With the "big picture" economic challenges coming down the road at us, I will be surprised if the Performing Arts Centre Society gets to use the taxpayers' dime to build this facility in Prince George.

I think the following website (blog) does a very good job of explaining the "big picture" challenges we are facing.

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/

Saskatoon just opened an 11 million dollar theatre and guess what? It has been paid for!! Mostly from donations. PG will get one-only difference is tax payers who never attend will be paying for years to come. Will this board be able to raise money? Or only spend it?

Charles,

As far as the "big picture" goes, we've been ignoring it for years. But what exactly is the REAL "big picture?"

So I'll see your website:

http://www.danpink.com/

and raise you one:

http://creativeclass.com/

We need to diversify the economy, and that takes investment. And to diversify the economy we need to be attractive to those who would diversify it. A PAC (and downtown renewal) are important parts of that.

Diversify the economy by providing another "circus"" to amuse ourselves? We surely could export that, couldn't we? A true " moneymaker" if I ever heard one. The key word is amuse. All the future forest industry unemployed can stop off on the way to Alberta to take in a good play. You know, kinda to escape from reality. And leave them feeling good?

A first move in raising money would be for the glitzy new board of directors (vested interest group) to each contribute $5000.00 of their own money. This would give them $50,000.00 in the kitty and show that they are serious. Maybe the other members of the society could also contribute a like sum.

I suspect they will go with the $5.00 contribution route which will give them a booster button, and then they will start their campaign to get their hands on tax dollars.

Surprise, Surprise.

Palupu,

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how those members have vested interests. Yes, some of them are directors on other societies, like the PGSO, but what exactly is in it for them?

As for the idea about $5,000; why are those who ask for better roads not expected to do the same?

Perhaps because roads are a public good, even for those who don't use them so much (directly)?

A performing arts centre is a public good, just like roads, and healthcare, and sports facilities, recreations facilities, parks, tourism facilities, sewer and water, police, fire, etc...

Of course tax dollars will be used. But I suspect only if there is a good case for the expenditure.

In fact, I suspect the case will have to be much better than the cases made for many sports facilities in this town because the benefits of a PAC are less understood.

People will not move here because there is a new playhouse. Give your collective heads a shake. People move here for the relatively low housing prices, the ease of getting to and from work, and for the outdoors. This will be the second largest drain on the taxpayers next to the art gallery. Out of a city of 75,000 or whatever the number is pegged at now, we probably have 350 that will use the facility 4 or 5 times a year each. Does this make sense? I guess to the people that want to think they are better than the rest of us it does.

clarification: ...but what exactly is in it for them?.. As individuals; obviously the PGSO would benefit from a PAC.

Bohemian, what percentage of people in this city use the roads. I would venture to guess that 100 percent do, whether it be in their own vehicle or public transit or whatever. The only person that wouldn't use it would be the person that walks all the time. I don't think you will find anyone like that.

duffer says:

"Out of a city of 75,000...we probably have 350 that will use the facility 4 or 5 times a year each."

Surely you know Theatre North West (a possible tenant of a new facility) has a subscription base close to 4000 (almost 2x the Cougars) for their four shows a year.

Surely you also know the PGSO typically has a season of 10 shows a year with an audience well over 350 for each show.

Surely you know the Prince George Dance Festival Society currently uses Vanier Hall each spring break for a week or more.

Surely you know numerous (well-attended) shows are put on throughout the year by Excalibur Theatre Arts, Judy Russell, Bel Canto, Dawn Boudreau, Sweet Adelines, Cantata Singers, Coldsnap, Conservator of Music, Yalenka Ukrainian Dancers, Theatre Workshop, Serious Moonlight, numerous independent bands and many others.

You must also know that a number of shows that have been presented at CN Centre would be much better at a proper facility rather than a skating rink - Bonnie Rait, Rita McNeil, 54-40 come to mind.

Then there are all the touring shows that don't come here that would if they had a proper place to perform.

Surely you know, and are being disingenuous. But maybe you don't - otherwise you wouldn't have suggested such ridiculous numbers.

duffer,

What percentage of people use the new baseball stadium?

The point is categorizing of a public good, and that public goods should be paid for (in part - partial cost recovery) by the public.

duffer,

The person that walks all the time (some exist) still benefits from the roads - they walk to the store to buy eggs and milk that were delivered by truck. That's why it's not reasonable for someone without a car to "opt out" of putting money towards that infrastructure through taxes. They benefit from transportation infrastructure, and should pay.

In the same way we all benefit from sports facilities, parks, tourism and cultural facilities, even if we don't use them.

If you are suggesting all facilities and programs in our city should be fully user-pay, then argue that idea. But if you do, a PAC wouldn't be the biggest example you could use to state your argument - the Leisure Services budget as it stands now is about $15 million A YEAR (they recover about half though user fees).

"vested interest group"???

Hey ... will all those who do not have a vested interest in this community please quit posting.....

Why don't we see what a few business people have to say about the connection of the arts and business.

I think that since there are few business people on here and most of those spouting against investments in the community to allow it to flourish rather than languish in a changing world are most certainly not business people, we should let a few successful business people who operate large corporations weigh in on the topic of the absolute uselessness of investing in the arts. :-)

http://www.crt.state.la.us/arts/ArtBuilt/quotes.html

I particularly like Ong’s words about halfway down

“People who create in our companies—whether they be scientists, marketing experts or business strategists—benefit from exposure to the arts. PEOPLE CANNOT CREATE WHEN THEY WORK AND LIVE IN A CULTURALLY STERILE ENVIRONMENT…The economic benefits of the arts greatly transcend and outlive any of the normal cycles…That is why business invest in the arts—even when time are tough, and when there is increased pressure to manage money carefully.”

I can't resist posting opne more excellent quote here for those who tend not to click through to linked sites.

“Successful businesses do more that simply pass through a community. They have a vested interest in living where the quality of life attracts the very best employees, customers, suppliers and government, academic and civic leaders. It is inconceivable that such a quality can exist where the arts are silent.”

So, based on that, for all those who want a better city government, I suggest we give them better cultural facilities ....

;-)

I was reading a bit further on that site from Louisiana. The population of that starte is almost the same as the population of British Columbia.

http://www.crt.state.la.us/arts/ArtBuilt/fastfacts.html

"Federal, state and local government investment in the arts of $55 million results in $150 million in government tax revenue."

Now that is some return on investment ......

But it is the local taxpayers that pay for all this crap and not the federal or state (provincial) government. If you think we are going to get 3 times the tax revenue that we will have spent on this building you are living in a dream world. That means if this thing costs us say 20 million for example, are we going to get 60 million in tax revenue? I think not.

Bohemian, in going over some of your numbers I find your argument a little weak also.

If you had:

16,000 at Theatre Northwest
3500 at P.G.S.O.
Dance festival etc. maybe 5000 (this is only parents and relatives of the performers because I was one)
All the rest of the people that would use it in a year are maybe 5000.

This makes it a total of 29,500 tops. This would not be 29,500 different people, probably only 5,000 people. Is it right for 5% of the population to pay for the entertainment of the rest?

If the Cougars have 32 games here at an average of 2500, the total is 80,000. I don't go to Cougars games either so I am not arguing for them. I am only saying these are the numbers.

I have been to concerts at the Multiplex and there is nothing wrong with that venue. As a matter of fact it is probably better than a PAC would be because most of the people at concerts such as 54-40 want to stand up and move around anyway. There is no way they would do it in a PAC.

Duffer. Nice to see a return to sanity.

Owl. There is a big difference between a City who can and does appreciate the Arts and an 18 to 20 Million dollar Art Centre.
Are you suggesting that all the other Citys in BC and Canada who do not have a 20 Million Art Centre are Artistically challenged????

Bohemian gives a perfect example as to why we do not need an Performing Art Centre. We have all these different groups performing through out the City and supported by those who chose to support them, and it seems they function fine without a PAC. To suggest that they would perform better in a new facility is ludicrous. Theatre Northwest has already publically stated that they are quite happy where they are.

If we build the Centre we can expect the following.

No more performances or use of Vanier Hall.

Less use of the Civic Centre.

Less use of the Multi Plex.

No more performances or use of the Playhouse Theatre. (This facility will be torn down to make way for the ever increasing use of property on Highway 16 for commercial purposes, which I suspect is one reason IPG resurrected the PAC idea.)

Will Judy Russell and those other groups re-locate, if so then the facilities they presently use will be closed.

If Theatre Northwest was to re-locate then we can close their present facility.

This initiative was resurrected by IPG, no doubt with the tacit approval of the Mayor, and therefore its very nature and purpose is suspect. I suspect it is a ploy so that they can get rid of the Playhouse Theatre (Sell property for big bucks) and keep the Art Community happy because they will get a new building.

As I stated in previous posts, at the end of the day they will locate the PAC on the present Police Station Property and Bobs your Uncle.

Vested interest groups can best be defined as a group of people who want a facility for their own use but do not want to pay for it, and therefore hob nob with politicians and other so called community groups to get access to tax dollars.

90% of taxpayers are not members of these groups, however they have the dubious pleasure of paying for them. Because they are not organized into a group they lose every round.

Look at the Backpacker situation. 500 residents told to go suck a lemon. They will get the facility in their back yard whether they want it or not.

You didnt see IPG approach this group with a view of setting up a society to further their cause.

Cancel the stupid project of a bio-mass burning polluting power plant in the downtown and give the $8.3 million bucks to the Performing Non-Polluting Arts Society - the rest of the funds can be raised by supporting citizens and corporate grands!

Two birds with one stone!

"But it is the local taxpayers that pay for all this crap and not the federal or state (provincial) government."

Wrong again Duffer .....

The capital part of the facilities are usually shared equally three ways - Feds, province, municipality.

The key is how much will it cost to operate. A well run centre will settle into a situation where more than half of the income will come from commercial touring companies. In addition, the feds and the province contribute operating grants to performing companies and performers.

This, again, is one of those cases where if you don't use it you loose it. In other words, we pay federal and provincial taxes as well as municipal property taxes.

The feds and the province hand out money for facility capital and performer operating grants. If we have no facilities and we thus have no performers, we get no money back. The money goes to Namaimo and Kamloops and Kelowna, etc. instead.

It's called loss of opportunity. So, we should maximize the amount of money we can pull out of the province and the feds.

"Are you suggesting that all the other Citys in BC and Canada who do not have a 20 Million Art Centre are Artistically challenged????"

Those of similar size to us and as remote as we are..... most definitely!!!!

Why you may ask? .... just as much as those who do not have a hockey rink are hockey challenged .....

The fact of the matter is that with much of what we do, we need the proper tools to do them with.

There is a differnce between sitting in a theatre watching a live performance whether it is a comedy act, an acrobatic act, a Broadway play, a piece of modern music by a new composer ... whatever your fancy ... and watching it on a TV or a large arena designed for hockey ansd all star wrestling and demolition derbies ... .

"If we build the Centre we can expect the following."

"No more performances or use of Vanier Hall."

Yup ... and you can expect it if we don't build it as well ... there used to be more performances in there when I came here 30+ years ago .... it is a run down facility without a fly tower, with a stage that is too small, washrooms that smell of dirty socks, etc. etc ....

"Less use of the Civic Centre."

Hardly gets used now for performances. Was not designed for that. Just because it has a small area at one end we call a stage, does not mean it is a performing arts centre.

"Less use of the Multi Plex."

I supsect not much less actually. Only those kind of touring companies that get an audience in there of 1,000 or less. The large events they are finally getting in there need that kind of space and paly in those kind of arenas in most places they go to. The largest PAC in Canada holds about 3,200, so even that is too small for them. They would have to perform outside in a place such as Ontario Place or the Hollywood Bowl.

You post actually tells me that you know very little about the topic. Time to hone up on it a bit so that you can make some more educated posts .... ......

;-)

"No more performances or use of the Playhouse Theatre"

I understand they have a pretty good rental deal there. If there is a push to get more money from the centre by the owners, then I would think they will be out of there. Companies like that are typically not associated with PACs. They cannot afford the restrictions that would be imposed on them in such centres. They have their own little piece of heaven there without having to share space. Very underutilized. Not very effective use of space.

Sorry ... I meant that for Theatre Northwest.

I think the Playhouse will continue unless the City gets an opportunity to sell it. Soem of the productions in there might be able to move to a PAC, depending on what it might look like as far as facilities go.
Maybe TNW can make a deal if they want to move.

Small threatres are always part of the mix in any community that enjoys the arts. We could use another one here in my opinion. Nothing fancy. Look at Artspace, for instance. Lack of washrooms, lack of ventilation, etc. etc. But darned popular.

"Will Judy Russell and those other groups re-locate, if so then the facilities they presently use will be closed."

She has a dance studio/school. She puts on plays wherever she can, including special venues built up for just a few performances outside. If she had a PAC to perform in, she would be able to put on much better productions without some of the technical restrictions.
------------------------------

"This initiative was resurrected by IPG, no doubt with the tacit approval of the Mayor, and therefore its very nature and purpose is suspect"...

Resurrected my foot. It was in the capital budget right up to 2004 ... intially before that year to follow the RCMP building. If anything, it got dropped for some reason.

It was mentioned once again in the Harris report which tied it to downtown revitalization, as it has been in tons of communities accross North America. It also got tied to the Regional District's Cultural Plan of a couple of years ago. IPG just finally got off their ass would be a better way to characterize it. Whoever did the prodding for them to do that, I don't know. But was high time.

"Vested interest groups can best be defined as a group of people who want a facility for their own use but do not want to pay for it"

Maybe that is your best definition. I stick with mine. I am a citizen of this community. I own property in this community and pay taxes. My complaint has been and continues to be that this city does not provide me with the service I would get in most other cities. I love this city dearly, other than that. Raise my taxes so that I can get the service I can get in other communities.

I have a vested interest in this community, whether you think I have or not. I would use the facility rarely, if we get it. I sue the current facilities we have rarely. But I know tht others use it and I know in my heart that if we have such a facility the pride in this community would rise a few notches and more people would want to make this place their home.

THAT is why I want the facility!! and I am willing to pay another $100 or $200 a year for that pride of having it.

Owl. What a dissertation. Its almost as if you feel your point must be made by volume rather than clear concise writing.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion even if most of the taxpayers in this town would not agree with you.

You and I as Citizens and taxpayers have a responsibility to see that tax dollars are spent wisely, however it is because of people who think like you do, that this is almost impossible.

Building grandiose buildings so a few people can sit on their butts and rub shoulders, and think that they are in Carnegie Hall with Harry Belefonte is a waste of money. Especially if the building in under utilized, like most of the recent projects in this town.

The fact is most facilities are under utilized and therefore by extension were over built, because of the inability of the City to properly gauge the needs of the City, and to recognize that we are a small mill town buried in the middle of nowhere.

Building a PAC will have very little or nothing to do with people coming to this Burg. When I suggest to people in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton etc, that they move to Prince George they laugh at me, and then ask why I stay here.

You are entitled to solicit an increase in taxes to get what you want, however your paltry $200.00 is totally useless without every other taxpayer paying the same, and guess what?? Most of them do not want a PAC and they are entitled to their opinion/

Bottom line is we already pay enough taxes for things no one uses. I cannot see why anyone in their right mind wants to keep adding to that. What's next? An indoor place for stamp collectors? Perhaps a clubhouse for model car collectors. There are probably more people that would do those things than will ever set foot in a PAC.

OK so lets agree one one thing, other than roads, air, water and govt offices, including the police station, there are few or no other services that should be supported by public (city ) coffers? This arguement based on the fact that not everyone uses them. Well then, we will most certainly move BACK to the way it was here. When i came here people moved here for cheap houses, good paying jobs, and.....nope thats it, just jobs and cheapness. These people, myself included moved here with plans to move away as soon as a job down south opened up, or as soon as the good jobs dried up (in a bust cycle). Many of the people who came when i did moved away because, without the jobs why would you stay? (their words). Since then PG has grown, not in population, but in services. Without these I would also move away. I dont want to live in a glorified logging camp thank you very much. I dont want to drive to Vancouver for chemo either. No small town can build art or sport or medical facililities supported only by user fees. No small city should be without these facilities. I use some facilities in this town which are supported by tax dollars. Others of you use different facilities. Together i suspect the user numbers are rather higher than some people like to portray.
Our taxes are not high compared to those of other cities. More art, sport and medical facilities WILL make PG a more attractive place for people to move to and WILL definatly increase the likelihood people will STAY here.
I doubt a lot of the statements made above, mostly because they are pulled out of thin air. If you THINK that few people want a PAC then thats your belief. If you THINK few people will use it then thats your belief. Time and some actual surveys will answer tell whether you people are right in the first case at least. Until then you most certainly do have the right to state your opinions, all of you. Who ever suggested otherwise.
By the way owl, I am a member of the business community.

Caranmacil. I have no problem with facilities for various functions such as skating, swimming, library, etc; However the problem begins when we build these facilities way in excess of what we need. The PAC in one example. We have.
(a) The Playhouse Theatre
(b) The Civic Centre
(c) Vanier Hall
(d) Theatre Northwest
(e) CN Multiplex
(f) Various other facilities that cater to singers, dancers, etc;

Is this not sufficient to fill the needs of the community? These facilities are being used, and as far as I know the people who use them for the most part are happy. So why do we need a PAC. At this point in time we dont. We are being bamboozled by IPG, City Hall, and some vested interest groups, and at the end of the day if they are successful we will end up with a facility that is overbuilt and under utilized.

Look at the Sports Plex at the University. Do you hear anyone telling you what a great success this facility is in terms of actual use. No. Why? Because very few people use the facility and at the end of the day it will cost us a fortune to keep it going. We should have built a basketball court, and a weight room, etc at UNBC which was all that was needed, instead of this monstrosity.

MultiPlex (CN Centre) same problem. Under utilized and expensive to operate. Average Courger attendence 2800 paid fans. Actual fan attendence per game would be in the area of 2500. Did we really need a huge Multiplex????