posted from the General News and Updates thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyeas
Oh I think there is much blame to spread around in this situation.
No question that this is not completely McCrea's fault. The city, as shown by the Jazz debacle, is responsible for a serious number of beaurocratic delays in the development process. How some of these people at city hall have kept their jobs over the years is beyond me.
However, that is not to say that he is without blame. He did actually state in an article once that he regrets knocking the buildings down, and that he did so out of anger. It is also potentially disingenuous of him to now simply point his finger at the easement issue and say that that is why he hasn't built. There has never been a single indication that if it weren't for the easement issue that he would be under construction. Just a year ago he was blaming the Nova Centre for using public money to make it too difficult for him to attract tenants.
I don't think that McCrea should be the scapegoat here, and he has done excellent projects in the past. But much as he can take credit for good things, I just think that he does also need to share in the blame for a bad situation.
|
I think that your viewpoint is legitimate. I did some further research on this issue and I can see Armour Group's frustration (several months of delay, and a construction season missed) although the HRM Council wasn't completely to blame for the delay and considered the easement request in a reasonable manner.
The following excerpts are taken directly from the halifax.ca website (source:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0201ca1115.pdf -
dated February 1, 2011)
Quote:
(staff) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Regional Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to enter into an Easement Agreement and Lease Amendment between HRM and The Armour Group Limited as per the key terms and conditions outlined herein.
.
.
.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could choose to apply a discounted fee. The Armour Group’s position is that the fee should be off set by the investment and public environmental benefits of a “green” development solution for the building; the potential future capability of the system to service Historic Properties, which is a permitted improvement under the Lease; and their consent to the broadening of the permitted use of the 20’ easement to the south in favor of HRM for general municipal services.
2. Council could choose not to approve the easement but this is not recommended as it will unnecessarily impact development of the Waterside Building with respect to timely urban development and the provision of a “green” HVAC solution for the building.
|
At the Regional Council of February 1, 2011 the Council voted as follows (source:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/documents/c110201.pdf )
Regarding the encroachment agreement through Historic Properties, it appears to have been passed (without amendment to allow use by other developers):
MOVED by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifax Regional Council approve the attached Encroachment Agreement to allow Armour Group to install a sea water supply and return piping on Upper Water Street to their new Waterside Centre development. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
From the same Council meeting, regarding the easement fee:
Without a vote being taken on the motion on the floor, it was MOVED by Councillor Uteck, seconded by Councillor McCluskey that Halifax Regional Council direct staff to apply a discounted fee based upon a negotiated agreement, with a market value of not less than $27,000. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
So the Council ignored the staff recommendation (no easement fee) and instead chose the first alternative. However, it was still a discounted fee. In hindsight, if they had of chosen the staff recommendation then maybe it would have been enough to pacify Ben McCrea and he would have proceeded. But in a letter from Armour Group, attached to this document -
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0201ca1115.pdf , it states that the easement cost was
not the issue but instead the proposition of having the easement through Historic properties become a common easement for the downtown area (which was not forced on him by the Council vote).
So based on my understanding of the events, I think that Armour Group is being somewhat unreasonable and the HRM did a good job of analyzing the facts presented. However, it would have been better if the easement issue was handled in a more timely manner and that the easement fee had of been waived as per staff recommendation.
PS: Based on the fact that the Armour Group just completed the Park Place V in Burnside, maybe they simply put the Waterside on the back burner until that one was complete.
Edited - Park Place V was completed about 18 months ago, not recently.