LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Another perspective on NPLP and extended planning process
The following Letter to the Editor is a rebuttal from Tyler Holte to Steve Thorlakson’s Letter to the Editor published on March 24. The Broken Typewriter provides a forum for all regional perspectives, even those that challenge our previous contributors.
I write in response to the Letter to the Editor written by Steve Thorlakson published on March 24, 2026 by The Broken Typewriter respecting plans on a new pool in Fort St. John. I was flabbergasted by the insults and condescension hurled by Mr. Thorlakson at City Council and staff advisors. I also found it strange that Mr. Thorlakson left out much of the context of the last decade – perhaps because it undermined the accusations he made in his article.
The primary contention I take issue with: Mr. Thorlakson asserts (with insults) that the City is not working with its regional partners in the development of this pool plan. Mr. Thorlakson makes no mention of the eight recent years the City spent working with its Regional District partners on the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee. After eight years, that Steering Committee produced four alternatives: priced approximately $130M, two options at $280M, and one over $400M. None of those are palatable. The $130M would simply replace the old pool, which is grossly undersized for our community’s needs – a fact that any pool-user can attest to. I note that the plans for the current $185M proposal is comparable to the $280M proposal that came out of that steering committee.
Given the lack of reasonable plan after almost a decade, it made sense for the City to take the lead on developing a palatable solution to bring back. The hand-off to the City was consensual and in the spirit of partnership. In other words, the City is not forging ahead on its own. Mr. Thorlakson is deceptive in his characterizations of the City going on its own, and the City presuming that PRRD reserves are honey pot for the City’s use. As an aside – this latter contention that City Council was poorly advised by administration was rather comical to myself: City Council and administration are a lot of things worthy of critique, but inattentive to legalities and restrictions on funds is certainly not one of them. I suggest that Mr. Thorlakson grossly misapprehends what the City is actually doing: developing a plan to bring back to everyone.
The other main contention I take issue with: Mr. Thorlakson asserts that the current plan is a grandiose, devoid of pragmatism or common sense. Surely Mr. Thorlakson can agree that the alternatives B and C, developed via the collaboration with regional partners that Mr. Thorlakson seems to advocate for, are even more grandiose budgets. Which is it: should we forge ahead with those previous proposals, or should the City push for a more pragmatic plan (i.e., what it currently is)? It is difficult to reconcile these seemingly diametrically-opposed critiques. Is Mr. Thorlakson simply talking out of both sides of his mouth? After all, he is a former politician.
What is not talked about is the City’s need for a new pool. It seems to be a given – even Regional District partners do not disagree that a new pool is needed; I expect that they will be rather supportive of the developing plan given it is a more pragmatic solution. The old pool, despite being only 30 years old, is nearing the end of its life. The PRRD’s engagement resources provide a bit of explanation why this is the case (see page 4). It appears that a bit too much compromise was done during Mr. Thorlakson’s tenure, resulting in a pool with such a short life span. Some meme-worthy photos on the hot tub repairs illustrate the issue quite well.
Mr. Thorlakson rambles on about many irrelevancies from thirty years ago in his article. He places strange emphasis on unanimous resolutions from that time. Surely Mr. Thorlakson knows that previous councils cannot fetter the discretion of future councils. Thank God that City Council’s hands are not as tied as Mr. Thorlakson would like to suggest – how else can they fix the mistakes of their predecessors.
I am not going to waste further time in taking apart the inaccuracies in Mr. Thorlakson’s article (such as his conflation with the project charter with the actual projected costs per household of the current plan). I suggest that if anyone wants to get the facts of the matter, don’t take Mr. Thorlakson’s or my word for it: ask the City or a City Council member. A lot of work has been done on this, so talk to those that are in the know.
Tyler Holte
the broken typewriter welcomes Letters to the Editor.
Letters must carry a first and last name, and include an address and daytime telephone number to help verify identity. These will not be published, only your name and community. All letters are subject to editing.
Please send letters in the body of an email, rather than an attachment. We don’t publish letters addressed to others.
Email: tania@brokentypewriter.ca