Comments?

Email

e-princerupert.com

Prince Rupert Regional Information Site

NATURE

Sea, land, river

PEOPLES

Community

 

 

 


For earlier materials see Table of Contents

October 31st

We See

SQCRD & City Council follow up

Kids add to downtown design with window art

 

 

·         City Green Washing?

·         PR Energy Use

·         FOIs & Transparency

·         SQCRD trail at Dodge

·         Does PR subsidize the SQCRD

 

 

 

Above is from the PR Energy plan – the second part (implementation) was to have started last month – we will see

Are Rupert’s Climate Change policies effective? Or Green Washing?

The city is obligated by provincial legislation to cut its own GHG emission by 10% in 2010 and by signing the Climate Action Charter committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2012—if not have to purchase carbon offsets  and they won’t be cheap. (other sources say Climate Action Charter voluntary so no consequences to ignoring )

But all that was before the recession --- I expect the City will plead thy have no money as defence for doing nothing --- though to me it is obvious both local automobile traffic and the Civic Center (latter accounts for 40% of Cities energy use – mainly the pool and ice rink) would be easy targets

More this week-end

 

Dealing with Cars looks to be easiest and fastest – but City Council unwilling to do anything that might anger the public --- or raise costs to business (‘enforcing Green Building Code for renovations and new builds) – ‘might increase costs’

Rupert’s Energy use

Note most of our electricity is from dams etc and not from burning coal as ‘down south’ so there are no GHG emissions (or few anyways)

 

So an ‘Action Plan’ could either emphasize ‘efficiencies’ which usually means capital to change fridges stoves etc --- or we could look at the car traffic etc

One City Councillor commented how she would like to see (paved?) bicycle paths so her son could bicycle to school – but now she drives him from the east side to West View

 

 

In Camera Meetings

I used to believe City did most of its real business in these in-camera meetings – So XXXX and myself put in a series of FOIs on some of the most egregious examples where the Community Charter for transparency had been violated (most these are still in the ‘processing’ stage, but should be able to report outcomes soon)

The City has recently begun to doing their in-camera notifications properly –XXX says the one to left was done so well that looked to be done by a lawyer

Link to City PDF of Notice

(More later)

 

 

 

SQCRD meeting:

New Trail to start Dodge Cove

This was in the paper work for land referrals – not discussed who is going to do the trail nor when the completion date etc

The Electoral Area rep Des Nobles did say that some of the locals were sceptical of the increased ‘tourist’ traffic at Dodge Cove – but the measure was passed without reservations etc – note the WW2 gun emplacements etc add interest to the walk

 

 

Dodge Cove got a water system upgrade in 2009 – Sure most of the 800T$ came through grants --- but 150T$ of that was from Gas Tax refund – made to Electoral Areas on a per capita basis ---of which 75% are First Nations. See my earlier on Gas Tax where Oona River wanting all the Gas Tax for its community hall etc – Or better here

Does Rupert subsidize the SQCRD?

I would suggest that the electoral areas (and even the municipalities on QCIs) are almost completely subsidized by Rupert taxpayers --- for instance here is just the ‘remuneration’ aspect totalling 152T$ --- Area C (all 27 of them in that Electoral area which is basically Oona River) pays only $7,727 total –– but get ¼ of the benefits --- Here it is Area D & E on the QCIs that do most the heavy lifting

 

 

It would make more sense if all these expenses were directly attributable to the electoral areas --- I suspect we would not have some of these relicts much longer

 

 

The good news is that SQCRD presently advertising for a financial officer – so expect better budgeting etc

See my earlier where budget passed, or Jack Mussallem protecting City finances by saying NO at SQCRD  – latter link funny too as it recounts one of Mussallem’s rants against the Moore Foundation $$ to PNCIMA --- I note in passing that Des Nobles was originator of motions on PNCIMA –but his employer received 290T$ grant for PNCIMA advocacy – thus Des was in direct conflict of interest even if not ‘advocating’ – but this is PR and ‘rules are for losers’ (See October 2008 grant to T Buck Suzuki link here)

 

 

 

Ship in Harbour – more later

 

 

 

 

 

 

Created by LG on 31/10/2009

Last updated on Tuesday, November 03, 2009