Time to seriously re-examine our City Councilors


#1

I think it is high time that this city SERIOUSLY re-examine the 6 individuals that are literally controlling the interests of this city…you need to look no further than this weeks council session to understand the severity of what a crap job some of these individuals are doing.

Out of 6 councilors, only 1 came to that meeting prepared to offer up IDEAS about what the city could do to try and prevent a large tax increase (lets not even talk about the mill rate at this point). We have seen our taxes go up steadily year after year, watching our city move to the top of the list as the most taxed city in BC…you would think City Council would be doing everything in their power to find savings, to find cuts that can be made internally, to at least exhaust every avenue to lessen the blow to this city’s homeowners. Instead, they came absolutely unprepared, unmotivated, almost coming off as uncaring…and that is unacceptable!

This council has just let CityWest “glide on by”…no one has called into question WHY this company has not paid their dividends to the city, or how this company has continued to get away with not repaying their debts to us taxpayers with absolutely ZERO repercussions for it. It’s like this council is willing to just give them a free pass, week after week, month after month, year after year…and then turn the same cheek and say we have no money, we are broke, lets hit the taxpayer ATM again (as quoted from here —> northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … t-for.html :wink: ).

What was even more appalling about this city council is that even when offered a great new opportunity to generate new tax revenue for the city with the Drydock Proposal, rather than supporting this endeavour and writing a letter of support, they “table” that discussion so they can contact the other shipyard first to make sure their feelings will not be hurt…ridiculous…first they bitch and complain about having no money and then in the next breath, they TABLE a motion to support a new tax generating opportunity for the city.

All I know is I will only be voting for Barry Cunningham and Anna Ashley at the next election…the other 4 need to be shown the door, especially Joy Thorkelson…who seemingly tries to railroad almost everything that comes before council, unless of course it supports the fishing industry or her union friends.

I also want to specifically say THANK YOU to Anna Ashley for at least attempting to do the job she was elected to do and for at least recognizing that perhaps council should FINALLY be seriously taking a look at the actions of CityWest. Thank you Anna for looking out for all PR homeowners and doing everything you can to try and prevent these ridiculous tax increases.


#2

I really don’t know much about how everything is run. Is there anything out there that citizens can do regarding most of city council, can a election be called sooner. Boycott ?


#3

[quote=“bthedog”]I think it is high time that this city SERIOUSLY re-examine the 6 individuals that are literally controlling the interests of this city…you need to look no further than this weeks council session to understand the severity of what a crap job some of these individuals are doing.

Out of 6 councilors, only 1 came to that meeting prepared to offer up IDEAS about what the city could do to try and prevent a large tax increase (lets not even talk about the mill rate at this point). We have seen our taxes go up steadily year after year, watching our city move to the top of the list as the most taxed city in BC…you would think City Council would be doing everything in their power to find savings, to find cuts that can be made internally, to at least exhaust every avenue to lessen the blow to this city’s homeowners. Instead, they came absolutely unprepared, unmotivated, almost coming off as uncaring…and that is unacceptable!

This council has just let CityWest “glide on by”…no one has called into question WHY this company has not paid their dividends to the city, or how this company has continued to get away with not repaying their debts to us taxpayers with absolutely ZERO repercussions for it. It’s like this council is willing to just give them a free pass, week after week, month after month, year after year…and then turn the same cheek and say we have no money, we are broke, lets hit the taxpayer ATM again.

What was even more appalling about this city council is that even when offered a great new opportunity to generate new tax revenue for the city with the Drydock Proposal, rather than supporting this endeavour and writing a letter of support, they “table” that discussion so they can contact the other shipyard first to make sure their feelings will not be hurt…ridiculous…first they bitch and complain about having no money and then in the next breath, they TABLE a motion to support a new tax generating opportunity for the city.

All I know is I will only be voting for Barry Cunningham and Anna Ashley at the next election…the other 4 need to be shown the door, especially Joy Thorkelson…who seemingly tries to railroad almost everything that comes before council, unless of course it supports the fishing industry or her union friends.

I also want to specifically say THANK YOU to Anna Ashley for at least attempting to do the job she was elected to do and for at least recognizing that perhaps council should FINALLY be seriously taking a look at the actions of CityWest. Thank you Anna for looking out for all PR homeowners and doing everything you can to try and prevent these ridiculous tax increases.[/quote]

I don’t normally contribute here anymore for any number of reasons, but in this instance I believe it’s warranted.

While you clearly read my blog, it would be nice if just once and a while you cite some of this fine information you are delivering to htmf from where it came.

I mean, pretty well everything you post here comes minutes after it appears on the blog, sometimes you don’t even bother to change the wording

i.e.: “lets hit the taxpayer ATM again”

Being a forum hosted for the most part by teachers, perhaps they can offer guidance in how to best avoid the appearance of plagiarism

Anyways, for those that might want to learn more about all this wisdom that ole bt has accumulated of late, there’s much of the background on his themes above to be found.

Start here

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ation.html

And just scroll up and down the right hand column called the Blog Archive.

Thanks for reading BT, wouldn’t hurt to share a link from time to time though one might think, it’s kind of how the internet works.


#4

[quote=“CharlesMHays”]

[quote=“bthedog”]I think it is high time that this city SERIOUSLY re-examine the 6 individuals that are literally controlling the interests of this city…you need to look no further than this weeks council session to understand the severity of what a crap job some of these individuals are doing.

Out of 6 councilors, only 1 came to that meeting prepared to offer up IDEAS about what the city could do to try and prevent a large tax increase (lets not even talk about the mill rate at this point). We have seen our taxes go up steadily year after year, watching our city move to the top of the list as the most taxed city in BC…you would think City Council would be doing everything in their power to find savings, to find cuts that can be made internally, to at least exhaust every avenue to lessen the blow to this city’s homeowners. Instead, they came absolutely unprepared, unmotivated, almost coming off as uncaring…and that is unacceptable!

This council has just let CityWest “glide on by”…no one has called into question WHY this company has not paid their dividends to the city, or how this company has continued to get away with not repaying their debts to us taxpayers with absolutely ZERO repercussions for it. It’s like this council is willing to just give them a free pass, week after week, month after month, year after year…and then turn the same cheek and say we have no money, we are broke, lets hit the taxpayer ATM again.

What was even more appalling about this city council is that even when offered a great new opportunity to generate new tax revenue for the city with the Drydock Proposal, rather than supporting this endeavour and writing a letter of support, they “table” that discussion so they can contact the other shipyard first to make sure their feelings will not be hurt…ridiculous…first they bitch and complain about having no money and then in the next breath, they TABLE a motion to support a new tax generating opportunity for the city.

All I know is I will only be voting for Barry Cunningham and Anna Ashley at the next election…the other 4 need to be shown the door, especially Joy Thorkelson…who seemingly tries to railroad almost everything that comes before council, unless of course it supports the fishing industry or her union friends.

I also want to specifically say THANK YOU to Anna Ashley for at least attempting to do the job she was elected to do and for at least recognizing that perhaps council should FINALLY be seriously taking a look at the actions of CityWest. Thank you Anna for looking out for all PR homeowners and doing everything you can to try and prevent these ridiculous tax increases.[/quote]

I don’t normally log on here anymore for any number of reasons, but in this instance I believe it’s warranted.

While you clearly read my blog, it would be nice if just once and a while you cite some of this fine information you are delivering to htmf from where it came.

I mean, pretty well everything you post here comes minutes after it appears on the blog, sometimes you don’t even bother to change the wording

i.e.: “lets hit the taxpayer ATM again”

Being a forum hosted for the most part by teachers, perhaps they can offer guidance in how to best avoid the appearance of plagiarism

Anyways, for those that might want to learn more about all this wisdom that ole bt has accumulated of late, there’s much of the background on his themes above to be found.

Start here

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ation.html

And just scroll up and down the right hand column.

Thanks for reading BT, wouldn’t hurt to share a link from time to time though one might think, it’s kind of how the internet works.[/quote]

My apologies for not sharing the link to your awesome blog, which yes, I read everyday…I find myself agreeing with almost everything you post.

Due the crappy quality of our paper, your blog is literally the only real source for information…and I will be SURE to attach links in the future when I bring that information here to HTMF, which I will continue to do. HTMF is the only real outlet for discussion about this city.


#5

[quote=“bthedog”]

I don’t normally log on here anymore for any number of reasons, but in this instance I believe it’s warranted.

While you clearly read my blog, it would be nice if just once and a while you cite some of this fine information you are delivering to htmf from where it came.

I mean, pretty well everything you post here comes minutes after it appears on the blog, sometimes you don’t even bother to change the wording

i.e.: “lets hit the taxpayer ATM again”

Being a forum hosted for the most part by teachers, perhaps they can offer guidance in how to best avoid the appearance of plagiarism

Anyways, for those that might want to learn more about all this wisdom that ole bt has accumulated of late, there’s much of the background on his themes above to be found.

Start here

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ation.html

And just scroll up and down the right hand column.

Thanks for reading BT, wouldn’t hurt to share a link from time to time though one might think, it’s kind of how the internet works.

My apologies for not sharing the link to your awesome blog, which yes, I read everyday…I find myself agreeing with almost everything you post.

Due the crappy quality of our paper, your blog is literally the only real source for information…and I will be SURE to attach links in the future when I bring that information here to HTMF, which I will continue to do. HTMF is the only real outlet for discussion about this city.[/quote]

Well, hey, htmf is bringing people together in common understanding! No probs, thanks for reading and the comments.


#6

I would say there is probably nothing we can do besides make sure we don’t vote for these fools again or run for council ourselves. I certainly have seen enough over the last few years to know for sure who I will never be voting for again.


#7

[quote=“bthedog”]

I would say there is probably nothing we can do besides make sure we don’t vote for these fools again or run for council ourselves. I certainly have seen enough over the last few years to know for sure who I will never be voting for again.[/quote]

I think a lot can be done. And the election is not the time to do it. Some of these councillors (and I wouldn’t call them fools) have been voted in multiple times by the people of this city. They have a solid group of support. I think it would be easier to get them to do something now, then to hope you can defeat them in November.

I went to council and asked a question. It probably didn’t do a whole lot to change any of their minds about anything although enough of them know me (at least in passing) to realize if DWhite is concerned enough to come to council then there are probably a whole lot more who are just as concerned.

So I would suggest that others show up and ask your questions. It was not as intimidating or nerve wracking as I had expected.

I respect the people who serve on council. They are our neighbours and I believe they are trying to do what is right for our community. Unlike provincial and federal politicians they are not well paid and they don’t get a whole lot of perks/entitlements and more importantly they are not hamstrung by the policies of a political party. They are right here in town and we can phone them or talk to them on street corners or coffee shops or best of all in council chambers where they will have to answer not jut to you but the public as well.

We live in a democracy and we have rights to use that democracy. Elections are part of that. Mass protests and street demonstrations are part of that.

But I would start with polite public discourse. We need to go to council and ask our questions.


#8

[quote=“bthedog”]I think it is high time that this city SERIOUSLY re-examine the 6 individuals that are literally controlling the interests of this city…you need to look no further than this weeks council session to understand the severity of what a crap job some of these individuals are doing.

Out of 6 councilors, only 1 came to that meeting prepared to offer up IDEAS about what the city could do to try and prevent a large tax increase (lets not even talk about the mill rate at this point). We have seen our taxes go up steadily year after year, watching our city move to the top of the list as the most taxed city in BC…you would think City Council would be doing everything in their power to find savings, to find cuts that can be made internally, to at least exhaust every avenue to lessen the blow to this city’s homeowners. Instead, they came absolutely unprepared, unmotivated, almost coming off as uncaring…and that is unacceptable!

This council has just let CityWest “glide on by”…no one has called into question WHY this company has not paid their dividends to the city, or how this company has continued to get away with not repaying their debts to us taxpayers with absolutely ZERO repercussions for it. It’s like this council is willing to just give them a free pass, week after week, month after month, year after year…and then turn the same cheek and say we have no money, we are broke, lets hit the taxpayer ATM again (as quoted from here —> northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … t-for.html :wink: ).

What was even more appalling about this city council is that even when offered a great new opportunity to generate new tax revenue for the city with the Drydock Proposal, rather than supporting this endeavour and writing a letter of support, they “table” that discussion so they can contact the other shipyard first to make sure their feelings will not be hurt…ridiculous…first they bitch and complain about having no money and then in the next breath, they TABLE a motion to support a new tax generating opportunity for the city.

All I know is I will only be voting for Barry Cunningham and Anna Ashley at the next election…the other 4 need to be shown the door, especially Joy Thorkelson…who seemingly tries to railroad almost everything that comes before council, unless of course it supports the fishing industry or her union friends.

I also want to specifically say THANK YOU to Anna Ashley for at least attempting to do the job she was elected to do and for at least recognizing that perhaps council should FINALLY be seriously taking a look at the actions of CityWest. Thank you Anna for looking out for all PR homeowners and doing everything you can to try and prevent these ridiculous tax increases.[/quote]

I imagine you are quite taken by Ashley’s willingness to occasionally come on HTMF and hit a softball out of the park (answer easy questions) but the truth is that she rode in on
promises of more transparency and accountability and has instead been part of the most secretive council ever. They must have set the record for most in-camera meetings. They refuse to make important things public (the union deal on the budget, how did that ferry report get done, what brought about rec changes besides council’s feelings it was needed, just to name recent few). She seems to forgotten that promise.

They all should be turfed.


#9

[quote=“drummerboy”]

They all should be turfed.[/quote]

And replaced by whom?

I don’t want to sound like a broken record but …

We can wait until the election and face three problems.

  1. Nothing will be done about current concerns at least until November.
  2. We are gambling on an election outcome that historically will not happen. How often do individual sitting councillors get defeated let alone an entire council?
  3. And should our anger, disgust or whatever result in enough people voting for non-incumbents, then we are gambling that the new group will, in fact, be more competent. No guarantees there.

As I mentioned previously, elections are only one aspect of the democratic process. If all we do is take a few minutes every three or four years to mark a ballot then we are giving in way too easily.

HTMF serves as a valuable opportunity to discuss, ask questions and yes, even, vent. But ask yourself this question. When it comes time to make a decision is council going to base it on what they have heard from individuals and groups that have met with them face to face or some anonymous, perhaps insulting, poster on an internet forum?

Lots of good questions are posed here. Lots of good suggestions. But if we want council to respond, we have to ask/suggest in places where councillors are expected/required to respond.


#10

I think that it is really good that you went to a council meeting and asked some questions and are encouraging others to do the same.

However, they are not going to answer questions about what His Worship describes as “city council’s number one priority for the strategic plan for 2014 to get Watson Island back on the tax roll and creating employment for people in the region”. They are unlikely to get Watson Island back on the tax roll this year.

Unless they reach a settlement with WatCo that will cost at least a few million dollars, a Certificate of Pending Litigation will be registered against the title and a new buyer is unlikely to purchase the property until that Court case is resolved.

It seems strange that after going through a lengthy battle over Watson Island, arguing in Court that Sunwave’s Certificate of Pending Litigation should be lifted so that the City could sell the property to WatCo, they would conduct themselves in a way that has resulted in another law suit and another Certificate of Pending Litigation. Also curious is that although a $5 million price was agreed, the City unilaterally increased it to $5.7 million, which WatCo accepted.

The City accepted payments from Watco for $70,000 a month, which was increased to $90,000 month, for an Exclusivity Agreement. Last month the City returned a cheque for $90,000 and said that it would only continue negotiations on a non-exclusive basis. Presumably the costs of holding the property and environmental remediation are not going away, so how do they pay those costs without the $90,000 a month?

There are lots of questions, but as His Worship said in the Northern View he does not answer questions about issues before the Courts, even though in this case they relate to the council’s “number one priority”. Hopefully he has had an opportunity to read Watco’s filing, which he hadn’t at the time the paper went to press, although it is readily available online.


#11

[quote=“BTravenn”]I think that it is really good that you went to a council meeting and asked some questions and are encouraging others to do the same.

However, they are not going to answer questions about what His Worship describes as “city council’s number one priority for the strategic plan for 2014 to get Watson Island back on the tax roll and creating employment for people in the region”. They are unlikely to get Watson Island back on the tax roll this year.

Unless they reach a settlement with WatCo that will cost at least a few million dollars, a Certificate of Pending Litigation will be registered against the title and a new buyer is unlikely to purchase the property until that Court case is resolved.

It seems strange that after going through a lengthy battle over Watson Island, arguing in Court that Sunwave’s Certificate of Pending Litigation should be lifted so that the City could sell the property to WatCo, they would conduct themselves in a way that has resulted in another law suit and another Certificate of Pending Litigation. Also curious is that although a $5 million price was agreed, the City unilaterally increased it to $5.7 million, which WatCo accepted.

The City accepted payments from Watco for $70,000 a month, which was increased to $90,000 month, for an Exclusivity Agreement. Last month the City returned a cheque for $90,000 and said that it would only continue negotiations on a non-exclusive basis. Presumably the costs of holding the property and environmental remediation are not going away, so how do they pay those costs without the $90,000 a month?

There are lots of questions, but as His Worship said in the Northern View he does not answer questions about issues before the Courts, even though in this case they relate to the council’s “number one priority”. Hopefully he has had an opportunity to read Watco’s filing, which he hadn’t at the time the paper went to press, although it is readily available online.[/quote]

Is anyone else starting to see the reason nobody does business in prince rupert? or at least business with the city of prince rupert?


#12

[quote=“jesus”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]I think that it is really good that you went to a council meeting and asked some questions and are encouraging others to do the same.

However, they are not going to answer questions about what His Worship describes as “city council’s number one priority for the strategic plan for 2014 to get Watson Island back on the tax roll and creating employment for people in the region”. They are unlikely to get Watson Island back on the tax roll this year.

Unless they reach a settlement with WatCo that will cost at least a few million dollars, a Certificate of Pending Litigation will be registered against the title and a new buyer is unlikely to purchase the property until that Court case is resolved.

It seems strange that after going through a lengthy battle over Watson Island, arguing in Court that Sunwave’s Certificate of Pending Litigation should be lifted so that the City could sell the property to WatCo, they would conduct themselves in a way that has resulted in another law suit and another Certificate of Pending Litigation. Also curious is that although a $5 million price was agreed, the City unilaterally increased it to $5.7 million, which WatCo accepted.

The City accepted payments from Watco for $70,000 a month, which was increased to $90,000 month, for an Exclusivity Agreement. Last month the City returned a cheque for $90,000 and said that it would only continue negotiations on a non-exclusive basis. Presumably the costs of holding the property and environmental remediation are not going away, so how do they pay those costs without the $90,000 a month?

There are lots of questions, but as His Worship said in the Northern View he does not answer questions about issues before the Courts, even though in this case they relate to the council’s “number one priority”. Hopefully he has had an opportunity to read Watco’s filing, which he hadn’t at the time the paper went to press, although it is readily available online.[/quote]

Is anyone else starting to see the reason nobody does business in prince rupert? or at least business with the city of prince rupert?[/quote]

If I was a prospective company, I wouldn’t be going anywhere near this city in regards to Watson Island. Something is clearly not right here and I hope us little taxpayers finally will be let in on the conversation to find out exactly what is going on with Watson Island.


#13