General Updates and News

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

....That is when Rev. Britton, a.k.a. the mouth that roared, played the Africville card and our inept council folded like a house of cards. Outside of any known process or rule under the HRM Charter, they passed a motion last night to rescind the original decision, which is procedurally impossible. Good luck with that lawsuit, HRM. Shameful.

I think it was quite inappropriate of her to bring up Africville in that context. People living in Africville were kicked out of a community and their former homes were bulldozed. This school is empty. Nobody lives there! And the community groups coveting the site do have homes at the moment. Maybe they're too small. Everyone wants a bigger space than the one they have. But to compare this to what happened back in the sixties is to belittle what happened back then. Shame!

[Waye Mason]

Flawed analysis.

If the development proposal solicitation had been weighted to bonus support for those community groups, then maybe Mic Mac Friendship, Childcare, North End Clinic, even Direction 180 could have been moved off of Gottingen, freeing up 3-5 major store fronts/properties for re-development.

They didn't follow their own policy.

This process was done wrong from start to finish. HRM staff need to be fired over this.

I am glad to see council overriding staff on this.

[spaustin]

The whole St. Pat's sale is a massive failure to be innovative and make the most of public resources. Putting aside the rhetoric, the charities really can't take on the school property. It's too big and has too many problems. It would likely bankrupt them or at least take away from the good work they're doing (the $200,000 heating bill alone would mean a lot less help for the community). That said, why does it have to be all or nothing? There is surely an option to redevelop the site and meet the charities needs. Below-market space could be reserved in the redevelopment as a condition of the sale or HRM could have split the site so that a portion was reserved for the charities. As Waye points out, if we had been a little creative, we could have sparked redevelopment of multiple other properties on Gottingen producing an even bigger long-term benefit for the city. HRM needs to stop making this stuff up as they go along and start following a clear set of rules so that everyone knows what to expect. The Provincial and Federal governments have very clear rules and processes for surplus properties. Why is it still amateur hour over at City Hall?

The thing that I keep coming back to on this story is the stark contrast to the sale of the Sister Lots off Spring Garden. Wasn't preserving parking capacity part of the condition of that sale? It's pretty sad when our municipal bureaucracy can take the time to protect surface parking spaces, but can't be bothered to look out for the needs of the less fortunate.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

That said, why does it have to be all or nothing?

The sale was not all or nothing. The Jono proposal that was selected included 5-10% affordable housing and 5-10% community space. That is a substantial investment for a developer to take on when acquiring a site like this and may be higher in value than the buildings themselves, which as you say don't quite fit the needs of these nonprofits.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Flawed analysis.

If the development proposal solicitation had been weighted to bonus support for those community groups, then maybe Mic Mac Friendship, Childcare, North End Clinic, even Direction 180 could have been moved off of Gottingen, freeing up 3-5 major store fronts/properties for re-development.

They didn't follow their own policy.

This process was done wrong from start to finish. HRM staff need to be fired over this.

I am glad to see council overriding staff on this.

Waye, from reading all the news on this, your summary is spot on. HRM did not follow their own policy.
Re Affricville, the comparison is legit. If you don't think so read Don Clairmont's book.
It is a large site with not just one building. It doesn't have to be all or nothing; it could be a win-win for community groups, the developer and the city

[Waye Mason]

Ultimately, St Pats/Alex school, the 1970s part, probably needs to be torn down. It is the same era of crappy construction that Bloomfield was built in, an d that building is largely beyond practical renovation and repair. Maybe the 100 year old original building could be renovated, it has some nice features.

But that isn't really the point, the point is staff has to follow policy. Butts blew it on this one.

A better approach to this development could have avoided all these issues and solves several problems in the neighbourhood at once.

I wrote about it here, and here.

[someone123]

Has anybody actually found this policy? What is the exact wording? The details are sketchy partly because much of the information surrounding this is not public, but the policy wording is something factual that could be added to the debate.

Many of the arguments against the sale that I have seen conflate what the arguer thinks ought to have been done with what they think the required procedure was. Those are two separate things. Procedural error does not follow from establishing that Gottingen's inhabitants were wronged in the past or that the street could benefit from moving nonprofits to the new site.

Waye, your articles are interesting and I find the history of this area fascinating but as far as the procedural part goes your claims come off as hearsay. If you're going to assert that somebody did something wrong and then later post on an internet forum that staff should be fired you should probably be carefully backing up your claims, at the very least by providing a passage from HRM policy and preferably by getting an expert to interpret it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Has anybody actually found this policy? What is the exact wording? The details are sketchy partly because much of the information surrounding this is not public, but the policy wording is something factual that could be added to the debate.

Many of the arguments against the sale that I have seen conflate what the arguer thinks ought to have been done with what they think the required procedure was. Those are two separate things. Procedural error does not follow from establishing that Gottingen's inhabitants were wronged in the past or that the street could benefit from moving nonprofits to the new site.

Waye, your articles are interesting and I find the history of this area fascinating but as far as the procedural part goes your claims come off as hearsay. If you're going to assert that somebody did something wrong and then later post on an internet forum that staff should be fired you should probably be carefully backing up your claims, at the very least by providing a passage from HRM policy and preferably by getting an expert to interpret it.

First, you need to review the staff report that led to the original (and in my view, proper) decision to sell the site to Jono:

http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/111213ca1019.pdf

Next, one needs to understand the policy. I have not been able to find a complete copy, but have pulled these extracts from another site:

The Municipality shall make every effort to dispose of surplus schools in a timely manner, preferably by sale. Sale of a surplus building on the open market at full value must always be considered a desirable option, and not seen as a last resort, only to be pursued if the property cannot be used by the Municipality for its own purposes, or made available for community use.

The section in bold type is poorly written and can be interpreted in many ways. I read the section after the second comma as being an example of what should NOT be done.

Third, it is Sloane and Watts and reporters like Bousquet who are contending that staff did not follow the above-noted policy. Consider the sources and take that for what it is worth.

Finally, keep in mind that there are whispers that Mr. Mason has aspirations to be a candidate for council himself and this is a convenient issue for him to raise his profile with.

[someone123]

Thanks for the link. I have not seen any proof that the sale was carried out improperly or that the nonprofits should have gotten bonus points in the scoring. In a few cases people have also claimed that the nonprofits were not given an opportunity to present proposals. That is false according to the report.

The idea that these lots should go to public uses doesn't make a ton of sense. There is an attitude that these buildings are all "free", amazing opportunities and belong to the residents of the neighbourhoods they are located in. None of these assumptions are very reasonable.

More fundamentally it's very unfortunate that so many people in Halifax have such a sense of entitlement and that the municipal government is one of the worst in the entire country. As a result, a lot of business is driven away and everybody loses, including those who simply want entitlements, because there is little money to go around. Uniacke Square is not going to be fixed by handing mouldy old buildings and empty lots over to nonprofits -- that will just perpetuate the ghetto situation by scaring away investors like Jono that actually have the means to improve big blocks of the city. At best the Reverend et al. are setting the neighbourhood up for a pyrrhic victory.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm pretty interested in starting a (tech) business someday and I've sort of entertained the thought of moving back to Halifax. It would be an uphill battle compared to here (and Vancouver is much worse than the Bay Area). Imagine being successful and having to quickly grow a company there, only to have the Paceys or "Africville 2!!" crowd come out. I guess the suburbs are an option, but then what really is the point of moving to Halifax, particularly when the commercial tax rates are some of the highest in Canada?

Similarly imagine the thinking of skilled person who might work for the city. Why apply to work for the HRM? Presumably their pay sucks and periodically you'd have councillors and Waye Mason calling for you to be fired basically regardless of whatever your real performance was. Christ. Why bother?

This is how cities get stuck with economies in the doldrums and how big institutions become cults of ineptitude. Sometimes I think it's getting better in Halifax and other times I don't. Atlantic Canada still has a negative reputation and much of it is deserved.

[Waye Mason]

1 - Well, I think Keith's assessment is wrong, though he didn't have all the information.Here is the policy, there is all sorts of direction in there, but especially read the flow chart in Attachment 3 (last page) and see for yourself.

2 - I may well run for office, I would think being an active community member and commentator for almost two decades would be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I've never said I would never run for office, in fact, I've said that I am exploring running for council on Rick Howe about 5 months ago.

3 - Let me clarify - I actually defended the professionalism of staff on CBC yesterday. A lot of staff are dedicated and hard working. I think senior staff who signed off on this may need to be replaced, especially if they are involved in other policy lapse embarrassments that have recently plagued this municipality.

[fenwick16]

HRM needs more Councillors representing 21st century progressive viewpoints. I wish some of the local-area developers and more businessmen would start running for HRM Council (cheers to all the Councillors who regularly advocate growth and prosperity in the HRM).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

1 - Well, I think Keith's assessment is wrong, though he didn't have all the information.Here is the policy, there is all sorts of direction in there, but especially read the flow chart in Attachment 3 (last page) and see for yourself.

I have read the entire document. I do not see any variance from the policy in the process that was followed. It seems quite clear that sale of the property at market value is the preferred option, with community groups being given the chance to build a business case of their own. This was apparently done given that 3 such comunity proposals were received.

2 - I may well run for office, I would think being an active community member and commentator for almost two decades would be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I've never said I would never run for office, in fact, I've said that I am exploring running for council on Rick Howe about 5 months ago.

3 - Let me clarify - I actually defended the professionalism of staff on CBC yesterday. A lot of staff are dedicated and hard working. I think senior staff who signed off on this may need to be replaced, especially if they are involved in other policy lapse embarrassments that have recently plagued this municipality.

A true politician's answer.

[DigitalNinja]

Ugh, sometimes I wish people who ran for office, went in with their own opinions and did not feed off someone else, and weren't afraid of backlash. So what if the community wants a decrepit church now, the city doesn't have much money and the sale of any land that WILL generate tax revenue in my view is a good thing. Private investment needs to come to a neighborhood before any of the community investment. Otherwise it will just fall back to the state it was in before.

I also find it annoying as hell, that we keep hearing from the same counselors in the media. Does no one else carry a voice?

The africville comment was unneeded. By the time every minority group has their say we might as well be run by a native American tribal group since that is the way it was before.

Humans as a species that has adapted to major change in the past seems to have an uncanny ability as to resisting slight change or taking things as they come and looking towards the future.

[someone123]

Just saw an ANS bulletin about a tender for the demolition of the Bioscience building.

They pointed out again that Ben McCrea stated last year that his development of the site is 5-10 years off. Will the WDC wait for this? They did not wait for Salter.

If there's so little demand, why aren't they switching to apartments like other developers? Some developers seem to adapt (Fares with King's Wharf) whereas others sit on land waiting for their plan to become viable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

I also find it annoying as hell, that we keep hearing from the same counselors in the media. Does no one else carry a voice?

This one is interesting because the 2 who have been most vocal on this are Sloane and Watts. Watts has been carrying the ball for a couple of reasons: first, she is against development and it was likely that the Jono proposal would have resulted in something over a couple of floors in height, so she sees that torpedoing the sale is a way to cut that off at the pass. Plus she is a lefty and these are her people who are crying. The other interesting thing here is that Sloane is taking an unaccustomed back seat on this compared to her normal mode. She typically never saw a microphone or TV camera she didn't like - and in fact she was on CBC TV tonight talking about a local procurement policy, wearing her HRM jacket with the embroidered city crest and "Councillor Sloane" custom-embroidered on it as well - one wonders how much that cost us all. Interestingly, that interview was done in front of her taxpayer-subsidized house.

Anyway, she is notably quiet on this issue because it appears she was asleep at the wheel (or perhaps off doing an interview) when she should have been working with these community groups to assist them in the proposal process. There was an article in AllNS today where Uteck blamed Sloane for the whole debacle. Of course Uteck has a motive for that since there is a chance they will be opposing each other at election time. Regardless though, it was refreshing to see someone shining some light on this question for a change.

[fenwick16]

Compared to some Councillors, Councillor Sloane actually seems to be somewhat pro-development.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Compared to some Councillors, Councillor Sloane actually seems to be somewhat pro-development.

The only buildings I can remember her talking positively about before they were approved were the TD building on Spring Garden, Fenwick Reno and the Citadel Hotel.... all shoe-ins to get approved. She was the only vote against the Trillium. The only thing I think she is, is pro-reelection.

[haligonia]

Sloane is pretty fickle, and seems kind of unintelligent. Watts will beat her in the next election.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Sloane is pretty fickle, and seems kind of unintelligent. Watts will beat her in the next election.

I just had a look at the new districts and most the west-end is getting lumped in with the north-end along with north downtown. I don't know exactly where Watts lives of course but I believe this will throw three of the Peninsula Councillors into one race. If Watts if east of Oxford Street it will be a battle between her Blumenthal and Sloane for District "8".

I really hope Watts battles Blumenthal and Sloane moves south to fight for the downtown district. Seeing Uteck and Watts beating anti-everything Sloane and Blumenthal would be awesome!

Whatever happens my area should be interesting to watch. I live right next to the intersection of three districts at the moment.

[mcmcclassic]

I know that these photos aren't from Halifax, but I thought that you guys may be interested in seeing them. These are photos I took over the past week down in Dunedin, New Zealand (I'm here doing a study exchange). One of the things that has impressed me about this city is its impeccable ability to preserve its heritage buildings. Many of the buildings in downtown Dunedin were built prior to 1900 and continue to be occupied to their full potential, as well as remain aesthetically pleasing on the outside.

Dunedin has many features similar to Halifax:
- City is on the ocean
- Its a university/student city
- One of the main drivers of the economy aside from the university is the tourism industry
- The downtown is compact and the majority of the people live in the "burbs"

If a city of 130,000 like this one can take such care of its heritage buildings, I don't see why a bigger (and much busier) city like Halifax has to let its few heritage treasures waste away.