Eric Allen is confident there won't be a repeat of the ice-clogged, flood-soaked winter four years ago. True, snowpacks have again reached levels where the Fraser and Nechako Rivers could once again swell to the point where their waters caused millions of dollars in damage and forced the evacuation of 24 homes. But, in his opinion, the flood mitigation measures centred around River Road - where much of the problems occurred - will keep whatever risk there is to a minimum.
You can take his word for it. He's a retired transportation consultant.
Dave Dyer was of a different opinion.
Last February, based on work done by the city and outside consultants, he recommended investing around $6.1 million in a 3.3-kilometre dike to protect vulnerable businesses and homes along the Nechako.
He's the city's chief engineer and utilities manager.
But what the hell does he know?
That's the unfortunate conclusion from the recently held Alternative Approval Process.
Dyer and other experts who worked on the dike have years of professional expertise; Allen has time on his hands and an axe to grind. The latter attributes enabled Allen to spearhead a campaign to obtain 9,271 signatures opposing the project and blow up the dike as surely as if he were Gregory Peck in the Guns of Navarone.
There is more to it than that. But the demise of the dike - made official last Monday in an 7-2 decision by city council - is yet another case study in the perils of direct democracy.
The problem with the will of the people is it invariably ends with a guillotine - and the wrong head in the basket.
There is a case to made that the Alternative Approval Process worked exactly as it should have. To prevent municipal councils from putting their communities into hock, mayors and councillors have two ways of securing major borrowing: a referendum or the Alternative Approval Process, which requires 10 per cent of the electorate to sign a petition within 30 days opposing an initiative, in this case borrowing $3.56 million for the dike.
It's an onerous task and a tip of the hat to Allen's campaign for far surpassing the 5,351 votes needed to spike the dike.
The fact that 9,271 residents signed what amounts to one of the most vicious paper cuts in Prince George history represents both a savage, early blow to Mayor Shari Green and council's mandate and a gauge at just how generally angry residents are.
But that's the problem - this stunning, stirring display of Everyman ire was about Shari Green, Dan Rogers, property taxes, potholes, cuts to city staff, ninjas, why the NDP caused the Cuban Missile Crisis and boxers versus briefs.
It was about everything, in fact, except whether this city needs a damn dike.
As my editor Neil Godbout pointed out in an editorial last week, Green and company didn't exactly defend the dike like it was Juno Beach and councils in general have gone to the AAP well enough times that they were due for a Jack and Jill moment.
But the fact remains, frustratingly, most of the opposition to the idea of the actual dike - according to a non-scientific poll I just did off the side of my desk - was based on the red herring that dredging the rivers would solve the flooding for pennies on the dollar.
As the usually taciturn Dave Wilbur pointed out, "The report is on the website and the people I've spoken to that are firmly convinced that dredging is the answer have never read the report and don't seem to have any appetite to read it. They don't seem to want to have their notion of what will fix it counterpointed by some facts from somebody who knows more than I do."
Like climate change, it seems to be the consensus that dredging would not mitigate flooding on the rivers, that the rivers have never been dredged for that purpose and dredging might in fact make it worse. And, like climate change, there are people in this city who would rather drown in both the Nechako and the Fraser rather than admit any of the above.
Now 9,000 is a big number. But it's hard not to wonder how many signed it because of dredging, how many signed because they don't like council, the mayor, city hall, or property taxes and borrowing. Maybe a few signed because they thought the money could be better spent on roads, or to save a few jobs or because their dad or their mum or uncle signed.
More to the point, maybe it was a bad deal - the city was spending $6.06 million and borrowing $3.56 million of that on the dike. It would pay an additional $2 million in interest on top of that over the next 20 years.
But Prince George is leaving $5.4 million of federal and provincial funding on the table that was purposed for the dike. Businesses and homes will not be protected in keeping with expert advice.
Hopefully 2007-2008 doesn't come again. In the meantime, a message was sent to city hall that taxes are bad and the people are angry. The problem with naysayer populists like Eric Allen is that they've got a point to prove and little else, which isn't much use when the water starts to rise.
So let's hope this big no is worth it.
