Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
CONTRIBUTION · 20th October 2011
Karen
I would like to hear from both City Council candidates and Kitimat Stikine RD candidates regarding their stance on amalgamating the two communities. What benefits and/or detriments do you forsee and how would you vote if the issue were to be addressed.
Bidgood Response on Amalgamation
Comment by Dr. Bruce Bidgood on 27th October 2011
Amalgamation is one of those issues that is going to be raised every number of years whether or not we like it or feel that we have already been there. I, for one, believe that there should be an amalgamation not only between Terrace and Thornhill but also New Remo, Brauns Island and perhaps even Lakelse. I could understand, however, how members of the smaller areas would fear a loss of political representation by being part of a larger community. Perhaps the newly amalgameted City could involve a ward system with 4 reps from Terrace, 2 from Thornhill, 1 from Brauns Island, New Remo Lakelse and even a rep from Kitsumkalum and Kitselas. I think it is also incumbent upon the City of Terrace to demonstrate concretely the benefits of association (i.e., perhaps when a new pool is constructed someday it could be in West Thornhill). Regardless of the political rhetoric, I believe a final decision regarding amalgamation resides with the citizens through a binding referendum.


I beleive that there are efficiencies in services, economies of scale and political benefits which would occur under one mayor and council. It cannot, however, be thrust upon others. The
I agree, Mr Mayor
Comment by Marylin Davies on 21st October 2011
I totally agree with the answer supplied by the Mayor. For the time being it is a "been there, done that" situation which may change with a larger population base. In the meantime, Thornhill residents have made themselves quite clear.
the situation on amalgamation
Comment by Dave Pernarowski on 21st October 2011
I will not be pushing amalgamation as a “campaign platform” issue for this election for a couple of reasons. Residents of Thornhill do not appear to want this to happen. Government funding to assist in completing an in-depth analysis is no longer available (the last study was completed in 1997). The escalating costs of infrastructure development and maintenance has likely eroded the benefits of Terrace taking on the costs associated with a full scale amalgamation. The need to promote Terrace as a larger population to attract business and industry, once a big part of the argument of amalgamation, has almost entirely disappeared with the northwest transmission line development and the multiple major projects already knocking at our door. In my view, amalgamation is not a priorty right now.
Amalgamation
Comment by Stacey Tyers on 20th October 2011
Hi Karen,

This is an interesting subject and has been taken to referendum. It should be decided through referendum. The people of Thornhill have spoken through referendum that they do not want amalgamation. The benefits that come for the city from amalgamation are great. A larger city means applying for more grants. A larger city can mean more services. A larger tax base.

It is the people of thornhill that take a greater loss, increased property taxes, loss of or sharing their water.

In this case I say it's the people's choice and I support the decision they make. Though it would definitely benefit the City of Terrace, I do not think we are or should be in a position to dictate what the people of thornhill want.