Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pool decision questioned

I would like to respond, belatedly, to The Citizen article entitled "Pool foe running for council" on Sept. 14, as what was spoken in this piece concerns election issues that remain relevant today. In regards to this, I am not an "pool foe.
let-serup.09_1082018.jpg

I would like to respond, belatedly, to The Citizen article entitled "Pool foe running for council" on Sept. 14, as what was spoken in this piece concerns election issues that remain relevant today.

In regards to this, I am not an "pool foe."

There was a referendum on Oct. 28 last year and a majority of those voting voted yes.

The city certainly may borrow up to $35 million "for the development and construction of a new pool building to replace the Four Seasons Leisure Pool." I do not disagree with this. I do disagree with the current council as to where it should go.

Building the pool at the Days Inn location, after this hotel's planned demolition, is a very much a current, relevant issue.

In fact, it is a perfect one today because as candidates continue to discuss things like spending, the homeless and the environment, these issues are integral to the planned destruction of this hotel.

If you hear a candidate speak about being a good steward of tax dollars, of caring about rising city taxes, about homelessness, of their concern for the environment, you can see what this would actually translate to by just asking their position on this hotel. This is not some hypothetical issue but one that exists now.

The purchase of the Days Inn property and the tearing down of this perfectly sound hotel is approximately a $5 million-dollar price tag.

Millions would be wasted in the destruction of the hotel which would have to be paid by taxpayers which speaks to the issue of responsible spending and increasing taxes.

The pool could be put beside the Y on city land, costing nothing for the land or on the Hart, where 1,600 plus residents have asked for one in a petition.

The rooms inside the Days Inn could be turned into low income housing, instead of being destroyed, which would help alleviate homelessness.

As well, if torn down, this sound hotel building would instead be turned into tons of rubble which will be trucked to our land fill which does nothing to help the environment.

There is no compelling legal or moral reason to put the pool on the Days Inn property and destroy the hotel.

As the Citizen editor Neil Godbout stated in a Sept. 29 editorial, "What the referendum is really about", because the referendum question concerned only how much could be borrowed, the pool could be put anywhere in the city. The argument, involving mind-reading, that "everybody knew" the pool was going on the Days Inn site and voted accordingly in the referendum is ridiculous and beneath Prince George, an important city of the interior of our province.

The incumbents have, so far with the exception of Terri McConnachie, shown no interest in explaining why the destruction of the Days Inn is a good idea and I suggest it is because they cannot do so.

McConnachie hasn't been able to but at least been willing to talk to me about it.

But maybe having an unresponsive council is what the city continues to need, (see the Citizen editorial of Sept. 6 "Just two questions for Oct. 20" on senior management overtime policy and the recommended 15 per cent salary increase for the city manager, for an example of their unresponsiveness).

I recommend residents to look at the Days Inn question as a window into how candidates really think, and would act, on a number of important areas of city government.

Paul Serup

Prince George