NATURE

Sea, land, river

PLACE

Books+

Cruise Ship dock

Port sees bright future in large cruise ships

30 Million $

Passenger Spending estimates by PORT

(Most all images from PAC presentation)

ELEMENTARY?

To Port and many of its supporters it seems elementary economics proves PR investment 3M$+ is simply good business.

But the Port has been wrong before: pulp sheds Fairview half-filled sulfur plant, Biosource plant, etc (as listed in recent Letter to Ed

PR as tourism Attraction??

Gap Analysis

Even the Port with all it’s rose-colored glasses about Prince Rupert’s prospects to entertain 2,000 plus passengers / ship realizes there will have to be some added attractions.

My guess is the time and $$ would be better spent in other endeavors

(Left is “focal attractions” accessible from cruise ship dock from Port’s PAC presentation)

Uplands

MORE $$$$$

Especially properties marked 1 & 2 above – see next page

(above is from aerial photos on wall Council Chambers)

“Uplands” as Code word

When the City first starting talking about putting taxpayers $ into the cruise ship dock, it was not about the dock but the roads, etc that needed to be put in to make the dock viable. Now that cost is being separated from the dock and put solely upon the city along with 3M$ towards the Port’s dock

Let the People Speak?

After the Port’s PowerPoint presentation we were given a panel of “experts” to answer our concerns

A better way to practice democracy would have been to also allow on stage an opponent who could make the case that city wasting taxpayer’s $$

Created 8/11/07 by LG