General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You have the cart before the horse. Cities with great economies tend to attract the arts because they follow the money. People who make big bucks tend to be patrons of the arts. You don't succeed as an economy by subsidizing arts groups with govt money when your city is falling apart. Fringe groups like KAS are always going to have their hand out because they do not appeal very much to the monied class. I have a problem with giving them $4 million.

A: Arts funding has to come partly from the public purse--the patonage of the wealthy is insufficient. And art cannot simply about appeal to "the monied class."

B: The city is not falling apart.

I'm sensing this is a pointless, circular conversation though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Fringe groups like KAS are always going to have their hand out because they do not appeal very much to the monied class. I have a problem with giving them $4 million.

I'm confused here. You keep stating that the city is giving the KAS $4,000,000.

However, I thought that the $4,000,000 figure was the cost of refurbishing the Khyber building, which the city owns, and is considering letting the KAS use. I don't believe they are giving the building to the KAS, so therefore the figure you quoted is simply the cost of the city investing in its own property. In fact, one could argue that much of it is just overdue investment incurred from years of neglect - money that should have already been spent in the past to maintain the building. The rest would be extra cost for damage due to the neglect by its owners (us, the taxpayers, through our representatives in City Hall).

So let's get it straight - we are arguing over whether the city should spend money to maintain a building that it owns, or act like a slum landlord and let it deteriorate until it must be condemned. If we want to improve the image of our city, refurbishing and properly maintaining City properties isn't something that should even be questioned - it should be expected.



http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2015/03/24/yes-the-khyber-is-still-safe-for-now

FWIW, It doesn't appear that the city is giving $4,000,000 to any organizations.

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/bccgrants/documents/gc150209item7.1.1.pdf

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/bccgrants/documents/Grants141103item7.1.2.pdf

[Keith P.]

The only reason they are talking about spending $4 million or whatever bigger number it finally becomes is because KAS and their supporters kicked up a fuss when the city declared the building surplus. The city has no use for the building and does not want to own it, much less to restore it. That's why they declared it surplus. The only use for the theoretically restored building is for the KAS to continue to use it as their clubhouse - paying rent that is also funded by an annual operating grant from the city. You might think that having the city pay to rebuild your house and then paying your operating costs isn't a gift, but I beg to differ.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A: Arts funding has to come partly from the public purse--the patonage of the wealthy is insufficient. And art cannot simply about appeal to "the monied class."

That sounds like a pretty good argument for a stadium. Imagine the rock concerts and interpretive dance recitals that could attract 30,000 or more!

B: The city is not falling apart.

A cursory look at the state of our roads, bridges, and sewer/water infrastructure would not support such a statement.

I'm sensing this is a pointless, circular conversation though.

A discussion that refutes your position is not a circular conversation.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Maybe all those families in the suburbs are foreign national terrorist agents integrating themselves into our society to eventually take us over? I'm not sure how else to explain it. Because the argument here from the planners is that they aren't important citizens and taxpayers. I find that absolutely astounding, that people employed by govts in the various public services would deem one group of individuals undesirable and their need for services unnecessary because of where they choose to live.

Firstly, your first statement - completely and utterly inappropriate and shows a complete lack of cultural respect and I don't care whether you did it for shock value - frankly should get you banned from the site. It shows a level of disrespect of cultural diversity that is shocking in this day and age.

Secondly - where have I ever said that folks in suburbs are not important? Where and when? What I've said is that we need to balance the $ money that is spent throughout but that city building isn't always about getting folks from the burbs in cars through neighbourhoods. Meaning: don't bulldoze one neighbourhood to benefit another because both are equally important. Balance the needs not one over the other.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The only reason they are talking about spending $4 million or whatever bigger number it finally becomes is because KAS and their supporters kicked up a fuss when the city declared the building surplus. The city has no use for the building and does not want to own it, much less to restore it. That's why they declared it surplus. The only use for the theoretically restored building is for the KAS to continue to use it as their clubhouse - paying rent that is also funded by an annual operating grant from the city. You might think that having the city pay to rebuild your house and then paying your operating costs isn't a gift, but I beg to differ.

To be clear:
(1) "The city" is us - the citizens, the taxpayers. The people in municipal government are there to act as our representatives.
(2) "We" have decided that we want to keep the Khyber, and have communicated through a petition, emails, etc. to our representatives that we do value the Khyber building and the arts organization that has been residing in it.
(3) Our representatives have changed plans for the building based on what "we" want and have taken it off the surplus list. Now they are acting responsibly and quantifying the finances to carry out "our" wishes.
(4) If there had been a massive outcry of people sharing your views, outnumbering those who want to keep it, the decision would likely have turned out differently. Where were all the detractors? Even in a "skyscraper" forum, the overwhelming preference appears to be for keeping this old, non-skyscraper building.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be clear:
(1) "The city" is us - the citizens, the taxpayers. The people in municipal government are there to act as our representatives.
(2) "We" have decided that we want to keep the Khyber, and have communicated through a petition, emails, etc. to our representatives that we do value the Khyber building and the arts organization that has been residing in it.
(3) Our representatives have changed plans for the building based on what "we" want and have taken it off the surplus list. Now they are acting responsibly and quantifying the finances to carry out "our" wishes.
(4) If there had been a massive outcry of people sharing your views, outnumbering those who want to keep it, the decision would likely have turned out differently. Where were all the detractors? Even in a "skyscraper" forum, the overwhelming preference appears to be for keeping this old, non-skyscraper building.

Well said. Citizens don't approve things and we need to realize legally and legislatively we don't. So when I hear out here that a community association voted against a redevelopment - that's nice. They aren't the approving authority - staff are. Or in this case - council. If you don't like the decision - let council know. It makes me wonder how many of the folks on here hide behind their profiles and make comments but ever contribute (be it for or against something). I'm sure for this forum, the %age is quite high of those who do go to speak or participate. But I'm sure there are a few who are quite opinionated that don't. It's like complaining about government but you didn't vote.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Firstly, your first statement - completely and utterly inappropriate and shows a complete lack of cultural respect and I don't care whether you did it for shock value - frankly should get you banned from the site. It shows a level of disrespect of cultural diversity that is shocking in this day and age.

Go watch "The Americans", then you will get the reference. That's OK, no need to apologize.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be clear:
(1) "The city" is us - the citizens, the taxpayers. The people in municipal government are there to act as our representatives.
(2) "We" have decided that we want to keep the Khyber, and have communicated through a petition, emails, etc. to our representatives that we do value the Khyber building and the arts organization that has been residing in it.
(3) Our representatives have changed plans for the building based on what "we" want and have taken it off the surplus list. Now they are acting responsibly and quantifying the finances to carry out "our" wishes.
(4) If there had been a massive outcry of people sharing your views, outnumbering those who want to keep it, the decision would likely have turned out differently. Where were all the detractors? Even in a "skyscraper" forum, the overwhelming preference appears to be for keeping this old, non-skyscraper building.

OK, let's be clear:

(1) HRM senior staff compiled a list of surplus city buildings they no longer want and have no use for, and that list was signed off by the CAO, the highest-level employee of the city.
(2) a couple of council members went apeshit when they saw the beloved Khyber on the list and asked for a couple of reports.
(3) those reports have now been delivered
(4) the reports show the costs of rehabbing the building as $4 million and they also show that the supposed "cultural strategy" never got to first base because nobody could get their respective acts together (likely fault on both the city and arts group parts)
(5) no other decisions have been made as to whether we dump it, fix it or whatever. It is still a very open question.

One can only hope that there are 9 sane council members at the meeting when this comes to a vote and we do not proceed with this insanity.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Secondly - where have I ever said that folks in suburbs are not important? Where and when? What I've said is that we need to balance the $ money that is spent throughout but that city building isn't always about getting folks from the burbs in cars through neighbourhoods. Meaning: don't bulldoze one neighbourhood to benefit another because both are equally important. Balance the needs not one over the other.

I refer you to this:

When we think about world class cities, they have recognized that it's about providing services for what the changing demographics want. Younger folks are looking for cities where cars aren't the priority and have significant cultural aspects. Jeff boiled it down like this (and I thought it was a great metaphor): do you want a 1 star city (like a Macdonald's) or do you want a 3 star city (moxie's or something like that) or do you want a 5 star city?

The world class cities build bike lanes and encourage investments in transit and culture, because that's what the younger demographics who are moving to them want. They don't want to own a car, they want the excitement of downtown cultural areas.


So if you're "world class" you're younger, live downtown, own a bike but not a car, and go to indie shows. If you live in the 'burbs with your wife and kids and minivan, drive to and from places, take them to fast food now and then and maybe watch a TV show for entertainment, you're something other than "world class" and are part of the 1-star McDonald's class.

I didn't say that, you did.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I refer you to this:

When we think about world class cities, they have recognized that it's about providing services for what the changing demographics want. Younger folks are looking for cities where cars aren't the priority and have significant cultural aspects. Jeff boiled it down like this (and I thought it was a great metaphor): do you want a 1 star city (like a Macdonald's) or do you want a 3 star city (moxie's or something like that) or do you want a 5 star city?

The world class cities build bike lanes and encourage investments in transit and culture, because that's what the younger demographics who are moving to them want. They don't want to own a car, they want the excitement of downtown cultural areas.


So if you're "world class" you're younger, live downtown, own a bike but not a car, and go to indie shows. If you live in the 'burbs with your wife and kids and minivan, drive to and from places, take them to fast food now and then and maybe watch a TV show for entertainment, you're something other than "world class" and are part of the 1-star McDonald's class.

I didn't say that, you did.

Wow you really need to learn to read - I was trying to equate the rating system that Jeff used to something quantifiable that could be understood of what 1 star versus 3 stars was. And he said it; not I. I quoted him (if you actually read my quote).

I grew up in the suburbs and when I was a child, I enjoyed it. If people want to live in the suburbs or even in rural areas then that's fine. When I grew, I realized I wanted to live downtown. People can raise children downtown - more 'world class cities' are setting up their downtowns to be places they can raise kids.

But I'm talking to a brick wall here who can only resort to bitter name calling and to justify his arguments and hides behind the shadow of a profile and likely has never shown up to regional council meeting to voice his true concerns. So best of luck in getting the City you want. I'm perfectly happy with the progressive thinking that's been happening in Halifax and frankly want to see more of it and will happily put my tax dollars towards it.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

OK, let's be clear:

(1) HRM senior staff compiled a list of surplus city buildings they no longer want and have no use for, and that list was signed off by the CAO, the highest-level employee of the city.
(2) a couple of council members went apeshit when they saw the beloved Khyber on the list and asked for a couple of reports.
(3) those reports have now been delivered
(4) the reports show the costs of rehabbing the building as $4 million and they also show that the supposed "cultural strategy" never got to first base because nobody could get their respective acts together (likely fault on both the city and arts group parts)
(5) no other decisions have been made as to whether we dump it, fix it or whatever. It is still a very open question.

One can only hope that there are 9 sane council members at the meeting when this comes to a vote and we do not proceed with this insanity.

When you get in government - you can be on council and voice these concerns and be a part of the decision making. If you are so strongly opinionated...then run for councillor or mayor. Otherwise, you aren't part of the decision process - get over it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

OK, let's be clear:

(1) HRM senior staff compiled a list of surplus city buildings they no longer want and have no use for, and that list was signed off by the CAO, the highest-level employee of the city.

And overturned by the efforts of a large group of citizens. The democratic process working as it should.

(2) a couple of council members went apeshit when they saw the beloved Khyber on the list and asked for a couple of reports.

Too much emotion wrapped up in this statement for me to take it seriously.

(3) those reports have now been delivered

Agree.

(4) the reports show the costs of rehabbing the building as $4 million

Fact.

and they also show that the supposed "cultural strategy" never got to first base because nobody could get their respective acts together (likely fault on both the city and arts group parts)

An indication that better communication and collaboration is needed, but not a failure of the concept.

(5) no other decisions have been made as to whether we dump it, fix it or whatever. It is still a very open question.

I've been looking for results of the latest meeting but couldn't find any as yet. You're right that it is an open question but it appears that the momentum has changed from pre-September 2014.

One can only hope that there are 9 sane council members at the meeting when this comes to a vote and we do not proceed with this insanity.

A statement slanted towards your point of view. Again, hard to take seriously.

That said, I appreciate the debate even if you're wrong (that's a joke... ).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And overturned by the efforts of a large group of citizens. The democratic process working as it should.

Actually, that is hugely anti-democratic. The arts groups lobbied a few council members for that. The population at large was not asked their opinion.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

When you get in government - you can be on council and voice these concerns and be a part of the decision making. If you are so strongly opinionated...then run for councillor or mayor. Otherwise, you aren't part of the decision process - get over it.

Excuuuuse me. I was unaware you were an elected representative.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Wow you really need to learn to read - I was trying to equate the rating system that Jeff used to something quantifiable that could be understood of what 1 star versus 3 stars was. And he said it; not I. I quoted him (if you actually read my quote).

And then you expressed your support for it, calling it a great metaphor.

But I'm talking to a brick wall here who can only resort to bitter name calling and to justify his arguments and hides behind the shadow of a profile and likely has never shown up to regional council meeting to voice his true concerns. So best of luck in getting the City you want. I'm perfectly happy with the progressive thinking that's been happening in Halifax and frankly want to see more of it and will happily put my tax dollars towards it.

I resent that statement. I called you no names nor did I call anyone else names. I have been here a long time and understand how it works. You, on the other hand, based on some wild misreading of something I posted, called me something *that close* to a racist and demanded I be banned. Get a grip.

As for profile names, I am unaware of who anyone here is. Even "Waye Mason" and "Colin May" could well be pseudonyms. I fail to see why you claim some level of superiority just because a few people here may be aware of who you are. I don't know who you are nor why you think you are better or deserve to get your way. Take a deep breath and realize this is not your kingdom, it is an internet forum where not everyone will agree with your views.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Actually, that is hugely anti-democratic. The arts groups lobbied a few council members for that. The population at large was not asked their opinion.

It wasn't a public hearing. Sorry you don't like how the HRM charter is setup to ask for public engagement, but some decisions don't require public input. If you have an issue with governance structure, take it up with the Province to change the HRM charter so that every decision HRM council makes requires a public hearing. When they do that, don't complain that the costs of running HRM go up because Council meetings run into weeks. Plus nothing stopped you from going to lobby council members - what times did you meet with them to express your opinions?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Excuuuuse me. I was unaware you were an elected representative.

I'm not - never said I was. But I've worked in enough governments to understand governance structures. When the councilors are at the table at regional council they are making decisions at a regional level. If they focused on their districts all the time, nothing would ever be done.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And then you expressed your support for it, calling it a great metaphor.

I resent that statement. I called you no names nor did I call anyone else names. I have been here a long time and understand how it works. You, on the other hand, based on some wild misreading of something I posted, called me something *that close* to a racist and demanded I be banned. Get a grip.

As for profile names, I am unaware of who anyone here is. Even "Waye Mason" and "Colin May" could well be pseudonyms. I fail to see why you claim some level of superiority just because a few people here may be aware of who you are. I don't know who you are nor why you think you are better or deserve to get your way. Take a deep breath and realize this is not your kingdom, it is an internet forum where not everyone will agree with your views.

I called it a great metaphor because it gave people a reasonable understanding of quantifying 1 star versus 3 star. Because if you don't quantify what it means, you can't understand the metaphor.

Were these not your words:
Maybe all those families in the suburbs are foreign national terrorist agents integrating themselves into our society to eventually take us over?
Go watch "The Americans", then you will get the reference. That's OK, no need to apologize.
I would note that this was not your original post since you edited it - you actually posted "Go watch 'The Americans' and go eat a snickers' - - so what exactly did you mean then?

I don't care whether you agree, could care less. But when you take a debate into a personal realm - frankly, I'm not going to tolerate it whether it's aimed at me or anyone else on here (such as your frequent personal attacks on people positive on cycle tracks). I'd also add that this isn't your personal kingdom, nor anyone else's - it's a forum. I don't lose sleep over it. I have never hidden behind by profile - I was here putting on an urban planning film festival, at the dal student planning conference given Allan Ruffman a hard time and have always made myself available when I come home to discuss and debate planning. So if you want to have a rationale, non-racist statement spouting debate about planning over coffee - I'm more than happy to do it. I enjoy debating people who don't agree with me, keeps up the debate skills and I'd be happy to buy your coffee. Keep the person attacks at home. I will end this debate with you to say we agree to disagree.

[TheNovaScotian]

Keith this is a place of urban planning issues, when your talking to a bunch of biologists do you insert your wild ideas and tell them that they aren't authorities on the subject?

I respect what everyone on this forum has to say, some more than others due to their educational background and profession. Since we don't know what you do as a professional though I doubt it is an urban planner or council member, I cannot put your opinion in as high a regard as Halifaxboyns due to his profession that over years of posting on this site has been built.

Your role as devils advocate in many arguments usually cracks me up. but Kieth why the personal attacks over something so mundane as Art's funding? The KAS funding isn't up for debate right now, so the point is moot.

This is a building that is owned by the city, who has to maintain the building up to the it's own building standards. While subsidizing the suburbs, buildings like this and the Dennis have fallen into disrepair due to the negligence of your generations governance. Which we "the urbanites" will correct, by ending decades of misuse of public dollars financing your suburban dreams. muhahahahahaha

The true cost of the suburbia is nowhere near paid in your taxes, sorry to tell you. If you had to pay for the initial cost of the new schools, roads, policing and fire it wouldnt be possible to live where you live right now. Welcome to part of the Welfare state if you live in suburbia, if you want to look at public subsidies that way.

[ILoveHalifax]

This note will probably go on deaf ears - but..

I see that we have a number of YOUNG planners on this site who believe that because they have read a few books and sat in a few classes that their opinion counts while others opinions do not.

They seem to believe that their ideas of planning have evolved to where they have all the answers. Everything done in the past does not meet their level of thought.

I suspect that as time goes by that there will be further evolution of thought in planning and possible even a return to some of the ideas from past decades. Time will tell but let me assure you as someone who has always been interested in these ideas as far as I am concerned age provides some wisdom and possibly a broader insite than the young planners possess.