Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason
Wanted to add: The most offensive parking lot to me is the old Birks site, George and Barrington. Lots of the time we say "they should do this" but the government doesn't really have the power to compel the private owner to do anything much at all. In this case, the lot is owned by the government, I believe the province holds it now, traded it for the library site? But whether it is provincial or municipal, the fact that they are holding that land for parking on Barrington is frustrating. If we want downtown revitalized, we need government on all levels to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
|
It's more than what you are saying though. Look at what happened with Texpark. HRM decided to sell the land, but in doing so put no conditions on the sale that gave them any ability to force the development proceed. There was no teeth.
So if government (Municipal or Provincial) is going to sell land to inspire development to occur, it needs to look at the Sisters sites as an example of a successful Request for Proposals (RFP) process that not only got a lot of interest, but seems to have the teeth to require development occur (granted the bidders wanted to start that development as quickly as possible so that isn't an issue in the Sisters Site case).
If the RFP for the TexPark site had conditions on it to push the development forward, this discussion would be mute - the building would've been built by now. All the complaining aside, this is a learning experience for HRM. They haven't had much experience in doing land releases, now they can learn from the mistakes and make sure they aren't repeated.