The editorial in [the Jan. 13] Citizen overlooks a number of important points.
Firstly the opposition to the building is primarily because of the cost, location, and design of the building.
Secondly the process used to borrow the money has been stretched over seven years and three alternative approval process's.
The cost is the biggest single expenditure in the history of Prince George, and taxpayers were not given a chance to vote on the issue. The city always has two options on borrowing one is a referendum and the other is the Alternative Approval Process.
They always chose the AAP which puts the onus on taxpayers to get 5,000 plus signatures to stop the borrowing. To suggest that if you didn't sign the petition you were in support of the project is not based on reality. In excess of 50 per cent of the electors in the last election did not vote.
The city should have had this issue go to a referendum. Had they attached the question to be ballot in one of the last two elections it would have been done for next to no cost.
The continued reference to the passing of a referendum in Summerland recently as an indication of how the process works is again misleading.
The editorial fails to mention that the original AAP in 2003 in Summerland got the requisite number of signatures and the project was rejected by voters in a referendum.
It went to referendum again in 2010 and was approved.
One of the positive things that came out of the referendum according to the mayor and others in Summerland was the fact that the referendum allowed people to vote on the expenditure, which was the democratic thing to do, and they were quite happy with the outcome.
In fact, they hope that the government will find a more effective way to go to referendum on big ticket items so that taxpayers have some input. Why wasn't this aspect of the Summerland experience mentioned in the article?
The continuation of opposition to this project will not stop it going forward, however it will shine some light on the process used, with a view to having a clear question and a referendum on big ticket items on future borrowing.
The people of Prince George expected some fiscal responsibility from the present council, however it appears that this is not forthcoming. Debt servicing on the project will be approximately $3.5 million per year for the next 20 years.
Debt servicing for the city before any expenditure for the Winter Games will be approximately $25 million per year by 2019.
With all the other projects being undertaken by the city we are faced with a high debt load for years to come. That's what this issue is about. Debt and taxpayers' ability to pay. That's what the HST was about (taxes).
All these issues were in the works long before the BC First Party was ever established.
Eric Allen
Prince George
