers will look at a one and even two hour commute as their catchment area.

So, I think it is fair to speak about the city as having population of about 77,500 and the immediate rural area surrounding the city about another 10,000.

Actually a lot of people may not realize that one in 9 people live outside the city limits.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/Mu2006txt.pdf