Are you friggin kidding me council


#1

thenorthernview.com/news/303345991.html

The City of Prince Rupert has passed a $1.3 million Planning for Major Projects Budget and will be providing an additional $17,000 per year for a full-time mayor, though council says taxpayers will not be on the hook for the additional costs due to funding coming from Prince Rupert Legacy.

that money from the legacy fund is taxpayers money, just because the city set up a dummy corporation to avoid certain laws with selling city land, does not mean that money does not belong to the taxpayers.
Shouldn’t council have asked the public if the mayor should have been a full time job or not? I do not remember that during the election.


#2

I think what the city means is that the $17,000 isn’t coming from the budget meaning it’s not coming from the taxes you pay. And also, do you really think the mayor would leave his full time job to get paid a fraction at city hall? I don’t think it was his decision, considering it would be a conflict of interest.


#3

I know it wasn’t his decision but the city being more honest and transparent should have asked the ppl during the election if they wanted that, and also I know they meant it didn’t come from the taxes they collect but again it doesn’t matter because any money the city has is taxpayers money.


#4

Why would the city ask us during the election? First of all they didn’t know who was gonna be elected and secondly, I’m sure with all of the potential investors in our community the mayor has a lot of stuff on his plate. With his job being full time, he can be in the office during regular working hours to speak to and consult other city hall staff on what is happening. I personally don’t see the issue in it but we all have our opinions.


#5

So who are the major investors in our town ? Not being smartass but who are they . Is Marcan included in this group because if they are an example then we are screwed real bad , they are low life , with how the deal with people in this town .


#6

Re: full time mayor that was rididculous from the get go : he kept saying that he could do both being a mayor and full time at the school district : he may have thoguth so but once in became overwhelmed by everything

this is a lot of money : Included in the $1.3 million that will be allocated every year for the next four years is $220,000 for major projects and baseline data collection, $150,000 for public engagement and community consultation, $450,000 for additional planning, communications and engineering staff, $120,000 for the decommissioning and redeployment of Watson Island, $150,000 for a recruitment and retention plan for existing city staff and $210,000 for contingencies.

the other million : The roads/ sideways I dont really care where the money came from we needed it, they are in terrible shape and i am grateful the work is being done, as it was long over due.


#7

before the election if I recall the previous council suggested the mayor should be full time, if they were thinking that then, then why not put it to a vote of the electorate during the election? why wait until afterwards.

and again their dummy corporation is handing out the money for him and our resident scientist, again why do we need a resident scientist? what controls does the dummy corporation have, it doesn’t follow municipal bylaws and regulations since that is the reason it was created. so who does it answer too? or is it just a fund for our councilors to use as they see fit without any discussions with the taxpayers.


#8

[quote=“Jabber63”]before the election if I recall the previous council suggested the mayor should be full time, if they were thinking that then, then why not put it to a vote of the electorate during the election? why wait until afterwards.

and again their dummy corporation is handing out the money for him and our resident scientist, again why do we need a resident scientist? what controls does the dummy corporation have, it doesn’t follow municipal bylaws and regulations since that is the reason it was created. so who does it answer too? or is it just a fund for our councilors to use as they see fit without any discussions with the taxpayers.[/quote]

we are in a even worse mess than I ever thought


#9

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

[quote=“Jabber63”]before the election if I recall the previous council suggested the mayor should be full time, if they were thinking that then, then why not put it to a vote of the electorate during the election? why wait until afterwards.

and again their dummy corporation is handing out the money for him and our resident scientist, again why do we need a resident scientist? what controls does the dummy corporation have, it doesn’t follow municipal bylaws and regulations since that is the reason it was created. so who does it answer too? or is it just a fund for our councilors to use as they see fit without any discussions with the taxpayers.[/quote]

we are in a even worse mess than I ever thought[/quote]

How are we in even a worse mess? Because we have a full-time mayor who is making a measely 17,000 more per year than before?

Oh yes…what a huge mess…the sky is falling.


#10

how about the fact they decide how to use the legacy fund in camera instead of in public, why do they decide how to use the money in private? is it their own little, for a lack of a better name, slush fund?


#11

frankly i could care less one way or the other regarding full time mayor its the bigger picture of how money is being spent ie dummy corporation/ scientist


#12

I agree on the scientist.

I think the dummy corp is a good way for the city to invest money into infrastructure and address City issues that they could not address before. I think we will only see positives from this.


#13

but why discuss and vote how to use the money in private? what happened to transparency? using the money for infrastructure, mayor’s raise, hiring a scientist, grants, etc etc etc, should be done in public not in private, it is not our council’s personal slush fund. or is it?


#14

the speculation for LNG has forever changed our town : i hope the investment speculators that are raising rents all over the region lose there shirts once all this speculation stops and nothing moves forward. This has been Christy Clark’s election promise to get LNG running and sell us down the river to fuel taxes dollars to run the lower mainland. So happy that Port Simpson declined the bs offer : LNG is a red herring and I can’t see anything happening here anyway

As for counci i am disgusted with Brain and the lack of being upfront on spending, but we voted it we are stuck for 4 more years.


#15

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

the speculation for LNG has forever changed our town : i hope the investment speculators that are raising rents all over the region lose there shirts once all this speculation stops and nothing moves forward. This has been Christy Clark’s election promise to get LNG running and sell us down the river to fuel taxes dollars to run the lower mainland. So happy that Port Simpson declined the bs offer : LNG is a red herring and I can’t see anything happening here anyway

As for counci i am disgusted with Brain and the lack of being upfront on spending, but we voted it we are stuck for 4 more years.[/quote]

Why would you wish for people to lose their shirts? Many of us have endured years of hardship with vacant properties, having to rent to virtually anyone just to get some cash flow. And with that often comes problem renters who cause a lot of damage. The property owner is the one paying the exorbitant taxes and utilities, the repairs and maintenance. Rent can only be as high as the market can bear. If one can’t afford market prices there are options because a sound market likely means job opportunities or there is subsidized housing. The landlord losing their shirt means that even the renter loses because the market has collapsed and that there is little opportunity. It’s all relative.


#16

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

the speculation for LNG has forever changed our town : i hope the investment speculators that are raising rents all over the region lose there shirts once all this speculation stops and nothing moves forward. This has been Christy Clark’s election promise to get LNG running and sell us down the river to fuel taxes dollars to run the lower mainland. So happy that Port Simpson declined the bs offer : LNG is a red herring and I can’t see anything happening here anyway

As for counci i am disgusted with Brain and the lack of being upfront on spending, but we voted it we are stuck for 4 more years.

Why would you wish for people to lose their shirts? Many of us have endured years of hardship with vacant properties, having to rent to virtually anyone just to get some cash flow. And with that often comes problem renters who cause a lot of damage. The property owner is the one paying the exorbitant taxes and utilities, the repairs and maintenance. Rent can only be as high as the market can bear. If one can’t afford market prices there are options because a sound market likely means job opportunities or there is subsidized housing. The landlord losing their shirt means that even the renter loses because the market has collapsed and that there is little opportunity. It’s all relative.[/quote]

Bingo. Everyone is so focused on the price of rent but what about the quality of renters. These “poor” renters everyone feels sorry for have abused people’s houses for long enough. Can’t afford rent? Go get a job and some decent references. Glad people are finally getting their money back.


#17

“rickgrimes” “Bingo” you say? Please do not paint all renters with the same brush ! I am retired, have excellent references and even with my pension and investment income could not afford a home@ $1300 per month+ and even if I could, the quality of some of these homes is, dare I say, trash ! The majority of people here are working or as in my case, have worked all their lives. Amazing how other topics are so quickly labelled as discrimination but your post is not?


#18

While I feel for you codybear, it’s not the responsibility of any individual property owner to provide you with affordable housing. My point to him, which he agreed with, is that the property owner incurs a lot of expense yet there’s some underlying expectation that their properties should be rented at a level that is affordable to anyone. These are often business type endeavors which pay taxes and require to at least break even, if not profit. Replacing a roof is about $10,000 on an average home. Toss in mortgage interest, property taxes, other repairs and maintenance, city utilities, etc and it can take years to recover the cost of a major expense like that. His comment was not remotely discriminatory. There are places which cater to those on fixed or low income that could help someone like you out.


#19

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

While I feel for you codybear, it’s not the responsibility of any individual property owner to provide you with affordable housing. My point to him, which he agreed with, is that the property owner incurs a lot of expense yet there’s some underlying expectation that their properties should be rented at a level that is affordable to anyone. These are often business type endeavors which pay taxes and require to at least break even, if not profit. Replacing a roof is about $10,000 on an average home. Toss in mortgage interest, property taxes, other repairs and maintenance, city utilities, etc and it can take years to recover the cost of a major expense like that. His comment was not remotely discriminatory. There are places which cater to those on fixed or low income that could help someone like you out.[/quote]

Thank you “Crazy Train” but I am not low income nor do I need to find a place that caters to low or fixed income. I have also been a property owner in Ontario and am well aware of its’ pitfalls. If owners assume that someone with a good paying job and great references is not going to neglect/trash their property, beware, it happens ! Trust me ! I went to hell and back with a “perfect” tenant !


#20

You’re too sensitive and taking the comments personally. You said you couldn’t afford some rent prices so I’m merely stating that there are options. As a property owner yourself, you’ve indicated that you’re aware of its pitfalls. I would assume then that you understand my points.