Editorial: Nothing wrong with asking the experts first

Apparently there’s a fair bit of confusion out there about the Civic Core Plan.

The City of Prince George issued a statement on the “fact check” section of its website regarding the recent developments in its handling of the plan, saying people may have read or watched “differing things” about the plans for a major redevelopment of Canada Games Plaza.

The document offers taxpayers a partial timeline of the Civic Core Plan process. While most of the information shared with the public in the statement is a short summary of The Citizen’s detailed reporting and editorial commentary, it does include some new information, specifically three next steps.

Here they are, quoted verbatim:

• Technical studies and site planning: Administration will now proceed with technical studies (including parking!) and site planning to ensure the city is well-positioned for future development opportunities.
• Future public engagement: The city acknowledges the importance of inclusive consultation and is committed to engaging with all interested parties to address their feedback as much as possible --- opportunities for engagement will be considered in the next steps.
• Detailed plan presentation: Staff will return to council in 2025 with more details on the plan, including specifics of each facility, economic analysis, timelines, and financial information.

These steps are out of sequence, and once again fail to deal with an issue we’ve shared in these pages: Some of the key players affected, including the Spruce Kings and the Community Arts Council, are not happy http://editorial coliseum with the current plan as it does not meet their needs.

While the city’s “fact check” indicates that round-table conversations were had with some affected groups, the process didn’t go far enough. The user groups were not consulted on the final recommendations and were surprised by city staff’s report. For instance, the Spruce Kings find the proposed 4,500-seat replacement arena far too big for its needs.

These organizations deserve more input. That should be the first thing the city does, before any technical studies or site planning and before returning to the public users for feedback. These groups will call the new facilities home for decades and deserve a greater role in shaping that future.

Council did get some user advice during the Dec. 16 conversation. Unfortunately, it came from one of their own, presenting a potential conflict of interest. Coun. Kyle Sampson, who owns an entertainment promotion company, amended staff recommendations regarding the future performing arts centre.

“Putting my professional hat on and understanding the industry,” he said to open his motion to increase the size of the performance centre and add flexible space options which would allow the venue to offer a range of seating options depending on the event. This is an increase in size that neither the staff, nor any user group, identified or requested.

It’s one thing for a councillor to draw from professional experience in decision-making but to put forward a motion (which was passed) where his or her business could benefit from the proposed changes creates a potential conflict. Sampson should have refrained from making that amendment.

There are plenty of other experts on performance space out there who aren’t members of council. Those experts are found in the user groups who need to be engaged with moving forward. A clear engagement process with the user groups would ensure the facilities meet their needs years from now.

“Community input remains a cornerstone of this project, and the city encourages residents to stay engaged as we move forward,” the city’s statement reads.
The city can show that commitment by bringing in the user groups first, before technical studies and site planning, to make sure these new facilities meet everyone’s needs.

There’s nothing confusing about that.

Have your say with a letter to the editor: [email protected].