[Dartmouth] 307 Prince Albert Road | ? m | 16 fl | U/C

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by kph06

I imagine the UARB would over-turn the desicion. McClusky would sure be loud at that session of council.

I've read a couple previous UARB decisions where a project was turfed at first reading. I'll have to dig through my computer back home, but as I recall, in those cases they were approved because part of the UARB's decision called out the community council for not even allowing the people to speak.

[kph06]

It would be funny if the developer built a "16-storey hotel" as-of right, then apply mid construction to change it to residential. I'd much rather live by a residential building then a hotel.

McClusky's argument of the building being far too tall for a neighborhood of single family homes holds no water in my opinion. I grew up near Coburg Place, a 17-storey condo building in a mostly single family neighborhood (there are a few apartments). I never once witnessed or suffered from any ill-effects of this being across the street. It was even popular for university students, which I am sure McClusky sees as the root of all evil.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I'll have to dig through my computer back home, but as I recall, in those cases they were approved because part of the UARB's decision called out the community council for not even allowing the people to speak.

If that's true then it's yet another reason why this is a boneheaded process. Why put something to a vote if there is only ever one reasonable outcome?

These results are usually overturned because (as I'm sure you know better than I) the UARB interprets documents like the MPS, whereas the councillors typically go by public opinion without regard for the rules that they previously established. An impassioned cry of "it's too tall!" is not going to convince the review board. Staff already came down in favour of this, which makes me think that it in fact fits within the framework of the planning documents.

Really what we've got here is just a bumpy ~3 year approval process that involves some councillor bravado. It is very inefficient and isn't competitive with other cities. It's also very unfair to property owners and developers.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kph06

McClusky's argument of the building being far too tall for a neighborhood of single family homes holds no water in my opinion. I grew up near Coburg Place, a 17-storey condo building in a mostly single family neighborhood (there are a few apartments). I never once witnessed or suffered from any ill-effects of this being across the street. It was even popular for university students, which I am sure McClusky sees as the root of all evil.

I live in a 4-storey condo building in Vancouver that is next to a park and a cluster of 30+ storey apartments buildings. I don't really notice the apartments.

The only real effect of the high-density stuff near me is that I get to live conveniently by a busy train station and a bunch of stores. If the higher density population weren't here then none of that would be here either because there wouldn't be enough people to support it.

[ibnem2]

Comments from the developer on Facebook - check out the letter he wrote.

http://www.facebook.com/princealbert...=wall&filter=1

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

If that's true then it's yet another reason why this is a boneheaded process. Why put something to a vote if there is only ever one reasonable outcome?

These results are usually overturned because (as I'm sure you know better than I) the UARB interprets documents like the MPS, whereas the councillors typically go by public opinion without regard for the rules that they previously established. An impassioned cry of "it's too tall!" is not going to convince the review board. Staff already came down in favour of this, which makes me think that it in fact fits within the framework of the planning documents.

Really what we've got here is just a bumpy ~3 year approval process that involves some councillor bravado. It is very inefficient and isn't competitive with other cities. It's also very unfair to property owners and developers.

Well it's by no means certain, but the two decisions I read certainly overturned such a decision simply because there was no attempt to even interpet the MPS or have a discussion.

Calgary's system (which falls under the Alberta MGA) is to hold a public hearing first. Then debate with staff, then decide to go for first reading. The public hearing is advertised in advance of first reading. So if the vote goes negative, the project is refused. If first reading is given, they move onto second reading - where if there is a desire, things in the proposal or regulations can be changed (but if it's a straight rezoning nothing can be changed). If second reading passes, then they give 3rd and the process is done. If you watch our public hearings, it's a different process. I don't know if its better, just different.

The UARB does actually act like planners interpreting the MPS and bylaw, which is part of the reason why the staff reports are so long. In the event of an appeal, the report forms part of the information. But one thing that usually happens in an appeal is the few NIMBYs that don't like a project don't show up. So you'll typically see someone acting on behalf of HRM (who has to defend the decision), then the applicant and a few interested parties. Anyone can go and speak though, as I understand it, but few NIMBY groups (other than save the view or the heritage trust) actually show up. So rarely do you get a lot of vocal opposition.

On the few times I've been aware that some people did show up to give their NIMBY points of view, the UARB tore them appart because they couldn't give any planning reasons why the project was bad.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

My problem with how this was handled, is that it didn't allow the people who showed up to speak. I think this was first reading only, so they wouldn't have been able too anyway...but because they didn't give 1st reading to the proposal - no public hearing can happen.

Whether the people were there to support or oppose, the proposal should've been given 1st reading prompting a public hearing so everyone's views could be heard. The way this was done, didn't allow that. People's views were not even given an opportunity to be heard...if they had done the public hearing, I suspect the vote would've been no different, but at least the people would've been heard. The people (the voters) weren't heard...because you can't let a public information meeting be the basis to form an opinion.

This is the same tactic that McCluskey was successful with regarding the proposal to develop Brightwood, maybe 5 or 6 years ago. She got the thing shot down even before first reading and nobody was able to speak in favor or against. It was as despicable then as it is now, but she knows how to work the system to her favor. I hope the developer in this case appeals to the UARB. In the Brightwood case, the developer was getting cold feet and chose not to.

The comments on the CBC item are interesting. The majority seem to be in favor of the developer. Those against are not well argued and mostly consist of "it's TOO TALL!!!" or "it doesn't belong in my neighborhood". The for/against voting is also strongly in favor of the developer. This is encouraging. At least it seems to indicate that those reading the item are in step with moving this burg forward, and that it is councilors like McCluskey, Smith and Barkhouse who are out of step.

[halifaxboyns]

The comments on the developers facebook site would certainly lead me to believe an appeal is coming.

[ibnem2]

Something like 80% of thumbs are up for the project and down for this councillor - What a joke.

Don't forget CBC is not a pro development forum, so this is BIG.

Just saw one that said "Gloria for Mayor" - I know that no one votes in elections anymore, but just for fun lets see if we can get a hundred thumbs against.

By the way, this issue is competing with some major national stories (for total thumbs at least).

Thumb her - I do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...apartment.html

[Keith P.]

Glorious McCrusty was on the Rick Howe show this afternoon and set a new low for obnoxiousness. Aside from nastily slamming potential mayoral candidate Mike Savage - she's a Kelly supporter - she went on about how democracy wasn't only for the developer but also the neighborhood residents, and cited a 300-signature petition opposing the project as reason why she torpedoed it. She also accused the developer of intimidation tactics by having supporters show up at the meeting wearing buttons in favor of the project. She made it sound like this was some kind of unheard-of underhanded tactic and was in general very nasty towards the project.

I have known her for years and she was always a handful, with a bellicose personality and a big mouth. As she has aged this has gotten worse to where she is now quite mean-spirited and close-minded. Her time has passed.

ETA clip of interview: Glorious in full cry

[someone123]

Even after bad mouthing Fisher and Savage she still managed to work in that nugget about being blown over by the horrible winds generated by tall buildings. The hotel stuff is also priceless. There was no hotel! Okay, there was a development permit, but good luck building it out there!

Funny how when you're 700 years old they called you "feisty", but when you're younger they call you something else...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Even after bad mouthing Fisher and Savage she still managed to work in that nugget about being blown over by the horrible winds generated by tall buildings. The hotel stuff is also priceless. There was no hotel! Okay, there was a development permit, but good luck building it out there!

Funny how when you're 700 years old they called you "feisty", but when you're younger they call you something else...

I didn't listen to the clip, but I'm not surprised.
Without hearing his election platform, I have to say I'm a little curious about Mike as mayor. We'll have to see, but one thing Keith posted either on here or on the CBC article I totally agree with. When you throw staff under the bus, they get demoralized. I can only imagine how they are feeling after all this and it must be annoying.

It's one thing to be respectful, have public input, debate and still disagree in a respectful way. That's one thing I'll give Uteck and Sloane credit on when I worked for HRM. They never threw staff under the bus, at least when I worked there. But they would respectfully debate and be respectful about disagreeing.

I hope he appeals. The CH had an interesting article about this, here.

[ibnem2]

I know that in an earlier post I spoke of being high minded and not bantering to the lower levels of the human species. I was living well and flying high, but then to my great mis-fortune, the Gloria rubbed off on me and I now find myself devolving to a lesser evolutionary state - 700 years is nuthin, compared to where I am now. Right - Now that that's off the table, I can speak my Cro-Magnon mind.

So, lets start with that wonderful German folk tale called Hansel & Gretel, and I think there's also a witch and some kids. So, once upon a time .... um ... um ... OK so I'm stuck, either because this storey is historically newer than my newly devolved state, or simply due to a loss of faculties from my recent devolution. Good news is that I now "Can have a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman)".

But de-seriously.

This lady claims to be the protector of the little man and the voice of her constituents. Yes - This lady panders to voters but only the select few that have either voted in past for her or those that may yet vote for her again. She not only dis-services HRM constituents at large but totally ignores anyone in her constituency that voted for the other guy or even worse, those in a state of Glori-apathy that choose not to vote at all.

Aha! - I suddenly feel evolution rebounding and a revolutionary idea. I have it all figured out, but rather than tell you now ... tune in tomorrow, same time, same place.

Don't miss it !

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Glorious McCrusty was on the Rick Howe show this afternoon and set a new low for obnoxiousness. Aside from nastily slamming potential mayoral candidate Mike Savage - she's a Kelly supporter - she went on about how democracy wasn't only for the developer but also the neighborhood residents, and cited a 300-signature petition opposing the project as reason why she torpedoed it. She also accused the developer of intimidation tactics by having supporters show up at the meeting wearing buttons in favor of the project. She made it sound like this was some kind of unheard-of underhanded tactic and was in general very nasty towards the project.

I have known her for years and she was always a handful, with a bellicose personality and a big mouth. As she has aged this has gotten worse to where she is now quite mean-spirited and close-minded. Her time has passed.

ETA clip of interview: Glorious in full cry

Her quotes in the AllNS article were also priceless in a incredibly frustrating sense.

She was stating as "fact" that she knew that people in the area did not support this. Really? A) There are lots of people who do support it, and B) How do you "know" what the public thinks when you very specifically killed the method by which the public provides its input? It was absolutely laughable if not Orwellian, that you would vote to not allow public consultation with the stated reason being that supports what the public wants. The reality is that she looked only at those who agreed with her POV, and then pulls the standard politician trick of stating something as a "fact" (i.e. that "people in the area were against this) which is not only not true but that you couldn't know as a fact anyway because you never consulted people!!??

[Pete Crawford]

We had a big debate about this development at my family dinner on Wednesday. My cousin, Barrett, who is a PhD in economics and who works as a urban development economist for the government of Abu Dhabi, got a little annoyed and decided to write to McCluskey. Here's the text of his letter below.

--

A COMMENT ON ECONOMIC STRATEGY

Dear Councillor McCluskey,

My name is Dr. Barrett Cliffen, I am an economic development advisor currently living between London, UK and Abu Dhabi, but I was born and grew up in your district in Dartmouth. I have dedicated my profession to developing strategies that encourage sustainable economic growth that improves local quality of life. I've found that every community I visit is different, and that few policy prescriptions can be generalized. In every community, however, (rural, urban, suburban, developed, underdeveloped) I have observed that the availability of private investment in fixed capital (vs. government investment) is the most promising sign of economic dynamism.

I'm writing to you because I spent the last few weeks in Dartmouth to visit with my family. I was very keen to observe the growth and development occurring here, but also very concerned about our city falling behind. I must admit that I was disappointed to hear of your involvement in summarily dismissing the 307 Prince Albert development this week. The residential and commercial spinoffs from this project are ones that Dartmouth and the local area is in desperate need of.

I understand that you had concerns regarding the building's height. But councillor, with respect, I do sense that you and your colleagues have a disposition that does not give private development a fair run in this city. From my experience, such an investment reality can be just as damaging to growth as a severe long-term drop business confidence. Areas transitioning from smaller cities to larger centres often fall victim to this mentality, and it can diminish a considerable potential for economic development. I've seen many promising regions fall behind for various reasons, but watching Dartmouth fall behind national and international standards of progress pains me a great deal.

In hearings for future developments councillor, I would encourage you to consider Dartmouth's place in a more competitive regional and international context. I am disheartened to say that decisions like these create a stagnant community that young people in similar situations to mine will choose to permanently leave.

Respectfully Yours,

Dr. Barret C. Cliffen, MSc., PhD(Cantab).

--

Not sure if McCluskey replied or not. She's probably far too old and stubborn to realize how valuable advice from somebody like this is. You should see how much money the UAE government pays him for the same kind of advice.

This really reminds me how much of a foolish little town Dartmouth is.

[JET]

I like Gloria, but this decision makes no sense. I live closer to Sullivan's pond, but still in the community affected. I usually wait for public hearings to get involved. it is frustrating that opportunity was taken away.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pete Crawford

Areas transitioning from smaller cities to larger centres often fall victim to this mentality, and it can diminish a considerable potential for economic development. I've seen many promising regions fall behind for various reasons, but watching Dartmouth fall behind national and international standards of progress pains me a great deal.

That is a great letter.

There is a very myopic attitude that developers exist more or less at the leisure of local residents (in the Louis XIV sense), and that they can be screwed around with as much as required to make residents happy. It's pretty rare that you ever hear somebody mention the amount of work or money that must go into these proposals or the taxes paid while these sites sit in limbo. Usually you hear comments like Gloria's -- too bad, it's all their fault, they should have known, they should have done a better job giving us what we want, etc.

The problem is that neither side of that equation for pleasing residents is correct. They can't be screwed around with indefinitely and over the long term that's not how you make residents happy. If you screw around with developers too much they invest elsewhere and there are many unintended consequences. Halifax is a small town and its economic status is certainly not written in stone.

If Gloria is aware of any of this she hasn't made it particularly clear with her comments. I'm tempted to say that maybe she just doesn't care because she views the city as a retirement home, but most retirees want their kids to be able to live nearby, afford housing, get jobs, etc. I suspect that the real explanation is just that lots of people just don't think about this stuff very much.

[Keith P.]

Ol' Glorious was on 95.7 again this morning, this time with Jordi Morgan and Coun. Darren Fisher, again debating this development. Jordi seemed to do a better job than Rick Howe of challenging her position, but I wasn't able to hear enough of it to tell how it all played out. She did take a few shots at Fisher during the snippet I heard. If I find the audio online, I'll post a link.

[Mr. Hunt]

http://pmd.news957.com/podcasts/atla...12012-0830.mp3

[kph06]

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

My biggest complaint is how she thinks democracy was upheld because she spoke to the people in the community and they were against it. She basically said its their community and outsiders shouldn't have a say. If this was the case the Pacey's, Beverly Miller and the rest of the Heritage Trust should be locked out of council meetings because they rarely live in the community they are "fighting for".

If there was such overwhelming disdain for the project as she portrays then what is the harm in letting it go to a public hearing - at least people can speak for themselves, maybe their arguments would have been more classy, eloquent or relevant then those of Ms. McCluskey's.

She seemed to be proud of the statement: "we go against staff recommendation all the time". So why have them then? They have degree's in planning, engineering and many other technical fields, but she instantly discredits that.

The fact that she kept referring to the developer as "greedy" is ridiculous and aimed to vilify the people who pay for the growth of the city. I can't remember the last time HRM had a hands on roll in expanding the residential areas of the city, maybe the 1960's with the development of Sackville by the housing board?

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. Does she have the right to ask for whatever she pleases with no guarantee the proposal will even be given a fighting chance to succeed?