Kathi Travers got it right in her column. The preferred site for the BC transit facility is wrong. Masterminds indeed!
To take land that is:
1. part of an existing outdoor citywide trail system.
2. adjacent to a hub of outdoor recreation facilities for both people and animals, including a proposed new site for the BCSPCA.
3. situated on a road that is used as main access to the pool, soccer fields and exhibition grounds is inconsistent with good city planning.
Yes, they think they are tucking themselves away in a corner no one will notice them, but we don't allow residents to work on large vehicles in residential areas. We tell them to take their work to a light industrial zone.
I think Prince George needs to be more creative than this. Is this the only piece of land both the city and the province have access to so they can deal with each other? How many blank or unoccupied spaces are available in areas already zoned light industrial?
It isn't necessary for everybody who wants something new to hack out their own spot from our precious green spaces. Scroll over Prince George on Google's satellite view. The proposed area is all trees, homes and outdoor recreation areas.
Now scroll over the light industrial areas. They are designated that for a reason, industry being the key word. I can see how BC Transit wants to be green but does that justify cutting out a good chunk of Prince George that is already green?
If we could weigh the value of the already exiting green against the green BC Transit will add to PG, I can't see how we could possibly come out ahead.
Let's get creative, Prince George.
Look at all the light industrial spaces already in existence and see what we can do.
Andrea Houg
Prince George
