Can someone please clarify what sort of entity Prince Rupert Legacy Inc. is? I recall reading something about it in one of the other forums concerning lot 444.
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
A little bit of insight about the mysterious entity called Prince Rupert Legacy Inc. It seems that this entity was developed because of the agreement between Grand Trunk/CN and the city when the land was given to the city years ago which stipulated that the land be zoned P1/P2 which is public, meaning that the city cannot sell the lands for a profit. I guess this is where the “temporary” aspect of the rezoning is and the reason why the land is not being sold outright. This is where the comments from the Councillors about the legacy fund come from and how the monies it earns from lease agreements can only be used for P1/p2 zoned land development.
I’ve heard that Exxon-Mobil intend on building some permanent housing on the site of the former dump and that it would remain after their lease is up. My guess the land would then be rezoned and returned to city to provide more housing, probably run by a non-profit and partially funded by Prince Rupert Legacy Inc. because it would fall inline with the lands intended use.
As for the mobile home park being rezoned into a materials handling area, this is extremely short-sighted by current mayor and council. This land should be leased to a non-profit, making use of the infrastructure that is already there to create a tiny house village as a way of offering up one solution to our current and future affordable housing problem since its location is perfect between two schools and direct access to rec. facilities and transit. Honestly, this truly shows how current Mayor and Councillors lack vision considering our current housing crisis.
Some important questions to ask at this public meeting:
Is this Prince Rupert Legacy Inc. the same private entity as the one we’ve heard talk about in relation to lot 444 or an entirely different entity.
So far all talk regarding lot 444 has been behind closed doors, so when does the community we get full disclosure of how much the proposed leases of lot 444 and of the old dump to Exxon-Mobil are worth to this legacy fund?
When will these funds become available and what may they be used for? I’m suspecting it would be for the improvement of public lands and spaces and parks. IE maybe the proposed trail system, a new public picnic area past Seal Cove?
All the players will be there at this meeting…something tells me some big announcements might be made since everyone including the Dr. will be in attendance, but that’s just me speculating.
It sounds like you are referring to “chapter 59” lands, which is 12 parcels that the City formerly leased from GrandTrunk / CN for public purposes. Title was transferred to the City in 1964-65 provided that the lands can only be used for public purposes (P1/P2). The Province also agreed to that (“chapter 59” refers to the statute that approved the transfer). Westview Park is one of the chapter 59 lands. Local residents pointed out to the Mayor and council that it could not be sold for a housing development, and after doing some homework they agreed that the residents group was correct.
I don’t know if the site of the proposed “man camp and materials handling site” at the old dump is chapter 59 lands, such that it can only be used for public purposes. That would have to be researched at the City Archives.
I don’t think that Lot 444 is chapter 59 land. That was acquired from the railway through a separate transaction (there are several railway lands around Rupert). The “problem” there, as the Mayor and council see it, is that if the City sells it to Imperial/Exxon there are restrictions under the Community Charter on how the revenue can be spent:
“188(2)(e) except for tax sale proceeds, money received from the sale of land and improvements, which must be placed to the credit of a reserve fund for the purposes of paying any debt remaining in relation to the property and of acquiring land, improvements and other assets of a capital nature.”
If the City leased the lands to Exxon/Imperial there wouldn’t be any restrictions on the revenue, but they apparently want to sell it. Sales revenue can only be spent on “acquiring land, improvements and other assets of a capital nature”.
The City has set up the Legacy Corporation so that Lot 444 can be transferred to the Corporation, which would then sell the land to Imperial/Exxon. The Corporation would (presumably) pay the sales revenue to the City, which could then spend the money however the Mayor and council choose. It does not have to go into a reserve fund.
There are two public meetings coming up.
On November 24 there will be a public hearing about rezoning the old dump. A public hearing is required before bylaw amendments can be passed. That seems to be a new development without much or any discussion at the public council meetings.
On November 25 there will a “public information meeting” to discuss re-zoning Lot 444. Dr Feggatter and Imperial/Exxon will be present. That will be followed by public hearings on December 3 (and maybe the 4th) before the re-zoning amendments (which have passed first and second readings) can be given third and final readings on December 8. Here’s a North Coast Review article on this: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ublic.html >.
The situation is confusing though. The Mayor and council seems to be moving at breakneck speed to rezone Lot 444 and have the Legacy Corporation sell it to Imperial/Exxon. Meanwhile, Imperial/Exxon has said that a decision about whether they want to use Lot 444 for an LNG plant (the plant will be on a barge and support facilities on land) could be years away.
Also confusing is why the Mayor and council has scheduled these issues for immediately after the election. Perhaps the new Mayor and council will want to take a different approach, particularly to the public consultations. It comes across like the election is but a minor detail for the incumbents, who will surely be re-elected and can continue on as before.
Thank you for providing some clarity on the situation. It is a bit odd that the public hearing regarding the rezoning for the man camp is the day before (almost seems like it’s a done deal) and then the public meeting for lot 444 the next day, could this just be to accommodate Exxon Mobil execs travelling up here?
I doubt it. A public hearing is a statutory requirement before a bylaw can be finally approved. The Mayor and council have to listen to any comments and respond to questions, but it is unlikely to make any difference. It’s more of a tick off the boxes so that the zoning amendments can be approved. The working assumption seems to be that the public is not concerned about the “man camp” location.
The meeting the next day on Lot 444 is a “public information” session rather than a “public hearing”, so there seems to be recognition that more of a selling job is needed before going to a “public hearing” and final approval of the zoning amendments. I don’t think that there can be any doubt the amendments will pass, particularly if most of the current council is re-elected.
The bigger concern is that by selling public lands, the city might lose valuable capital that it will never recover – land I might add, that could be used for housing, parks or as a wildlife refuge; all worthy pursuits. Imperial might have no real plans for the lands other than asset accumulation – in this time of LNG hoopla is anyone paying attention to lands being sold on the relative cheap? The city has a $250 million infrastructuaral deficit, and it might feel pressure to sell off any land it can for some short-tem road fixes. That will play well with the public for a while. But once the freshly paved roads are chewed up, what will the long-time citizens think of the city’s plans to sell off valuable lands?
It is true that the City would be selling a piece of capital (land) that it would be unlikely to recover. The question I think is why would it want to recover it?. Suggesting that we need a wildlife refuge when you consider all the deer, eagles, wolves, and whatnot running around town… well my mother said if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all.
Another park? The City has quite a few as does the School District. Surely we do not need any more? First our demographics don’t support parks. We don’t have the young population we used to. Moreover our electronic culture of TV, Game Boys, Nintendo, permanently on cell phones and god knows what else has created a sizable block of the population whose only exercise is to change the batteries or plug in the recharger.
Subsidized housing - well we are not the lower mainland with the stratospheric housing prices. Frankly, if you cannot afford a house in Prince Rupert I think it more likely indicative that you don’t have adequate employable skills to command a decent salary rather than an indication that our housing prices are excessive. And no, I did not vote for Blair or Lee.
[quote=“Pantagruel”]It is true that the City would be selling a piece of capital (land) that it would be unlikely to recover. The question I think is why would it want to recover it?. Suggesting that we need a wildlife refuge when you consider all the deer, eagles, wolves, and whatnot running around town… well my mother said if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all.
Another park? The City has quite a few as does the School District. Surely we do not need any more? First our demographics don’t support parks. We don’t have the young population we used to. Moreover our electronic culture of TV, Game Boys, Nintendo, permanently on cell phones and god knows what else has created a sizable block of the population whose only exercise is to change the batteries or plug in the recharger.
Subsidized housing - well we are not the lower mainland with the stratospheric housing prices. Frankly, if you cannot afford a house in Prince Rupert I think it more likely indicative that you don’t have adequate employable skills to command a decent salary rather than an indication that our housing prices are excessive. And no, I did not vote for Blair or Lee.[/quote]
There are many that need subsidized housing for health, age and other reasons The Jack ERA is over in couple of hours
One of the things we DON’T have is a decent soccer field. We have the all-weather field at CHSS for little kids but to play on grass as an adult, you get to play on the rolling hills of Patullo Field with its horrible turf and huge puddles. Every other town up north has a decent park with a couple fields to host a tournament for soccer or football or rugby…and they don’t surround the field with metal bars and a concrete ditch or a gravel path.
As far as the drive to get Lot 444 sold, my speculation is that the sooner that chunk of property is subjected to any work or improvements, the sooner a road gets punched through to it at someone else’s expense. From that point, it might be then economically viable to continue that road, with federal money of course, to hook up Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla…with the added bonus of a short bridge now linking the airport. Just spitballin’ here…[/quote]
This is a stupid place for a camp of any kind!If the workers are on Ridley or even Tuck inlet,the old Miller Bay site(which is city owned)makes more sense as it was a camp years ago.
Having it located at the proposed site will probably help local businesses more so than if it were located at Miller Bay. It’s also probable that the development and improvements will be able to help us down the road, more so than if it were at Miller Bay.