NATURE

Sea, land, river

PEOPLES

Community

For earlier materials see Table of Contents

January 28^th	Public question Period
	‘Let the public speak’

Angry Graham Avenue residents speak to Council

Note the almost condescending smile on Pond’s face—typical of his answers lately (when he is in town to answer)

Residents feared a home on 2100 block was planning to build a new house on part of his lot – and they objected--- Pond said ‘not to worry’ etc

Rough drawing of ‘Legal’ description of lot & ‘house’
(in meters)

2100 block Graham Avenue

Property owner was asking neighbors if they would mind if he divided his lot and built a nice looking home on street side of property --- Seems 136 signed a petition that they did mind and presented it to Council

Pond and staff assured Graham streeters that no such proposal had been submitted (as yet) --- and given the technicalities of development permits the person would have to seek permission from Council –

Seems Provincial government had ‘outlawed’ similar type proposals by stipulating a minimum of 10% of property perimeter dimensions must be facing the street – thus creating a ‘driveway’ up one side of property to Graham street and using remaining front half of property for a new house (called a ‘panhandle’ property – here is Peachland bylaw that explicitly allows them—Rupert’s doesn’t)

Thus anyone wishing to create a ‘panhandle property’ would have to go to City Council for permission – And Council would have to call for public notice/ hearings 1^st.

Pond seemed to think I was abusing the question period and it was not meant for multiple questions etc – a time limit of say 1 minute would be more appropriate – but it is Council’s prerogative

I had 2 ‘statements’ and a question

· I have been told RCMP, firefighters, etc getting ‘free swims’ at pool? If true, please elaborate

· I was approached by 2 boys (age 10-11??) and asked if I wanted to buy ‘Coke’. I think they were serious – I suggest ‘we’ have a problem.

· Will dogs left on leash tied up on 3^rd Avenue be ‘removed’ and their owners fined? And will postal workers ‘dog list’ be used by city for its ‘Vicious dogs’ Bylaw. --- Could be – given onerous charges would have to be investigated first by Bylaw officers

Customers or Citizens?

What did the presentations have in common?

The BCGEU spokesperson was telling public what they should expect form privatized road maintenance – their web site has a check list etc – thus he was showing us how to be ‘smart consumers’

The Conservation officers from Terrace seemd to be saying that they did not have means to deal with Rupert wolf problem – and their options were for City to hire private contractors/ trappers etc

Only the Success by Six presentation saw us as Citizens facing a common problem—the education of our youth – and looking for communal responses

The irony of it

As I have ‘complained’ before --- the city engineering department seems to see clearing roads (and putting the snow on the sidewalks) as their main job --- if we (the Citizens of Prince Rupert) had a checklist like BCGEU gave for Highway 16 we would see ‘our rights’ go beyond ‘Kar Kulture’ --- maybe the snow removal should be privatized?

(story later) but here is last years look at same problem (from pedestrian perspective)

Presentations: ‘Customers or Citizens’?

‘Sub-division’ feared on Graham St

Are some people being treated differently at pool? etc

Discussion of Council meeting

I like where Pond ‘asked’ Success by 6 presenters to not mention the OCP in their presentation – as ‘inputs over & council yet to pass OCP 4^th reading

All that would be in order if THREE Councillors had not attended the ‘Building Cities Fit for Children’ conference last November --- at tax payer expense

Did they not see the relevance to Rupert’s OCP? Then & now? --- Had not Council been meeting only 1X per month in November and December?

Give me a break

Created by LG on Feb 1, 2008

Last updated on Saturday, February 02, 2008