Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Sobchak
This answer does not satisfy me, nor make me confident it is the right direction. I feel that this is a "pass the buck" sort of answer, that makes the city look clean if this blows up in peoples faces.
However if it is provincial funding that is putting this up, well we can't really knock too hard. Its hard enough to get adiquate provincial funding.
This project still leaves me with the feeling that the low income are still being lumped into one building, as many as they can without much consideration to other projects in other parts of the world where they concentrated low income.
|
Agreed. HRM just wants to say they support affordable housing. But it's more complex than that. 70/30 split on market/non-market housing is generally the standard, with evidence to show that more is counter-productive. It seems like NSHT negotiated a bad deal with the Province, but HRM seems fine with pretending its ok or is ready to blame them if it fails.This is not a sound model for affordable housing.
Will HRM support the Province if they want to also build 85% studios at Bloomfield (not that they have the power to stop them). And what about St. Pat's Alexandra? If a developer buys the land and wants 85% studios there, how can you say no. Gottingen is making a slow, but healthy transition and Council seems ok disrupting that. If NSHT sells the DA - can HRM do anything to ensure that the units are subsidized? If not, why did they grant exceptions to the plan on the basis of affordability, if there is no guarantee that the units will be subsidized? I'm not even necessarily against this project, but from a process and fair planning perspective, this whole thing is strange.
Threaded Mode