I know White Rock also did one, and Oliver is about to have one, but I couldn’t find any primary sources talking about cost.

It’s also worth pointing out as Chris Leboe does that “I suppose you need to compare the scopes of work before you can compare fairly… Population alone might not be fair.” This is true. Maybe this core review will be much more in-depth and get more value per dollar than any of the others. But it’s worth having this benchmark to make comparisons.

As always, if you have better numbers or more accurate comparisons to be making, feel free to chime in. This is just a rough document done in my spare time, nothing “official”.

“It is not just a philosophical beacon of hope that we can be better than we are, it is a pragmatic tool to ensure those who are trapped by ignorance that the power they might want to wield against the less popular – like gays, First Nations, women, the poor, immigrants i.e. most of us – isn’t actually legal.”

Full article here.

“The City of Prince George, which recently dismantled its environmental services division, let go 9 employees and announced 19 other vacant positions would not be filled, has posted a call for applications for one of two part time positions as a “ Dog License Canvasser””

The comments section is full of people scratching their heads over why the city is spending money on this, THIS, of all things! Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments on Facebook upset that bylaw officers will be going door-to-door to take away unlicensed dogs or fine people who have “restricted breeds.”

While the merits of having restricted breeds or even a dog licencing program can and have been debated elsewhere, I think it’s only fair to make a couple of clarifications based on conversations I’ve had with Guy Gusdal, manager of bylaw services, as well as representatives from the union. Any errors are my own, not theirs.

1. The money thing

The optics of making hires of this sort, especially when jobs have just been lost, may be questionable. But the expectation for these positions is that they will, very directly and measurably, pay for themselves.

They get $17.24 an hour, but their work is “irregular part-time.” What this means is they only work as much and as long as they continue to bring cash in.

This has been experimented in the past. To start with, the two hires get a list of people who have paid for a dog licence in the past, but have not yet purchased one this year. They then contact them and ask if they’d like to do it this year. For the most part, it’s hoped that these are the sorts of people that intend to get the licence, but haven’t gotten around to it yet (just like they haven’t made it to the dentist). They will also go door-to-door and canvass at strategically chosen homes and neighbourhoods. Again, only so long as they are paying their own way.

Gusdal wasn’t able to provide me with exact numbers, but he says there are easily thousands of dollars in uncollected fees out there.

The union, for its part, thinks it’s a great opportunity for a student to do some summer work and make money for the city and themselves at the same time.

2. The bylaws and breeds thing

These are canvassers. Not enforcement officers. The focus of their job is not to find people they think are breaking rules and come down hard on them. This is more like the idea of having a kiosk in the mall educating people about the usefulness of having a dog licence and asking if they’d like to sign up– only instead of a kiosk, they’re going door-to-door. 250 outlines the difficulty these canvassers would have in actually enforcing anything. They’re correct. And the city isn’t expecting enforcement. Just outreach, and, hopefully, a bit more money.

Investor Rod McLeod and realtor Clint Dahl unveil plans for the condo/hotel unit.

Mayor Shari Green calls it “a dream come true.”

MLAs Pat Bell and Shirley Bond say it’s the day Prince George came of age and the beginning of a renaissance, respectively.

Elsewhere, anonymous commenters suggest the developers must be smoking pot.

That’s early reaction to a $40 million hotel/condo unit expected to move in around the corner from where I work downtown.

Here are some of the facts, as provided from a news release distributed at the event:

• Building height: 12 storeys
• Condos available for purchase: 35
• Condo sizes: 1195-2374 square ft
• Condo price range: $350,000 – $800,000

There will also be 150 hotel rooms, an in-house restaurant, shops, spa, gym, and underground parking. Construction could begin as early as this summer. It’s going up across from the Prince George Public Library, in the old RCMP building site.

To understand the full scope of this, understand: this is unheard of Prince George. For years, housing has been centre stage of many discussions about how to fix an at-best flawed downtown. In a 2009 article about revitalization projects across the province, Tyee writer Christine McLaren explained the situation thusly:

“A typical resource town, like many in B.C., Prince George grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s with the opening of several pulp mills. The city doubled in size each decade, and responded to the growth by spreading out rather than up. It was a decision that Dan Milburn, Manager of Long Range Planning for the City of Prince George says shaped the face of the downtown core from there on in.

‘A large suburban type land use pattern developed, and hence the desire for the creation of suburban malls, which initially tried to almost mirror the downtown in look and function,” Milburn explains. “Since that time, we’ve seen more growth in commercial space outside the downtown than in the downtown.’

Not only that, but while the housing market exploded through the rest of the province, land in Prince George remained cheap and plentiful, making single family homes financially obtainable for most residents. With little demand for cheaper apartments or townhouses, almost zero housing exists in the downtown core today.”

This is true. So much so that for the most part, discussion around getting people to live downtown has focused on cheap places for students or building seniors homes in the vicinity. This is something else altogether.

The Price of Luxury

$800,000. That’s the price for a twelfth-storey suite. You’ll get a view of the city (including, I’m told, the river), access to a pool, gym and spa, and private parking. So would you buy?

Immediate Twitter reaction:

“Bahahaaa no….”

“nope! Sounds to expensive for PG”

“Who is going to pay $800k to live downtown, or even $300k?”

Too bad. It’s already sold.

So what if you have eight-hundred grand and are looking for property of equal value? I just put a search in for residential properties in Prince George priced $800,000 and above. Unless you’re looking for a multi-acre property including a barn out in the country, there’s nothing. At seven-hundred grand, you get three multi-storey properties on the outskirts of the city, the cheapest of which has six beds, four baths, and what looks to be three garages. At $350,000 (the cheapest condo price), you’re still looking at at least three beds and three baths, often more, with (random grab) 2620 square feet of floor space, not to mention the yards.

These are not low-income seniors populating these condos. These are not students.

These are going to people who could live anywhere in the city. They could be in the country, in the Crescents, College Heights– heck, they could probably buy my top five choices for houses when I was looking, all in one go. In other words, these are not people who have to live downtown, they’re going to be people who want to live downtown.

Sift through comments on this story and you’ll find there are plenty of people who don’t believe those sorts of people even exist.

The Ghost of Ghia

Maybe it’s because they’ve been down this road before. Jason Morris brought up the subject of the last time something of this magnitude was proposed. In the fall of 2005 architect Yves Ghia announced the Metropolis Project. From the archives of Opinion250:

“He calls it Metropolis “3″ and he plans to build it  on the parking lot that stretches from Quebec Street to Dominion  along Second Avenue.  Yes, it is the stretch that runs along the back of the Columbus Hotel…

His  vision has  student oriented apartments (65 of them)  on the second floor above 30,000 square feet of retail space.  Parking for the units will be provided by the City  through the use of the parkade.”

You can still find the model for this project, along with a photo-op with ex-mayor Colin Kinsley in the “news” section of Ghia’s site, but as the commenters on Opinion250 today will point out, this hasn’t exactly panned out.

So there are ghosts to get past for this project. The idea of high-end living downtown has been a point of discussion, studies, and proposals for decades, with little to actually show for it. A couple of blocks away, a well-intentioned model for more modest condominiums on Seventh Avenue have been spinning their wheels for at least two years. On the more ambitious end of things, in 1967 it was fully expected that downtown highrises would be serviced by monorail.

Something to Prove

So there’s something to prove with this project. Though it may not be as ambitious as Centrum Prince George or Metropolis 3, it is ambitious nonetheless. This is not an all-encompassing project aimed at transforming downtown in one swoop. It’s an early piece in a checkerboard of properties and proposals being juggled by the city, the province, and private enterprise. A Wood Innovation Centre was announced when Gordon Campbell was still a popular premier, but today there’s little to show for it except the destruction of the PG Hotel (announcements, as always, are imminent). The Ramada and the Keg have made big bets on George Street, but a chorus of people are declaring the return of pay parking downtown will undo any and all progress that’s been made in recent years. But this latest proposal is something else.

Units are being sold. Sold fast, even. Construction should start in a matter of months. If all goes well, visitors could be staying in the hotel when they come for the 2015 Games. So, for now, this is no pie-in-the-sky project. This is something with buyers, timelines, and firm(ish) completion dates.

This will be a game changer. If it succeeds, it will prove something in the city has shifted. That people are willing to live in or near downtown Prince George, and what’s more, they’re willing to pay top dollar to do so. If demand is high, maybe it will kickstart other projects. Property values surrounding could see increases, too.

There’s pitfalls. The VLA, Prince George’s “poor” neighbourhood is close. Will it see benefits? Will the low-income people in nearby units be forced out into other neighbourhoods? Will the single-family houses with yards and fences currently inhabited by most of the middle class be drained inwards, leaving ghost neighbourhoods in their wake?

Will the shops and restaurant in the unit steal customers away from those small businesses doing OK along 3rd and 4th? Or if more business is attracted in, will the locals be forced out as higher-end retailers come along with a better offer?

What about roads? Every morning I see the closest thing to a traffic jam this city has smack-dab beside where this building with over 100 employees, 30 permanent residents, and 150 hotel guests will now be placed. How will traffic flow be adjusted to accomodate this? Can transit step up to the plate?

Those are questions beyond my capability to answer and, I should say, I don’t really expect anyone, from the developers to planners to council to answer them. This is the nature of cities. You never know how big projects will play out.

The bigger question, I think, is what if it fails? This is the opening shot. If this succeeds, others may follow suit. If it falls on its face, how many will back away?

So this will be a game-changer. Succeed or fail, the stage is being set.

What are you willing to bet?

“Bad debt refers to tickets that have been issued but not paid. This is not money the city had and then spent. Instead, it is money the city could have but doesn’t because people aren’t paying their tickets. I would argue that this is an opportunity cost, rather than an actual cost.

So let’s get rid of money that never falls into city hands and talk only about real money. This would be the money that the city spends on downtown parking, and the money that the city makes from downtown parking. People who don’t pay their tickets are not a real cost, but an opportunity cost, and so are not factored in here.

After doing this, the net revenue of downtown parking in 2007 rises from $80,054 to $139,011 ($80,054 + $58,967). But perhaps more significantly, the net revenue of the downtown parking program in 2011 changes from a loss of $81,193 to a profit of $23,232 ([-$81,193] + $104,425). Free parking is still not generating as much money as paid parking, but it’s no longer costing the city money– at least not real money, just money that it could be making that it isn’t otherwise. “

I was wrong. As pointed out in the comments section:

“The “cost” of bad debts (in most accounting procedures) accounts for money that was recorded as revenue, but will never be received.  While it may not be *this* year’s revenue that is now a “bad debt”, it was, at some point, recorded as money that had been earned (revenue), but will not be showing up in the bank account.

Therefore, in order for the books to balance, it must be “removed” from the system as an expense.”

Note: This post should be taken with a grain of salt, because I don’t have it verified by anyone. It’s just my read of some of the numbers. Corrections, to my math or my grasp of economics, are encouraged. Read carefully and if you see errors, please let me know– information at the bottom of the post.

I’m delving a bit further into the staff report to Prince George mayor and council regarding the on-street parking pilot project (you can, too– it’s right here). For the last two years parking downtown has been free for up to two hours, after which you get a fine for overstaying. At the last council meeting, Prince George councilors voted to return to a system where everyone parking downtown has to pay an upfront fee, such as parking metres.

One of the primary reasons councilors cited for this move was the costs. The report compares revenues and expenses for each year from 2007 to 2011 but notes “[t]he best comparison of revenue and expenses of Pay Parking versus Free Parking occurs when the 2007 figures are compared with the 2011 figures, as these figure are likely most representative of the true revenues and costs of each respective system”

So we can look to 2007 (paid parking)and see downtown parking generated $80,054.  We then look to 2011 (free parking) and see a net loss of $81,193. On the surface, pay parking downtown makes the city close to $80,000 a year, free parking costs it $80,000 a year. Council members definitely read it this way.

Brian Skakun:

“This is not free parking. It’s costing the city.”

Cameron Stolz:

“By switching to free parking it cost the city between $160,000 to $190,000.”

But here’s where my first-year economics courses come in handy. There’s two types of costs being talked about here- actual costs and opportunity costs. “Actual costs” refer to real costs– ie actual money spent on something. And then there’s “opportunity costs”– which refers not to actual money spent, but benefits that are sacrificed when you choose one option over another. Take a look at the revenue and expense table used here.

In the “expenses” column of the free vs paid parking downtown there are two items: labour and benefits, and bad debt. Labour and benefits refers to actual costs. Real money is spent on having city staff walk around downtown, monitor parking, and hand out tickets. This is money the city has and could spend elsewhere, but needs to spend on having staff ticket people. Bad debt refers to tickets that have been issued but not paid. This is not money the city had and then spent. Instead, it is money the city could have but doesn’t because people aren’t paying their tickets. I would argue that this is an opportunity cost, rather than an actual cost.

So let’s get rid of money that never falls into city hands and talk only about real money. This would be the money that the city spends on downtown parking, and the money that the city makes from downtown parking. People who don’t pay their tickets are not a real cost, but an opportunity cost, and so are not factored in here.

After doing this, the net revenue of downtown parking in 2007 rises from $80,054 to $139,011 ($80,054 + $58,967). But perhaps more significantly, the net revenue of the downtown parking program in 2011 changes from a loss of $81,193 to a profit of $23,232 ([-$81,193] + $104,425). Free parking is still not generating as much money as paid parking, but it’s no longer costing the city money– at least not real money, just money that it could be making that it isn’t otherwise. When Brian Skakun says “it’s costing the city,” he doesn’t mean the city is spending more money on parking enforcement than it’s generating from tickets, he means the city isn’t making as much money as it could be. When Cameron Stolz says free parking cost the city up to $190,000, he means there’s up to $190,000 the city could be making that it isn’t, not that free parking actually forced the city to spend $190,000 extra dollars.¹ When you start putting things in those terms, you can say that by not charging people an extra dollar a year to live here, it costs the city $80,000 annually or that it costs the city money not to have toll roads.

There’s a lot of other factors at play when it comes to charging for parking. Is there a shortage of parking spots downtown that needs to be managed somehow? Are there too many cars driving through the city core and pay parking is a way to encourage biking and transit? Any of these can be legitimate reasons to introduce pay parking. Heck, simply looking for a way to generate more money for the city is legitimate, as long as you’re willing to go ahead and say that’s what you’re doing.

But I wonder if the conversation shifts from “free parking downtown is costing the city money” to “we’re already making money off of downtown parking through ticketing people who stay for more than two hours, but we’d like to make more money by charging everyone who parks there for any length of time” if we’d see a change of heart.

—

For a full correction, see here.

EDIT(April 4):  In the comments, KrisB adds the following insight:

“I think you’re missing something by taking out the “bad debts”.

The “cost” of bad debts (in most accounting procedures) accounts for money that was recorded as revenue, but will never be received.  While it may not be *this* year’s revenue that is now a “bad debt”, it was, at some point, recorded as money that had been earned (revenue), but will not be showing up in the bank account.

Therefore, in order for the books to balance, it must be “removed” from the system as an expense.”

That is an important point, and one that pretty much deflates everything I’ve said. If the bad debt has been recorded as revenue already, it has to be removed if the tickets are unpaid. That said– and again I may be wrong– if there was no bad debt (ie if there was a more effective system of forcing people to pay their tickets), the city would be running a profit? So maybe instead of going after everyone parking downtown, there should be a more effective means of going after those who don’t pay? Which may of course just cost more money than it’s worth.

• 1. I’m not suggesting councilors are deliberately being misleading here. Just that the language changes when “costs” is converted to “opportunity cost.”↩

• 2. If anyone would like to correct my math– ie. if I’m not properly calculating something– leave a comment, email, or tweet me and I will amend my post with a note.

“Council’s decision to possibly bring back parking meters is purely a business decision. The bottom line has been negatively impacted by the removal of parking meters, so “bring ‘em back.”

It flies in the face of the “open for business” mantra of the current council and the increased focus of improving downtown, which has had a real impact over the past few years.

It was the business community that pushed, and pushed hard, for the elimination of parking meters. The rationale behind not having parking meters in 2007 hasn’t changed. All that has changed is the fact that council is scrambling to cut costs and/or increase revenue so that drives all decisions.”

“It makes it so much tougher for the average person that wants to run for municipal office, that, you know, doesn’t have their own resources or can muster up that many donations.”

“At some point, I think that there has to be some sort of controls on this. There’s no limits for individual donations, corporate donations, union donations as I understand it, and I think… I think what I’m going to do is try and convince my council colleagues this year to come up with a of resolution and see if we can encourage the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the province to have some types of limits because it just seems to be getting out of control.”

This is one issue: should there be spending caps, so as not to price people out of running (or, in the case of the more conspiracy-minded, to avoid having anyone in anyone else’s deep pockets)?

On the other hand, this is private money, not taxpayer. And might it speak to a candidates’ ability to reach out to supporters, to convince people that they are the right person for the job, and have people support them not only with votes but with their own hard-earned cash?

In other words does it go:

raise money >> spend money on campaign  >> get popular as a result of spending money on campaign

OR

 get popular >> raise money because of popularity >> get votes for same reasons you got money (popularity)

It’s a question that has long been debated at provincial and federal levels, as well as in other (usually larger) municipalities, but hasn’t yet penetrated into the relatively small-town politics of Prince George. But if people are getting to elected to office with campaign budgets hitting the upper half of five figures, it’s a safe bet the discussion will be had.

“Public confidence will be restored when council leads by example.”

“We need to live within our means, with financial discipline and by finding efficiencies.”

“I will challenge our staff to find cost savings in every department, and efficiencies in every operation.”

March 2012:

“City Hires New Executive Assistant for Mayor Shari Green“

Statistics Canada released its latest population numbers this morning. I looked up Prince George and found three different things: census subdivision, census agglomeration, and population centre. I had no ideas what these are, so I looked them up. Here’s what I’ve found.

Census subdivision:

“Area that is a municipality or an area that is deemed to be equivalent to a municipality for statistical reporting purposes (e.g., as an Indian reserve or an unorganized territory). Municipal status is defined by laws in effect in each province and territory in Canada.”

This is the actual population living within the city limits of Prince George– if you’re in the regional district, you aren’t included, for example.

Prince George’s census subdivision looks like this (via StatsCan):

The population here is 71,974, up 993 people (or 1.4%) from the 2006 census.

There’s also the regional district, which is the broader population that includes Prince George, Mackenzie, McBride and Valemount, and those living outside of cities/villages. Here’s what it looks like on a map (via Wikipedia):

For this broader geographical area there was actually a decline from 92,264 to 91,879- down by 385 or 0.4%.

Census Agglomeration:

“A census metropolitan area (CMA) or a census agglomeration (CA) is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on a large urban area (known as the urban core). The census population count of the urban core is at least 10,000 to form a census agglomeration and at least 100,000 to form a census metropolitan area. To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census place of work data.”

My understanding of this is that this essentially the service area– people for which Prince George serves as the place where they get things like major shopping, hospital stays, etc. In some ways, the “real” population.

Prince George’s census metropolitan area looks like this:

It’s sitting at 84,232, up from 83,225 in 2006 — 1,007 people, or 1.2%.

Population Centre:

“A population centre will be defined as an area with a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All areas outside population centres will continue to be defined as rural area. This new terminology will be implemented consistently across the Agency.”

So this, I suppose, is a measure of how many people live “in the city.” And in the city means at least somewhat densely populated– so even if you’re in city limits, you may not be in the population centre. Here’s what Prince George’s looks like:

What’s interesting to me is the difference in geographical area between Prince George’s city limits and Prince George’s “population centre.” The city itself is 318.26 square km, but the population centre is only 99.93 square km- mostly centred in what I would say are the main parts of the city: downtown, College Heights, and up towards the Hart. No one east of the Fraser is included, so if you live towards the airport you are not in this region. Same with anyone on Cranbrook Hill.

The population here is 65,503, up 437 (0.7%) from 2006′s 65,066.

So…. no mindblowing changes. Growth isn’t exactly keeping pace with Canada (which grew by 5.9%), and definitely not with British Columbia (up 7.0%). The Peace is booming, the northwest continues in something of a decline… Prince George is just staying the same. While my inclination is that a lack of rapid growth isn’t exactly a bad thing, I’m sure others will disagree. It will be interesting to see how this information is interpreted and used in the coming years.

“Andrew, on behalf of Council, here are responses to your questions below…

1.    Why the elimination of the environment division not proactively disclosed to citizens?

On January 17th, Mayor and Council hosted a media conference to overview 2012 Operating Expense Reductions in three areas:  general overhead, personnel and grants.  During the media briefing, information was provided about program and service impacts associated with personnel reductions.  This included reference to the discontinuation of the Environmental Services Division which would require a re-evaluation of the City’s energy, air quality/clean air, carbon neutral and greenhouse gas management programs.

2.    When, if ever, was this information going to be proactively disclosed?

This information was proactively disclosed at the January 17 media conference.  In addition, the media has been provided with a statement and summary of City of Prince George initiatives related to environmental stewardship.  That statement reads:

The City of Prince George is committed to preserving the environment and supports a community approach.  This approach acknowledges there are a broad range of actions, strategies and commitments that can be made by individuals, community and interest groups, the education sector, public health organizations, businesses, and all levels of government to maintain a healthy environment.  The City has strong partnerships with lead environmental agencies and will continue to build these relationships. The City has also taken a multi-departmental approach to environmental stewardship and as such, the City’s commitment to the environment remains strong.  Innovative approaches to environmental sustainability transcend the organization and are reflected in initiatives such as:

*    The Downtown District Energy System;
*    The City’s E3 Fleet Program;
*    The City’s transit policy (Free Fare for Clean Air);
*    The City’s Sustainable Procurement Policy;
*    The micro-turbine system installed at the waste water treatment plant and;
*    Civic building energy audits and upgrades.

3.    When, if ever, will citizens be told what other positions have been eliminated as a result of these reductions?

At the January 17th media briefing, information was provided about program and service impacts as a result of reduced personnel capacity.  An overview was provided in relation to Parks, Community Policing, CN Centre, Civic Centre, Environmental Services, Development and Transportation Engineering, Long Range Planning and Parks Planning, Communications and Social Development.

The City of Prince George will not be providing a list of affected positions in order to ensure employee confidentiality for the 9 people directly affected. “

What catches my attention is this part of Mayor Green’s reply:

“On January 17th, Mayor and Council hosted a media conference… During the media briefing, information was provided about program and service impacts associated with personnel reductions.  This included reference to the discontinuation of the Environmental Services Division.“

I was not at that briefing, but other media was, including one of my colleagues. Tape was collected of the meeting that preceded it, and I listened to it, but heard no reference to the discontinuation of the environment division. In the interest of full disclosure, this tape does not include any comments made to media after the meeting. However, if you look through the media reports following that briefing, no reference is made to the environmental services being eliminated or discontinued. It is simply referenced as being affected, alongside other divisions. Here are media reports following the January 17 media briefing:

The Prince George Citizen:

“The layoffs and eliminated positions are in the city’s parks, long-range planning, community and social development, community policing, CN Center, Prince George Civic Center, environmental services, development and transportation and communications divisions.”

The Prince George Free Press:

“The 28 positions are in parks, community policing, the CN Centre, the Civic Centre, development and transportation, long-range planning and park planning as well as communications.”

Opinion 250:

“City Manager Derek Bates says it is not yet clear how the job losses will impact service levels. The job losses are spread out through; parks, community policing, CN Center, Civic center, Environmental services, Development and Transportation, Long Range planning, social development and Communications.”

HQ PrinceGeorge:

“City Manager Derek Bates says these cuts will affect 9 different areas of city services.

“In the areas of parks, community policing, C-N Centre, the Civic Centre, environmental services, development and transportation engineering, long range planning and parks planning, communications and social development.”

CKPG:

“The departments that will be affected are Parks, Community Policing, CN Centre, the Civic Centre, Environmental Services, Development and Transportation Engineering, Long-Range Planning and Parks Planning, Communications and the City’s Social Development Programs. “

So if the fact that the environment division was being eliminated was “proactively disclosed” by the city, it was information that was either missed  or not reported on by six separate media outlets.

Even a week later, in a Citizen story about PGAIR being worried about how the reductions would be affecting them:

“on Tuesday Mayor Shari Green announced the elimination of 28 jobs at the City of Prince George, including positions from the city’s environmental services department.

“Two out of three positions in the city’s environmental services department are gone,” PACHA president Dr. Marie Hay said. “To me, I think that is shortsighted and unwise. I can’t really believe the people of Prince George would agree to something like this.”

Later in the same story:

“Green wouldn’t comment on how many staff were cut from the city’s environmental services department.”

I emailed Mayor Green back, asking:

“Going through our records of the event, as well as what was reported by other media, I am failing to find reference to “the discontinuation of the Environmental Services Division.” It was said and reported that the environment division would be affected alongside other areas (CN Centre, Civic Centre, community policing, etc) but I am failing to find any mention of the discontinuation or elimination of environmental services.

If you can point me to where the elimination/discontinuation of environmental services was proactively disclosed, it would be appreciated.”

“Andrew, the City stands behind its earlier email of today in response to this question. “

Yesterday, I went on Daybreak North with this story: The City of Prince George has cut its environment division.

As I say in the piece, this seems to be a direct result of the layoffs enacted last month in order to cut costs. As was widely reported, 28 jobs were eliminated– nine layoffs, the rest through vacant positions not being refilled. In this interview following the announcement. Mayor Shari Green said the affected divisions would be

“parks, CN Centre and the Civic Centre, community policing, our transportation development services and long range planning, things like that.”

Elsewhere:

“parks, community policing, CN Center, Civic center, Environmental services, Development and Transportation, Long Range planning, social development and Communications.”

and

“parks, long-range planning, community and social development, community policing, CN Center, Prince George Civic Center, environmental services, development and transportation and communications divisions.”

Shortly after, CBC asked for a list of the positions being eliminated. The reply from the city was succint:

“The City of Prince George will not be releasing the titles of discontinued positions.”

I followed up with a phone conversation with Chris Bone, manager of communications and civic engagement for the city. Here’s what I tweeted immediately following:

#princegeorge city spokesperson Chris Bone says job titles not being released to protect confidentiality of those let go… (cont’d)

— Andrew Kurjata (@akurjata) January 19, 2012

(con’d).. as for positions that are vacant and being eliminated, Bone says not releasing titles gives city time to transition… (cont’d)

— Andrew Kurjata (@akurjata) January 19, 2012

… (cont’d) however, Bone would not comment on when or if taxpayers can know what positions #princegeorge is cutting at city hall..(cont’d)

— Andrew Kurjata (@akurjata) January 19, 2012

..(cont’d) Bone would also not say whose decision it is not to make the positions being cut at #princegeorge city hall public information.

— Andrew Kurjata (@akurjata) January 19, 2012

However, it turns out some of this information is just sitting there. For example, you can look around and see which job postings the city had out there that have been pulled. Additionally, as I say in the interview, you can just compare the organizational chart of 2011 with the current one and see the lack of an environment division. I did, and once I did, all I had to do was call up city hall and ask if it was indeed gone. The answer, every time, was yes. No one was hiding this fact. It’s just no one was proactively disclosing it, either.

There can be a debate about whether in tight economic times the city should pay for a purely optional environment division.¹ I’m interested in that discussion, but I’m also interested in this one: when, if ever, was the city going to proactively disclose the elimination of the environment division?

This comes down to a question of when citizens/taxpayers should be allowed to know the decisions being made by councilors/staff. So these are my follow up questions, to mayor, council, and any relevant staff.

1. Why was the elimination of the environment division not proactively disclosed to citizens?
2. When, if ever, was this information going to be proactively disclosed?
3. When, if ever, will citizens be told what other positions have been eliminated as a result of these reductions?

In the wake of the layoffs announcement, Mayor Green said “It takes willing and courageous leadership to make change happen.”

I’d argue it takes more courage to actually tell people what that change looks like.

• 1. I say “purely optional” because it is. There is no federal or provincial rules mandating the city maintain a division of this nature. This is in contrast to things like fire and police, which cities must, by law, provide and pay for. So you have to compare the costs of the division against those, as well as other “optional” items. ↩

 UPDATE: I got an answer.

But one of the highlights for me is the local musicians who get to play. There’s always been a local music component to the festival, but this year the locals were promoted a bit more heavily than in previous years– and with good reason. The locals are just as good as any out-of-town act (and that’s not a knock to the out-of-town acts, it doesn’t matter who came in from outside, the locals would have matched them).

On night one of the locals shows, I caught two young musicians, Darby Yule and Isaac Smeele for the first time– and bought cds from each after fantastic sets. I’ve been a fan of Jamie Bell for a long time, and was happy to hear him please the crowd once again. Then a group of UNBC students playing a mix of bebop and ska under the monikor The Bricks took the stage and, I believe, got more encores than anyone else at the festival. Night two was one of my favourite live experiences, Doug Koyama looping his vocals over himself. Then a few more newbise for me– Mother Tareka, a hip-hop artist who self-accompanies using saxophone, flute, and beatboxing, Avid, a new mordern-rock act, and Dead Street, consisting of various veterans of the PG music scene experimenting with  psychedelic and grunge.

And that’s not all– Quesnel’s band reeves opened up for Whitehorse at the PG Playhouse, and as good as Whitehorse was (they are a huge act on the indie scene), I’ve had multiple people tell me reeves sort of upstaged them. Even Whitehorse gave them a shout-out. And there were workshops throughout town that let other burgeoning talents develop and test out their skills.

I’m making the same point I’ve made before– there is an awesome amount of talent in this city. It’s great that Coldsnap can be used to highlight the fun and importance of live music, but these talents should be supported year-round. Fortunately there’s no shortage of opportunities. I feel bad for not posting this yesterday before Jamie Bell opened for Lauren Mann and the Fairly Odd Folk, but yeah, that happened. Incidentally, Lauren Mann is the group that took reeves on a national tour this past summer.  And tomorrow Canadian Waste (possibly the most buzzed-about live act at the moment) are playing a benefit show for a downtown building that’s supported the arts scene. On any given weekend, there are shows at Nancy-O’s, Books and Company, and various other venues around town.

There should never be anyone complaining about a lack of places to go in town. My biggest problem is not having the energy to go to everything I’d like to on any given weekend. And that’s the way it should be.

From CKNW:

Vancouver is one step closer to having an online database for renters.
A motion is going before council next week calling for the creation of a searchable rental database.
Mayor Gregor Robertson calls it a necessary tool for Vancouver renters, adding it will them avoid negligent landlords.
Robertson says the city already collects data on the history and safety compliance of building owners, and the goal is to make that information more accessible.
The idea for the database comes from New York City, where a similar website was launched last year.

Based on Prince George having its own problems, I’m wondering if this is a model being examined.

As I write this, the most prominent story on CBC’s B.C. website is about some Vancouver landlords who are being taken to court by the city for years of causing problems for their tenants and refusing to pay fines when ordered. A pretty big story from those Vancouver residents who’ve been dealing with these problems.

A pretty big deal for people in Prince George, too.

You see, the trajectory of this story has it origins in a November 3 fire at the Victoria Towers apartment building here in Prince George. Close to 100 residents were evacuated from the building, and it was too damaged for any to return.

A few weeks later, one of the former tenants invited me along as he cleaned his place out. That story aired on Daybreak North (you can find it here).

A portion of that story that didn’t go to air was this particular tenant relating to me the problems he’d had with the building in the past. He actually has had those problems documented by other media, like the Free Press and the Citizen. There just wasn’t room for it in that story.

But then things kept happening. I went to a tenant meeting, where evacuees were looking for money back since they paid November rent, and then were out on their own without word from the owners about getting compensated. Other former tenants started contacting CBC, relating their own problems with the building. I was directed to a website that documented problems people had with an apartment in Vancouver owned by the same people. A contractor got in touch, saying he’d dealt with the building owners and had trouble getting paid. I talked to people, and then started doing some searches for company registry and court documents. The results were surprising.

The Mehtas, a family named by everyone who contacted me as being the landlords/owners/managers of these various buildings, are officers of multiple companies around the province (officer being secretary, president, etc of the company). The main company is Zoro. There’s some other ones, including Pacific West (Group of Properties, Properties, Management, etc– the name changes), which is listed in the lobby of Victoria Towers as the owners and managers. I didn’t find this company registered anywhere, but it has a website and a phone listing, and it shares the same address as Zoro.

Simply having multiple companies isn’t necessarily newsworthy. What WAS was the court search. Over 50 small claims cases since 1991, from Prince Rupert to Prince George to Victoria to (mostly) Vancouver, primarily dealing with tenants wanting money owed or small contractors wanting money owed. Exactly what was going on in Prince George with Victoria Towers. Oh, and an arrest warrant for one of the Mehtas.

That was enough to do a story on, and so I did. On Monday of this week I went on Daybreak and outlined what I’d found. I should stress that a lot of this was thanks to help from people who’d already done some digging into this story on their own, and guidance from people throughout CBC. The story was fairly well received.

But then Natalie Clancy in Vancouver picked up on it. She’s a Vancouver-based investigative reporter. She rightly realized that this was a Vancouver story as much as it’s a Prince George one, and one with some fantastic visuals. She did some more research, got interviews, got tape, and turned the thing around for the TV newscast tonight. You can see the results here.

This story still isn’t done. Natalie’s story reveals that the City of Vancouver is now taking the Mehta family to court “allegations of failing to maintain the building and ignoring a string of orders to make repairs.” So perhaps something will happen there. But I would posit that it’s a bit of an issue that’s it’s taken this long for things to get to this point. I don’t know all the details, but 50 court cases over 20 years, plus who knows how many complaints with the Residential Tenancy Branch (they wouldn’t tell me), which is the first line of defence for wronged tenants, and it’s finally gotten to this point? It seems a bit long.

Not that I blame anyone in particular. It’s a complicated problem. Landlords are going to get complaints, and that alone isn’t enough to punish them. But there seems to be a lot of grey area in the landlord/tenant rules in the province. And as outlined by Prince George city councilor Murry Krause here, it’s not necessarily an easy fix. People need to know their rights. They need the resources to ask for them. The cities need the resources to enforce these rights. And ultimately, people need to live somewhere. If one of these places is all they can afford, what else are they supposed to do?

So I’m glad I was able to help get the message out there for some people who feel wronged by this whole situation. But I would be happier if this sparked a larger dialogue about finding a solution to this problem, and then putting it into place.

See also: No Magic Bullet: Tenant Rights in B.C.

Since this lack of knowledge is one of the main reasons I heard given for people not voting, I figured I would put together a little city council 101 piece for CBC. For help, I went to Walter Babicz, manager of legislative services for the city of Prince George. I simplified the very complicated processes he took me through– some of these processes are a little less simple than I make them sound, this is through me simplifying them, not him.

You can listen to the full item on the Daybreak North website.

I should mention that these rules, while specific to Prince George, can be broadly applied to councils across B.C. Some things differ (for example, whether the mayor votes every time or not), but other things, like how you get something onto a council agenda, are pretty much the same.

The gap between readings applies primarily to things like bylaws affecting property, for less consequential agenda items, the first three readings will sometimes take place in one go.

So now that you’re primed, you can follow me on Twitter as I cover tonight’s council meeting. Or you can follow Daybreak North, the more consequential observations will be tweeted from there.

the Victoria Towers apartment, still damaged

Summary: Even though the province of B.C. has a branch that can order landlords to repair or upgrade their rental units, it’s up to municipalities to make sure the work gets done. And many cities, including Prince George, have no mechanism to do this. So what are renters supposed to do when they have a problem? And who can fix it?

Local government doesn’t matter?

I’ve been working on the story of the Victoria Towers fire for the last while. About 100 residents were displaced when an early-morning fire forced their evacuation on November 3. I didn’t do the initial coverage (that goes to intrepid news report Betsy Trumpener), but I’ve been working on the follow-up. It’s nearly a month a later, and residents have been living in hotels and are moving on to other, more permanent re-locations. Here’s what I’ve done so far:

• gone with resident Tony Wedzinga as he packed up his belongings
• gone to a meeting of residents discussing what course of action to take since they have been unable to find out whether or not they’ll be getting their damage deposits and November rent refunded
• spoken with and set up an interview with city councillor Murry Krause on the city’s role in helping tenants deal with landlords

Out of this, I’ve had a few former tenants tell me that they felt like the maintenance of the Victoria Towers was less than stellar. I must stress here that as I write this that no official cause of the fire has been released. Anything you might hear is pure speculation. I have no idea what caused this fire, and I wouldn’t hazard a guess. This blog post is not about what caused the fire, the fire is just what brought me to what this blog post is about: inspection and maintenance of rental units.

I wanted to look into the complaints, and I wanted something official, not just people telling me they didn’t like the way things looked. Tony told me that he had, in fact, filed complaints with the Residential Tenancy Branch about the building. Indeed, both the Prince George Free Press and the Prince George Citizen reported on these complaints. For the Citizen, Arthur Williams reported:

“Residential Tenancy Branch officer T.A. Evans ruled that Victoria Towers owner Pacific West Properties failed to meet its obligations.

Evans ordered Pacific West Properties to complete 15 repairs on the unit to the bathroom, plumbing, ceilings and rest of the unit.”

I contacted the Residential Tenancy Branch on behalf of CBC, and received an email that included this information:

“· The Residential Tenancy Act requires landlords maintain a rental property in a state that is suitable for occupancy – and meets all health, safety and building standards required by law. · However, the province has no jurisdiction to force property owners to fix-up their buildings – that responsibility lies with local government.

· Municipalities establish standards of maintenance that are enforced through the local government’s own by-law enforcement procedures.

· We can’t comment on who applied to RTB, but we can tell you that a dispute was heard and RTB ordered repairs to be made to the building and provided monetary compensation to the tenant applicant.

· There was no further application, so we don’t know if the landlord complied with the repairs. Again, enforcement of safety codes is the responsibility of local by-law enforcement officers.”

This is where the story stops being about the Victoria Towers altogether.

It surprised me that even though the province has a mechanism that rules on tenant-landlord disputes, it’s up to local governments to enforce them. How do they do this?

As part of my research, I spoke with Tom Durning of the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre. He suggested one of the better mechanisms is a Standards of Maintenance Bylaw. From the TRAC site:

“Municipal Standards of Maintenance (SoM) Bylaws allow local government to force landlords to keep their rental buildings in good repair. Although not all municipalities have SoM bylaws, TRAC strongly encourages all municipalities to not only pass these bylaws but strictly enforce them.”

And from the province:

“A standards of maintenance bylaw provides local government with the ability to meet the needs of tenants who live in unsafe and unhealthy accommodation due to poor building maintenance. The province has heard from many tenants who are frustrated by the sub-standard and deteriorating housing conditions in which they find themselves. The 1992 report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options noted that while the location and extent of poor housing was generally well known to community organizations and local government officials, there was no mechanism to allow local officials to require improvements. Local governments also indicated an interest in using a standards of maintenance bylaw to expand their authority to maintain the affordable housing stock in their community and protect it from premature demolition. The Commissioners concluded that most municipalities would be willing to enact minimum maintenance standards bylaws if they had the authority to do so.

Now that the authority to adopt a standards of maintenance bylaw exists, a model bylaw has been provided to serve as a starting point for use in drafting a bylaw suited to local conditions.”

So I contacted bylaw services in Prince George. Turns out there is no Standards of Maintenance Bylaw here.

There is, however, a Standing Committee on Homelessness that has been looking into the issue. City councilor Murry Krause is on that committee, so we called him.

And here’s the thing. Even though the Standards of Maintenance Bylaw seems like a solution, Krause says their research says otherwise. There’s a few issues. First is the issue that comes along seemingly every city policy these days: cost. You can have this rule, but what will it cost to enforce it? How many extra staff will you have to hire to make it effective?

The second big issue he raised is that of whether or not it would be effective. Like other bylaws, it would be complaints-driven (ie the city would look into things if someone complained, not just by randomly inspecting apartments and other rental units). The problem? Most people living in units that would need to be upgraded are those living in the cheap places. And people who live in the cheap places are usually living there because they are poor, on some form of income assistance, or otherwise vulnerable and marginalized. They are in these places because they don’t feel like they have any other options. They don’t want to run the risk of being out on the street because they start complaining.

There’s other problems, too. From a Tyee article on landlord problems in Vancouver, speaking with then-mayoral candidate Peter Ladner:

“There is some difficult history in enforcing the Standards of Maintenance bylaw,” said Ladner, “where we’ve been challenged in courts and tied up in legal cases and wasted a lot of resources not achieving what we wanted to achieve. It’s inexcusable that people should be living in these kinds of conditions, but the city’s actual powers to change that are not clear.”"

Murry Krause is of a similar opinion. In his interview on Daybreak, he said, “It’s about us not passing feel-good legislation, it’s about us making sure that we put mechanisms in place that work.” What that is isn’t clear.

In my conversation with him, Krause seemed to be of the opinion that it involved improving access to affordable housing through the city and/or government so that low-income people aren’t at the mercy of low-cost-but-not-great-to-live-in rental units. But it’s still under investigation. As he said:

“I certainly don’t have a magic bullet.”

Indeed.

See also:

• CBC interview with Murry Krause
• The Tyee: A City Soft on Slumlords?
• housing.gov.bc: Standards of Maintenance Bylaw

rush{hour} by DJHuber

I’m going to take this one as vindication.

The city of Fort St. John has reported a 29.9% increase in ridership over the past year (the highest for BC Transit which serves Prince George, Victoria, and most other major B.C. cities outside Vancouver). The main reason, according to Victor Shopland, Director of Infrastructure and Capital Works?

“The big thing is that we changed the routes and we put the transfer station back down at the Cultural Centre. All the buses now meet together at the same time in half hour routes that are more convenient (emphasis mine).”

Earlier this year I wrote an overly-complicated post that basically says that the number one problem with Prince George’s transit service is it’s just too complicated. Trying to figure out how to get from point A to point B cannot be done quickly or intuitively, in part because there is no main hub, and also because they don’t leave with any consistency– you could be waiting at any given stop for any length of time between 15 minutes and an hour. From that post:

“I’d argue that if you were to worry less about hitting every side street as effectively as possible and instead focus on main roads and more frequent departures, you’d see a big uptick in people using this system…  This might not be the MOST EFFICIENT route to take, but it is the MOST CONSISTENT. It would be easier to understand. If you know which main roads your destination is near, you know, roughly, how to get there. And you know how long you have to wait, transfers and all, because EVERYTHING leaves every fifteen minutes. Or half an hour, if that’s too often for the system to bear. But at least YOU KNOW.”

Fort St. John did this, and they’re seeing results. In fact, my central word (consistent) is attributed to Shopland in the article:

“He pointed out that having the buses all come together at one location creates consistency so people know exactly where and when they can always get on the bus.”

I even had the opportunity to interview Mr. Shopland in preparation for his appearance on CBC, discussing Fort St. John’s success. I asked him whether the increase might be attributed to other factors– more elderly, more students, more temporary workers, less gas money. He said it was possible, but was adamant that the consistent departure times of half-an-hour and central hub were the number one factor, to the point that there was a measurable uptick in use almost from day one these changes were implemented.

I’m glad Fort St. John is having this success. And I truly hope that other cities are paying attention.

See also: What Bus Systems Could Learn From the iPhone

Yesterday’s Citizen featured an opinion piece by Todd Whitcombe, UNBC science professor and past provincial NDP candidate. It’s behind a paywall, so here’s the portion that I’ll be commenting on:

“None of these economic opportunities are going to generate the thousands of jobs that we need in this town in order to prosper and grow. And in order to enhance the tax base so that we can afford the services that we hold near and dear.”

This is an article entitled “Stagnant city needs more than review.”

I’ve already expressed by suspicion of the growth gospel in a previous post. In it, I wrote:

“Maybe we need growth in the short term, and even in the medium term. We’re in a relatively sparsely populated part of  a relatively sparsely populated country. But I’d feel more comfortable if there was some conversation about what our target population is. What do we need to enjoy a comfortable level of living, have various services provided, and avoid a crushing mass of people everywhere? How do we hit our target and then plateau?”

That’s a question I’d like to see Mr. Whitcombe and the other politicians/commentators who’ve raised this stagnancy point answer. What is the guarantee that population growth will lead to a better overall city? Mr. Whitcombe is calling for thousands of new jobs. I’m going to assume this includes a few thousand new residents. And I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to live here the opportunity. But once again I would like to ask– why pursue this above all else? Why growth as an end unto itself?

I have been squeezing some research on this subject into my reading. The best argument I’ve seen in favor of growth comes from “urban physicist” Geoffrey West. He’s been studying the mathematics of cities and has found that every time a city doubles in population, it only requires an 85% increase in infrastructure, energy, etc. As a New York Times profile on him suggests:

“This straightforward observation has some surprising implications. It suggests, for instance, that modern cities are the real centers of sustainability. According to the data, people who live in densely populated places require less heat in the winter and need fewer miles of asphalt per capita. (A recent analysis by economists at Harvard and U.C.L.A. demonstrated that the average Manhattanite emits 14,127 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide annually than someone living in the New York suburbs.) Small communities might look green, but they consume a disproportionate amount of everything. As a result, West argues, creating a more sustainable society will require our big cities to get even bigger. We need more megalopolises.”

Which is fine, up to a point. Even West acknowledges that our current lifestyle and growth rate is unsustainable, short of some remarkable innovations. Countering this urban optimism is another bit of math that comes from investor Jeremy Grantham. I’m quoting wholesale from the Business Insider column I read this in, in which Grantham writes (emphasis is mine):

“Four years ago I was talking to a group of super quants, mostly PhDs in mathematics, about finance and the environment. I used the growth rate of the global economy back then – 4.5% for two years, back to back – and I argued that it was the growth rate to which we now aspired.

To point to the ludicrous unsustainability of this compound growth I suggested that we imagine the Ancient Egyptians, whose gods, pharaohs, language, and general culture lasted for well over 3,000 years.

Starting with only a cubic meter of physical possessions (to make calculations easy), I asked how much physical wealth they would have had 3,000 years later at 4.5% compounded growth. Now, these were trained mathematicians, so I teased them: “Come on, make a guess. Internalize the general idea. You know it’s a very big number.”

And the answers came back: “Miles deep around the planet,” “No, it’s much bigger than that, from here to the moon.”

Big quantities to be sure, but no one came close.

In fact, not one of these potential experts came within one billionth of 1% of the actual number, which is approximately 10 raised to the 57th power, a number so vast that it could not be squeezed into a billion of our Solar Systems.”

Now, I know he’s talking physical wealth here but he goes on to write about population sizes:

“So, I then went on. “Let’s try 1% compound growth in either their wealth or their population,” (for comparison, 1% since Malthus’ time is less than the population growth in England). In 3,000 years the original population of Egypt – let’s say 3 million – would have been multiplied 9 trillion times! There would be nowhere to park the people, let alone the wealth.”

Would you like to know the world’s current growth rate? 1.14% per year. We are straight up shooting for something that would result in no physical space left on the earth’s surface.

So I repeat my questions. Why growth? To what end? When Mr. Whitcombe and others speak of the need for growth, are they planning for stagnancy at some point, either in this generation or in some future one?

Further: Why is a city of 70 to 80 thousand considered a failure? What are these services that we desperately need that we cannot possibly achieve without a few extra thousand people? Should every small community that hasn’t hit this magical number be aiming for growth on an even larger/faster scale than Prince George? And given that Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton– Canadian cities with much larger tax bases– are struggling with their infrastructure, would Mr. Whitcombe prescribe a larger tax base (ie. a larger population) to solve all their woes as well?

The pursuit of growth, in both population and in wealth, is an incredibly pervasive goal– one that I rarely see questioned anywhere in the political or theoretical spectrum. And I would really like to know why this is. Because I don’t see us getting the technology to populate a billion solar systems– not now, and not in 3,000 years. At some point, this conversation is going to have to shift.

photo: The Smithsonian/Flickr Commons

Prince George has a new mayor, and a mix of old and new on city council.

As has become customary for election campaigns over the past few years, there were a number of candidates running on the idea of re-connecting with voters, being more accessible and transparent, and having a two-way conversation with citizens.

I’m curious if this will match up with another election theme: having a presence on social media.

In the United States, both the Republicans and the Democrats have caught onto using Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr et al to get their message out there.

In Canada, the federal election featured politicians on all sides Tweeting, and even an NDP iPhone app.

Most candidates in this past city campaign had at least a rudimentary presence online. Let’s see how they were used by those who were elected:

Frank Everitt

Everitt is a new face on council. He had no official website, but he did have a fairly robust Facebook page. He started with a post in early October introducing himself and posted with increasing frequency as time went on. Posts included explanations of his inability to attend one of the all-candidates’ debates, photos, and links to articles about the election. His most recent post as of this morning is an enthusiastic thank-you for his election.

He was on Twitter significantly less, and with far less conversation. In fact, his four most recent Tweets seem to be mistakes, with his latest (from election day) being the somewhat baffling statement “Could be sure taken their sweet time.”

34 “likes” on Facebook, 7 followers on Twitter, following 1, 5638 votes.

Garth Frizzell

Frizzell is returning to council, and is no stranger to the world of social media. He has had a robust Twitter presence for years, engaging in conversation multiple times a day, and he has opened up his personal Facebook page to subscribers, as well. He also has a blog, Google Plus, and LinkedIn accounts. Given that he reportedly found out he was re-elected via Twitter while at a Tweet-up, he odds of him connecting online are pretty much 100%.

1,296 followers, following 1,561, 830 friends, 6189 votes.

Dave Wilbur

A veteran of council, Wilbur ran a decidedly non-social media oriented campaign. As best I can tell, he has no presence on Twitter. He has the word “councilor” on his personal Facebook url which may be an effort to identify himself as a politician, or might just be him identifying his job. His wall is public, and the last few posts include a campaign sign and him touting his efforts to bring 911 to the Bulkley Nechako. Prior to his October announcement of running for re-election, though, the most recent posts were a few from July, and then a few from April. During the course of the campaign he posted six times.

116 friends, 6932 votes.

Cameron Stolz

Another incumbent, Stolz also ran a (failed) campaign to be the Conservative candidate for Prince George – Peace River while sitting on council. Did this extra campaign beef up his social media presence? Not on Twitter, where he has 32 followers, is following five, and has no Tweets. CameronStolz.ca does show a link to his Facebook page, and he has been pretty active on there: mp3s of his radio appearances, videos from candidate forums, links to articles about the election, and status updates.

Go back, though, and you’ll notice a complete absence of posts between March (when he lost in his Conservative nomination to Bob Zimmer) and September, when he announces his re-run for city council. We’ll see if he goes equally silent now that he’s no longer campaigning.

It’s also worth mentioning he seems to be more active on his personal Facebook page, which is open but I’m not linking to since he has fan page. I was only able to go back as far as October, when the page was overrun by happy birthday wishes.

32 followers, following 5, 109 “likes,” 542 friends, 7146 votes.

Albert Koehler

Albert Koehler is the second new face we’re talking about, and he seems to have a pretty firm grasp of the two-way conversation to be had on Twitter. If you visit his page this morning, it’s full of him replying to people congratulating him on his win. During the campaign, his messages showed him actively following people and replying to ideas  and questions they were providing. His Facebook page was regularly updated, including with links to his blog expanding on and explaining his positions. He has a YouTube channel, too. If I were a betting man I’d say that aside from Frizzell, he has the best chance of maintaining a presence online now that’s been elected.

130 followers, following 111, 92 “likes,” 7324 votes.

Murry Krause

There’s a Facebook page, but I’m fairly certain Murry doesn’t run it (unless he has a propensity for speaking in the third person that I haven’t observed in any other venue).  It is official, though, since MurryKrause.ca links to it, and run by a very enthusiastic fan who posted links, appearances, etc. Given that the page was “re-elect Murry Krause to council” I don’t know how much life it will have outside of the election campaign. No Twitter that I could find.

52 “likes,” 7976 votes.

Brian Skakun

Skakun was in and out of the Twitter world during his last term on council– mentioning the occasional concert he went to or observation about the city. He became much more active during the campaign, talking about politics and non-politics with others, and continues to be active today responding to congratulations and offering his own. He created an official Facebook page in early October and has been fairly present on there, as well. Again, if I were to guess I’d say we’ll see him intermittently on these platforms, but not with the regularity of Frizzell or Koehler.

235 followers, following 432, 168 “likes”, 9040 votes.

Lyn Hall

A newbie to council (though veteran of school board), and top of the pack for council votes. He has a Facebook account that was created in late September, shortly before his council run, but it’s speculative to say the two are related (though not illogical).  I see two or three posts that Lyn made, both mentioning that he’s running for council,  then a bunch of activity and messages from friends. If there’s a Twitter, I’m not finding it.

154 friends, 9529 votes.

Shari Green

The new mayor of Prince George has forayed into Twitter in the past, apparently under the example of Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi and the advice of Garth Frizzell. She made two Tweets– one in June announcing she was on Twitter, a second in September expressing her shock that her dad was on Twitter, then nothing. What did surface was the @ShariGreen4Mayr account (the misspelling of which I’m a bit baffled by since “sharigreen4mayor” was available). It made one Tweet with her slogan “Let’s Get Moving!”, followed one inactive account and went silent.

Perhaps this silence was due to all the activity on Facebook. Actually, probably not, since there were only a few posts there, though there were replies to pretty much everyone who wrote on the wall (and there continue to be, as congratulations go up). That said, I’m not expecting her to have a bunch of time to learn and use social media now if she didn’t see it as a useful tool of the campaign. Again, just a prediction.

21 followers, following 1, 146 “likes,” 6969 votes.

Stray Observations

We are obviously not at a point where social media is an essential component of a campaign, especially given that two of the least active users got some of the highest vote counts. Nor is social media an essential component of being an open, accessible leader– most of the candidates listed phone numbers and email addresses where they could be reached, and perhaps were spending so much time using those forms of communication broadcasting to the minority of people on Twitter seemed less essential.  After all, if you only have 27 followers but 60 unread messages, where might you spend your time?

Further, while much of the focus in the tech and media world is on Twitter, based on this cursory glance you’re going to see more activity from local politicians on Facebook. This is reflective of the population at large– there are still far more people on Facebook than on Twitter (and far more actively using phones and email than on either of those platforms, particularly when it comes to the age groups that vote).

That said, the next campaign is three years away. Three years ago, I don’t know that any of the candidates used Twitter. Maybe a few were on Facebook. Municipal candidates, at least here, seems to be some distance from keying in on the social media demographic compared to federal and even provincial politicians. But that’s their base. The Twitter community in Prince George now is still not as robust as the one in Vancouver was two years ago. So you’re not going to see people chasing votes there.

But that Twitter base is growing. And the whole “mobilize your base online” thing really started with Barack Obama, and then trickled outwards. With that team gearing up for another run, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, trickles down here.

Ultimately, it’s up to you. Would you like your new mayor and council to interact with you online? Or by some other method. I’m guessing this is the time to let them know.

See also: Prince George Election 2011 Informal Recap

The votes are in, and Prince George has a new mayor and a few new faces on council. From the start, pundits were saying the race between Green and Rogers would be a close one, and the fact that Green ousted the incumbent is a surprise, perhaps, only because it is notoriously difficult to oust an incumbent mayor (this is only the second time in the city’s history). On council, everyone running for re-election made it with the exception of Deborah Munoz, and the three newcomers (Lynn Hall, Frank Everitt, and Albert Koehler) are all established names in the city. On school board, a couple of incumbents were ousted, and look to be joined by five new faces.

The following is a few observations that I’m making after a brief glance around on Sunday morning:

Slates and Endorsements

It’s a bit of a hunt to find endorsements this time around, but there were a few (if I’m missing any, I’d appreciate you letting me know). The one that is likely the happiest this morning is the Prince George Recreational Hockey League, who had all of their endorsements (Green, Everitt, Koehler, Hall, Stolz and Skakun) get in.

Cope 378 had some endorsements, too, and came up about 50-50. Rogers is out, on council Munoz failed to get re-elected but Krause, Everitt, and Skakun all got in, and of their two choices for school board, Bekkering is in while Crawford is out.

The People’s Action Committee for Clean Air didn’t run endorsements so much as they graded candidates based on a questionnaire, however knowledge on the subject of clean air didn’t seem to be much help in getting elected. While Hall received an “A+” and topped the council race, the “A”‘s received by Dan Rogers, Deborah Munoz and Brad Gagnon didn’t seem to help much. Nor, for that matter did the fact that Shari Green and Brian Skakun received a “C+” seem to hurt. Of the remaining elected council members, Wilbur, Koehler, Everitt, Krause, and Stolz received a “B” grade while Frizzell was not graded as his form was submitted late. However, you can read his (and all the other candidates) answers here.

Absent from this year’s race, at least publicly, was anything resembling the “Let’s Go PG” movement of business owners endorsing candidates. Ben Meisner, however, reported on their absence earlier this year with a look at their past set of endorsements. As of nomination papers being filed, he had had no luck finding any slate from this group.

How much any of this mattered in how people voted, of course, is anyone’s guess.

Diversity

This is an interesting one. It is being widely reported that this is the first time Prince George has had a female mayor since Carrie Jane Gray left office in 1969, but it’s also a pretty male dominated council. This may not be surprising since only four women even ran for a seat (out of a total of 19). In terms of visible minorities, a group that the Globe and Mail reports is vastly underrepresented in local government in Canada– well, I wouldn’t exactly say those elected reflects the diversity I see when going about my day. Perhaps this is because there weren’t a lot of visible minorities running. The issue of why this might be, or if it even matters, could be an interesting discussion.

The World Is Run By Those Who Show Up

We had an open line for candidate’s to make their pitch to voters at CBC. A candidate from another city opened by saying “The world is run by those who show up.” If you take the world to be run by elected officials and/or the people who vote for them, then this certainly holds. Early numbers say that 15,266 people bothered to vote, in a city of close to 80,000. That puts total numbers at something like 18%, give or take a few, which is hardly a ringing endorsement for anyone. UPDATE: HQ Prince George says there are 53,000 eligible voters, putting turnout at 29%, though those numbers are still far from impressive.

I hesitate to speculate but I would guess that low turn-out in city elections is less people saying “it doesn’t matter who I vote for because my vote doesn’t count” than it is “it doesn’t matter who I vote for because city elections don’t matter.” But again, who knows? Either way, I’d argue they’re wrong because city’s are under increasing pressure to do more with less, and the next decade or so is going to see significant strain on budgets and infrastructure. Whether that contributes to increased turn out next time around– well, we’ll see in three years.

image via Opinion250

It’s local government/school board voting day in B.C., and if history tells us anything, it’s that turnout is going to be fairly low– 50% is, perhaps, optimistic.

I think this is too bad since in a lot of ways, civic government is the best example of “direct democracy” we have. Unlike federal or provincial elections where you only get to vote for one representative who may or may not wind up in the governing party and who, even if they do, may or may not be a cabinet member, in municipal elections you vote for every open seat. Maybe not every one of your choices will get in, but the odds are a lot better. And if they don’t, it’s not because of regional weighting or first-past-the-post– it’s because more people voted for everyone else. You even get to vote directly for the city’s “leader” (mayor), although it is worth noting that mayor’s don’t have the amount of executive decision-making power that many people seem to think.

For another thing, city issues are extremely concrete and direct. Water supply. Roads and snow clearing. Garbage collection, parks, and building licences. The look and feel of your community is directly affected by decisions made by city council. They may not have the taxing power and/or financial means to do everything they’d like to do, but lots of this is fundamental stuff. Federal and provincial governments manage important things, too, but I think not enough weight is put on the importance of local government.

To that end, yesterday on Daybreak we had two guests who broke down whythey think municipal elections important. Former school district trustee Lois Boone pointed out that school boards have a larger budget than city councils do, and have a direct effect on the education of children. Hear her interview here.

Likewise, UNBC professor Jason Morris was equally adamant that people should get themselves informed about the people wanting to run the city, and there is no shortage of ways to do so and reasons why you should. That can be heard here.

However, you may be reading this having no idea about where, how, and who to vote for. I’m not going to tell you (particularly on that last choice), but I am going go give you a quick break-down of where you can get some last-minute information for the Prince George area:

Where Do I Vote?

The City of Prince George has an elections page. It includes  a list of places where you can vote, and links to other information. I’ll even make it easier on you– you can vote at Kelly Road, Vanway, John McInnis, DP Todd, Malaspina, Rob Brent, Edgewood, and Blackburn.

Do I Need ID?

The provincial government has a list of election rules. Key information:

 ” you must have two pieces of identification that prove who you are and where you live. One piece of identification must have your signature on it. If your identification does not show your residential address, you can make what is called a “solemn declaration” as to your place of residence. The voting clerk at the voting place will have the form you need to use to make that declaration.” If you need to know more than that, go here.

Who Should I Vote For?

Hahaha, I’m not going to tell you that. But I will give you a list of places where you can get some of that information.

• The City of Prince George has a list of candidates, including some contact information and websites, if they were provided.
• The Prince George Free Press website has an election section. They even have a YouTube video where you can watch the entirety of one of the all-candidates debates. Social media!
• Also from the Prince George Free Press, a special online issue about mayoral candidates and issues. They also had one about councilors, but for some reason it’s no longer online. However, it was published in Wednesday’s paper, and it’s free, so head to a coffee shop or something and find it there.
• The Prince George Citizen also has an elections section– one for coverage, and one for candidates. Catch up on what you’ve been missing.
• Hey, you know who else has been doing candidate coverage? CKPG! Unfortunately, their candidate profile page seems to be broken. Here’s the link, just in case it comes back.
• However, CFIS’s Ben Meisner has been interviewing candidates on his show. You can get the podcast here.
• CBC has been doing coverage of the full northern BC region, so there’s not as much on councilors. You can hear from the mayoral candidates, though.
• HQPrinceGeorge has all their coverage here.
• Kevin Creamore is the man behind pgelxn.com, a blog focused on sharing information about the elections. It includes links to various media coverage and candidate profiles.

So there you are. You have until 8 pm tonight to do this, so you should, at the very least, be able to find a couple of people you like and vote for them– no obligation to vote for a full slate. But it is worth it to try and find people who you think can make your city a better place.

And as an aside, I’ll be working tonight on the CBC election special for northern BC. Starting at 8 we’ll have coverage of the full northern region, with punditry from UNBC professors Jason Morris and Jason Lacharite, former MLA/deputy premier and former school district trustee Lois Boone. We’ll have live coverage of the results, so tune in.

Because of the size of the audience, a new trend has popped up with people posting general questions, comments, and promotions related to the Prince George area on the page. Stuff like concerts, fundraisers, and awareness campaigns. All things I generally like. But I’ve been deleting them. Back in June I wrote:

“Quick admin note: please do not use this page to promote unrelated events or businesses. Repeat offenders will be banned.”

This got six likes, and one happy comment. Time went on, and I deleted a few things. Then, someone started reposting the things I deleted. So I wrote:

“Unfortunately, clarification on this point is needed. Posts unrelated to Mr. PG will be taken down. That is not a judgement on whatever is being posted. It is simply a matter of volume. This page is one of the most popular Facebook pages in northern B.C. It is simply too easy for it to be overrun by people posting links to any number of worthy or unworthy causes, events, etc. There are plenty of other forums to share general news about Prince George. This is not one.”

And this caused some controversy. People wondered why they shouldn’t be allowed to post stuff about Prince George on the page. Why did the page exist if not a forum for just that?

I attempted to answer there, and I’m writing it out here, too, so I can have easy access whenever it comes up again.

***

Why you can’t post things unrelated to Mr. PG

With the Mr. PG page, I’m not trying to make money, I’m not trying to grow a brand, I’m just providing a way for people to say they like Mr. PG in the language of our times, the internet and, more specifically, Facebook.

That being the case, I don’t want the page to have people regret their decision to “like.” I don’t post status updates every day, because that would pollute thousands of stranger’s news feeds. I post when something related to Mr. PG comes about– he changes costume, a news article is written about him, or he is incorporated into a mural or museum exhibit. I’m happy for others to do the same, as well as share their thoughts on him– good and bad. It’s a fun forum to look at as people swap stories, questions, and photos.

If I were to open up posting on unrelated events, it could quickly get out of hand. You’d have to wade through a pile of concert listings, business promos and fundraising drives to get to what you wanted. It would be a general message board. At the moment, it’s only a few posts here and there, so maybe wouldn’t be that problematic. But even now it dilutes what is there, and sets a bad precedent. The quickest way to make people ignore the page is to have it present irrelevant information (and I do realize I’m griping about irrelevant information in a blog post about a Facebook page for a kitschy roadside attraction). The reason I’ve decided on a blanket policy is it’s a heck of a lot easier than having to decide turn-by-turn which unrelated post is maybe good enough to stay and which is just spammy.

***

Being “Mr. PG”

Also out of this discussion came people addressing “Mr. PG” directly and asking him (me) why he/I was being such a killjoy. One person even posted helpful tips on how I could grow my business by speaking in the friendly voice she imagines Mr. PG would have.

Something else I’ve tried to do, and perhaps not consistently enough, is to NOT give Mr. PG a voice. This page is not my interpretive art project. What I think Mr. PG would sound like and what you think he would sound like are completely different. I would hate it if someone else had made the Mr. PG fan page and was using that to post “lol whut?” status updates on a regular basis. So while I post news, I try to do it in a way that sounds like an administrator, not “Mr. PG.” Sometimes it can be fun to reply with a “sure” when someone asks Mr. PG if he’ll be their friend, but beyond that I don’t want to mess it up.

***

I’ll admit, this is a pretty silly subject to write about. And I don’t give it more weight than it has. This is a side project that takes a few minutes every month and is pretty much always fun. But there is a method to it, or at least an attempted one. I’m fascinated by community management, and this is the biggest community I’ve had to manage, even if it is just by luck. And what I just wrote is what I do to try to do justice to the online home of everyone’s favourite civic mascot.

***

EDIT: In the comments, Tyler Neilson brings up a good and ery fair point about Facebook pages having the implication of being run “officially” and the fact that I haven’t effectively placed a disclaimer on the site. That is something I am looking at how to best address (unfortunately, I’m not seeing a great way to incorporate the disclaimer so it’s noticeable without being overwhelming and ugly).

Kits beach on a Thursday

Last week,  I was down in Vancouver and Squamish. Vancouver while my partner worked, and Squamish for a wedding.

In Vancouver, I had the day to myself in Kitsilano. It was a sunny day, so at one point I went to the beach. It was nice and close by, but it was also covered with people.

In Squamish, the same thing. We had some time and were told about a great lake. It was fun– you could dive off rocks and into the lake. But once again, it was covered with people. So much so that when we tried going out a second time, we had to park on the highway and hike our way in because there was no room in the parking lot.

This weekend, we’ve been going out around Prince George. On Saturday, we went out to a well-marked, well-mapped lake about twenty minutes away. It was one of the nicest Saturdays we’ve had all summer. No one else was there. You could hear the occasional piece of traffic, but other than that we were completely alone (aside from a couple of loons).

Yesterday, we decided to go see Hixon Falls. There were a few people at the main falls when we arrived, but they left soon. Further down, in the chutes, there was no one around.

I don’t mind people. I get a charge out of having them around me in the city. And I like the lakes and ocean around Vancouver and Squamish very much. I think it’s great there’s so many people who want to get outdoors, and that’s there’s so many places they have access to. I would never begrudge anyone access to the wilderness.

But I find it far more relaxing to explore lakes and woods when there aren’t dozens or hundreds of other people around me. Even better is when there isn’t an extremely busy highway just a few metres away. I think a lot of people up here feel the same way.

That’s one of my favourite things about living where I do. A short drive, and you can completely escape everyone. Few people, fewer traffic. You can just enjoy the silence and the experience of being alone.

That’s why I sometimes question the mantra of growth. I don’t want to stop people from living up here. But I don’t necessarily think it’s always a bad thing to pursue population stability rather than population expansion. If Prince George were to grow to the point that all these lakes and rivers around town became as busy as the ones around Vancouver and Squamish, I feel like the quality of life will have been negatively impacted. Maybe not in a tangible, measurable way, but in a real one nonetheless.

I know the economic arguments in favour of growth. But I rarely hear anyone take them to their logical conclusion. If population always expands, eventually you run out of room. Maybe not anywhere in the near future, but eventually. I don’t think mega-metropolises are ideal places for humans to live. But you rarely hear that conversation. Just the one about how to get more people to live here or there. Or in some cases, how to encourage more people to have more babies.

And that’s fine. Maybe we need growth in the short term, and even in the medium term. We’re in a relatively sparsely populated part of  a relatively sparsely populated country. But I’d feel more comfortable if there was some conversation about what our target population is. What do we need to enjoy a comfortable level of living, have various services provided, and avoid a crushing mass of people everywhere? How do we hit our target and then plateau?

This is a topic I plan on researching in the coming months. But today is a sunny day off in a part of the world where we are lucky enough to be surrounded by getaways and the means to get to them. I’m headed out.

I was interviewed about the Listen Bird today for a student documentary today. It was because I wrote an essay about the Listen Bird a while ago— in it, I said

One of my greatest fears is that one day an overzealous downtown beautifiation project will eradicate the Listen Bird’s presence. Yes, he’ll survive in the bathrooms of Books and Company, but what of the ones hidden away in bowling alley doorways, back alley bus stops, or the downtown post offices?

I bring this up because I was interviewed in front of this bowling alley doorway Listen Bird today, and I noticed that even thought the rest of the area had been repainted yellow, the area surrounding the bird was left alone!

Awesome. Glad to see someone else felt it was worth preserving.

That would be bad enough if we had had a summer, but this has been the coolest, greyest, rainiest May/June/July I can remember. This is coming off of one of the longest and snowiest winters we’ve had in years.

Weather doesn’t traditionally get to me that much, but with the long-term forecast predicting more of the same, I’m starting to get worried. If we hit fall proper without breaking the 25 mark, I’m probably going to feel it.

To give you an idea of how bad it’s been, a day where it hits nineteen and doesn’t rain is considered one of the best.

I think the only reason we haven’t had a mass outbreak of depression is there’s been just enough sun to stave it off. An hour here, an hour there, with the occasional actual sunny day, even if still requires a sweater.

What it feels like is wanting dinner, but being given just enough appetizers to stave off the hunger. You’re never full, but you never reach the point of painful hunger, either.

But if that long winter sleep sets in without getting a full meal, I’m going to have to visit another restaurant.

Addendum:

I’ve heard some people saying the weather’s not so bad. Some cite statistics.

Here’s the thing about statistics: they can lie.

For example: A day where it rains intensely for one hour at 3 am, resulting in 5 mm of precipitation, and is then sunny and clear will statistically be rainier than a day that drizzles from 9 am to 9 pm resulting in 4 mm.

This has definitely been the long, drawn out rain and clouds.

We still have to get the Concerns of Royalty. They’ve played countless shows over the last few years, but we haven’t yet grabbed them. Hopefully we do before their current drummer leaves town. He’s a talented solo musician, too. We also could have done the Delightful Gang, since they are playing their last show this Saturday before various members scatter. Off the top of my head glaring oversights so far also include Cera, Foam Mesh Press and Ceremony, not to mention up-and-comers like Canadian Waste and Wisconsin Dream Guitar. And that’s just in Prince George. There’s a whole stack of artists scattered in Terrace, Quesnel, Fort St John, Smithers and beyond that we simply haven’t managed to get on yet.

Did I mention we feature a musical guest at least once a week?

It’s the same with authors. Every Wednesday, we talk to someone who’s either writing in northern BC or about northern BC. When I found out about this, I thought, “There’s no way there’s enough writing going on here to make this sustainable.” I now have a stack of books by authors that we want to feature but simply haven’t managed to get to yet. It grows every week. Don’t even get me started on poets, short stories, and extended essays. Not to mention musicians and authors who are simply touring through town.

We had to change the way people submit events for our arts announcements so that they would automatically be sorted by date because otherwise there was no way we could properly streamline the process of sorting them. There’s simply too much stuff going on. There are so many interesting stories, people and ideas that we want to get to but have difficulty doing with a mere two-and-half hours a day five days a week to do it in.

I used to hear people say there’s nothing to do in Prince George and get annoyed because if there was nothing to do, why didn’t they go out and make something to do? Now it’s even worse because I see that they don’t even have to make something to do. There’s tons of it. One of the hardest parts of my job is whittling everything there is to do into a few key points to announce on the radio. I almost always feel bad because there’s something I didn’t get to.

Once you scratch the surface you uncover a goldmine of interesting things. Not just here, but anywhere. If a region as sparsely populated as ours can produce this amount of talent I have a hard time believing the rest of the world doesn’t have at least as many stories and subjects to explore. It’s a good problem to have. Certainly better than “There’s nothing to do!”

But I find it interesting that the paper chose not to attribute any of the Tweets. As in, they have a bullet-point list of a dozen or so Tweets, but not a single username. So we have no idea who said what.

I find this a bit odd. When people are quoted in articles, write letters to the editor or appear in the “man on the street” segments, the quotes are attributed. So why not Tweets, where all you have to do is copy-and-paste the username? These people said these things in a public forum (albeit a virtual one), and it would seem to me under normal newspaper guidelines it would be reasonable to attribute these quotes.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the Free Press did this in any malicious or mean-spirited way. It’s not as if they’re stealing intellectual property and users are being denied payment. And the fact they’re taking Tweets to print is indication they’re embracing the role the internet can play in enhancing traditional media. They’ve been getting active online, frequently re-tweeting other media outlets and individual users alike. But when they do that, we see who they’re quoting. Hopefully in future editions they’ll do the same thing in print.

See also: “If It’s On the Internet, Does That Make It Quotable?” by Caroline McCarthy

New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.

What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you’ve been meaning to.

When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.

He goes on. Fifteenth century Florence nurtured painters. LA likes fame, Washington insiders, Paris culture.

I haven’t lived in many cities, but whenever I visit a place I’m fascinated at trying to discover its character. I think listening for the message might be the best way to do that.

Victoria asked for some combination of insider-ism and aristocracy, and I’m not sure which was dominant. I’ve not lived in Vancouver, but the message I get from it is definitely money. Wuhan, China may have been too foreign for me to pick up on, but it certainly felt like it was “you should have more stuff.” People were discovering consumerism in a big way, and it was a city made up of new city dwellers.

And Prince George? “Big. Your stuff should be bigger.”

Everything here is about size. We’re constantly expanding construction. And when we do, we’re building ever-bigger McMansions. Bigger yards are better. When we were looking for houses, most realtors would show off the size of the yard, saying “lots of space for your toys”– meaning, of course, ATVs, motorboats, and other big vehicles.

Big box stores, big trucks, big nature to get out into, big snowblowers to clean out big driveways. There’s a growing cohort of people looking for something different, particularly in the downtown, but you’re kidding yourself if you think big isn’t the dominant message. Money comes primarily from resource-based industries, and goes primarily to big things.

I don’t know how I feel about that message. I don’t think I’ve bought into it, but I do have a bigger house than I grew up in, even if I don’t have a big vehicle in the driveway. I have a big yard, even if it is for gardens rather than power vehicles.

I’m curious if other people get the same message as me? Leave your thoughts in the comments below, or fire me message @akurjata.