Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Oh there would definitely be opposition, guaranteed.
In fact, in London, they oppose three-storey buildings in the city centre..
In St. Catharines, four storeys gets their ire up, and council kowtows.
How many times must I insist that Halifax isn't uniquely anti-development before people believe me? Really, the degree of NIMBYism and opposition seen here is completely normal for any city. Visit the other local forums and read all the folks on there complaining about the same thing we complain about here.
In fact, on Ossington Avenue in Toronto (a major inner-city commercial street in a dense, city-centre neighbourhood) residents actually pushed recently for exactly what it sounds like Watts is advocating—a localized planning rulebook that would result in scaled-down projects. The local councillor championed it, and it was successfully passed.
What I'm curious to know is if anyone watched the meeting or has a sense of the particulars of the discussion. I don't understand what Watts was proposing because I just saw a few tweets about it. assume I would disagree with her on this, but I want to know the particulars of her argument before I decide...
|
Drybrain, it's entirely possible that Halifax is not "unique" in its NIMBYism-- I'm not yet entirely convinced, but open to the idea-- but I think there's a big difference in how effective NIMBYism is, in stopping developments in Halifax, as compared to Toronto.
We don't have hard numbers to compare (proposals stopped in Toronto vs Halifax) but my sense is it is quite rare for NIMBY hecklers to truly kill a proposal in Toronto if it has the support of city planners.
Normally, city planners support proposals unless they are uniquely invasive or precedent setting (like the Mirvish proposal).
Here's why the process is different: in Toronto, if it makes it to the Ontario Municipal Board (which, unlike NSUARB, has a rep for being developer friendly and approving most proposals that get to it) you can only appeal a decision of the OMB, if the board made an error of law. That's typically not what's at stake in a planning decision. It's usually a question of fact-- based on expert opinions, etc.
By contrast, according to the UARB FAQ, you can appeal the UARB to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on how you'd like to challenge. Each of those court decisions, could lead to further appeals, cross appeals, further motions, etc, etc. The Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the SCC. That can take years to settle.
So in Halifax, the whole problem with the traditional DA process, was the risk, from the get go, that you could be tied up in litigation for years and years, fighting a well funded / wealthy / faux outrage machine, like wealthy Sound End property owners and their various advocacy vehicles, whether its the Heritage Committee, Heritage Foundation, STV, Friends of whatever they are friends with this week.
The appeals process in Toronto/Ontario is much, much, more limited. Without a question of law problem, you're not going anywhere. And if you can get the city planners to approve, your chances are pretty good. It's the difference between development certainty and development chill.