Comments?

Email

e-princerupert.com

Prince Rupert Regional Information Site

NATURE

Sea, land, river

PEOPLES

Community

 

 

 


For earlier materials see Table of Contents

January 9th

Council meeting Monday

Could be interesting

We See – the new Seniors housing is almost done – but BC Housing may not be taking applications until this spring I hear

 But the Transition Housing seems stalled with no progress since site cleared

 

 

 

Clear (and cold) weather has made for a pleasant new year

The sun is still on the ‘western’ horizon around 4:30PM – the sun in car drivers’ eyes makes driving (and walking) treacherous --- plus the dust from all that crush put on the now melted snow as another hazard (to the lungs) --- Usually ‘we’ can count on rain to wash it away -----

 

 

 

Usually we don’t have to have Council formally condone a grant application (2 others included)

Council meeting --- lots of ‘filler’

 

 

But still no Councillor on the Board

We do see that the Museum has given a ‘satisfactory’ schedule for when the Visitors Info Center hours and Kwinitsa Station --- so the ‘Enhancement Grants will be issued 

 

A little Humor?

And the Hoteliers’ sewer fees just keeps on playing --- Zdravlje (Anchor Inn) dispute over his not paying 2009 (winter) utility bill --- City took it off his 2010 Tax payment check – thus he now owes back taxes etc

 

More Zeno-saurus and bureaucratese?? --- See my earlier (scroll down) where I critique this 1950s approach to city ‘planning’

Most Interesting ‘event’ --- Nuisance or Houses made of Ticky Tack

 

See my previous – the front house ‘fixed’ but the back one ‘must’ be removed

First it was a Nuisance – now it (supposedly) violates Bylaw

See my earlier where I discuss the legality of a ‘Nuisance’ --- there in terms of 3rd Avenue façade --- but similar ---- interestingly if it were a Zoning Bylaw infraction, would be ‘legal’ to order it demolished–(but not using Section 74 as in the December 13th meeting--- but s73 2b)---- More later

Another try at clarification

The council declared the property a nuisance under s74 but the administration is now advising that one building be demolished because of a bylaw non-conformance. That's covered by s73, not s74. If the city wants to order demolition they should probably cite their legal authority correctly

 

I will return to this after the meeting

Much of older Rupert would not meet present zoning bylaws etc

To me the simplest (and fairest) solution would be to allow Mr Slack to go to the (unused) Board of Variance --- I think real people (not bureaucrats) would agree with him that a still sound building that has been there for 60+ years need not be destroyed just because the current zoning would not allow it if built now

 

 

 

 

Again the ‘Ancient Mariner’ is trying to give him directions down to the ‘Port’

I like these ‘classic’ views from McBride Street—(above) where a freighter seems parked downtown

 

 

Ice Crystals

 

Created by LG on 9/1/2011

Last updated on Monday, January 10, 2011