[Dartmouth] Bridge Tower (30 Pelzant) | ? m | 11 FL | U/C

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, I'm glad planning and development reacted so quickly. It only took them 15 days to get themselves out of their office in order to make a site visit to a development just minutes away. Then it took them another 11 days to issue a decree, so nearly a month before they actually did something about it. Your tax dollars at work!

I'm quite certain in the intervening time there would have been interminable discussions with "legal." Two weeks of discussions? Probably not, lol.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Quote " they didn't understand the LUB amendments" ... so why didn't they ask staff or their consultants to explain everything. If you believe that defence I have a bridge to sell you. Some parts of the developing world usually require an understanding of how 'mistakes' or 'not understanding' were usually just a face saving device to sort of agree that rules had not been followed.

Agreed - the developer understood the LUB enough to ask for exceptions... Maybe they don't understand "no" as a response.

[Dmajackson]

Councillor Austin says in his Council blog that the staff report was deferred at his request so he can get a better understanding of the implications. It will come back at the next council meeting. He also says the idea of making the extra 20-units all affordable would not be allowed because planning matters can't be punitive and have to stand on their own.

Considering that the developer would benefit if the extra units remain and the construction is at best the result of negligence I change my opinion and side with staff and think the only reasonable outcome to avoid setting a bad precedence is for the removal of the floors.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This is a tough one from a legal-philosophical perspective. Aside from the issue of creating a precedent, doesn't society also benefit from the extra floors given the current crises?

If the local government forces the deconstruction of the floors, does this not also create the implication that government is actually party to inducing the crisis (which is true) through the arbitrary height restrictions.

Put another way - what do height restrictions actually achieve aside from limiting housing stock. It would seem that rules should be followed, but what if those rules are the very thing creating societal harms (as opposed to the opposite).

Honestly, I know this kind of stuff goes on everywhere, but council is ostensibly complicit in the housing crisis going back decades and democratic processes have been hijacked. Reduced height is also leading to sprawl, so it could also be argued that environmental degradation is also an outcome and a harm.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Considering that the developer would benefit if the extra units remain and the construction is at best the result of negligence I change my opinion and side with staff and think the only reasonable outcome to avoid setting a bad precedence is for the removal of the floors.

They won't benefit if a fine exceeds the revenue of the extra floors.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

They won't benefit if a fine exceeds the revenue of the extra floors.

I agree. I’d love to see Austin get up on his hind legs and demand demolition of a couple of dozen affordable housing units in his district. Would look good on that charlatan.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I agree. I’d love to see Austin get up on his hind legs and demand demolition of a couple of dozen affordable housing units in his district. Would look good on that charlatan.

Always laugh when they rear up and bray!

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=worldlyhaligonian;10561222]
:"Reduced height is also leading to sprawl..."
Where does sprawl in HRM begin ?
If you had 2 or 3 kids where would you live ?

[beyeas]

[QUOTE=Colin May;10563919]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

:"Reduced height is also leading to sprawl..."
Where does sprawl in HRM begin ?
If you had 2 or 3 kids where would you live ?

There is no one answer to that question though, and that is the thing. It depends on so many factors, and ultimately it is why there needs to be choice of options that are all supported, because some want to have a acre of land for their kids to run around, some want to live in suburban neighborhoods, and some want to be downtown. Loads of factors. But it is not that if you have a large family you can and must live in suburbia for example... there are downtown elementary schools right now bursting at the seams, even the new ones, and adding modular classrooms to accommodate the large number of your kids who have moved into the neighbourhoods both north and south on the peninsula. And of course in suburban parts like Bedford the schools are also overfull. It isn't possible to give AN answer as to where to live when you have 2-3 kids.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

If you had 2 or 3 kids where would you live ?

Edited to add walk, transit and bike scores (I was curious after posting, so looked them up)

I don't have kids, but my siblings do. I think the answer depends on the people, not the number of children. In my immediate family:
Sibling #1 has one child - lives rural. They've been rural since completing university - and for many years before having a child. (Walk Score 16, Transit and Bike Scores 0)
Sibling #2 has four children - lives suburban. They were urban after University and lived urban until after their second child. (Walk Score 6, Transit Score 0, and Bike Score 4)
Sibling #3 has two children - lives urban and has always been urban since graduating. (Walk Score 91, Transit Score 53, and Bike Score 70)
I, with no kids, live urban: Walk score of 84, Transit Score of 70, and Bike Score of 85

All four of us were raised rural, by parents who came to rural NS from urban Montreal. (Walk, Transit, and Bike Scores all 0)

[worldlyhaligonian]

[QUOTE=Colin May;10563919]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

:"Reduced height is also leading to sprawl..."
Where does sprawl in HRM begin ?
If you had 2 or 3 kids where would you live ?

Trick question - most people from my age group 30-40 don't even have 1 kid. Most friends that do have "gone down the road" to Toronto.

But, if I were to, it would be in a 3 bedroom condo on the peninsula with the equivalent square footage of a wartime house in the north or west end for about 60 percent of the same sale price.

Why would anyone buy a ramshackle 1000 sq foot house on the peninusla for $700,000? Beyond comprehension when considering the property tax and upkeep.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Why would anyone buy a ramshackle 1000 sq foot house on the peninusla for $700,000? Beyond comprehension when considering the property tax and upkeep.

I'm not sure in Halifax but around here there's a shell game where property owners borrow against their property to buy more and more property, and their net worth goes up due to price appreciation. It has created lots of paper millionaires who own poorly maintained rental houses. This is one reason why the prices don't really make sense. Development potential is another.

It's obviously possible to game the tax system by doing things like assigning 1 primary residence to each family member and then secretly renting the property out, then benefiting from tax deferrals and assessment caps. I would guess that income tax fraud is rampant as well and there were cases of falsified income as well; in the USA they check with the IRS for your stated income, but in Canada you typically just send a PDF of your T4. There have been many media stories on the ultra low taxes paid, portfolios of Canadian real estate owned by people who report $0 income here, people who fake documents that banks happily accept, etc. Ultimately I think a lot of this happens because we tax income so heavily but not property or wealth. Land taxes should be higher, and I'm sorry but single elderly people having to downsize from large inner city houses due to a lack of retirement savings is not the greatest social ill of our time and should not be conflated with poverty.

In the end I think it'll fall apart and it has caused huge damage to the fabric of the country but along the way it generated millions of really great retirements for a generation of property owners (with the spoils largely going to folks in the expensive markets like Vancouver and Toronto, but the policy choices impacted NS as well). That's mostly what the political system responds to right now. Most of the political class directly and indirectly benefits. The plurality of voting power is held by Boomer aged folks (not trying to insult, it's just a fact), and I think the overall understanding of this system and empathy and trust levels are low. Demanding larger housing units for families that those families would not be able to afford is a good example.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure in Halifax but around here there's a shell game where property owners borrow against their property to buy more and more property, and their net worth goes up due to price appreciation. It has created lots of paper millionaires who own poorly maintained rental houses. This is one reason why the prices don't really make sense. Development potential is another.

It's obviously possible to game the tax system by doing things like assigning 1 primary residence to each family member and then secretly renting the property out, then benefiting from tax deferrals and assessment caps. I would guess that income tax fraud is rampant as well and there were cases of falsified income as well; in the USA they check with the IRS for your stated income, but in Canada you typically just send a PDF of your T4. There have been many media stories on the ultra low taxes paid, portfolios of Canadian real estate owned by people who report $0 income here, people who fake documents that banks happily accept, etc. Ultimately I think a lot of this happens because we tax income so heavily but not property or wealth. Land taxes should be higher, and I'm sorry but single elderly people having to downsize from large inner city houses due to a lack of retirement savings is not the greatest social ill of our time and should not be conflated with poverty.

In the end I think it'll fall apart and it has caused huge damage to the fabric of the country but along the way it generated millions of really great retirements for a generation of property owners (with the spoils largely going to folks in the expensive markets like Vancouver and Toronto, but the policy choices impacted NS as well). That's mostly what the political system responds to right now. Most of the political class directly and indirectly benefits. The plurality of voting power is held by Boomer aged folks (not trying to insult, it's just a fact), and I think the overall understanding of this system and empathy and trust levels are low. Demanding larger housing units for families that those families would not be able to afford is a good example.

There's a bit of that. The prices have really stayed quite high, but first time home buyers are also one of the demographics and with family support and a big mortgage it becomes possible (there's an assumption of climbing the porperty ladder and fixing it up while paying down debt to upgrade to a better house in the next tier).

What you describe on the rentals definitely plays a factor in the market close to the peninsular universities (those can be million dollar homes, though, that generate crazy income).

[Dmajackson]

This is back on Council agenda for this week.

MPSA 2025-00514 - Initiation Report for 169 Wyse Road

[kzt79]

[QUOTE=worldlyhaligonian;10564695]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Trick question - most people from my age group 30-40 don't even have 1 kid. Most friends that do have "gone down the road" to Toronto.

But, if I were to, it would be in a 3 bedroom condo on the peninsula with the equivalent square footage of a wartime house in the north or west end for about 60 percent of the same sale price.

Why would anyone buy a ramshackle 1000 sq foot house on the peninusla for $700,000? Beyond comprehension when considering the property tax and upkeep.

I think you'll find a 3 BR condo on the peninsula of that size to be of similar or even higher price (unless there's some major problem with it), and then look at the monthly condo fees!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by beyeas

There is no one answer to that question though, and that is the thing. It depends on so many factors, and ultimately it is why there needs to be choice of options that are all supported, because some want to have a acre of land for their kids to run around, some want to live in suburban neighborhoods, and some want to be downtown. Loads of factors.

Best answer, IMHO.

Not everybody wants the same thing, so it's good that there are a variety of options that suit different needs. It's when some try to dictate what's right for others that the conflict starts.

[Dmajackson]

Regional Council accepted staff's recommendation to not initiate a site-specific planning process for this development. The vote was 15-1 (Hendsbee being the 1). So this means that the development as it currently stands is illegal and cannot be occupied until the extra floors and units are removed. HRM is prosecuting the developer in court but the fine is likely not going to be substantive.

I feel bad for the neighbours of this development for how long the construction of this development is going to be (it started in 2022). I will get a good chuckle though as the other significantly larger projects get occupied before this and eat up the rental market for this neighbourhood.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by kzt79

I think you'll find a 3 BR condo on the peninsula of that size to be of similar or even higher price (unless there's some major problem with it), and then look at the monthly condo fees!

Move in ready, up to date, with that square footage (1000ft+)? Not for a house, but definitely for a condo and the fees aren't higher when considering heat/hot water, etc. Just look at the Keep right now or other similar units (the 3 bedrooms with issues have high condo fees, but also a lower selling price around ~550k). I agree with you that it's not ideal, but the Halifax market is abnormal even for Canada.

The point was that people are overpaying for houses. There's also a mythology that a house is somehow more appropriate for kid(s). It's factual that most younger people can't afford either a house or a child.

Also - I'm not sure why I'm being censored on this forum when it's clear some are on here to stir the pot with incendiary/leading questions. That should be the real issue. This is still a Skyscraper Forum and it's more annoying than anything. I don't care, but recall when we'd have forum meet ups and people were excited about development.

I've been a member on here since '06 and I've even been PM'd by some others saying they agree with my points and are annoyed by some of the folks that seem to be on here all the time and only start adding anything substantive when they have their back up (and love to pile on - which, I don't care - this is the Internet and I've been on it a long time for how relatively young I am). Referring to somebody's factual demographic isn't incorrect, nor is a reference to the formatting of a post (note - this isn't directed at you kzt).

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Regional Council accepted staff's recommendation to not initiate a site-specific planning process for this development. The vote was 15-1 (Hendsbee being the 1). So this means that the development as it currently stands is illegal and cannot be occupied until the extra floors and units are removed. HRM is prosecuting the developer in court but the fine is likely not going to be substantive.

I feel bad for the neighbours of this development for how long the construction of this development is going to be (it started in 2022). I will get a good chuckle though as the other significantly larger projects get occupied before this and eat up the rental market for this neighbourhood.

Pleasantly surprised to see a correct, principled decision by council under somewhat difficult circumstances. They simply can't set the precedent that developers can build whatever they want, and deal with it after the fact.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Regional Council accepted staff's recommendation to not initiate a site-specific planning process for this development. The vote was 15-1 (Hendsbee being the 1). So this means that the development as it currently stands is illegal and cannot be occupied until the extra floors and units are removed. HRM is prosecuting the developer in court but the fine is likely not going to be substantive.

I feel bad for the neighbours of this development for how long the construction of this development is going to be (it started in 2022). I will get a good chuckle though as the other significantly larger projects get occupied before this and eat up the rental market for this neighbourhood.

Well I hope the developer shows more professionalism in the deconstruction than the cascade of stuff that has visited Neighbors backyards so far. The City might have to post an Adult on site during the process.