[Halifax] The Craigmore | 46 m | 16 fl | Complete

[Keith P.]

You need to keep in mind that this is a fairly ritzy, tony sort of street. The Chisholm property is assessed at nearly $500,000. They tend to be pretty territorial at that price point regarding their neighbors.

[DigitalNinja]

Hey everyone.

I e-mailed the author of the CH article about there being only negative comments in the article. Here is what she said back:

Hi there Matthew, Thanks for writing in. The article was solely based on the meeting last night during which nothing but negative comments were made.
I fully used the IWK personnel comments, which were the only positive ones at the two-hour meeting.
Thank you for your suggestion. No one to date has approached us about being interviewed concerning supporting the facility.
If you know anyone who would like to be interviewed, please get in touch.
Thanks very much again.
Eva Hoare

If anyone would like to be interviewed about this development and what your comments posted, tell me and I will e-mail her back letting her know.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

please get in touch.
Thanks very much again.
Eva Hoare

With a name like that, I bet she'd love to "get in touch".

How's that for a positive comment!

That Chisholm guy is just being a dick...

[someone456]

There have been pretty rude comments made about the people who were interviewed after the community meeting as well as the lady who wrote the article for the Chronicle Herald - not very professional!

The real story here is how the IWK have been granted a permit from HRM to use space in a building that doesn't confrom to the land use bylaws. They are a hospital, and they plan to treat disease in the Craigmore Building, however the property is zoned C1. They also plan to do Forensic Mental Health Assessments - when a youth criminal is remanded for mental health review, they will be sent to the Craigmore Building. That service was always carried out by the NS Hospital in Dartmouth or Waterville where the property is specifically zoned for prison useage.

I know people in this neighborhood - other than this building and a church, the entire area is zoned R1 - single family homes. My opinion - anyone who states they would be fine with having this proprty usage next to their house is lying. The people in that neighborhood actually stand to lose value on their property as a result of this IWK move - for those posters here who think "who cares" I say, I hope this never happens to you! Good luck in fighting the governenment after you have lost 20% of the value in your home!

Also - During the community meeting the prior week when the actual high-rise was outlined by Banc Properties, the Chisholm fellow wasn't against that. He stated concern for the safety of his children. It supposes that some of the posters here don't like dissenting opinions of any kind.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone456

I know people in this neighborhood - other than this building and a church, the entire area is zoned R1 - single family homes. My opinion - anyone who states they would be fine with having this proprty usage next to their house is lying. The people in that neighborhood actually stand to lose value on their property as a result of this IWK move - for those posters here who think "who cares" I say, I hope this never happens to you! Good luck in fighting the governenment after you have lost 20% of the value in your home!

Will property values really drop by 20%? Isn't there is an office building and rotary in that same neighbourhood? If there will be such a drop in real estate values then why would a condo builder want it in their building?

Does anyone have renderings for this condo?

[someone456]

The condo developer will build and sell 70 odd units on a piece of "free" land that was aquired in the purchase of the commercial building. So the selling price needs only to be higher than the cost of construction for a profitable venture - that stated, if you live on the 10th floor with a beautiful view of the NW Arm, and there are court ordered prisoners at road level, what is it to you? You will drive past - enter a secure garage - travel up your elevator and be removed from the problem. Your condo value will probably stay as what you paid.

If on the other hand, you live directly across the street from what used to be a call center and now has Sheriff Vans delivering kids in orange jumpsuits from Waterville do you honestly think your property value will not be affected?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

Project planned for Armdale miffs residents
Condo tower, addiction centre in works
By CLARE MELLOR Staff Reporter
Fri. May 14 - 4:54 AM

....

Alex Halef, one of the principals of family-owned Banc Properties, said Thursday that construction on the 77-unit condo building is estimated to cost $14 million and could start as early as this summer.

The company bought the property from Manulife in February.

......

( cmellor@herald.ca)

According to this story the property was bought, so it isn't a free piece of property.

If the addiction centre wasn't included in the condo, would there still be opposition? Is this actual opposition to the addiction centre or is it just a way to oppose the condo building?

[someone456]

The value of the Craigmore building as it was appraised is what it sold for to the developers, $4m +/-. The leasing of the building using general commercial market rates would support a commercial mortgage for the building - so the land that came with it (parking lot behind) is "free". If that had been a vacant piece of land a $1m would have been a reasonable sale price expectation.

The condo development is "as of right". The concren of the local neighborhood is how HRM decide what should and shouldn't be included in land use bylaw interpretations. This is about the government making arbitrary decisions and expecting taxpayers to then take them to court and fight the decisions.

I spoke to one of the residents earlier today. HRM sent notification to all direct neighbors last week informing them that HRM had recently allowed a variance to the land use bylaw so that IWK can actually use the Craigmore Building. The notice instructs the residents that they now have to appeal the decision??? Apparently the building is too close to a property line to have the IWK useage allowable. That didn't stop HRM from granting a permit to the developers to build the IWK space. This is what happens when you have a completely unaccountable system of municipal government - they screw up; cover their tracks with a variance; place the responsibility on the residents to fight their original bad decision.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

According to this story the property was bought, so it isn't a free piece of property.

If the addiction centre wasn't included in the condo, would there still be opposition? Is this actual opposition to the addiction centre or is it just a way to oppose the condo building?

Actually, I got that impression... I find that groups have been trying this "veiled" method lately, where they don't argue against what they are truly not in favour of... but present unrelated arguments in an attempt to disrupt the process and possibly screw over the whole development.

Its as of right... and given the negative comments about these poor kids with real problems, these people are actually against the addiction centre.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone456

This is about the government making arbitrary decisions and expecting taxpayers to then take them to court and fight the decisions.

I spoke to one of the residents earlier today. HRM sent notification to all direct neighbors last week informing them that HRM had recently allowed a variance to the land use bylaw so that IWK can actually use the Craigmore Building. The notice instructs the residents that they now have to appeal the decision??? Apparently the building is too close to a property line to have the IWK useage allowable. That didn't stop HRM from granting a permit to the developers to build the IWK space. This is what happens when you have a completely unaccountable system of municipal government - they screw up; cover their tracks with a variance; place the responsibility on the residents to fight their original bad decision.

How is it arbitrary? The arguments against this are what are really arbitrary.

The whole idea of private property is totally getting flipped around here in Halifax. Its actually undemocratic when all of these groups fight developments or usage of land that ISN'T THEIRS! I hate how they cry foul that this is "un-democratic"... its not. Its an infringement on the rights of the property owners in my eyes.

I think HRM is doing whats best for the greater good (only these residents are against it) here and legislating it to be so (i.e. democracy)... Are you against this centre? Is my opinion not supposed to be worth anything because I don't live right next to this?

These kids actually need help... I've had problems in my life and am now successful.

[someone456]

Worldly Halagonian, you are missing the point. HRM have now admitted that the inclusion of IWK into this piece of property was done incorrectly and are trying to change the regulations to grant approval after the fact. They broke the rules - why should the IWK get a pass?

Perhaps the reason seems like a good one (to you), but the regs are in place for exactly this type of thing not to happen. What if it was a strip club?? I'm sure most people would change their opinion.

And to answer your question, yes if you don't live nearby then no your opinion shouldn't count. It's not your property that will be affected. Don't mean to sound harsh but there it is.

[alps]

I would rather see small social services facilities like this integrated into stable neighbourhoods all across the city rather than concentrated along Gottingen like the Craigmore residents would have. They're complaining because they're used to having facilities such as these plopped down next to the poor people who do not have the influence to cause such a stink.

Maybe if it was a strip club opinions would change...but it's not, it's a 14-bed treatment centre for ill children. I would not have a problem with this facility on my street.

The NIMBY crowd elicits "pretty rude comments" because they're hard to take seriously while they're jeering the IWK spokespeople like monkeys and spouting alarmist, insulting silliness like "they're junkies, think of the children"!

[worldlyhaligonian]

I see nothing wrong with healthcare facility being in this neighborhood... I don't really care about the story behind the administrative/clerical errors. Its not like we are talking about anything that is hurting anybody.

Why should the IWK get a free pass? Because the social benefit outweighs the social cost of stupid planning regulations preventing them from opening the centre. Just like all of the rules regarding height in this city are artificial constructs that prevent high density development.

Law and rules aren't sacred cows... if so, think about what our society would be like if changes were not made. Seriously.

This city is overly regulated.

These residents against this addiction recovery centre have rediculous stereotypes against these kids that are trying to improve their quality of life... its almost akin to racism in neighborhoods in the past. We don't want "their kind" in "our neighborhood".

How have we even legislated laws on viewplanes? Who owns a view... the public or the person with the land in front of it? I would tend to believe the latter.

[Haliguy]

Just seems like pure selfishness to me. I really doubt property values will go down at all once this all blows over.

I'm getting so sick of Nimbys.

[someone456]

Since ALPS and Worldly Haligonian are such expert planners perhaps they could provide a list as to which regulations currently on the books at HRM are no longer required; if we are so highly over regulated now (which I happen to agree), wait until developers realize that the current rules won't be used if Capital Health or IWK is the prospective tenant.

And let's stick to facts ALPS - it isn't a 14 bed facility. The addiction services component is 14 beds - the Forensic Mental Health Assessment component is another 12 beds. It is that component that has the majority of area residents concerned - these aren't "kids". The maximum age is 19 - old enough to drink, drive, fight for the country - get my drift. The point is that they should be in Waterville

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by someone456

Since ALPS and Worldly Haligonian are such expert planners perhaps they could provide a list as to which regulations currently on the books at HRM are no longer required; if we are so highly over regulated now (which I happen to agree), wait until developers realize that the current rules won't be used if Capital Health or IWK is the prospective tenant.

And let's stick to facts ALPS - it isn't a 14 bed facility. The addiction services component is 14 beds - the Forensic Mental Health Assessment component is another 12 beds. It is that component that has the majority of area residents concerned - these aren't "kids". The maximum age is 19 - old enough to drink, drive, fight for the country - get my drift. The point is that they should be in Waterville

Maybe you should be the one going to waterville.

I am sure there are many more kids than the 26 they will be putting into a "facility" that are in your nabourhood that are just as bad if not worse than what are going into this guarded facility. It's not like they will hang around there if they get out. They would go right back to their geographic area that they remember.

Also you mention about the zoning. Zoning is meant to be changed, if the zoning was always kept since Halifax was first established the whole place would be military or industrial.

People need to accept what it going to happen. Calling it undemocratic is just being a hippocrit.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone456

Since ALPS and Worldly Haligonian are such expert planners perhaps they could provide a list as to which regulations currently on the books at HRM are no longer required;

To answer you first question:

1) Any building height restrictions, viewplane legislation
2) Bogus tax schemes that favour for suburban expansion
3) Council size and structure
4) Helmet laws
5) Hens bylaw
6) Legislation that makes kids playing street hockey illegal
7) Most of the zoning laws

[HRM]

Someone456

You are appear to be a resident of the area so please stop using the "So Dr I have a FRIEND who has this problem...."

The IWK is not the owner of the building so cannot apply to HRM for a variance. That isn't how it works. Do you think a tenant in a residential rental property can apply to HRM for a variance to raise chickens in the apartment? Silly but you get the point. First of all the owner of the property wouldn't allow that. Only the legal owner of a property can apply for variances. The IWK did not apply for a variance so mistake number 1. Besides the point a variance was not necessary.

The owner of the property did however apply to HRM for a variance - but it had bothing to do with the current building or the IWK. The owner needed a couple of inches to fit the new condo building as currently designed within set back limits onto the site. The owner offered to purchase that couple of inches plus a few more from a neighbouring property (for what I hear was a more than fair offer) but the owner wanted a king's ransom - obviously thinking the condo developer was desparate. The developer found this unreasonable (as did HRM apparently) so applied for a set back variance which was granted by HRM. This happens on a daily basis in every city, in every province/state, in every developed country. Your error number 2.

Please in the future base your dissenting opinions on fact and not he said/she saids to try to support your side of the ledger.

On another note there are treatment operations similar to this one in every neighbourhood of the city.

On yet another point kids needing these centres come from all walks of life and all neighbourhoods in the city. All informed people know that teen addiction does not discriminate based on the incomes of the parents of kids.

Based on statistics alone a kid from that neighbourhood will likely seek out the kind of treatment carried out there.

Oh and one more I think you watch too much TV. I don't think kids at Waterville wear orange jump suites.

[HRM]

Someone456

You sure are one misinformed conservative. Waterville is for kids already convicted of crimes. In the world I exist in people, including kids, only go to detention/correctional centres and prison AFTER conviction. For you to suggest that a person with a mental issue should be thrown in prison before a trial is right out of the stone ages or, as us reasonable people like to call it, Alaska. Rerad the name of the program - "Assessment" not "Prison", not "Detention".

Just because the maximum age is 19 (incorrect actually) does not mean there will not be 14, 15 and 16 year olds. You really are struggling to distort your argument. And yes I consider 14, 15 and 16 yr. olds to be kids. You don't?

As you say get the facts straight. You are incorrect on other issues also but I'm tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Good points.

SSP always gets heated, but I think most people understand that this centre isn't going to ruin the neighborhood by any means. Just as the hospital itself doesn't negatively impact the south end neighborhoods.

Classic NIMBYism.


Anyway, back to the condo development... I can't wait to see renderings!