Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

More conversation on city spending

I agree with Eric Allen. Thank goodness for his willingness to help lead the effort to get enough alternative approval process forms filled out by residents to force at least a referendum on the borrowing of the millions the city wants to spend.
Letter-Serup.25_5242019.jpg

I agree with Eric Allen. Thank goodness for his willingness to help lead the effort to get enough alternative approval process forms filled out by residents to force at least a referendum on the borrowing of the millions the city wants to spend. I disagree with Nathan Giede in his May 22 Citizen piece, An open letter to the residents of Prince George, in which he declared that there were no "freeze or lower taxes" candidates in the last municipal election.

I ran in this election and the thrust of my campaign was in significant part on restraining city spending and tax increases. In the Citizen's Meet the candidate feature on Oct. 13, 2018, for instance, after an introduction, I begin by stating: "I am hoping to serve as councillor to slow and stop tax increases, instead hopefully having lower city taxes and a lighter burden on citizens."

The great example I used was the purchase and planned demolition of the Days Inn. My assertion has been that if you think buying and knocking down a perfectly good hotel to basically burn some $2 million of public funds is a good idea, that should tell voters all they need to know about how well you will take care of their hard-earned tax dollars and whether taxes are likely to keep rising.

During the campaign, I messaged all the candidates to hear their position on the Days Inn. None of the incumbents responded to me, except Terri McConnachie, who I asked personally at a media event. Kyle Sampson and Cory Ramsey also did not respond. I think that like Ms. McConnachie at the time I asked her, they couldn't declare why it was a good plan to burn $2 million in public money.

As I pointed out in a letter to the editor last year, Pool decision questioned, Oct. 8, though there was a referendum on the Four Seasons Pool, there has been no compelling legal or moral reason to put the pool on the Days Inn property and demolish the hotel.

Why didn't the incumbents respond to me?

Why does council think it can now spend more and heap further debt and corresponding tax increases on city residents for things that were not mentioned at the last election?

Perhaps because, sorry, but a pathetic 24 per cent of eligible city voters cast ballots last fall. If some 76 per cent of voters cannot become informed and vote, then city council may be led to think that there is relatively little that they cannot get away with.

During the campaign, on more that one occasion, I heard Frank Everett declare basically that city council was a good group, they got along well and they essentially needed only some more team players. This apparently means only people who are willing to get along, be pleasant, and waste as many tax dollars as council generally feels is necessary, with only minor concern for things like financial prudence, waste, debt and the tax burden for people who live here.

As Eric Allen has said though, residents have another chance. Like him, I urge voters to take the time to fill out the alternative approval process forms by May 30 to prevent more tax increases and send a message to council that their power is not unfettered.

Paul Serup,

Prince George