Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual
You haven't missed her vision, because she really doesn't have one. She has a re-election strategy, not a vision. She just opposes every proposed development at every stage, at all times. I think she's decided that it's a winning re-election formula and just sticks with it.
And, unfortunately, she does keep winning.
And when a councillor is so cluelessly single-minded, then they become polarizing. Such an approach polarizes more fair-minded councillors, making them angry and more "pro-development" than they would otherwise be. And the happy compromise in the middle is lost.
Watts creates the same problems that the NS Anti Development Trust causes -- they oppose every single development, and so developers do not consult with them, or try to work out a compromise. They know that any such efforts will be useless. And so, developers are polarized against the Trust and also heritage issues more generally, and so a proper compromise is lost. It's more productive to sue and humiliate the Trust, because you cannot work with them. They will sue you and oppose you no matter what steps you take to preserve heritage.
|
A very simplistic view of Cllr Watts and a view which ignores the recommendations of the planning staff.
What was the point of HbD if a speculator can agree to purchase/purchase a property outside the HbD boundary and then convince a council to change the rules and then build a property that would not be allowed under HbD ?
Most businesses like a certain degree of certainty when making investment decisions.
In this case,and any other case which is outside Hbd, the investor is competing against investors with property inside the area of HbD. If others get the same deal the densification outside HbD will be cheaper and defeat the purpose of HbD ?
Development in HRM is now akin to the wild west - anything goes. The councillors outside the core want these developments so they can then vote to get money for their districts. dalrymple and Hendsbee want HRM to spend millions on new water lines to parts of their districts and want all taxpayers to pay for the expansion - in effect bailing out sprawl in areas where the water supply is meagre or tainted.