The Farmers' Market Association is requesting a donation of $20,000, split between the municipal and regional governments, to help with a $32,250 spruce up their weekly location at 3rd Avenue and George Street.
A photo illustration of their new building's beautified exterior shows new paint, new signage, murals and banners.
There are plenty of reasons to support this grassroots organization of local farmers, artisans, cooks and other hardworking folks sharing their wares with eager residents and visitors - and in the heart of a struggling downtown, no less.
But there's a hitch - the building they want to beautify is privately-owned.
Yes, this downtown building - along with many others - is in dire need of a paint job and new signage, but why should regional and city taxes pay for it?
Rather that look at this $20,000 as a one-off, governments should approach this as a matter of policy and ask: "Should community groups be granted tax funds to beautify privately-owned buildings they lease when these properties deteriorate so badly they repel residents and visitors?"
Most towns and cities all over the country have unsightly premises bylaws giving municipalities the power to charge property owners for the clean-up city staff undertake when they perpetually ignore orders for refurbishment.
That often means fixing broken windows, removing slapdash signs or cleaning up offensive graffiti - just the kind of work the Farmers' Market intends to do.
But apparently here in Prince George, not only does a building have to be a blinding eyesore before bylaw officers make some noise - and maybe not even then - but tenants would be given taxpayer funding to upgrade their landlords' assets?
To be fair, this particular situation is not your typical lease arrangement.
As a means of supporting the group, landlord Commonwealth Realty charges a monthly rent at "below operating cost" (that's $1,200 versus as much as $9,000) and gave the Farmers' Market $3,000 to renovate the building.
Unfortunately none of those upgrades made it to the exterior, so the hoards these humble entrepreneurs hope to attract are left with a dreadful first impression, sabotaging any chance of a great second impression the nice new interior would provide.
The funding request letter states the indoor renovations "strained the Market's financial resources" so they are left "without sufficient funds to renovate the outside of the building."
That raises a flag.
Did the organization run into unexpected costs during the interior renos? If so, how can taxpayers be assured this won't happen with the exterior as well?
There are several unanswered questions around this funding request.
Here's another: The letter states the downtown and the community at large would benefit from an improved look - but for how long? What's the lease arrangement? Is it counted in months? In years? What's the long-range plan for the building?
There's no doubt spiffing up this building would add to the vibrancy of the downtown. But a well-thought-out approach is needed before the region and city plunges tens of thousands into this feel-good proposal.
