Funny how it works eh? If his business was alongside the Fraser River in the lower mainland....the provincial politico's would be all over it...building dikes and such. Makes a fellow wonder if there is some correlation between political donations and political action?

Perhaps this is a bit simplistic of me to think this way...
But I remember as a youth watching boom boats working bumping and pushing very heavy log booms around at mill sites.

Again, I don't claim to be the smartest and most knowledgable guy around... But it seems to me that there are a few of these boats doing nothing right now and they could be put to use.

If you were to put the powerful and tough little boats on the river at the downstream end of the ice jam, they could commence ice clearing. As they cleared the ice at the downstream end, the broken bits would float away downstream. As they cleared further up, those pieces too would float down stream.
Once the river again has a place to go, flood concerns will drop and folks can resume a reasonably orderly return to life.

Where there are concerns of ice jams further downstream, a single boom boat could continue to keep a clear channel in the Fraser.

Do we not already have existing technology for this?

VOTEMIKE... WE DO HAVE EXISTING TECHNOLOGY FOR THIS. IT'S CALLED "THE ABILITY TO ACCESS AND USE COMMON SENSE". SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE IN GOVERNMWNT DO NOT POSSESS. THEIR MOTO IS IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING,THEN YOU CAN NEVER MAKE A MISTAKE. THEY NEED A CONSULTANT TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, THEN THEY HAVE SOMEONE TO BLAME IF THERE IS A FAILURE. IF IT WAS UP TO LOCAL CONSTRUCTION AND LOGGING CONTRACTORS THIS MESS WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARED UP LAST TUESDAY. THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE QUICK DECISIONS AND GET THE JOB DONE.

I thought "Owl" made a lot of sense when he wrote earlier -

"Maybe now that it is not only residential streets involved, but also industry, we can get some serious money from the province to assist with those industries move to higher ground by putting them in a new heavy industrial park outside the “bowl”. That would get rid of several problems all for the same investment – less industrial traffic in that area, less air pollution in that area, a new industrial park in a more environmentally correct area, removal of industry from prime riverfront.

I am sure Alcan will even donate some $ for a good cause."

Local people know that Brinks built his mill on our old swimming hole called "the
gravel pit". Wrong place to build.

FOO738 ..YOU MUST BE OLDER THAN DIRT. I MOVED HERE IN 1960 AND THERE WAS A SAWMILL THERE THEN. I BELIEVE MARTIN CAIN OWNED IT.

I think Brink built his mill on the Old Caine Lumber Site. That area has always been industrial and railway property. The City Power Station was across the street, and more sawmills South of Caine Lumber.

No swimming hole in that area unless it was under the Cameron St., Bridge.

One straw at a time!Alcan is slowly but methodically building their case to move ahead with Kemano completion.It won't be long before we hear the government say we are in discussions with Alcan about Kemano completion.This will solve all of our fooding problems..Alas they said that in 1950.

OMG votermike, what business do you have trying to suggest common sense solutions?
I guess we are a couple of Luddites. I am certain that somewhere a guvvermint
X-spurt is looking at 'computer models' to 'seek a solution to this issue' They also must look ahead to see if anyone will be offended in case they do make a decision. Check with all the 'stakeholders' the minorities, the various gov't departments, which starts another round of ass covering, nobody wants to be the scapegoat of course.
But I do like your idea, that of the boom boat. I too do not know if it would work, but why not try? The only major impediment I can foresee is that the water is a little shallow in that area. Gee, I saw a comment here from someone who suggests that the gov't should have been dredging, and that the resultant deeper channels would reduce the likelihood of ice jamming up. I was last on that section of water in late September, it was very shallow, 8 to 10" overall is my guess, with deeper sections here and there where the current is strongest. It stands to reason that the ice will catch on the bottom in the shallow areas, and we all know that it will just continue to build once it starts.Ben is right, the powers above us are just hoping this will go away, and that we will all congratulate them for commissioning such a stunning website you can go to for advice on how to conduct your life. Common sense they have not.
metalman.

I wonder what other communities do with this kind of a situation?
Seems to me that I have heard of it being very common out east in Manitoba? where it is REALLY flat?
What do they do?...sit back and watch it rise?

This is what can happen when corporations are given control over important resources like our waterways. We have told the government over and over that this is a bad idea but, once again their ideology of society being here to support the economy is backwards to the economy being here to support society. I would like all to note that this practice of giving more water rights to corporations are being done right now by the Campbell government. John Brink was once a supporter of the Campbell Government but he has learned the hard way that like the common man, small businesses don't even register on Campbell's radar. Welcome to reality John Glad you have taken the blue pill and awakened from your slumber.

A bit of history for our friend foo738
River Road used to be called Planer Road
and most of the forest industry was located on this stretch of road. Sawmills were located in the bush and there were upto 500 of them. The planers were in town close to the tracks.

Martin Caine "Caine Lumber" was located at the north corner of River Road from about 1945. Across the street from Caine Lumber, in about 1948, was Norman M Smith Ltd owned by Gerry Wilmot(now Brinks). To the East was Rustad and others.

To make sure there is no confusion, there never has a gravel pit on Planer Road because there is no gravel in that location!

I am talking pre Caine, I used to swim in the gravel pits along with the other kids in the 1930's,

It wasn't under the bridge and Bill Caine was one of the other kids!

And Speaking of the Campbell government...as anyone actually heard from PREMIER Gordon Campbell?
Hello Gordon?...hello?.....glub..glub...

REALIST: "...society being here to support the economy is backwards to the economy being here to support society. "

Do you mean *business activity* (mining, fishing, farming, forestry, manufacturing, etc) when you say economy? By *society* do you mean everybody who lives/works/breathes/makes money here?

Without productive business activity the economy is in the tank or in hibernation, waiting for activities to recommence.

Society's wellbeing is directly related to the wellbeing of the *economy.* Poor economy - poor society (materialistically speaking).

Capitalism is the economic system we live in by democratic choice.

How do we ensure that business activity is high in productivity, profitable, competitive and sustainable, thereby sufficiently beneficial to society?

Would boom boats be effective when an ENTIRE river is COMPLETELY clogged with logs that are backed up roughly 6km? Something tells me that they would be crushed like pop cans if the debris ever let loose while they were working . . .

I agree with everyone 100% that we should have planned for stuff like this beforehand, however, I have a hard time believing that if guys just roll down to the River with their logging equipment, some chains and "elbow grease", that they can clear this thing up in a few days. Let's be realistic here folks.

As far as I know the gravel pits where people used to swim were located on the South Side of the (Now) North Nechako Road, approx 4/5 blocks East of the lights at North Nechako, and Foothills. I suspect somewhere close to where the new ball fields are located.

When the Nechako River flooded in the Spring, water would seep into the deep holes in the gravel pit and make huge pools, and some people would swim in them. Thus the name **Gravel Pits** Perhaps Foo 738 was just swimming in the Nechako River during low water.

Not in the Nechako River, the gravel pits were located this side of the Old Nechako Bridge, we never crossed the bridge to get to them. Though it is hard to visualize now as kids we had a lot of fun there.

We also had an old boat down at the confluence of the Nechako and Fraser which we used to have to bale out as it was pretty leaky.

Also at the corner of Fifth and Quebec there was a lane that ran behind where the old post office used to be and we had a boat there.

It was a regular Huckelberry Finn adventure living in Prince George during that time. Great for kids!

Sorry Woodpecker but the largest gravel reserve is on the present River Road, it doesn't get mined any longer as it is in the Nechako River.

"How do we ensure that business activity is high in productivity, profitable, competitive and sustainable, thereby sufficiently beneficial to society?" ~Diplomat.

By making sure that there is always sufficient 'effective demand' in the hands of Consumers to fully liquidate the financial costs of Production as they're incurred, that's how.

And we don't have to destroy capitalism to do that. For, in reality, if we DON'T make the necessary financial changes, and soon, capitalism will progressively destroy itself.

Yes. But the idea of encouraging and ensuring sufficient consumption for the sake of keeping production going flies in the face of 21st century demands for less consumption in every aspect of consumerism.

There is a catch 22 here: the more purchasing power people have the more they will consume, often on things and services that are really not a requirement for a good quality of life.

But what you mention in your first paragraph is exactly what we're doing, or busting our guts trying to do, right now, diplomat. It's rampant throughout our whole economy.

Because, under the current financial set-up, we can't fully pay FOR what we've done FROM what we've done, (as we should be able to), but rather only from what we're doing, or are going to have to do.

It's why we have Olympic Games, and wars, and such a continual emphasis on 'growth' and more 'growth', and 'capturing' foreign markets, etc. Whether any of these things are in any other ways desirable or not, they all distribute otherwise deficient purchasing power.

It's also why we have such an exponential growth of debt. Much of which can not ever be paid off, and increasingly, for many, becomes ever more difficult to continue to service.

That's what we should try to change, and I don't believe changing it would be that difficult.

As to your second paragraphs's contention, I would disagree that we would have unbridled spending if people had more purchasing power. I don't think that normally, for most people, that would really be the case at all. The 'propensity to consume' actually declines as income levels rise, and things that are desired have been acquired.


Bill Gates is said to be the wealthiest man in the world. So much so that one wag, in calculating Gates's income by the second, opined it would not pay him to bend over and pick up anything less than a thousand dollar bill if he saw some spare change on the sidewalk.

Yet Bill Gates doesn't look to me like he consumes very much more than anyone else. He can only eat so many squares a day. Same as you and I. And he's hardly got a ponch, for all his financial capacity to pig out. His wardrobe may be far more extensive than yours or mine, but he can still only wear one shirt or pair of pants at a time.

And as far as houses go, well, he may well have more than one, for all I know. But there are limits there, too, I think. And even if he had four or five, would he want fifty or sixty? And no matter if he does have other residences, only one is ever going to be home.

Again, in regard to 'toys', I've heard he has a fast car collection. But he can only drive one at a time. I think his limits of personal consumption are definite, as they are for all of us, no matter if we're rich or not. Of course, there are sometimes exceptions.

Imelda Marcos, when she was first lady of the Phillipines, certainly set one example of conspicuous consumption. She was reported to have 2,000 pairs of shoes.

One could almost imagine her poor old hubby, Ferdinand, opening any closet door in Malacanang Palace, and a floor to ceiling high wall of shoe-boxes falling over on him!

Poor guy, probably no place to even put the golf clubs, or his hang his uniforms, or anything. But I think people like Imelda are really an exception, and obviously have some kind of mental obsession.

For even in the climate of the Phillipines it's hard to imagine anyone would have to change shoes five and a half times a day, every day of the year. Which is what Imelda would've had to do to ever wear all her shoes. If her feet sweated that bad, maybe she should've just gone barefoot!

"That's what we should try to change, and I don't believe changing it would be that difficult."

The question is: How?

Well, politically, we first need to make our MLAs and MPs really be what they keep telling us they are ~ OUR representatives. Their job is to yield to pressure. Our job is to apply it.

That's the only way anything WE want done will ever happen. It's really the only method that works. The scuttling of Campbell's proposed sale of the Coquihalla Highway is proof of that.

His MLAs in the Interior constituencies were informed by their constituents en masse in no uncertain terms they would not be MLAs in future if that deal went through.

Even Claude Richmond, who was supposed to be impartial as Speaker of the Legislature, had to publicly speak out against that deal. That's what pressure can do.

We didn't have to dump the Party in power and replace it with another one just as bad, or worse, to achieve what WE wanted. We simply had to focus on the issue, or issues, one at a time, and make our wishes known.

The job of OUR representatives is to convey what WE want done to those in the Civil Service and private sector who have the technical ability to do it. To demand results. Or clearly bring back to us the opinion of those charged with achieving those results, why what's desired is not physically possible.

Their job is NOT to make up new ways to deliver the same excuse we get from every one of them, no matter what their Party, after we send them to their respective parliaments ~ "I know I promised to get the new road, or hospital, or dyke along the river, or school, or whatever, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to do it."

That excuse is a tacit admission that it is FINANCE, and not US, who determine policy. That electing any 'Party' whose members are going to toe the exact same line is an utter waste of time, and an admission that there is no such thing as 'democracy'.

For 'democracy', in its essence, is the "ability of each individual to make his own policy effective unto himself." And by extension, the same policy of a majority of individuals should always be capable of attainment.

To be told that such and such can't be done because there is "No money", is only a viable excuse if there are actually no men, no materials, no knowledge, and no collective desire to do whatever it is that needs doing. The Banks or the Treasury can create the 'money' in five minutes, or less, and have been doing so for the last several hundred years, and are doing so still today.

What we need to realize is that money is not Man's master, it is his servant. It is simply a way we deal with things. No more, in actuality, than an accounting demand system. It is not, nor ever can be 'wealth' in itself. It is only a ticket to it. No different in reality than a movie ticket, which is a limited form of money ~ effective demand to a seat in the theatre for a certain show.

There is no inherent value in the ticket itself. The value is in seeing the movie. And that value is entirely subjective ~ whether you enjoyed the film or not. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your having a ticket, except it let you in.

If we once realize this, and it is difficult to de-hypnotize enough people who believe otherwise, because they have been very purposefully conditioned to believe otherwise, we can see very quickly that it makes no sense whatsoever to have a profusion of goods on the market, all with a price tag in 'money' on them, if there is not at the SAME TIME enough actual money 'tickets' available in the hands of the public to enable them to buy those goods.

This is analogous to the management of that theatre telling a crowd waiting to get in to see the show that they're sorry, there's still half the seats unfilled, but we've run out of tickets. So you can't see the show. Would they do that? Of course not, they'd quickly get another roll of tickets.

But that's the situation we're in today. We don't place in the hands of the public enough 'money' to fully liquidate the previous costs of production that are being impressed forward to the point of final retail sale. And, presently, we can only do so by making still more production, even if it isn't needed or can't be sold in the future.

To correct this we need to have a National (preferably), or Provincial (probably first, of necessity), change in the way our overall accounting is done in relation to the economy as a whole. It's not difficult to do.

The statistical information to do it is all available right now. What it involves is ascertaining, on an ongoing basis, the total difference between total capital appreciation and total capital depreciation in any same fiscal period, and crediting the public, each of us, with our share of the difference.

That equates purchasing power to costs coming forward into prices. And allows those prices to fully liquidate the costs behind them.