The City of PG acknowledges the sprawl

And a strange warning from the past... *spooky*

Hello! It’s been a while. I hope you’re all doing well and enjoying this (terrifyingly) unseasonably warm winter.

If you’re curious where I’ve been (or, more importantly, where this newsletter has been), I’ve written out a small update at the bottom of the newsletter about some personal stuff and a small change to the frequency of the newsletter. If you’re curious, feel free to read to the bottom. If you just want your regular dose of Northern tea…

Here’s today’s ramblings.

---

Yesterday, the City of PG made this post on their Facebook/Instagram:

The caption for the post goes on to explain that there’s likely to be a tax hike this year - from 6.24% to 8.17%.

Now my first reaction to this post was to say BUT YOU DIDN’T EXPLAIN WHY. THIS IS WHY, YOU SILLY GOOSES.

Buuuut if you dig into the comments on their Facebook page, they do kind of get into it, with the usual uncomfortably sassy tone.

I say kind of, because yes, the City of Prince George did make some foundational decisions about its layout from projections of it becoming a Northern Vancouver but the writing was on the wall for those projections in the early 80’s.

The population for Prince George in 1981 was 68,000. In 1991, it was 71,000. The population in 2001 was 74,000. Sure, the graph is going up marginally every decade but to say that our infrastructure problems are a result of decisions made around early population projections? Nope - I ain’t buyin’ it. We’ve had, at minimum, almost 50 years to begin to correct for that miscalculation.

To put it simply: Prince George’s sprawling is not a historic oopsy, it is an ongoing choice that, yes, has roots in legacy Prince George decision-makers but is being actively perpetrated by the current Mayor and Council and Administration.

But okay - let’s just say we take the City’s comment at their word - this sprawl is largely due to foundational decisions about the City’s borders that projected it to be 3x its current density (that’s not true but again, let’s say it is), what has the City done to incentivize infill?

If their initial graph is their explanation for our insane tax rate (which, it is - it’s a great visual), then why aren’t we incentivizing developers to densify our core? Why aren’t there tax breaks or other tax incentives for those who live closer to downtown? Why do we keep breaking ground on new subdivisions at the edge of the City?

Why do we keep rejecting attempts at dense housing (even if it is on the outskirts of town)?

The only way to solve the problem of having 2 little stick men per square kilometre while Victoria has 40 something stick men per square kilometre IS TO ADD MORE STICK MEN PER SQUARE KILOMETER.

Sorry, I’m getting all fired up.

Maybe I’ll write a comment about how I’m worried about the Municipal budget on the Facebook post and get a comforting response.

Maybe not.

Lastly, I just want to leave you with a Downtown Prince George plan that the City commissioned in 2009 from an organization called Smart Growth on the Ground. It’s probably worth its own newsletter to go through it but I’ll put it out there for now because although it was written 2007-2009, it feels like it might as well be from 2023.

City of Prince George SGOG Community Plan: August 2009

Scary, right? I remember reading that report earlier this year and thinking to myself - we could probably just change the dates on this one.

Alright, that’s enough outrage for today.

---

A little personal update:

So if you’ve been noticing a lack of Somewhere North in your inbox the past couple weeks, I can explain. I’m a huge believer in the importance of committing to deadlines and schedules and while I recognize that this small regional newsletter isn’t going to save any lives by being in your inbox, I also know I get just a little sad when my usual newsletters and podcasts miss a beat so I’m sorry if I made your Tuesday mornings 1% sadder over the last little bit.

2 weeks ago, I had a pretty scary family emergency play out that went on to be a very scary ongoing episode until this week. Eventually, I’d like to unpack some of that into a newsletter because the shortcomings of rural healthcare in the North played a huge role and I can say I am MUCH more fearful having aging parents living in Northern BC. It’s just a bit too close to home still and I’d like to really spend some time understanding why it played out the way it did. Cryptic, I know but I hope that makes sense.

One thing that occurred to me while taking a few weeks off of the newsletter - letting things breathe is a good thing and so moving forward for the foreseeable future, this newsletter will be a bi-weekly publication that may have its occasional “emergency” episode. You can expect this new iteration to hit your inboxes every second week starting this week.

As always, thank you for your time and attention! Somehow, while not publishing at all for the last few weeks, the newsletter has continued to grow which has been really cool to see and I have some big plans and fun topics set for the New Year.

I’d say there’s a 50% chance I get another one out before the end of the year so potentially stay tuned for that.

In case I don’t, Happiest of Holidays and Merriest of Christmases to you all.