[Dartmouth] The Prince Albert (307 Prince Albert) | ? m | 16 fl | U/C

[Mike555]

That's a fantastic idea. I'm not sure about any such organization, but I would be happy to support one if it was highlighted on this Forum. I really would be appalled if Gloria ran unopposed in this year's election again. She needs to answer for her incompetence.

UPDATE on my email exchange with Gloria. After I called her out on the nonsense of developing in the area (on eyesore properties) causing my house price to fall, she quickly jumped over to the argument that the building would "ruin our world class paddling course, and I'm not about to let that happen" .... Seriously? I mean, is she just making that up because she feels some pressure now? This woman is a joke.

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by kph06

Wow, talk about argumentative, good thing they muted when she tried to talk over Fisher. I have a few flaws with her statements: ........

Lastly, she complained there was no wind study presented... things like that cost money, why would a developer sink all that money into something they might not even be able to bring in front of council...?

But according to the Chronicle Herald article there WAS a wind study done
http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/53413-developer-won-t-give-easily

I quote from the article (and the emphasis is mine) "The apartment building proposal has undergone all the required shadow, traffic and wind studies, and the developer said it deserves a public hearing."

[resetcbu1]

Originally Posted by Upwords

Given that there are five years between elections, focusing on just one nitwit at a time will take about 70 years. I'd like to see it accomplished in nine months.

I think the municipal elections should be held every 3 years personaly. I know some people would say it cost too much , but not as much as the cost of killing our future, when clearly some councilors need to be to be ousted before they cause more unrepairable damage to a city on the verge of blossoming.

[Keith P.]

They are not every 5 years. I believe 3 years is accurate.

ETA: I have checked and it is in fact 4 years between elections.

[resetcbu1]

Ah , I wasn't sure, seeing as how I've been in Calgary for the past ten years.

I thought that seemed long , but even 3 years is too many for some councilors let alone 20 some, lol.

[Jringe01]

If there was a wind study done someone needs to produce it ASAP

[ibnem2]

Originally Posted by Jringe01

If there was a wind study done someone needs to produce it ASAP

Read the staff report - there is a wind study. Common sense dictates that there is no wind issue and even if the opposition (who use this as an excuse) finally concede to the same, they would simply find another excuse. This is not about the facts - this is about corruption and leadership.

Make sure Fisher, Karsten, Nicoll and others like them are supported in the next election. Make sure McCluskey, Smith and Barkhouse are removed. Alternatively relegate yourself to residing in a decaying community.

[Upwords]

My mistake - municipal elections are every 4 yrs. So to redo the math - that'll take roughly 56 years to rid HRM Council of anti-development members if the strategy is to do it one at a time.

But does it really matter whether it's 56 or 70 years!? Geesh. Common folks, that wasn't the point.

Any advice for how to do this a bit more efficiently would be greatly appreciated. Hint: Start thinking like a special-interest group :-) They monitor and post the voting records of elected officials ... they survey them to determine their stand on certain issues ... they rally their members and stakeholders to support or oppose candidates. All good stuff, but has anyone out there built a similar campaign around pro-development issues?

If not, then I guess maybe it's time somebody did!

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by ibnem2

Read the staff report - there is a wind study. Common sense dictates that there is no wind issue and even if the opposition (who use this as an excuse) finally concede to the same, they would simply find another excuse. This is not about the facts - this is about corruption and leadership.

Make sure Fisher, Karsten, Nicoll and others like them are supported in the next election. Make sure McCluskey, Smith and Barkhouse are removed. Alternatively relegate yourself to residing in a decaying community.

I agree this is about corruption and leadership that's why I asked about the study. IMO it needs to be used to damage her credibility...someone needs to be asking the tough questions...if she lies about this then what else is being hidden? Why is she so careless to lie about a fact that can be so easily disproved, in other words what are her REAL motivations for killing this???? The building is too tall...I don't believe her, all her excuses seem like a smokescreen to me...I hope someone is calling her on it.

I am just a simple guy, no real education beyond high school and I don't usually have a lot of time to keep up on this forum that I dearly love for a city I still dearly love (MTL dweller), let alone have time to dig around for staff reports (though I wish I did ) so that's why I asked about the wind study. I would like to write to her an e-mail expressing my disappointment and questioning her faulty reasoning and wanted confirmation that the wind study existed before I referred to it, I wouldn't want her to come back and say it's not there and have her be right.

If any of you have experience in letter writing of this sort (I don't) and would like to see the text before I send it, PM me. Input/feedback would be welcome

[Dmajackson]

What I am surprised with is how nobody has touched on the issue of what McCluskey is using as her reason for her stance. In the media and particularly the radio clip posted earlier she repeatedly states the public information meeting was a fair analysis of the public opinion. This is not always the case.

Public information meetings (PIM's) are a valuable part of the public input process of most changes undertaken in Halifax. For most people who do not obsessively check the HRM website every week (I'm obviously obsessed) these are the first opportunity to check out a development project. At most meetings this is fine and most people receive a chance to speak their mind with the developer in the room. The problem arises when PIM's are heavily attended and the opposition organizes beforehand. Normally the opposing public lives close to the development site so they receive a flyer advertising the meeting. This provides a couple of weeks for them to organize and ambush the developer at the meeting. Since all meetings are limited to two hours, with only a quarter dedicated to public feedback, organized movement can easily take over these democratic processes and silence out those with differing opinions. I have attended countless PIM's over the years and while most were fair and balanced there have been some exceptions. One example is the Wright's Cove project in Burnside. There was a good turnout at the meeting but organization beforehand by the residents of Basinview Drive threw all the public comments into the negative side. Time ran out quickly in the speaking period so I ended up having to email my comments to Councillor Smith (who by the way does not respond to emails). Despite my efforts to try I was unable to attend the PIM for this project so I cannot say definitively that is what happened here but the creation of a neighbourhood group around that time strongly indicates it is a possibility. I don't know what the best solution is necessarly but I think HRM needs to reconsidered the public portion of these meetings. If there's 60 minutes for public input then I believe it should be split evenly into twenty minute intervals. One for those opposed, one for those in support, and the last twenty for either side of the fence. To make sure as much is heard as possible limit the talking to 2.5 minutes maximum per person and pass around paper and pencil for further comments. These would be handed off to the development officer or developer and some could be answered towards the end of the meeting.

BTW if somebody agrees with me and is excellent at writing letters I would appreciate your help. Sending this to McCluskey would be pointless since she is beyond a lost cause but I think sending it to Mayor Kelly, a city planner (ie Andrew Bone), and a couple of councillors willing to improve themselves (ie Outhit) could get the ball rolling on improving this vital first step in any public consultation in HRM.

[ILoveHalifax]

Dmajackson
Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 6,004

What I am surprised with is how nobody has touched on the issue of what McCluskey is using as her reason for her stance. In the media and particularly the radio clip posted earlier she repeatedly states the public information meeting was a fair analysis of the public opinion. This is not always the case.

Public information meetings (PIM's) are a valuable part of the public input process of most changes undertaken in Halifax. For most people who do not obsessively check the HRM website every week (I'm obviously obsessed) these are the first opportunity to check out a development project. At most meetings this is fine and most people receive a chance to speak their mind with the developer in the room. The problem arises when PIM's are heavily attended and the opposition organizes beforehand. Normally the opposing public lives close to the development site so they receive a flyer advertising the meeting. This provides a couple of weeks for them to organize and ambush the developer at the meeting. Since all meetings are limited to two hours, with only a quarter dedicated to public feedback, organized movement can easily take over these democratic processes and silence out those with differing opinions. I have attended countless PIM's over the years and while most were fair and balanced there have been some exceptions. One example is the Wright's Cove project in Burnside. There was a good turnout at the meeting but organization beforehand by the residents of Basinview Drive threw all the public comments into the negative side. Time ran out quickly in the speaking period so I ended up having to email my comments to Councillor Smith (who by the way does not respond to emails). Despite my efforts to try I was unable to attend the PIM for this project so I cannot say definitively that is what happened here but the creation of a neighbourhood group around that time strongly indicates it is a possibility. I don't know what the best solution is necessarly but I think HRM needs to reconsidered the public portion of these meetings. If there's 60 minutes for public input then I believe it should be split evenly into twenty minute intervals. One for those opposed, one for those in support, and the last twenty for either side of the fence. To make sure as much is heard as possible limit the talking to 2.5 minutes maximum per person and pass around paper and pencil for further comments. These would be handed off to the development officer or developer and some could be answered towards the end of the meeting.

BTW if somebody agrees with me and is excellent at writing letters I would appreciate your help. Sending this to McCluskey would be pointless since she is beyond a lost cause but I think sending it to Mayor Kelly, a city planner (ie Andrew Bone), and a couple of councillors willing to improve themselves (ie Outhit) could get the ball rolling on improving this vital first step in any public consultation in HRM.

This seems similar to the meeting on the widening of Bayers Road. The councilors got up and rallied the residents telling them that this was their chance to voice their opposition.
I am in favor of widening Bayers Road but certainly was not prepared to risk my life to speak against the sentiment in the room. Those people were hostile.

[ibnem2]

@DMAJackson - You're right the process is seriously flawed in the the way that the vocal minority can easily dominate agendas. Something like your suggestion would be an excellent first step in regaining some control.

I would also add that councillors must be given stricter legal instructions on their conduct and methods for assessing projects (which to a large degree is stipulated in staff reports but never respected). Clearly anyone should have an opportunity to speak, but if they cannot speak to relevant planning or other considerations as outlined in staff reports, then their comments should be discounted accordingly. This ... would be more difficult to rehabilitate given the lame moral guidelines that these councillors profess to use as a basis for their decisions.

Another option may be to simply have councillors rule on regional on and not site specific agendas. Staff would provide recommendations on smaller scopes and a positive staff recommendation would automatically result in ratification by council. This means more detailed planning strategies (i.e., Halifax by Design).

Another issue is that many of council's interactions with staff (particularly during informal meetings) border on harassment which must also be addressed.

The luxury and expense of a democracy is often unaffordable and in this case the proof is in the pudding - Dartmouth mainland is in a state of decay. A more aggressive policy needs to be implemented. Unfortunately time and political will are difficult to manage and opportunity goes by. It all goes back to getting vocal and getting leadership elected that will effect positive change. Having the country in the city is not a viable option and we'll be paying thru the nose for it over the next years and decades.

cheers ...

[ibnem2]

Does anyone have a link to the Global TV interview from Saturday night. I can't find it anywhere.

[halifaxboyns]

The funny part in the 'flaw' in the process is this vocal minority (in this case) seems to have had some power and influence up front to get the project shot down before a public hearing. But once an appeal is filed, they will likely not bother to show up at the hearing for the UARB (for various reasons). Its rare that general residents show up - which one could say leads to a balancing of influence at the UARB. We'll see...I know that STV and the HT usually show up when they are involved, but I doubt we'd see any of the residents in this case. If so, it will be a very small amount and they won't understand how to properly contribute in a way that doesn't make their point seem like NIMBYism.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ibnem2

Another option may be to simply have councillors rule on regional on and not site specific agendas.

This is the way to go. It makes far more sense to have clear rules that developers can follow when they are designing their proposals. Right now in most parts of the muicipality developers are expected to invest lots of money in things like wind studies and then go through the community council crapshoot. It makes no sense and it is unfair. These case-by-case decisions are also prone to becoming petty political contests, just as when the federal government starts to concern itself with particular businesses or towns.

Something else to note is that public input extends beyond determining the height of buildings. Even if the height and density are predetermined there are lots of aspects of new developments to look at and in fact it might be better to remove height from the table so it doesn't dominate 95% of the airtime at these meetings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The funny part in the 'flaw' in the process is this vocal minority (in this case) seems to have had some power and influence up front to get the project shot down before a public hearing. But once an appeal is filed, they will likely not bother to show up at the hearing for the UARB (for various reasons). Its rare that general residents show up - which one could say leads to a balancing of influence at the UARB. We'll see...I know that STV and the HT usually show up when they are involved, but I doubt we'd see any of the residents in this case. If so, it will be a very small amount and they won't understand how to properly contribute in a way that doesn't make their point seem like NIMBYism.

I suspect this will just be approved by the UARB. They do make more balanced decisions. The problem is that going to the UARB takes more time and money.

[Upwords]

”The ’right to be heard’ is an important one, but it has to be made compatible with the right of Canadians to see their resources developed thoughtfully and responsibly."

The quote was by Brian Lee Crawley and he was talking about the Northen Gateway pipeline, but it reminded me a lot of this situation - and the fact that Gloria McCluskey said she shut down the process based on comments made by 18 people. (She noted 82 attended the PIM, but only 20 had an opportunity to speak - and 18 spoke against.) Translation: 18 people killed smart development in Dartmouth.

So to punctuate the excellent suggestions made by Dmajackson above ... Crawley further said: "Increasingly, a vocal minority sees regulatory proceedings, not as opportunities to ensure fact-based decision-taking as we develop our resources, but as a place to argue that such development ought not to be allowed at all…allowing such hijacking of the regulatory process allows a vociferous minority to achieve indirectly what they could not win through legitimate democratic debate..."

[kph06]

There is an article in the Herald Business Section stating that the developer is taking this to the URB. That should get Gloria wound up.

[Hali87]

This project is an interesting counterpoint to the situation in the North End with St. Pat's-Alexandra. It's kinda nice that council finally gets called out on their bs. They need to stop improvising when there are legally binding rules in place.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

This project is an interesting counterpoint to the situation in the North End with St. Pat's-Alexandra. It's kinda nice that council finally gets called out on their bs. They need to stop improvising when there are legally binding rules in place.

Unfortunately this has been going on for years and solutions put in place tend to be minimal instead of forward-thinking.

In the past the Peninsula Community Council used to vote on all projects on the peninsula. After the PCC turned down a hearing for the Brewery tower in 2003 or so (just like in Dartmouth), the rules were changed so that developments over a certain dollar value go to regional council.

A better solution probably would have been to put a threshold in place for the entire city. Big developments like this are of regional importance. Another improvement would be to allow a public hearing for every development. It is just evil to ask developers to do wind and traffic studies and then deny them hearings. I also dislike the whole idea of "killing" proposals. If there are deficiencies, those in charge should articulate what they are and tell developers what would be acceptable. The developers should be encouraged to iterate on their projects. Instead, certain councillors are adversarial and try to torpedo just about anything they can. An HbD-style process in Dartmouth would improve this a lot by taking height off the table, although the height limits imposed during the planning phase tend to be too conservative and mostly just seem to reflect what area residents want.