I couldn't seem to win a curling game there anyway.

Good thing nobody got hurt! That very last sentence is music to my ears:

*"No matter what the citizens decide, it will have to go to referendum" says the Mayor.*

Wow! Really? A referendum!! Perhaps P.G. can learn something from such a rarely seen exercise of democracy in action.

I think a referendum, where the electorate have to explicity give permission is much better than the alternative process the City seems to always follow now with the electorate having to organize to deny permission.

"The Mayor and Council will meet this week to discuss options. "No matter what the citizens decide, it will have to go to referendum" says the Mayor."

HUH????? this does not make sense. Going to a referendum AFTER the citizens decide? I think he meant to say "no matter what the Council decides".

Anyway, if a rebuild is covered by insurance, then why go to a referendum?
----------------

"It is a steel structure and the roof had been replaced just four years ago."

I think what they meant was that the ROOFING was replaced, not the roof, which would include the roof structure.
----------------

Thisis an intersting one to me from the point of view of the professional advice given .. let the snow melt. It sounds like the engineers were meteorologists as well and could predict no more snow to add to the load which had already compromised the structure.

There are ways to offload a structure to ensure that the load is removed in such a fashion that the load remains relatively evenly distributed in the process.

I expect that the City's insurance company will look very carefully not only at the original building design, but also the City's maintenance program which assures that there is proper monitoring of snow loads on public buildings as well as the advice given by the engineers called in to take a look at the predicament and made recommendations the city acted (or did not) on.

No "Olympic money" for the replacement help? You know, to make it a real swell place next time. Maybe the curlers from Pakistan could train there, for the upcoming Olympics.

It should have withstood snow loads by todays standards. The building codes must have been more lapse in them thar days. If it truly was the roof that was replaced four years ago, then I'd be knocking on the door of whomever did the work.

At the the end of the day, it isn't mother nature's fault for what happened. Instead of burying their heads in the snow waiting and wishing for the snow to melt off, Ft. nelson city officials should have made efforts at the begginning of the season to reduce the snow load on the roof.

I think that the mayor meant that the different wishes (decisions, opinions) of the taxpayers will be respected and a referendum majority vote for any of the ballot options will be respected.

A new police station in P.G., a new performing arts center, a rebuilding of the Cameron Street Bridge, a (heated sidewalks) wood burning power plant downtown, a new parkade for Casino #2, a new multi million dollar road maintenance levy - not a single referendum held for any of these.

I feel completely left out of the democratic process, sorry to say!

Do I detect a note of sarcasm in some of the above posts? Too soon old, too late smart. Now the insurance co's will have us doing assessments all winter long, to make sure the snow load is within design. I expect in this C.Y.A. climate that you will be required to employ a 'professional' to assess the snow load, some one who has all the training. Say, we used to get this kind of snow all the time, how come we are seeing these problems? like Bear Lake elementary school for another example. Were the roofs always cleared off before? or what? And, I agree, there were probably options possible to safely remove some of the snow off the F.N.Arena. All speculation now anyway.
metalman.

Was there a referendum of whether this province will apply to have a winter olympics....????

I think referenda are overrated ......

We elect people to do work, to make decisions right or wrong ....

I think those who call for referenda on every little thing are no differnt than a board of director that micro manages.

If you do not like the CEO .. if you do not like the elected council and mayor .... get rid of them!!! ..

This City's electorate decided not to do that .... a referendum was had .... I do not like the result ... but it was the majority who decided ...

Referenda can be twisted merely by the wording ... they are not a panacea ....

When one buys a clock radio, it comes with a set of instructions. Same with a car ....

Buildings do not come with a set of isntructions with **WARNING** written all over them.

How many out there who have a house have a set of instructions which includes
1. how the furnace works
2. how to properly wash windows
3. how to properly clean siding **WARNING** DO NOT USE HIGH PRESSURE WASHERS
4. what the snowload of the roof is ... what that means in terms of how many inches of snow and snow water content.

How many actually have drawings of their house, know who the contractor was, the plumber, the electrician ... what exact oulets and switches are protectedc by which breaker - breaker number located on the actual wall plate?

etc. etc ....

The fact that buildings collapse and fail in less dramatic ways is of absolutely no surprise to me.

A $20,000 investment in a car gets maintained by qualified people on a relatively regular basis.

A $200,000 investment in a building does not.

All too often a $2 million investment in civic infrastructure also does not ....

And we all know that a half billion buck investment in road infrastructure is handled in a similar fashion to the point where much is not usable during parts of the year for the purpose for which it is designed without compromising safety to the public and investments by those using the road networks.

Sad story ...... sort of like preventative medicine .... we are just coming around to understanding how important that is.

Owl: "I think referenda are overrated ......"

Good thing you are not a Swiss citizen living in Switzerland!

You would be asked routinely to cast your vote in referenda, which are conducted to get the approval of the citizens for all important issues that affect the citizens of this model democracy, like immigration, taxes, large scale projects etc.

My Swiss friend told me years ago that it is the best system for a participatory democracy and that it is the duty of each citizen to vote.

I believe he is right.

(No, I have no desire to move there, even though it may be suggested to me in the next posting!).

Can't blame the arena collapse on global warming. Too bad, so sad. Shoulda melted if it was caused by climate change.

Suggest I move there .. PLEASE!!!

I spent a few summers in my pre-teen years on long summer vacations on Lago Maggiore and have been back since. Banana trees can be grown here...

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=335253544&size=o
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=206427419&size=l

A pic or two is worth a thousand words ...

Just as an aside

- for those who think Rupert is running out of room ... go talk to the Swiss ...

- for those who don't know where the "top of bank" is ... take a close look how they define it in Switzerland ...

As far as teh best form of participatory democracey ... women got the vote in 1971 .... before that it was a 50% or so best ... and with decisions to keep women away from the vote, there is a good example of the fact that no matter how many people vote for or against something, it does not mean it is the "right" or "proper" or "ethical", etc. thing to do. It just means that one may have a mass of lemmings .....

Might is not right, just as numbers are not right, just as strong leaderhip (as in dictator) is not right. What is "right" transcends all that.

How can Mr. and Mrs. Smith have as good information about doing A versus B as Mr and Ms Jones have? They can't. Most of the population vote with their gut or the toss of a coin, not based on informed decision making.

"My Swiss friend told me years ago ......... that it is the duty of each citizen to vote."

Interesting. On this site Switzerland has the second to lowest turnout of 35 countries listed .. looks like they do not take their national duty as seriously as many other countries.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout[url]

Several are high since they have compulsory voting, such as Australia .... 95% turnout from 1960 to 1995 ...

Austria, right next door to Switzerland and without compulsory votng has a 94% turnout.

Italy, another neighbour of Switzerland has a turnout of 90%

France, the third neighbour has a turnout of 76%, the same as Canada ...

Switzerland has 54% ..... the same as the USA ....

So tell me, with a referendum which passes with a 51% for vote, that is only around 28% of the voting elligible population that makes decisions ... what is so perfect with that?

California has propositions at the time of elections, as do several other states. The notion is not foreign to this continent. Having seen some of the results, including in PG, I simply question that it is the greatest system for getting things done which actually help the community.

It is sad and unfortunate but this may be the opportunity to re-allocate the 2010 money proposed for the walking trail and build a multiplex to included a new swimming pool, arena, etc. The town has grown since the Rec Centre was first built 35 years ago. Our recreation centre is truly a community centre and our Annual Community Christmas dinner mentioned on the Oprah Winfrey Show is a real testament to the spirit and generosity of the people of Fort Nelson. I would hope that the Town Council would consider taking the 9 million or so available for the proposed walking trail and with whatever would be the difference make a Fort Nelson Community Centre that would be the envy of other small nothern communities. We have to remember that our Community Recreation Centre was the only venue large enough to accomodate trade fairs, weddings, funerals, and conferences and also be available in the event of a disaster. The Recreation Centre was our muster station for emergencies including when schools had to be evacuated. I hope someone reads this and is listening. Thanks.

Owl:..."that is only around 28% of the voting elligible population that makes decisions ... what is so perfect with that?"

Well, it is precisely 28% more perfect compared to those (like us) who don't get asked at all.

May I be so bold as to ask you, diplomat, to find out what the referendas were for the years 2005 and 2006, or some other recent 2 year period that were conducted in Sitzerland? I am tired of using Google to dig a bit deeper on things that are said on here that prove to be on the side of inaccurate ... ow have a spin put on it ....

It is not that I do not believe you ... but ......

Referendum questions are usually part of the election ballot.

I am not about to spend much time digging for additional information on this subject, especially since you did not respond to my other posting of 6:43 PM.

I can't understand why anybody would be against being empowered by referenda, and I well remember all the b*tching on this site about politicians never keeping their promises after being elected which means that if we elect them and trust them to make all the right decisions on our behalf (including keeping their promises!) - we will almost always be disappointed and frustrated.

But, to each his/her own.

You need a reply to the suggestion that something can be more perfect???? That perfection is somethign that is progressive ...

sort of like 28% pregnant????

one is either perfect or imperfect ... pregnant or not pregnant ....

it is not a matter of degree like good ... better .... best ....

so ... there is no such thing as 2% more perfect or 28% more perfect or 74% more perfect .....

If you got a 28% goal in hockey ... it is still not a goal ... it is either a goal or it is not a goal.

I don't NEED a reply to anything, really.

Your 28% tirade is in my opinion tiresome!

Anybody knows that 28% is more than 0% which represents in this case the number of people given an opportunity to vote in a referendum.

*In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. There are two types of referendums:
· Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
· Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are either proposed by the parliament or the cantons, or they may be proposed by citizens' initiatives, which—on the federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.
The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law. The referendums slow politics down.
The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Elections are as well often combined with referendums. However, the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 percent unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. Even referendums on tax cuts are often not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.*

To automatically assume that Canadians would not be more appreciative of referenda and not respond to them with a much larger percentage voter turnout then other countries is crystal ball reasoning.

citizenkane I am listening. I hear you. Having once spent quite a few years in a small town I know what the community center means to everyone who lives in that town.

When you get tossed some lemons, make lemonade. I hope the town of Fort Nelson comes out of this with a much nicer, newer, grander, bigger, and better community center for everyone to enjoy even more than they did before!! And soon.

Oh yes, and "way to go" to those who had the keen eye to notice a problem and to get everyone out and kept them out.

Diplomat your arguement makes sense to me. I think Owl is out there on this one especially his notion of what constitutes a democracy.

IMO:
PAC - NO
New community center for Fort Nelson - YES

If you read my posts you will notice that I said that referenda make sense when it derals with constitutional matters. One of thelink I posted says that very fact.

Diplmat .... please read very carefully what you cut and pasted ... do you see anything there about a referendum on a money bill? I don't.

Nothing about how much to spend on an arena, playhouse, gallery, roads, whether to borrow over 20 years or whetehr to pay up front ....

There are referenda, for instance, on mandatory retirement age, whether to continue to have a standing army, whether women should get the vote, whether refugees should be allowed into the country, whether foreigners living in the country should be able to vote (btw, they can in Switzerland if they have been there long enough) whether foreigners should be able to become Swiss Citizens ... that was impossible in the past, may still be for all I know ... One a Swiss, always a Swiss ... you can never loose it, but if not a Swiss, never a Swiss was also true.

These are all issues which go to the heart of the nature and being of a country .... the money stuff has nothing to do with that ...

So, as I aluded to, while there may be many referenda in Switzerland, they are not about the things that some on here want referenda about.

For instance, there should be a referendum here about the "treaties" with the First Nations. The First Nations get to vote, but the rest of the the community, City, Province, Country does not. Would the local treaty have been passed by the non-First Nations if put to a vote? Would it have passed if 70% had to be in favour?

Should we be in Afghanistan? Put it into a referendum. Should we increase the number of immigrants we let in? Put it to a referendum. Should we have a minimum wage law? Put it to a referendum. Should we become a republic? put it to a referendum ....

You are making some good suggestions, Owl!

"Should we be in Afghanistan? Put it into a referendum. Should we increase the number of immigrants we let in? Put it to a referendum. Should we have a minimum wage law? Put it to a referendum. Should we become a republic? put it to a referendum ...."

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes...in my opinion.

(I especially like the one about becoming a republic which would limit the number of years a federal leader [president and/or chancellor] could possibly wreak havoc).