Unofficially Multi-Centre  YES 

Electon Results

 

Mary Sjostrom  1856
Nate Bello          1606

 Coralee Oakes  2446

Ron Paull           2222

Sushil Thapar    2131

Peter Couldwell  2108

Michael Cave    1651

 

L-A Roodenburg 1450

Brent Oxenbury  1261

Richard Forman  1239

Gino DeRose     1219

Paul Kainth      1176

 

School Board

Nielsen  2326

Mitchell  2248

Natalizio  2075

Goulet  2062

Jackson 2023

Chapman  1981

Caskey  1931

Leclerc  1819

 

 

 

THE FACTS

If the full 15 million is needed these mills will pay the following in tax for the Multicentre:

• Tolko $9,300.00 per year

• Canfor $11,000.00 per year

• West Fraser $47,000.00 per year

• Other mills $234,000 (That is for MDF, Plywood Plant, NorthStar Timber, Cariboo Pulp
  and Quesnel River Pulp.)

• West Fraser has a $600,000.00 per year tax break through a ten-year agreement with the City.*

They claim that a Yes Vote in the referendum will “jeopardize existing jobs”. This fear mongering scare tactic has been presented in the last paper before November 15 so no opportunity is available to tell the truth before voting day. That seems a little underhanded for an industry that makes it’s living from the forest, which is, after all, owned by the citizens of British Columbia.

These companies have made a lot of money for their shareholders over the years.

And let’s remember that there have been many, many more good years than there have been bad years.

It seems as though these companies do not believe in the long-term stability of our community . . . . Do You?

* Source: City of Quesnel Tax Records

 

November 7, 2008

Maeford Place concerns
Letter from Colin  and Carol  Almond
 

Re: Public Hearing November 3, 2008 – Bylaws 1656 & 1657 – Kinchant St.

 

We write to voice our opposition to the proposed amendments to the site zoning. We are the residents who live across from Maeford Place, and the most adversely affected by the development. We objected to the original zoning changes and development back in May and June of 2006, and can sadly, based on our experience during the construction and now one year of occupation of Maeford Place, claim to have been proved right about the inadequacies of the site and location, and the adverse impact on the neighbourhood and other residents in terms of traffic, parking, noise and size.

 

1. The existing density of Maeford Place development, as approved in 2006, already far exceeds the carrying capacity of the small site, with serious negative consequences for area residents. At the time of the original 2006 public hearing and development applications Council was presented with disingenuous and badly flawed projections by the developers about the development’s traffic and parking impact. They claimed that few of their future residents would own vehicles and minimised the extent of other traffic that would accrue. In fact, at the time they tried to convince Council that less than 13 parking spaces would be necessary in total.  Council did ultimately insist the development should provide parking for (only) 17 vehicles, but this decision did not occur until the site layout had already been approved, and the extra land for it was only acquired after construction was already underway on the 3 northern lots. Because the parking requirements were so badly underestimated from the outset, what little parking space was provided ended up being located at the far south end of a 4-lot development, where the only building entrance is at the far north end, a distance of over 200 feet.  As a result it is far easier and more convenient for building visitors to simply grab spots on the street as close as possible to the entrance.  Maeford Place traffic varies from day to day, but on a 24-hour basis we count from a low of  30 vehicles to over 100 vehicles pulling up and jockeying for parking on the street in front of our home.  Some of these, like taxis and people picking up Maeford residents, only stay for a few minutes, but others, like service vehicles and staff  and visiting care professionals, will park all day or even  overnight on the street.  We have the city buses, the handi dart bus, 3-ton delivery trucks, ambulances, police and other emergency service vehicles all pulling in and idling their diesel engines. And all of this happens right on the street, right in front of our home, all through the day and night. We don’t believe this situation was envisaged by Council when they approved the initial development in 2006, but this is what has happened.  And due to the dumb site layout, as we warned, this ridiculous situation is a permanent feature now of life on Kinchant Street.  The proposed additional development would add a further 33% to the unacceptable problems already caused by the existing development – there is no further space on the site for parking, so all further traffic resulting from the extra tenants will by necessity have to park on the public street.  Some Maeford visitors already deem it necessary to double park or to park across our driveway blocking our exit, and it will only get worse with even more traffic to the building as proposed. 

 

2. The overheight and over-density Maeford Place development does not conform to the existing character of our neighbourhood, and is detrimental to the reasonable enjoyment of a normal lifestyle for the other area residents. The Maeford Place development simply  overwhelms our neighbourhood, and the noise and activity it generates engulfs our lives. When our own friends and visitors stop by to see us, they have to compete for a parking spot with all the Maeford crowds, and usually end up having to walk some distance. There has been no protection offered to the other homeowners affected by the Maeford development, and that is simply unfair and unreasonable.

 

3.  On-street traffic and overload parking are a public safety hazard to all other area residents. With the High School in the area and short-cutting commuter traffic whizzing through, Kinchant Street was already over-busy before Maeford Place came along.  Now it is downright dangerous, for pedestrians crossing the street and for residents trying to pull in or out of their driveways.  This is unacceptable but was entirely foreseeable. The heavy onstreet parking, including by large commercial vehicles making deliveries to the front entrance of Maeford Place, blocks the safe sight lines for other residents and pedestrians and puts us all in danger of accident.  This is a residential street, not a main commercial thoroughfare. Any more high density development as proposed will just increase the risks and the difficulties. Enough is enough. Council has a duty to the public’s safety first and foremost.

 

4.  With a further proposed extension of the Maeford building, what little remaining view we have of the Red Bluff skyline from our home will be permanently extinguished.  While the bulk and height of the present Maeford building looms over our home like a mountain, blocking the sky and light to the east, we have enjoyed the small consolation of still being able to glimpse an oblique view across to the south-east skyline. Even that will be lost to us if the expansion is approved. None of you would like that to happen to you at your home – so please don’t do it to us.

 

Since the original Maeford development was given approval by Council on June 2006 we have seen no evidence of any concern by councillors or city staff as to how the other area residents are coping with the extra traffic, parking and noise.  Certainly no-one from the City has taken the time to ask us, even though we objected publicly to the development. You walk and drive by every day on your way to City Hall – does no-one see whats happening?  Does no-one care?

 

In summary, we believe that approving the existing Maeford Place development in 2006 on that site in that layout and at that density was a costly and permanent mistake. The site layout, site area and site location were all sub standard from the outset, and the results are predictable and irreversible.  Please don’t make the situation 33% even worse by allowing any further expansion of that development - its over the top already.

 

November 4, 2008

Prince George Citizen

Sjostrom, Bello face off for mayor of Quesnel Written by MARK NIELSEN Citizen staff

Sunday, 26 October 2008

Quesnel's race for mayor could be shaping up to be a classic left-right battle. Or maybe not. Mary Sjostrom, the veteran councillor who is challenging incumbent Nate Bello for the top job at city hall in the community of 9,915 people 116 kilometres south of Prince George, is subscribing to that first take on the election's complexion. In an interview earlier this week Sjostrom spent much of the time emphasizing her ability to get along with the powers that be in Victoria and accused Bello of failing to maintain a good relationship with those upon whom the city depends for a major amount of money. "I'm not saying for a minute everything that Gordon Campbell does I agree with, but you don't go out and chastise them and the next day stick your hand out and ask for money and that's what's happening here," she said. "I just want to put a way more positive, proactive approach on it." Bello, meanwhile, isn't going there. "I don't see that," he said when asked if the race is about left versus right. "What I see is I'm having a conversation with the people of Quesnel and we've had a great council in the last six years since I've been mayor and I want to keep progressing in a moderate, positive way." Sjostrom, who once ran a gift shop, said she wants to be more business oriented and, if elected, would establish a "community planning council" that comes up with a clearer vision for how the city is planned. "We piecemeal it rather than having an overall plan," she said. Asked who would sit on the council, Sjostrom said she's still working out the details, "but certainly people that wish to develop, the real estate people have great input, industry needs to sit on there, businesspeople and just individuals who have expertise in planning." Bello dismissed the proposal as redundant. "I totally believe in a community planning council and it's called city council," he said. "We already have it." Questions for Councillor Sjostrom As Sjostrom is challenging the mayor for his seat it is up to her to present her platform and explain to the public how she would manage the City…this is why there are no questions to Bello…These are questions Sjostrom should be asked to respond to regarding the article “Something about Mary” in the Observer October 28, 2008.  1.      Sjostrom says: “Under my leadership the city will be open for business,” qnlnews asks: How would you open up city for business?  Has it been closed? 2.      Sjostrom says: “its time for a change” qnlnews asks: A change from what - to what?    3.      Sjostrom says:  “we need a leader who has a positive pro-active leadership style” qnlnews asks:  How are you a Positive pro-active leader?  Does a leader delay projects such as: Homeless Shelter…delayed almost a year because Sjostrom claimed she needed more information, and when she found she could not delay the process any longer she voted to accept the location. Zoning by-law regarding RV’s parked in front yards  is specific yet Sjostrom requested more information –  the end result was the owners were in violation of the current bylaw and the bylaw was not changed. Murdered and Missing Women’s Memorial Monument was looking for a home and again, Sjostrom delayed the process by requesting more information.  In the end voted in favour.  4.      Sjostrom says:  “I’m a consensus builder.” qnlnews asks:  If you are a consensus builder how can you consider yourself in agreement with others when you voted against so many motions of council and you delayed many public decisions? 5.       Sjostrom says “a perfect example is the City and Cariboo Regional District’s relationship.” qnlnews asks:   Why do you feel the City and the CRD still have problems? What is the problem? 6.       Sjostrom says:   regarding Rocky Mountain Vacations:  “This was long before there was support shown from my colleague.” qnlnews asks:  What role did you have regarding Rocky Mountaineer Vacations that did not involve the rest of council?  Didn’t RMV decide to overnight in Quesnel only because Prince George was not located close enough to the midpoint between Whistler and Jasper? 7.      Sjostom says:  ‘Long and short-term financial planning are also among her top priorities.’  qnlnews asks:  If Financial planning is a priority why didn’t you ask to chair the Finance Committee when you had the opportunity to do so? 8.     Sjostrom says: she would ‘form a Sustainable Planning Council made up of people from all sectors of the community’. qnlnews asks:  Just what would your Sustainable Planning Council do?  City has an Economic Development plan so is this not working for you?  The board members of the EDC are: Greg Andrews, Tony Bensted, Brian Black, Peter Brand, Geoff Garland, Bob Graham (Sjostrom campaign contributor), Camae Lynn and Nate Bello.  Are Board members appointed by the City of Quesnel?  Council cannot deal with infrastructure? 9.      Sjostrom says:  ‘With her list of 19 organizations she’s been or is involved in at regional and provincial levels, she plans on using her connections to benefit the city.’ qnlnews asks:  Why are you involved with so many  committees that have little to do with the running of the City of Quesnel?   (Her current out of town portfolio is:  Member of Ministers Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities,  2010 Committee Chair, Spirit of BC Advisory Committee Member, North Central Municipal Association, Union of BC Municipalities, NCMA Measuring up the North Steering Committee Chair, Liaison for Quesnel Measuring Up and Inclusion Committee.

November 1, 2008

 

Communities in Bloom takes advantage of Quesnel's flower program for their competition but they are not responsible for, nor do they pay for the flowers 

Since the 60's Quesnel has been recognized for its beautiful flowers.  Over the past few years one can notice the "fillers" of concrete on Front Street where flowers used to be. 

Mary, Mary, quite contrary….

 As the Chair of the Communities in Bloom committee Mary should have taken seriously the benefits of the program and used what she learned not just to please judges, but to benefit the city. Where was her "civic pride" when it appears because no CIB judges would visit in 2008 she did nothing to maintain the Heritage Garden? The garden was closed all summer due to the weeds and bulldozed in October. People were embarrassed when they took their friends and relatives to see the Heritage Garden.
Mary was informed early in the Spring the main volunteer for this garden was not well and could no longer care for it, so why did Mary let the garden get so run down? No volunteers willing to help or was there no call for volunteers? It appears there was no shortage of volunteers when there were judges coming to town.  No judges no press for Mary?

Sjostrom should have learned from this committee and implemented in our community all the program benefits but I don’t see them do you?  All I have ever seen is the community looks great for the judges and then all is forgotten.  
 
From the Communities in Bloom website….Program Benefits
(www.communitiesinbloom.ca)
Since 1995, communities have recognized numerous benefits from participating in the program:

Increased civic pride and community involvement
Participation from all ages and walks of life
Citizens, groups, organizations, business and municipal government all mobilized and working together
Year-round projects and continuous improvement for the entire community
Information and cultural exchange within the community and with neighbouring, national and international communities
Valuable information and feedback from the judges
Decreased vandalism
Economic development and increased property values
Marketing and promotional opportunities
Positive benefits for the tourism, hospitality and retail industries
Improved quality of life

October 23, 2008

 

All Candidates Forum
Shaw Cable:  Sunday 3 - Tuesday 2 and 7, Thursday 9

Approximately 80 people attended the All Candidates Forum at the Vasa Lodge to hear what the candidates had to say.  What an impressive bunch of newcomers!  Mayor hopeful, Mary Sjostrom did her best to try and show the current leadership style of Nate Bello needs changing and one of the reasons given was committees should be assigned as to councillors' abilities....then she contradicted herself by saying she would alternate the committee appointments..  Currently Bello asks which committee each councillor would like and he tries to accommodate.  Hardly different than what Sjostrom is suggesting. Sjostrom suggested her leadership style would be proactive...indicating Bello's is inactive.  The climate in the city has changed drastically since Bello became mayor as he shows respect for everyone, even those that do not share the same philosophies.  With Bello it doesn't matter about political stripes, he gets along well will Regional, Federal and Provincial levels of government.   Interesting last night, Sjostrom never answered one question first, always waited until Bello gave his point of view before answering.   Good strategy or afraid to "take the lead"?  The next all candidates forum is at 7pm, Wednesday November 5 at CNC

 

How would they vote on the referendum question regarding Multi-centre?

Nate                                               YES
Mary                                              YES
Michael Cave                                 YES                             
Peter Couldwell                              YES
Gino DeRose                                  YES
Richard Forman                               NO
Paul Kainth                                      NO
Coralee Oakes                                YES
Brent Oxenbury                              YES        
Ron Paull                                        YES
Laurey-Anne Roodenburg               YES
Sushil Thapar                                  YES

 

 

All Candidates Forum  THURSDAY 7:00 Vasa Lodge

Time for local election information

Heritage Garden - Then and Now

Municipal Election

Mayor
What did mayoralty candidates vote against?
Nate Bello   Mary Sjostrom
Nate Bello webpage
Mary Sjostrom webpage

What did the incumbent councillors vote against?

Council
Peter Couldwell
Coralee Oakes
Ron Paull
Sushil Thapar
Laurey-Anne Roodenburg
Gino DeRose
Michael Cave
Richard Forman
Brent Oxenbury
Paul Kainth
 

Regional District

Area A - Red Bluff/Quesnel South/Kersley
Ted Armstrong *
Area B – West Quesnel/Bouchie Lake
Ken Falloon *
Roberta Faust
Area C – Barlow Creek/Barkerville
John Massier
Area I – West Fraser/Nazko
Jim Glassford

 

October 10, 2008

City Administrator Leaving

September 15, 2008

Council votes unanimously to uphold by-law
regarding Recreational Vehicles 

The complaint made by an Uplands resident has resulted in the next door neighbour, owner of a 36 foot motor home, having no choice but to remove it from the front yard.  They have options...move it to a covered building in the back yard or store it elsewhere. 

It is too bad they did not check with the city before they did all the work in their driveway in preparation for storing the vehicle.  Hope this will be a lesson for others...it is better to ask for permission than forgiveness.  When in doubt...check it out!

By-laws are dealt with on a complaint basis only, so lets hope this motor home owner does not take this out on everyone in contravention of this by-law by making their own complaints to the city.

 

September 6, 2008

 

Mayor Nate Bello announced today
he will be seeking re-election. 

 

September 5, 2008

Councillor Mary Sjostrom announced today she will be
challenging Mayor Nate Bello for the mayors chair. 
 

September 1, 2008

City Request for Public Input

The City of Quesnel is seeking public input on section 4.22 of the current City of Quesnel Zoning Bylaw No. 1530, 2002 governing the Parking or Storage of Commercial Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers and Boats in Residential Zones.

Currently the City's zoning bylaw permits all vehicles less than 5,000 kilograms (11,023 lbs) if totally concealed within a building.  If not concealed within a building the following is permitted to be parked to the rear of the front wall of the principle building.

(a) one truck or commercial vehicle not exceeding one ton rated capacity;
(b) one dismantled or wrecked vehicle for a period of not more than 30 days; and
(c) trailers, recreation vehicles, boat trailers, and boats, combined total shall not exceed 3, each not exceeding 10 metres (33ft) in length, except for lots greater than 2023m2 (0.5 ac) in area the length shall not exceed 12,2m (40 ft)

The bylaw also states that the vehicles listed in (a), (b) and (c) may be parked in front of the front wall on lots where:
i)  no lane provides secondary access to the rear of the lot; and
ii) the siting of the building does not allow the vehicle to be transported to the rear of the front wall of the principle building.

Please direct your comments to City Planner Tanya Turner in writing to 410 Kinchant Street V2J 7J5 or by email with the subject line Recreational Vehicles to tturner@city.quesnel.bc.ca

Editors note:  This bylaw should not be changed.  We do not want, nor need, our neighbourhoods looking like trailer parks. 

A Second Look at Global Warming
Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Climate change is taking place; it always has. Yet the media and politicians present the view that climate change is bad and humans are solely responsible for destruction of the earth without any critical analysis or competing theories. Your CTF is a taxpayer, not science advocacy organization. But as long as the world is presented one viewpoint of so-called global-warming 'science' no tax-funded cost will be deemed inappropriate if it involves saving Mother Earth. Governments are now spending billions of tax dollars not only on questionable policy objectives of little measurable result but increasingly on alarmist propaganda. Please have a look at this Canadian-based website www.friendsofscience.org for more thoughtful information.
 

 

 

 

July 19, 2008

 

Quesnel Royalty 2008
crowned tonight

Miss Quesnel
Anisha Kauldher...Miss Attitude South
Princesses
Moneet Panasar...Miss Ruins Board Shop
Rachel Siebert...Miss Bethel Church

Talent Award...Justine Norgaard
Community Knowledge Award...Anisha Kauldher
Public Speaking Award...Moneet Panasar
Improved Public Speaking...Carly Smith
Friendship Award...Justine Norgaard
Gold Nugget Award...Rachel Siebert.........and
                Samantha Musselman
 

Congratulations to all the candidates and thanks to all the organizers...Great job!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filing Deadline Extended

May 6th, last day for filing tax returns.  Although this year was better than prior years for electronically filed tax returns the government again extended the deadline.   

This has been a great year for me.  My staff was excellent and we were able to give people good news due to the tax changes the government made.  

Volunteer Citizen of the Year

 Five individuals were nominated; Janice Butler, Toby Cave, Marion Gordon, Ellen Martz, and Carol Weremy. Wednesday evening, Marion Gordon was selected for the 2007 Volunteer Citizen of the Year.  Check out the pictures of the event on www.quesnelobserver.com.