I can only hope this is pure sarcasm…this city can’t even fix its roads…they are the last group of people who should be “researching” LNG.
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
Provide information for what purpose? That’s not a rhetorical question.
Do the current Mayor and council want to be better informed so that they can take positions on LNG projects? Any position they take is meaningless unless they present evidence to the environmental review panel. It’s much like going to court.
If people want to present evidence against Pacific Northwest LNG to the panel, that’s fair enough, but what would the City gain by doing that? Do they present the same evidence and use the same expert witness as UFAWU and the environmental groups so that the latter’s submissions are effectively subsidized?
The panel will deal with the Flora Bank issues whether the City takes a position or not, which is part of the reason why Petronas has already made design changes.
Meanwhile, it probably would have been a good idea to get some scientific advice about having LNG facilities on Lot 444, where the City does have a say, since it is City-owned land. Oddly enough, they seem to have concluded that it is okay.
A company has been formed to take title to the property (to get around financial restrictions in the Community Charter) and they have proceeded with re-zoning the land for LNG purposes, although a decision by Imperial and the environmental review are both a long ways off. Councillor Thorkelson reassured that the watershed will be adequately protected because Imperial would have watchmen patrolling the perimeter. Is that it? Is that all the science that is required?
I’ve never understood why people support Joy Thorkelson. I used to see Jack Mussallem as a pro-business mayor, but I wonder if somewhere along the way he gave up and decided if you can’t beat, join em.
Like you, I have no answers. Perhaps the city is heading to LOT 444 first and studying that. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe the whole thing is an environmental scam to steal more money from us hard working taxpayers. I’m not sure. But we still have a recreational advisor, Brent (sp?) du Maurier (sp?) working here. And he’s been here since the spring. And we have hired a new director of rec. And no one cares about that! So why do we care that the city has contracted out an environmetnal advisor? Do we know how much Fagetter has been contracted for? Is it BIG money? Has anyone filed an FOI?
I get that its easy to slam city council – and with this council, rightfully so. But I want some facts on this. I hope Shaun and Martina are reading this and do some digging. It could swing the entire election.[/quote]
The city should have recreation directors to run their recreation department, a valid department of any city that is purely funded by tax payer money…that is why those two hires have not been questioned (and rightfully so)…because they are totally realistic positions considering recreation facilities in this city full under the municipal government jurisdiction.
Bthedog:"They have done it to themselves by overfishing for decades."
Where have you been? They are having great salmon returns here.
At least lets discuss honestly. LNG has the potential to harm fishing and there are other risks (like drinking water) someone other than the industry has to look into it - so we do it right!
Our values for some reason diverge when clearly they ought to align.
You justify the contracting of an advisor after the city has hired someone who is capable of being the director of rec? That’s a total waste. We’ve hired someone to do the job. Let her do it.
The environment, something your comments show a complete disregard for – despite its importance to you – is something that is important to me – and my kids. I want to live in a city that takes its environmental responsibility seriously and doesn’t rely on company info, that is completely biased, as gospel. The public isn’t going to get the straight goods from the province. We need information on how a terminal (though there could be more) will impact the local water and land. We deserve to know how our breathable air will be impacted. What about our local food supply? At the end of the day, we have questions, and a cut down BC ministry of environment isn’t capable or ready of answering questions about this. And sileneced scientists at Environment Canada won’t even return our calls.
You can be a cheerleader for industry all you want. Nothing wrong with that. But you ought to want as much information as possible.
Which brings us back to the issue that matters to me: how did Fagetter get hired and why? What is her role?
[quote=“bthedog”]
Joy is a tireless advocate for workers in this town. I appreciate her passionate support of the labour movement.
I am a “worker” in this town and she certainly does not advocate for me. She is all about the fishing industry and that is it. She is way to partial to the fishing industry and is a past “radical socialist” that alone should be enough to make people never vote for her. I never have and NEVER will.
She is the least impartial councilor we have…I am amazed she gets the support she does.
The fishing industry is no longer this area’s #1 industry, it is not longer what it was and never will be again. They have done it to themselves by overfishing for decades.
The shipping industry is the industry that is going to sustain this city and help it grow…this is the industry that needs to be the main focus of council, but still be able to foster and sustain our secondary industries (like fishing and forestry). That is our reality TODAY…Joy and the rest of the fishermen in this city have had their day in the sun, and failing to recognize what industry is this city’s current bread and butter is only going to land City Hall further in the gutter. City Hall deserves all the scrutiny and criticism it is getting…it has been one fuck-up after a LONG line of fuck-ups. The whole lot of them needs to be shown the door.[/quote]
How can the city focus on something it has no jurisdiction over? Why does the city need to be partial to the shipping industry but impartial to the fishing industry? Be consistent with your messaging.
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
Like you, I have no answers. Perhaps the city is heading to LOT 444 first and studying that. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe the whole thing is an environmental scam to steal more money from us hard working taxpayers. I’m not sure. But we still have a recreational advisor, Brent (sp?) du Maurier (sp?) working here. And he’s been here since the spring. And we have hired a new director of rec. And no one cares about that! So why do we care that the city has contracted out an environmetnal advisor? Do we know how much Fagetter has been contracted for? Is it BIG money? Has anyone filed an FOI?
I get that its easy to slam city council – and with this council, rightfully so. But I want some facts on this. I hope Shaun and Martina are reading this and do some digging. It could swing the entire election.[/quote]
Your recreation centre questions further illustrate the larger issue, which is that the current Mayor and council create senior positions with no public discussion. Hiring decisions obviously should be made in closed meetings, but they go further by also discussing the positions behind closed doors.
Dr Faggetter’s hiring for an unadvertised position was only mentioned at the end of a council meeting by councillor Thorkelson in the course of talking about the CBC’s LNG Forum. It may not have even been a planned announcement (the Mayor usually makes those kinds of announcements); it might have slipped out.
As for the recreation program, there was a media release saying that Brent Meunier had been hired for the newly created, unadvertised position of “recreation specialist”, but for unknown reasons that was issued after he arrived: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … gs-in.html >.
Shortly thereafter Rudy Kelly’s name disappeared from the contact list. He was obviously gone, but there was not the customary courtesy of a “has left to pursue other opportunities, best of luck” announcement. That was not exactly the Mayor and council’s classiest moment. The 2014 Statement of Financial Information (due June 30, 2015) by law must report any severance paid to former management employees. There’s an interesting comment from a reader at the bottom of the North Coast Review article < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … s-for.html >.
In June the City advertised for a new Recreation Director. Was there any discussion or information provided at a public council meeting as to their plans in that regard? North Coast Review picked up that development by monitoring the City’s job postings < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … seeks.html >. The hiring of a new Recreation Director was announced in early September.
I’m a bit surprised that Mr Meunier is still there. That sounds more like how the School Board has operated in the past, where managers have been hired and management consultants have been kept on to help them manage, apparently.
Now the City is looking for a Recreation Coordinator. That news also comes from monitoring the City’s job postings, rather than from any discussion or announcement at a public meeting. This appears to be a new management position: the posting says that the Coordinator “recruits, supervises, and evaluates” other staff. < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … h-for.html >.
The Mayor and council cannot discuss every organizational issue at its’ meetings, but when new management or senior advisory positions are created some discussion at the public meetings would seem to be in order, including details as to the rationale and cost implications.
There is nothing secret or confidential about the “position, functions or remuneration” of employees or officers, or about “financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body” (FIPPA, 22(4)). It’s all public information, but the Mayor and council for reasons unknown prefer to keep that information to themselves.
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
[quote=“bthedog”]
I am a “worker” in this town and she certainly does not advocate for me. She is all about the fishing industry and that is it. She is way to partial to the fishing industry and is a past “radical socialist” that alone should be enough to make people never vote for her. I never have and NEVER will.
She is the least impartial councilor we have…I am amazed she gets the support she does.
The fishing industry is no longer this area’s #1 industry, it is not longer what it was and never will be again. They have done it to themselves by overfishing for decades.
The shipping industry is the industry that is going to sustain this city and help it grow…this is the industry that needs to be the main focus of council, but still be able to foster and sustain our secondary industries (like fishing and forestry). That is our reality TODAY…Joy and the rest of the fishermen in this city have had their day in the sun, and failing to recognize what industry is this city’s current bread and butter is only going to land City Hall further in the gutter. City Hall deserves all the scrutiny and criticism it is getting…it has been one fuck-up after a LONG line of fuck-ups. The whole lot of them needs to be shown the door.[/quote]
How can the city focus on something it has no jurisdiction over? Why does the city need to be partial to the shipping industry but impartial to the fishing industry? Be consistent with your messaging.[/quote]
I never said they should be partial to the shipping industry and impartial other industries. What I did say is they should be advocating for it, since it provides the biggest economic impact to this region. The city has proven in the past to be quite critical of the shipping industry and the PRPA, when they are essentially biting the hands that feed it. They city should be advocating for all of its industries, yet for someone reason the city’s biggest industry seems to get the cold shoulder and nothing but criticism from our elected officials. Something is seriously wrong with that picture…and yes the city does not have jurisdiction unless it is on their land…and than God for that…the city has proven they don’t know anything about the shipping industry, that is only amplified by their attempt to build an LNG terminal right next to our city’s water source.
Please stop putting words into my mouth, as you so consistently do.
[quote=“atsea”]Bthedog:"They have done it to themselves by overfishing for decades."
Where have you been? They are having great salmon returns here.
At least lets discuss honestly. LNG has the potential to harm fishing and there are other risks (like drinking water) someone other than the industry has to look into it - so we do it right![/quote]
It is clear that the fishing industry is not even a shadow of its former self in this city…we may be getting good returns right now…but that is nothing compared to the industry before…the city was crawling with wealthy fishermen.
There is no way you can sit there and say fishing industry today is even 1/2 of what it was in the 60’s/70’s/80’s. You just have to look at how many canneries/plants have shut down to see how far the industry has fallen.
I agree LNG has the potential to damage fish, if it is not done correctly (which I believe PNW and BG Group’s terminals are being do correctly).
And I agree it has to be done right, which is why I fully support Petronas re-design of their Lelu island terminal. I think they have clearly mitigated the risk to salmon with their re-design.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
Like you, I have no answers. Perhaps the city is heading to LOT 444 first and studying that. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe the whole thing is an environmental scam to steal more money from us hard working taxpayers. I’m not sure. But we still have a recreational advisor, Brent (sp?) du Maurier (sp?) working here. And he’s been here since the spring. And we have hired a new director of rec. And no one cares about that! So why do we care that the city has contracted out an environmetnal advisor? Do we know how much Fagetter has been contracted for? Is it BIG money? Has anyone filed an FOI?
I get that its easy to slam city council – and with this council, rightfully so. But I want some facts on this. I hope Shaun and Martina are reading this and do some digging. It could swing the entire election.[/quote]
Your recreation centre questions further illustrate the larger issue, which is that the current Mayor and council create senior positions with no public discussion. Hiring decisions obviously should be made in closed meetings, but they go further by also discussing the positions behind closed doors.
Dr Faggetter’s hiring for an unadvertised position was only mentioned at the end of a council meeting by councillor Thorkelson in the course of talking about the CBC’s LNG Forum. It may not have even been a planned announcement (the Mayor usually makes those kinds of announcements); it might have slipped out.
As for the recreation program, there was a media release saying that Brent Meunier had been hired for the newly created, unadvertised position of “recreation specialist”, but for unknown reasons that was issued after he arrived: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … gs-in.html >.
Shortly thereafter Rudy Kelly’s name disappeared from the contact list. He was obviously gone, but there was not the customary courtesy of a “has left to pursue other opportunities, best of luck” announcement. That was not exactly the Mayor and council’s classiest moment. The 2014 Statement of Financial Information (due June 30, 2015) by law must report any severance paid to former management employees. There’s an interesting comment from a reader at the bottom of the North Coast Review article < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … s-for.html >.
In June the City advertised for a new Recreation Director. Was there any discussion or information provided at a public council meeting as to their plans in that regard? North Coast Review picked up that development by monitoring the City’s job postings < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … seeks.html >. The hiring of a new Recreation Director was announced in early September.
I’m a bit surprised that Mr Meunier is still there. That sounds more like how the School Board has operated in the past, where managers have been hired and management consultants have been kept on to help them manage, apparently.
Now the City is looking for a Recreation Coordinator. That news also comes from monitoring the City’s job postings, rather than from any discussion or announcement at a public meeting. This appears to be a new management position: the posting says that the Coordinator “recruits, supervises, and evaluates” other staff. < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … h-for.html >.
The Mayor and council cannot discuss every organizational issue at its’ meetings, but when new management or senior advisory positions are created some discussion at the public meetings would seem to be in order, including details as to the rationale and cost implications.
There is nothing secret or confidential about the “position, functions or remuneration” of employees or officers, or about “financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body” (FIPPA, 22(4)). It’s all public information, but the Mayor and council for reasons unknown prefer to keep that information to themselves.[/quote]
An excellent dissection of the situation, BTravenn, and further evidence as to why we need to clean house as much as possible as we head into POTENTIALLY better times.
I’ve made my preference for Lee Brain as a fresh, energetic force, known. I’d also like to see Wade Neish and Brad Mirau get in as both also appear bright and motivated, and have some good ideas moving forward. Oops. Wait. Neither has experience on Council. Get over it, people. Few councillors did. They are a board whose main role is to make policy, big picture decisions, and provide leadership. The main asset is not experience (as shown by our current council’s can’t-do-any-worse performance) and I strongly believe these three have would be the shot in the arm this city needs to shake out of our over decade long doldrums.
It looks like Martina did some digging and found out that Fagetter is hired by Prin ce Rupert Legacy, a wholly owned subsidy of the City. The city hired “Faggetter to undertake a report seeking out any scientific issues that could arise from the construction of an LNG facility on newly-owned city land, known as Lot 444.”
thenorthernview.com/news/280583512.html
That, by the way, is city business as the city does own Lot 444. How that was orginally handled is also another good sticking point. But at least we now know that Fagetter isn’t the environment czar that bthedog was painting her as, and that her role is limited to city owned property.
so to avoid tendering the position they do an end around by using their newly formed wholly owned city company.hmmmmmmmmmmm yep they respect the taxpayers alright
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]It looks like Martina did some digging and found out that Fagetter is hired by Prin ce Rupert Legacy, a wholly owned subsidy of the City. The city hired “Faggetter to undertake a report seeking out any scientific issues that could arise from the construction of an LNG facility on newly-owned city land, known as Lot 444.”
thenorthernview.com/news/280583512.html
That, by the way, is city business as the city does own Lot 444. How that was orginally handled is also another good sticking point. But at least we now know that Fagetter isn’t the environment czar that bthedog was painting her as, and that her role is limited to city owned property.[/quote]
I am surprised that after this new revelation that you are not even the LEAST bit critical of the city…they clearly have circumvented the normal channels by hiring this woman through their subsidized corporation Prince Rupert Legacy. This is clearly a legal move by the city, but at the same time why did they decide to go through the subsidiary to hire this woman? Why not go the tender route? Doing it this way only makes me trust the city even less.
Lets just hope Dr. Faggetter sticks to studying the environment and doesn’t muck up her statements with criticism over the economics of the project since she is not an economist.
Furthermore, why is this being done now after Lot 444 has already been re-zoned for heavy industry AND already has proposed tenants of Imperial Oil & Exxon Mobile who have clearly indicated they plan to have an LNG terminal located on this property.
Don’t you think they should have done an environmental study WELL in advance of buying the land from the province, rezoning it for heavy industry, entering into an agreement with two of the worlds biggest oil companies and having Councillor Thorkelson reassure us all that the watershed will be adequately protected because Imperial/Exxon would have watchmen patrolling the perimeter.
The revelation by the Northern View is even more damaging to the city’s already tarnished reputation. This is nothing but vote pandering IMO…they clearly have been getting massive negative feedback about Lot 444, since they never told Prince Rupert citizens that they planned to use it for LNG purposes before purchasing it, and instead lead us to believe it was to increase our boundary so that our watershed and water front views would be wholly owned by the city, to prevent it from becoming compromised by industrial development in the PR area.
This whole thing stinks of pure garbage and I am shocked you are not outraged.
I do not fault the city for attempting to garner industrial activity on city owned land…clearly we need the taxes…but the way they have went about this is all wrong and the area chosen is very questionable considering our drinking water is directly next to it.
[quote=“bthedog”]
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]It looks like Martina did some digging and found out that Fagetter is hired by Prin ce Rupert Legacy, a wholly owned subsidy of the City. The city hired “Faggetter to undertake a report seeking out any scientific issues that could arise from the construction of an LNG facility on newly-owned city land, known as Lot 444.”
thenorthernview.com/news/280583512.html
That, by the way, is city business as the city does own Lot 444. How that was orginally handled is also another good sticking point. But at least we now know that Fagetter isn’t the environment czar that bthedog was painting her as, and that her role is limited to city owned property.[/quote]
I am surprised that after this new revelation that you are not even the LEAST bit critical of the city…they clearly have circumvented the normal channels by hiring this woman through their subsidized corporation Prince Rupert Legacy. This is clearly a legal move by the city, but at the same time why did they decide to go through the subsidiary to hire this woman? Why not go the tender route? Doing it this way only makes me trust the city even less.
Lets just hope Dr. Faggetter sticks to studying the environment and doesn’t muck up her statements with criticism over the economics of the project since she is not an economist.
Furthermore, why is this being done now after Lot 444 has already been re-zoned for heavy industry AND already has proposed tenants of Imperial Oil & Exxon Mobile who have clearly indicated they plan to have an LNG terminal located on this property.
Don’t you think they should have done an environmental study WELL in advance of buying the land from the province, rezoning it for heavy industry, entering into an agreement with two of the worlds biggest oil companies and having Councillor Thorkelson reassure us all that the watershed will be adequately protected because Imperial/Exxon would have watchmen patrolling the perimeter.
The revelation by the Northern View is even more damaging to the city’s already tarnished reputation. This is nothing but vote pandering IMO…they clearly have been getting massive negative feedback about Lot 444, since they never told Prince Rupert citizens that they planned to use it for LNG purposes before purchasing it, and instead lead us to believe it was to increase our boundary so that our watershed and water front views would be wholly owned by the city, to prevent it from becoming compromised by industrial development in the PR area.
This whole thing stinks of pure garbage and I am shocked you are not outraged.
I do not fault the city for attempting to garner industrial activity on city owned land…clearly we need the taxes…but the way they have went about this is all wrong and the area chosen is very questionable considering our drinking water is directly next to it.[/quote]
She was asked a question at a forum and answered the best she could. In fact, as I recall (as I watched at home on CityWest free plug) all of the guests were asked to answer questions over the economics of this project.
Now, I did say (should you choose to re-read my comment) that the city has handled the hiring of Fagetter in a very ham-fisted way. Don’t say I am not the least bit critical. I just don’t think it’s as burning an issue as you do, tempest meeting tea pot and all.
The city wouldn’t likely do an environmental assessment without seeing an actual plan. It’s not like Petronas or BG file their EAs without coming up with a terminal design first.
And lastly, you aren’t consitent on what you care about. You say that the site 444 is questionable – and maybe it is – but you defend Petronas’ questionable site with your excalibur sword of economics – even though it poses a potential risk to the Skeena salmon stock. I am shocked you aren’t outraged by that even though you seem to care about the safety of the city’s drinking water – also an environmental conservationist concern.
The revelation by Martina, by the way, was but a blurb. It was good work, but hardly explains what’s going on and doesn’t in the least try to source out how this happened. So before we give her muckraker of the year award, I suggest we wait for her to continue to dig away at this. I’m sure she’ll get to the bottom of this. Someone has to – because council isn’t being very forthcoming on this. (you see, we do agree on that point)
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
I am surprised that after this new revelation that you are not even the LEAST bit critical of the city…they clearly have circumvented the normal channels by hiring this woman through their subsidized corporation Prince Rupert Legacy. This is clearly a legal move by the city, but at the same time why did they decide to go through the subsidiary to hire this woman? Why not go the tender route? Doing it this way only makes me trust the city even less.
Lets just hope Dr. Faggetter sticks to studying the environment and doesn’t muck up her statements with criticism over the economics of the project since she is not an economist.
Furthermore, why is this being done now after Lot 444 has already been re-zoned for heavy industry AND already has proposed tenants of Imperial Oil & Exxon Mobile who have clearly indicated they plan to have an LNG terminal located on this property.
Don’t you think they should have done an environmental study WELL in advance of buying the land from the province, rezoning it for heavy industry, entering into an agreement with two of the worlds biggest oil companies and having Councillor Thorkelson reassure us all that the watershed will be adequately protected because Imperial/Exxon would have watchmen patrolling the perimeter.
The revelation by the Northern View is even more damaging to the city’s already tarnished reputation. This is nothing but vote pandering IMO…they clearly have been getting massive negative feedback about Lot 444, since they never told Prince Rupert citizens that they planned to use it for LNG purposes before purchasing it, and instead lead us to believe it was to increase our boundary so that our watershed and water front views would be wholly owned by the city, to prevent it from becoming compromised by industrial development in the PR area.
This whole thing stinks of pure garbage and I am shocked you are not outraged.
I do not fault the city for attempting to garner industrial activity on city owned land…clearly we need the taxes…but the way they have went about this is all wrong and the area chosen is very questionable considering our drinking water is directly next to it.
She was asked a question at a forum and answered the best she could. In fact, as I recall (as I watched at home on CityWest free plug) all of the guests were asked to answer questions over the economics of this project.
Now, I did say (should you choose to re-read my comment) that the city has handled the hiring of Fagetter in a very ham-fisted way. Don’t say I am not the least bit critical. I just don’t think it’s as burning an issue as you do, tempest meeting tea pot and all.
The city wouldn’t likely do an environmental assessment without seeing an actual plan. It’s not like Petronas or BG file their EAs without coming up with a terminal design first.
And lastly, you aren’t consitent on what you care about. You say that the site 444 is questionable – and maybe it is – but you defend Petronas’ questionable site with your excalibur sword of economics – even though it poses a potential risk to the Skeena salmon stock. I am shocked you aren’t outraged by that even though you seem to care about the safety of the city’s drinking water – also an environmental conservationist concern.
The revelation by Martina, by the way, was but a blurb. It was good work, but hardly explains what’s going on and doesn’t in the least try to source out how this happened. So before we give her muckraker of the year award, I suggest we wait for her to continue to dig away at this. I’m sure she’ll get to the bottom of this. Someone has to – because council isn’t being very forthcoming on this. (you see, we do agree on that point)[/quote]
There really shouldn’t be any need for “digging”, honestly, the Legacy Corporation much like CityWest (see today’s developments) are both creations of the City of Prince Rupert. The onus is on the City Administration, Council and Mayor to provide consistent and transparent information regarding their creations.
Would seem they have a bit of work to do on that file.
Yes - I am being consistent because I don’t feel the Petronas project is going to risk our salmon stock, I look at it as an environmentally safe operation (whether you agree or not). I believe with any project that there is some inherent risk to the environment and some pollution is going to occur, whether we like it or not. However, I believe Petronas has mitigated the environmental concerns that I had with the terminal in Lelu Island, enough so that I can fully support it.
There will be no dredging of Flora Bank or Agnew Bank, and that alone has dropped the dredging from 7.7 million tonnes to 690,000 tonnes…that I believe is acceptable for moving forward with the project. The area has handled a coal terminal, a grain terminal and highly polluting pulp mill for well over 3 decades with little adverse affects to salmon in the area.
So yes I am concerned about Lot 444 much more than I am Lelu Island.
[quote=“bthedog”]
…they clearly have circumvented the normal channels by hiring this woman through their subsidized corporation Prince Rupert Legacy. This is clearly a legal move by the city, but at the same time why did they decide to go through the subsidiary to hire this woman? Why not go the tender route? Doing it this way only makes me trust the city even less.
Lets just hope Dr. Faggetter sticks to studying the environment and doesn’t muck up her statements with criticism over the economics of the project since she is not an economist.
Furthermore, why is this being done now after Lot 444 has already been re-zoned for heavy industry AND already has proposed tenants of Imperial Oil & Exxon Mobile who have clearly indicated they plan to have an LNG terminal located on this property.
Don’t you think they should have done an environmental study WELL in advance of buying the land from the province, rezoning it for heavy industry, entering into an agreement with two of the worlds biggest oil companies and having Councillor Thorkelson reassure us all that the watershed will be adequately protected because Imperial/Exxon would have watchmen patrolling the perimeter.
The revelation by the Northern View is even more damaging to the city’s already tarnished reputation. This is nothing but vote pandering IMO…they clearly have been getting massive negative feedback about Lot 444, since they never told Prince Rupert citizens that they planned to use it for LNG purposes before purchasing it, and instead lead us to believe it was to increase our boundary so that our watershed and water front views would be wholly owned by the city, to prevent it from becoming compromised by industrial development in the PR area.
…
I do not fault the city for attempting to garner industrial activity on city owned land…clearly we need the taxes…but the way they have went about this is all wrong and the area chosen is very questionable considering our drinking water is directly next to it.[/quote]
It’s a confusing situation for sure, but there’s not really much in the way of revelations. The current Mayor and council deals with so much business in closed meetings and has become so poor at communicating with the public - staff have largely taken over that function - that information gets lost in the shuffle.
A couple of corrections. The City did not buy Lot 444. It’s been City-owned land for a long time (probably purchased from the railway in the 20s), but it was outside of the City boundary. At the City’s request, to protect the watershed (industrial use was only mentioned in passing), the Province extended the boundary to include Lot 444.
Like you, I thought that Lot 444 had been re-zoned for Heavy Industrial Use, but the amending bylaw has only gone through 1st and 2nd readings. A public hearing, which is required before a bylaw can be finally adopted, was scheduled for September 15, but that did not come about for reasons unknown. Perhaps they realized that it would make sense to complete an environmental study before re-zoning the land. See page 4 of the July 7 minutes for background < princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … 7-2014.pdf >.
Most of what is known about closed meeting decisions was revealed at the May 26 meeting. The City has “instructed” the newly created Legacy Corporation to hire an “environmental engineer” to look at “all air and watershed concerns surrounding District Lot 444 and any proposed uses by the proponent”. The Legacy Corporation will be funded by the "LNG proponents’, ie Imperial and Exxon, for that purpose.
Further details were revealed including that the City would transfer Lot 444 to the Legacy Corporation. See the North Coast Review article for background: < princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … 6-2014.pdf >.
We now know that Dr Faggetter is the “environmental engineer” who has been hired to study these issues. It’s good that she will be focusing on Lot 444 and that the City will not be trying to replicate the work of the CEAA and EAO panels for the Petronas environmental reviews. Dr Faggetter’s hiring strikes me as the lesser issue or perhaps not an issue at all. There are bigger questions around the handling of Lot 444.
Why did the current Mayor and council create the City-owned and controlled Legacy Corporation in a closed meeting? Compare, for instance, the creation of Citywest in 2005-06, which was decided at public meetings. Why could that not be done in the case of the Legacy Corporation?
The incorporation documents for the Legacy Corporation are public records. Anyone can go to its’ registered address and look at them or get copies from the Registrar. A municipal corporation is subject to the same freedom of information requirements as the City itself (work through the definitions of “local government body” (a) and (n), “local public body” (a) and “public body” © < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … #Schedule1>). Why the secrecy?
Why was the decision to transfer ownership of Lot 444 from the City to the Legacy Corporation not made in a public meeting?
It was mentioned at the May 26 meeting that if the land was City owned any sale proceeds would have to be put into a “reserve fund” (see 188(2)(e) < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … section188 >). Perhaps having a reserve fund would be a good idea. Whether the land is owned by the City or its’ corporation should make no difference to Imperial and Exxon. It’s none of their business really. According to a notice in the paper a while back the transfer is in the works.
North Coast Review outlined how Mr Long explained that Imperial and Exxon would be funding the Legacy Corporation under an “investigative option” similar to what the Province has done with Grassy Point. Councillor Thorkelson added that some of the money would be used to hire the “environmental officer” to look at watershed and air issues. Since Dr Faggetter has now been hired, we can only assume that the funding agreement with Imperial and Exxon has been signed off.
Why does the Mayor and council not confirm that and explain the terms of the agreement with Imperial and Exxon? Why keep that as a closed meeting issue, unsuitable for public information?
A comparison was made with how the Province is dealing with Grassy Point. The Province’s agreements with Aurora and Woodside, including financial details, have been publicized in outline form. Why does the Mayor and council not follow the example of the Clark government and inform the public about its’ “investigative option” with Imperial and Exxon?
Again, why the secrecy? Lot 444 is public land, adjacent to a public watershed. The Legacy Corporation is a public entity owned by the City as an elected public body. Why exclude the public?
This Mayor and council have spent so much time doing business in closed meetings that they seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish between the exceptions to transparent government and what should be decided in public.
If anyone has any questions for Dr. Faggetter - this might be a good time to ask them since she will be on board for this Public Meeting.
thenorthernview.com/news/282211721.html
CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Tuesday, November 25th, 2014
5:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Highliner Inn
The City of Prince Rupert welcomes community members to attend a Public Meeting to give input on the Quality of Life Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 3350, 2014 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 3351, 2014.
City Staff, Dr. Faggetter, the Environmental Engineer commissioned by Prince Rupert Legacy Inc. and representatives of Exxon Mobil will be on hand to provide information and answer questions